ICFAI UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR (C.G.

ASSIGNMENT
ON
“CASE STUDY OF MIS MANAGER”

SUBMITTED TO: - DR. PRATIBHA BARIK

MAM
SUBMITTED BY: - HIMANSHI POKAR
COURSE: - BBA-2
ENROLLMENT ID: - 23FMUCRPD01010
SUBJECT: - ORGANISATIONAL
BEHAVIOUR
Sigma Appliances Limited was in the business of trading of various home appliances.
For this purpose, the company entered into agency agreement with different leading
manufactures. The agency business was doing quite well. About ten years back, it
was diversified into manufacturing some of the appliances like electric iron press,
electric oven, electric heater and other electrical gadgets. For this purpose, the company hired
a team of technical personnel led by Khempal who was a diploma holder in Electrical
Engineering but had considerable experience in the relevant field. The marketing was looked
after by personnel of agency division with the addition of some more hands. With increased
business activities, the company was facing the problem of integrated information
system, as this could not be built up since the company graduated from a small-scale level.
Whatever information system was developed, it was based on the needs felt rather than
based on planning. In order to develop its anagement information system based on
computerized processing, the company decided to recruit an MIS manager and
advertisement was put in leading national newspaper inviting the applications for the post. After
receiving the applications, the company appointed a selection committee consisting of three
members – managing director of the company, manager of agency division, and an outside
consultant. The committee interviewed applicants and selected Narayanan with three years’
experience in MIS in a large company. Narayanan was very happy on this appointment as
he was offered very profitable emoluments. On one day, Khempal had an informal chat with
the Agency manager (Rajneesh), which proceeded this way;
KHEMPAL: I have heard that you have appointed a new manager who will provide
us information about how we should do.
RAJNISH: I have not appointed him but the management has done this. I was just a spectator
in the selection committee meeting. Further; Narayanan will not provide us information about
how we should work.
Rather he will collect information from us regarding how we are working.
KHEMPAL: I do not see any need for that. We are working alright and management has
wasted the money in appointing [Link] this money, I could have three more
engineers who could have done something meaningful. Well, it is their money .If they
want to waste it in this manner, what we can do.
The chitchat ended as both departed. After joining the company, Narayanan decided to meet the
senior personnel to understand their information need and the information could be
generated from different parts of the organistion. In this process, he met Khempal in this
factory office, which was adjacent to the administrative block and the conversation took place
as follows:
NARAYANAN: Good morning Sir.
KHEMPAL: Good morning .How do you do?
NARAYANAN: I am fine sir. Sir; I want to know what information your department needs.
KHEMPAL: If you want to enjoy a cup of tea with me, you are welcome. But if you want to
ask such a silly question, I am sorry.
At this Narayanan looked visibly upset and left the factory office after saying, “Sir, I will meet
you later.”
a) Discuss the nature of problems involved in this case?
b) What kind of perception was formed by Khempal about the role of MIS manager? What could
have been the probable reasons for this?
c) Advise Narayanan about how he should proceed.
Case Study: MIS Manager at Sigma Appliances Limited

Background: Sigma Appliances Limited started as a trading company dealing in home

appliances through agency agreements with various manufacturers. Over the years, the company
diversified into manufacturing electric appliances like iron presses and heaters. To support this,
a technical team was formed, led by Khempal, a diploma holder in electrical engineering with
significant experience in the field. The marketing division was handled by personnel from the
agency business, with a few additional hires. As the company’s business expanded, its turnover
crossed Rs. 100 crores.

However, with the rapid growth, the company faced challenges in managing an integrated
information system, which had not been developed systematically. The information system that
existed was based on immediate needs, rather than a planned approach. To resolve this, the
management decided to recruit a Management Information Systems (MIS) Manager to
computerize and streamline information processing. They advertised the position in a leading
national newspaper, and after a selection process, they appointed Narayanan, an MCS (Master of
Computer Science) with three years of experience in a large company.

Challenges: Narayanan was excited about his new role, expecting to work independently in
designing and maintaining the MIS. However, he soon faced resistance from senior employees,
particularly from Khempal, the head of the technical division. Khempal believed there was no
need for an MIS manager and thought the money used for Narayanan's salary could have been
better spent on hiring additional engineers.

A key conversation occurred between Khempal and Rajnish, the agency manager. During their
informal chat, Khempal expressed dissatisfaction with the decision to appoint Narayanan,
arguing that the company was functioning well and did not need an MIS manager to dictate how
they should work. Rajnish explained that Narayanan's role was to collect information about how
departments were functioning, rather than provide instructions on how they should operate.

