Savita Deshpande Software Manager in a Pharmaceutical Company

Savita Deshpande is a manager of software systems for a large subsidy of an international

pharmaceutical company. Savitas department consists of eighteen computer programmers and
systems analysts responsible for developing computer application systems (i.e., payroll,
accounting, and financial systems) for the corporations many divisions. All of Savitas
subordinates are college degreed and are classified as professionals. Savita has undergraduate
and graduate degrees in computer science and has been with the company for over six years.

It was almost 7 p.m. on a Friday evening in late December, nearly two hours past her usual time
to go home. In her office, she sat looking out of the window with a very concerned look, trying
to piece together what had happened over the past two months. She kept trying to understand
why the performance of her unit had dropped off so dramatically during this time.

Her first thoughts recalled a three-day management-training seminar she attended, sponsored
by the company. A well-known behavioral science teacher from the National Institute of
Management led the seminar. The most vivid experience involved a session on leadership style
where she completed a self-report questionnaire that was supposed to measure her style of
leadership on two dimensions: task orientation and employee orientation. The results she
scored high on task orientation but very low on employee orientation were a surprise to her.
She had always thought of herself as very people oriented with her subordinates. She
remembered that the seminar leader suggested that the most effective leadership style was one
that was high on both task and employee orientation.

The timing of the leadership seminar was of particular importance to Savita due to the problems
she was having with a number of people in her department. The busy year-end season was at
hand, which meant a big push by the divisions to have new analyses programs on-line. Many of
her problems centered on the performance of her subordinates. She felt that she could divide
her people almost equally into two groups: those who consistently performed above standard,
and those whose work was usually late and/or done poorly.

She looked at two subordinates as illustrative of the behaviors of the two groups. First, there was
Anand Ganpati, who had worked as a systems analyst for the past three years. Anand was
dependable, quality conscious, and one, Savita could count on to put out 110 percent effort if
needed. On the other hand, there was Rakesh, a computer programmer who had been working
a little over two years. In Savitas opinion, Rakesh spent too

much time goofing off when work needed to be done, was overly concerned with socializing
with fellow workers over coffee, and was usually the first one out of the door at quitting time
each day. Because Rakeshs performance rarely reached standard, Savita warned him many times
about his performance and the effect on his yearly evaluation and potential for advancement.
These warnings usually had an effect on him for a few days, but his old habits returned soon.

The management training convinced Savita that what she needed to do to improve the
performance of people like Rakesh was to increase her employee-oriented behavior toward
them in other words, to conform to the ideal of being high on both leader style dimensions. As
a result, she made a special effort to be more open and friendly to people like Rakesh, to take
more interest in their personal lives. She also tried to be more sympathetic about the constant
pressures for more work out of Rakesh and other similar professionals whose performance was
not upto the mark.

As Savita set looking out the window, she was both upset and puzzled. Her attempt at being
more employee-oriented was a flop. Not only had Rakeshs performance not changed, but many
high-performing subordinates, including Anand, were showing dramatic drops in their quality
and quantity of performance. The drop in performance couldnt have come at a worse time. Her
direct supervisors, and many of her divisional contacts, were on her back to improve her units
performance. She sat there wondering

should be given slightly elevated status over the regular employees including higher
compensation, so they feel the sense of responsibility and are able to earn the respect of their
subordinates. In addition they could be offered permanent jobs so they are moreattuned to the
organizational goals and strive to achieve them.

CASE II SAVITHA DESHPANDE

Introduction

Savita Deshpande, a manager of software systems, handles a team of 18 which could bedivided
almost equally among those who consistently performed above standard andthose whose work
was late and/or done poorly. Ranked high on task orientation and lowon employee orientation in
a leadership questionnaire, she made efforts to increase her employee-oriented behavior,
especially towards the low performing group, to improveher team performance. However, this
move made no difference to the underperformingmembers, but many high performers showed
drastic drop in the quality and quantity of work. The reason for this failure has to be evaluated.

Savitas experience at the management training program

There was a mismatch between her perception of being a people oriented person, and theactual
score on the leadership questionnaire, which showed that although she scored highon task
orientation, she was very low on employee orientation. This means that she isfocused on getting
results, but does not make an effort to develop friendly relations withsubordinates or avoid
conflict with them. Being told by the speaker that a high score on both parameters is desirable,
she thought of improving this factor in order to boost the performance of her subordinates.

Reasons for Savitas failed attempt

Savita was very task oriented person, so she may not have been able to carry this suddenshift to
a people-oriented approach in a convincing manner, since it is difficult to changeleadership traits
in a short span of time. The employees may not have considered this a

genuine effort on her part to improve, but may have perceived some ulterior motives for this
move. She focused on the personal lives of the employees instead of focusing ontheir ideas and
opinions in the professional scenario, which therefore defeated the purpose of increasing their
performance. On the other hand, the excessive emphasis onthe lower performing employees
may have de-motivated the high performing group, andhence led to a deterioration of their
performance.

Suggested changes in Savitas behavior

She should not try to go overboard with the employee oriented approach and should
bemoderate in her approach. If she changes her approach slowly but steadily, the
employeeswould be more receptive to her efforts and perceive it as a genuine effort to take their
ideas and suggestions into account. The participatory approach towards the lower performing
employees would help them to raise their standards and be more motivatedtowards achieving
their goals. She should not interfere in their personal lives unless theythemselves approach her
with a problem, and limit her support to the work setting. Whilea lower amount of employee
orientation is needed for the higher performing employees,they should not be neglected. They
should be given freedom and responsibility, and high performance should be recognized