1. Nature & Scope of OB

Organizational Behaviour studies how individuals, groups, and organizational structures interact to affect behaviour within firms, at three nested levels of analysis: individual, group, and organization. Managers use this lens to diagnose whether a performance problem originates in a person's ability/motivation, a team's dynamics, or systemic organizational design. Task performance (formal job duties), organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB, discretionary helpful acts), and counterproductive work behaviour (CWB, deliberate harmful acts) together determine organizational effectiveness.

• Individual level: ability, personality, perception, motivation, job attitudes
• Group level: team dynamics, communication, leadership, conflict, norms
• Organization level: structure, culture, HR policies, technology, environment
• Behavioural outcomes: task performance, OCB, CWB, turnover, absenteeism
• Effectiveness criteria: productivity, quality, employee well-being, adaptability

• Absenteeism rate — unplanned absence days divided by scheduled days, monthly
• Productivity index — units produced per labour hour versus standard, weekly
• OCB frequency — supervisor-rated helping/voice behaviours on a 5-point scale, quarterly
• CWB incidents — recorded disciplinary actions, theft, sabotage reports per quarter
• Employee turnover rate — voluntary exits divided by average headcount, annually
• Grievance count — formal complaints filed per 100 employees, monthly

Anand Auto Components, a 450-employee tier-2 manufacturing plant near Pune supplying gaskets to two major OEMs, has seen line productivity fall 14% over two quarters while absenteeism on the night shift has risen from 4% to 11%. The plant HR manager, Radhika Iyer, initially assumed the night-shift supervisor was simply a poor leader, but exit interviews reveal complaints about outdated machines, unclear shift rotation policies, and a new incentive scheme that inadvertently rewards individual output over team quality checks. Some workers privately blame a few colleagues for taking excessive breaks and slowing the line, while others say management never explains scheduling decisions. Radhika must decide whether the root cause lies with individuals, the shift team's dynamics, or the plant's broader systems before recommending a fix to the plant head.

Which level of analysis (individual, group, or organization) should Radhika prioritize first, and what specific action should she recommend to the plant head?

OB theory suggests behaviour is jointly determined by person and situation (Lewin's B = f(P, E)); before attributing the productivity fall to individual failings, managers should rule out situational/systemic causes such as flawed incentive design, which is a classic case of rewarding the wrong behaviour. The evidence pattern here (falling productivity, rising absenteeism, an incentive scheme misaligned with quality, and grievances about policy transparency) points toward organizational-level and group-level causes rather than individual deficiency alone, so any credible answer should show a diagnostic sequence rather than jumping to blame.

• Short-term: choosing individual discipline without fixing incentives likely triggers further grievances and possible unionized pushback
• Short-term: a diagnostic pilot delays a company-wide fix but produces defensible data for the plant head
• Long-term: correcting the incentive scheme should realign OCB and reduce CWB such as corner-cutting on quality checks
• Long-term: transparent scheduling policy is likely to reduce absenteeism and turnover over 2-3 quarters
• Reputational: how this is handled affects trust in HR's fairness across the wider plant, not just the night shift

• How would you distinguish a genuine individual performance problem from a symptom of poor organizational design?
• What data would you want before concluding the incentive scheme, not the workers, is the primary cause?
• How might OCB and CWB be simultaneously present on the same shift, and what does that tell you?
• What risks does Radhika face if she acts only at the individual level to look decisive quickly?