Key Encounter: When Narayanan began his work, he took time to understand the company's
existing systems and personally met with senior personnel to gather information on their needs.
During his visit to Khempal’s office, he politely asked what information the technical
department needed. However, Khempal dismissed his question, suggesting that Narayanan was
wasting time. This left Narayanan visibly upset, and he left the office, stating that he would
return later.

Summary:

The case study illustrates the difficulties faced by Narayanan, the newly appointed MIS Manager
at Sigma Appliances Limited, in a company where senior staff like Khempal resisted the
integration of a new information system. The company's rapid growth lacked proper planning for
systems management, and employees were used to working in a certain way. This led to
resistance, miscommunication, and reluctance to embrace change. Narayanan's efforts to
streamline and modernize the company's MIS faced opposition from key personnel, highlighting
the challenges of implementing organizational change in a traditionally managed business.
Relating the Case Study to Organizational Behaviour

The case of Narayanan’s appointment as the MIS Manager at Sigma Appliances Limited
highlights several key aspects of Organizational Behaviour (OB), focusing on issues
such as resistance to change, communication, organizational culture, and leadership
dynamics.

1. Resistance to Change:

In organizational behaviour, resistance to change is a common challenge when

implementing new systems or processes. In this case, the company's senior employees,
particularly Khempal, resisted the introduction of a new information system and the
hiring of an MIS Manager. Khempal believed that the company was functioning well
without such changes, and this resistance stemmed from a fear of losing control or a
belief that the new system was unnecessary. Resistance can be triggered by various
factors including fear of the unknown, lack of understanding, or perceived threats to
one's role.

 OB Perspective: Resistance to change often arises due to a perceived disruption of

established workflows and power dynamics. Khempal’s resistance suggests he was
comfortable with the status quo and viewed the MIS manager as a potential
interference. This highlights a lack of change management strategies by the company’s
leadership.

2. Communication and Miscommunication:

Effective communication is essential for smooth organizational functioning, especially

during times of change. Narayanan’s attempt to understand the information needs of
different departments was a positive step toward fostering collaboration. However, his
interaction with Khempal reflects a failure in communication. Instead of a productive
discussion, Khempal's dismissive attitude created a barrier, leaving Narayanan upset and
unable to fulfill his role.

 OB Perspective: Poor communication between departments, as evidenced in this case,

can lead to misunderstandings, lower employee morale, and a lack of cooperation.
Open, transparent communication should be encouraged to bridge gaps between
different functional areas. A breakdown in communication can also escalate resistance
to change, as employees may feel their concerns are not being addressed.

3. Organizational Culture:

The company’s organizational culture seems to be rooted in traditional practices where

the management may not have actively involved employees in decision-making,
especially concerning changes in processes. The reluctance to integrate a modern MIS
system shows that the company's culture may have been more hierarchical, with
resistance to adopting innovations that employees felt were not needed.

 OB Perspective: Organizational culture influences how employees react to new

initiatives. In this case, the culture seems to have fostered a sense of complacency and
 a reluctance to embrace technological advancements. A culture of openness,
innovation, and continuous improvement could have facilitated a smoother transition
and acceptance of Narayanan’s role.

4. Leadership and Power Dynamics:

Leadership plays a critical role in shaping the behaviour of employees and ensuring the
successful implementation of changes. The management at Sigma Appliances decided to
hire an MIS Manager without adequately preparing or involving senior employees like
Khempal. Additionally, the selection committee included personnel who had no direct
involvement in the MIS, further suggesting that the decision lacked the input of critical
stakeholders.

 OB Perspective: Effective leadership requires involving key stakeholders in decision-

making and addressing their concerns. Leadership must also help employees
understand the importance of the change. In this case, the management failed to
convey the necessity of the MIS role to people like Khempal, leading to power struggles
and passive resistance.

5. Organizational Conflict:

There is clear evidence of organizational conflict between Narayanan and Khempal. The
root of this conflict seems to be a difference in perception of what the company needs.
Narayanan, being a newcomer, saw the need for an improved MIS, while Khempal, with
his long-standing experience in the company, saw no value in it. This conflict arises
from the lack of shared understanding of the company's goals.

 OB Perspective: Conflict in organizations can be productive if managed well, as it

encourages debate and can lead to better decisions. However, in this case, the conflict
was not managed constructively, leading to frustration and inefficiency. Organizations
should foster constructive dialogue where differing opinions are valued and addressed.

Result:

This case study, when analyzed through the lens of organizational behaviour, reveals
that Sigma Appliances Limited failed to address several critical aspects of change
management. The resistance to change, poor communication, lack of inclusive decision-
making, and conflicts between employees like Khempal and Narayanan created a
dysfunctional work environment.

