case study 6 July

Jitendra and Pravesh are working in an engineering organisation - a reputed one where excellence goes hand-In-hand with every new imperative flexibility. By laying down its clear-cut policies and procedures and corporate plans. this organisation has earned the distinction of being one of the best managed companies. always striving for excellence by keeping itself abreast of the developments in the endlessly changing scenario.

During the recent review of the functioning of one of the departments headed by Pravesh , it was discovered that his department had been continuously showing declining trend in terms of meeting the targets fixed for them and the problems of high rate of turnover/absenteeism came to light. Majority of the subordinates working under Pravesh were dissatisfied with their job and were feeling frustrated and depressed over the way they were being handled by him. There was a breakdown of communication and innumerable complaints about the rude behaviour of Pravesh started pouring in, Pravesh , on the other hand, had been in this department for the last so many years and was In the habit of treating his subordinates in the traditional style. The situation started aggravating day-by day. The workers under Pravesh had to take the shelter of Unions for airing their grievances and the Management was naturally disturbed over the state of affairs and could no longer afford to be a silent spectator. Search for a suitable replacement of Pravesh was accordingly initiated and Jitendra was identified for the purpose.

Jitendra was selected for replacing Pravesh as he possessed the skills of managing different types of people under different situations. His acceptability and credibility have all along been of the highest order.

Initially, of course, this sudden change was a painful surprise for Jitendra and as it always happens any change in status quo affects people and Jitendra was no exception. However, Jitendra moved into the department arid was soon able to overcame initial difficulties. With his concerted efforts and sincerity of purpose, he was soon able to create a strong trust-bond with his subordinates. He gave them a free hand in setting time-bound goals for themselves. The subordinates were by then participating in arriving at the vital decision in regard to their production and productivity. A very cordial and harmonious atmosphere prevailed upon in this department under John. All this naturally resulted in “a blessing in disguise” both for the Management and the workers in as much as that this department paved the way in Improving the climate and culture of the organisation.

Questions :

(a) Identify the Issues Involved in the above case.

(b) Do you agree with the statement that ‘‘a true manager should know the art of managing his people”? Comment.

(c) “Developing an effective team having healthy Interpersonal relationships Is the need of the hour.” Please comment.

Solution :

(a) In the case there is a decline in the working of the organisation. The department had been continuously showing declining trend in terms of meeting the targets fixed for them and the problems of high rate of turnover/absenteeism came to light. Majority of the subordinates working under Pravesh were dissatisfied with their job and were feeling frustrated. Pravesh was not cordial in his treatment, rather, he was rude. He was in the habit of treating his subordinates in the traditional style. The situation started aggravating day-by day. The workers under Pravesh had to take the shelter of Unions for airing their grievances and the Management was naturally disturbed over the state of affairs. Ultimately they had to take a decision. They replaced him with Jitendra, who was participative in his style. He possessed the skills of managing different types of people under different situations. Thus he could handle the troubled situation.

(b) Yes, a true manager should know the art of managing people. Ultimately, a manager has to get the work done from people. He should handle people tactfully. He should focus on goals and also establish good human relations. He should have some characteristics, which can help him in winning confidence of people. A true manager should be a person, who can make people work for the objectives of the organisation and at the same time feel passionate for those goals. If a person is not able to handle people well, the ultimate outcome will be the case similar to Pravesh in this case, who had to be removed (due to continous complaints).

(c) Team building is central in the growth and development of an organisation Effective teams are those which focus on goals, set positive work norms and try to cultivate an environment for development of a positive work culture. A good organisation is one, where people are trained to work in team and a culture for shared responsibility is developed.

