In the case study of Guy Roberts, it is possible to recognize various stages of development when the group involved in fraudulent activities at Millard construction attempt to exercise control over him. Guy was favoured by his wife’s brother Neville to take on the job in Millard construction after he was left unemployed by the bankruptcy of his previous employers. The offer contained higher basic salary and petrol allowance but no annual bonus. It was a good offer, considering that Millard construction was a larger company than Fry Bras. Guy was yet to realize that there are groups in the new firms who work together to cheat the company for personal gains. The group, which involved Neville, foreman and assistant quantity surveyors, made money by over-estimating the quantity of materials and delivering the extra materials to the foreman’s brother (Guy Roberts – Case Study). This group can be recognized as a primary group since it involves peers in a large construction firm.
The first stage of development was when Guy makes brief study of past assessments and their related projects which caused him to believe that all the orders were over-estimated. His bill of quantities was soon returned by Neville who claims that they have been under-estimated. At this stage, Neville doesn’t tell Guy the whole truth by claiming that the over-estimation was done to be on the safer side. Neville’s intention at this stage is to make Guy sign the bill of quantities. Since Guy was in no position to argue with Neville although he disagreed the practice of over-estimation, he agrees to sign the documents. At this stage, Guy was no aware of the fraudulent practices that was taking place in the firm. In the second of development, Guy finds that the excess of cement and sand in the yard were being loaded to trucks that did not belong to the firm. It was then that Guy became suspicious of the real intentions behind the practice of over-estimation. He was curious and inquisitive in his approach to find out where the excess of cement and sand were being taken. He questions the actions of the foreman and is told by him that it was none of his business. Then, the foreman tells Guy to talk to his boss Neville regarding the matter (Guy Roberts – Case Study).
In the third stage of development, Guy raises the issue with Neville in order to know what is really happening. To his surprise, Guy is told that the lorries that carry away excess cement and sand belongs to the foreman’s brother, and the money was split between the senior quantity surveyor, assistant quantity surveyors and the foreman. He also learns that this arrangement has been in existence for the past two years. At this stage, Neville makes Guy an offer to join the group and be a part of the deal. He also offers him unconditional petrol claims. Guy was in the common practice of submitting false receipts along with genuine ones to receive extra money from petrol reimbursements. He was angered by the corrupt practice of over-estimation and was not interested to have any part in it. He was told by Neville to be careful and cautious of reporting the issue to higher management. In order to save his job in the company, Guy decides to not take up the matter with the higher management but decides to prepare correct bill of quantities in the future, thus challenging the group’s interests (Guy Roberts – Case Study).
As suggested by Lewin, the founder of experimental study of groups, groups can profoundly influence the individuals by shaping their thoughts, actions, and feelings (Forsyth 24). In the case study of Guy Roberts, we can recognize that his peers purposefully create his troubles with the work atmosphere, petrol reimbursements and even with the order of quantities which the manager says have been underestimated. The manager summons Guy to his office twice, first to ask about the underestimated order of quantities and second to ask about the delay in deliveries. This time he is warned that his work has not been satisfactory. Guy was now anxious that he may lose his job by the end of his three-month trial period, and he therefore agrees under pressure to co-operate with Neville (Guy Roberts – Case Study). We can conclude that in the later stages, Guy finds that the group activities which had pressured him into agreeing upon the fraudulent deal is now treating him well. His decision to fit into the group also earns him a deal for permanent employment in the company.
Works Cited
Forsyth, Donelson R. Group dynamics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co., 1990. Print.
"Guy Roberts - Case Study." (n.d.): n. pag. Web.