The company's management should have:

1. Prepared the Organization for Change: Properly communicated the reasons for hiring
an MIS Manager and how it would benefit the organization.
2. Engaged Key Stakeholders: Involved senior personnel like Khempal in the decision-
making process to reduce resistance and gain buy-in for the new system.
3. Encouraged Open Communication: Fostered a culture of openness where employees
feel their concerns are addressed and their input is valued.
 4. Provided Leadership Support: Management should have played a more active role in
easing the transition, offering support to Narayanan, and addressing any interpersonal
conflicts promptly.

Ultimately, the failure to consider organizational behaviour principles led to a situation

where Narayanan’s efforts were thwarted, and the company missed an opportunity to
modernize and streamline its operations. The case serves as a reminder that managing
people’s behaviour, attitudes, and interactions is as critical as managing systems and
processes in organizational success.

a) Discuss the nature of problems involved in this case?

Nature of Problems Involved in the Case

In this case, the key problems revolve around organizational integration, perception, and
communication gaps:

 Lack of Integrated Information System: Sigma Appliances Ltd. expanded from being
an agency business to a manufacturing unit, crossing a turnover of ₹100 crores.
However, the company's information system did not evolve in line with its growth. The
absence of an integrated Management Information System (MIS) created
inefficiencies, as different departments were operating without centralized and
systematic data sharing.
 Resistance to Change: Khempal, who has been handling technical matters, does not see
the need for an MIS manager, possibly because he believes the current system is
adequate. He is focused on operational aspects and doesn't value the role of
management-level information systems, which creates friction.
 Perception Issues: There is a clear communication gap between Narayanan (the newly
appointed MIS manager) and other departments, particularly Khempal. Khempal
perceives Narayanan's role as unnecessary, thinking the company should have spent the
money on hiring engineers. He fails to understand the potential value of MIS for
optimizing company-wide operations, and this negative perception creates hostility
toward Narayanan's efforts.
 Role Misunderstanding: Khempal and possibly other members of the organization
seem to misunderstand the role of an MIS manager. They perceive Narayanan as
someone who will "collect information from them," rather than as a professional who
will streamline the system to help everyone work more efficiently.

b) What kind of perception was formed by Khempal about the role of MIS manager? What could
have been the probable reasons for this?

Perception Formed by Khempal About the Role of MIS Manager

Khempal forms a negative perception of Narayanan and the role of the MIS manager, viewing
the appointment as a waste of money. The probable reasons for this perception could include:

 Lack of Understanding of MIS Benefits: Khempal likely does not fully understand
how an integrated MIS can improve decision-making, increase efficiency, and enhance
 the overall functioning of the company. His focus is on immediate operational outputs
rather than strategic management tools.
 Fear of Increased Scrutiny: MIS systems often centralize data and provide
management with a more detailed view of operations. Khempal might feel threatened by
this new system, thinking it will expose inefficiencies or lead to unnecessary
micromanagement.
 Preference for Practical Resources: Khempal is more concerned with tangible results
(like hiring more engineers) rather than investing in something like MIS, which he may
perceive as an abstract and less immediate solution to the company's problems.

c) Advise Narayanan about how he should proceed.

Advice to Narayanan

To navigate the situation effectively and change the perception within the organization,
Narayanan can take the following steps:

 Build Relationships and Gain Trust: Narayanan needs to focus on building strong
relationships with key personnel like Khempal. Instead of just asking about information
needs, he should engage in discussions about the challenges faced by the department and
how an integrated information system can help address them. Building rapport over time
will help alleviate resistance.
 Educate About the Benefits of MIS: Narayanan should take the time to educate
Khempal and other senior managers on how an effective MIS can positively impact their
specific areas. He can present case studies, data, or examples of how MIS has improved
performance in other companies.
 Collaborative Approach: Narayanan should approach the implementation of the
system in a collaborative manner, actively seeking input from the senior personnel.
Instead of positioning himself as an outsider who is trying to change the system, he
should position himself as a facilitator who is working with them to optimize processes.
 Small Wins Strategy: Narayanan can implement small changes that show immediate
benefits. For example, automating routine reports or improving data access in a way that
directly benefits Khempal’s team can demonstrate the value of the system without
overwhelming them.
 Involve Leadership: The company’s top management should be involved in supporting
Narayanan's initiatives, showing that they are backing the MIS project. If senior leaders
demonstrate their commitment to the MIS, it will help change perceptions among other
employees.

By taking these actions, Narayanan can gradually overcome the resistance and help integrate the
MIS in a way that is both accepted and valued by the organization.

**********END OF DOCUMENT**********