Kalyani Electronics Corporation Ltd., recently diversified Its activities and started producing computers. It employed personnel at the lower level and middle level. It has received several applications for the post of Commercial Manager-Computer Division. It could not decide upon the suitability of the candidate to the position, but did find that Mr. Prakash is more qualified for the position than other candidates. The Corporation has created a new post below the cadre of General Manager i.e., Joint General Manager and decided Mr. Prakash to join the Corporation as Joint General Manager. Mr. Prakash agreed to it viewing that he will be considered for General Managers position based on his performance. Mr. Anand, the Deputy General Manager of the Corporation and one of the candidates for General Manager’s position was annoyed with the management’s practice. But, he wanted to show his performance record to the management at the next appraisal meeting. The management of the Corporation asked Mr. Sastry, General Manager of Televisions Division to be the General Manager in-charge of Computer Division for some time, until a new General Manager is appointed. Mr. Sastry wanted to switch over to Computer Division in view of the prospects, prestige and recognition of the position among the top management of the Corporation. He viewed this assignment as a chance to prove his : performance. The Corporation has the system of appraisal of the superiors performance by the subordinates. The performance of the Deputy General Manager, Joint General Manager and General Manager has to be appraised by the same group of the subordinates. Mr. Prakash is a stranger to the system as well as its Modus Operandi. Mr. Sastri and Mr. Anand were competing with each other in convincing their subordinates about their performance and used all sorts of techniques for pleasing them like promising them a wage hike, transfers to the job of their Interest, promotion etc. However, these two officers functioned in collaboration with a view to pull down Mr. Prakash. They openly told their subordinates that a stranger should not occupy the ‘chair’. They created several groups among employees like pro-Anand’s group, pro-Sastry’s group, Anti-Prakash and Sastry Group, Anti-Ariand and Prakash group.

Mr. Prakash has been watching the proceedings calmly and keeping the management In touch with all these developments. However, Mr, Prakash has been quite work-conscious and top management found his performance under such a political atmosphere to be satisfactory. Prakash’s pleasing manners and way of maintaining human relations with different lewels of employees did, however, prevent an anti-Prakash wave in the company. But in view of the politicalisation, there is no strong pro-Prakash’s group either.

Management administered the performance appraisal technique and the subordinates appraised the performance of all these three managers. In the end, surprisingly, the workers assigned the following overall scores - Prakash : 560 points, Sastry: 420 points, and Anand : 260 points

CASE : 3 :

The ABC Manufacturing Company is a metal working plant under the direction of a plant manager who is known as a strict disciplinarian. One day a foreman noticed Bhola, one of the workers, at the time-clock punching out two cards his own and the card of Nathu, a fellow worker. Since it was the rule of the company that each man must punch out his own card, the foreman asked Bhola to accompany him to the Personnel Director, who interpreted the incident as a direct violation of a rule and gave immediate notice of discharge to both workers. The two workers came to see the Personnel Director on the following duy. Nathu claimed innocence on the ground that he had not asked for his card to be punched and did not know at the time that it was being punched. He had been offered a ride by a friend who had already punched out and who could not wait for him to go through the punch-out procedure. Nathu was worried about his wife who was ill at home and was anxious to reach home as quickly as possible. He planned to take his card to the foreman the next morning for reinstatement, a provision sometimes exercised in such cases. These circumstances were verified by Bhola. He claimed that he had punched Nathu's card the same time he punched his own, not being conscious of any wrongdoing.

The Personnel Director was inclined to believe the story of the two men but did not feel he could reverse the action taken. He recognized that these men were good workers and had good records prior to this incident. Nevertheless, they had violated a rule for which the penalty was immediate discharge. He also reminded them that it was the policy of the company to enforce the rules without exception.

A few days later the Personnel Director, the Plant Manager, and the Sales Manager sat together at lunch. The Sales Manager reported that he was faced with the necessity of notifying one of their best customers that his order must be delayed because of the liability of one department to conform to schedule. The department in question was the one from which the two workers had been discharged. Not only had it been impossible to replace these men to date, but disgruntlement over the incident had led to significant decline in the cooperation of the other workers. The Personnel Director and the Sales Manager took the position that the discharge of these two valuable men could have been avoided if there had been provision for onsidering the circumstances of the case. They pointed out that the incident was costly to the company in the possible loss of a customer, in the dissatisfaction within the employee group, and in the time and money that would be involved in recruiting and training replacements. The Plant Manager could not agree with this point of view. "We must have rules if we are to have efficiency; and the rules are no good unless we enforce them. Furthermore, if we start considering all these variations in circumstances, we will find ourselves loaded down with everybody thinking he is an exception." He admitted that the grievances were frequent but countered with the point that they could be of little consequence if the contract agreed to by the union was followed to the letter.

Questions

(a) Identify the core issues in the case

(b) Place yourself in the position of the Personnel Director. Which of the following courses of action would you have chosen and why ?

(i) Would you have discharged both men ?

(ii) Would you have discharged Bhola only ?

(iii) Would you have discharged Nathu only ?

(iv) Would you have discharged neither of them ? Justify your choice of decision.

(c) What policy and procedural changes would you recommend for handling such cases in future ?

.

solution :

this is a case of discipline. Organisations have to maintain discipline and order. They have to enforce their rules and regulations. They have to be very careful in implementing their decisions also. The decisions must be evaluated in terms of their long term consequences to the organisation. In this case, although Personnel director and plant manager are right, yet, it is equally important that considering the commitment and intention of the two workers, they should not be discharged. In the law we say that intentions are very important. In this case, both the workers are excellent, and seem to have no intention to violate the rules.

The manager who takes such decisions must discuss this matter with senior executives and other concerned executives before taking such decision. It would have been better to form a committee to discuss this matter and give the workers a chance to represent their case to the committee. They could have considered other options possible also :

1. discharge but allowing the workers to apply afresh to be considered for fresh appointment (thus loosing the seniority)

2. suspension for 1 month or so, so that a better decision could be taken after 1 month and the workers would have also received punishment

3. monetary penalty

LOSING A GOOD MAN

Sundar Steel Limited was a medium-sized steel company manufacfuring special steels of various types and grades. It employed 5,000 workers and 450 executives.

Under the General Manager operation, maintenance, and headed by a chief. The Chief of and under him Mukherjee Maintenance Engineer. The total was 500 workers, 25 executives, (Production), there were services groups, each Maintenance was Shukla was working as the strength of Maintenance and 50 supervisors.

Chatterjee was working in Maintenance as a worker for three years. He was efficient. He had initiative and drive. He performed his duties in a near perfect manner. He was a man of proven technical ability with utmost drive and dash. He was promoted as Supervisor. Chattejee, now a Supervisor, was one day passing through the Maintenance Shop on his routine inspection. He found a certain worker sitting idle. He pulled him up for this. The worker retaliated by abusing him with filthy words. With a grim face and utter frustration, Chatterjee reported the matter to Mukherjee. The worker who insulted Chatterjee was a "notorious character" , and no supervisor dared to confront him. Mukherjee took a serious view of the incident and served a strong warning letter to the worker. Nothing very particular about Chatterjee or from him came to the knowledge of Mukherjee. Things were moving smoothly. Chatterjee was getting along well with others But after about three years, another serious incident took place. A worker came drunk to duty, began playing cards, and using very filthy language. When Chatterjee strongly objected to this, the worker got up and slapped Chatterjee. Later, the worker went to his union - and reported that Chatterjee had assaulted him while he was performing his duties.

Chatterjee had no idea that the situation would take such a turn. He, therefore, never bothered to report the matter to his boss or collect evidence in support of his case.

The union took the case to Shukla and prevailed over him to take stern action against Chatterjee. Shukla instructed Mukherjee to demote Chatterjee to the rank of a worker. Mukherjee expressed his apprehension that in such a case Chatterjee will be of no use to the department, and.the demotion would adversely affect the morale of all sincere and efficient supervjsors. But Chatterjee was demoted.

Chatterjee continued working in the organisation with all his efficiency, competence, and ability for two months. Then he resigned stating that he had secured better employment elsewh ere. Mukherjee was perturbed at this turn of events. While placing Chatterjee's resignation letter before Shukla, he expressed deep concern at this development.

Shukla called Chief of Personnel for advice on this delicate issue. The Chief of Personnel said, "l think the incident should help us to appreciate the essential qualification required for a successful supervisor. An honest and hardworking man need not necessarily prove to be an elfective supervisor. Something more is required for this as he has to get things done rather than dohimself." Mukherjee said, "l have a high opinion of Chatterjee. He proved his technical compe tence and was sincere at his work. Given some guidance on how to deal ,with the type of persons he had to work with, the sad situation could h.ave been avoided." Shukla said, "l am really sorry to lose Chatterjee, He was very honest and painstaking in his work. But I do not know how I could have helped him; I wonder how he always managed to get into trouble with workers. we know they are illiterates and some of them are tough. But a supervisor must have the ability and presence of mind to deal with such men. I have numerous supervisors, but I never had to teach anybody how to supervise his men."

Questions :

(a) Identify the problems in this case.

(b) Do you think the decision taken by shukla is in keeping with the faith, trust and creating developmental climate in the organisation ? Critically evaluate

(c) How would you help in improving rough and tough behaviour of employees ?