Read the following case and answer the questions given at the
end.
ABC manufacturing
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
day. 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 considering 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.
(v) What policy and procedural changes would you recommend for handling
such cases in future?
Skill Building Exercise:
Rajiv Beri’s Diary Rajiv Beri is the president of a small company that
produces electronic circuits. He decided to keep a diary of his activities for
one day, which was summarized as:
7.30-8.15 Weekly staff meeting with five supervisors
8.15 – 8.45 Made arrangements to display the company’s
products at a trade show in October
8.45 – 9.30 Interviewed an applicant for the position of
purchasing agent
9.45 – 10.00 Discussed maternity leave with a secretary
10.00 – 11.00 M Met with three stock holders to explore how Rs. 10
lakhs in new funds could be obtained
11.00 – 12.00 Met with a potential customer to demonstrate
equipment and processes
12.00 – 1.15 Took the customer to lunch
1.15 – 2.15 Worked with the production supervisor to determine
why recent units were not meeting quality control
standards
2.15 – 2.45 Telephone conversation with a customer who
complaints about of their sales people
2.45 – 3.15 Discussion with sales person regarding the
complaint
3.15 – 4.30 Visited a local bank to determine prospects for
borrowing Rs 10 lakhs
4.30 – 6.30 Worked in the laboratory to try out some news optics
to be used in the production equipment
1. Of the activities listed, which ones are technical and can be managerial?
2. In relation to each managerial activity, list the management function
involved.
3. Based on this diary, do you consider Rajiv Beri to be an effective manager?
Case Study - Managerial Skills “Naughty Rule”
Dr. Reddy Instruments is a medium-sized company located in the Industrial
Estate on the outskirts of Hyderabad. The company is basically involved with
manufacturing surgical instruments and supplies for medical professionals and
hospitals. About a year ago, Madhuri aged 23, niece of the firm‘s founder, Dr.
Raja Reddy, was hired to replace Ranga Rao quality control Inspector, who had
reached the age of retirement. Madhuri had recently graduated from the Delhi
College of Engineering where she had majored in Industrial Engineering. Balraj
Gupta, aged 52, is the production manager of the prosthesis department, where
artificial devices designed to replace missing parts of the human body are
manufactured. Gupta has worked for Dr. Reddy Instruments for 20 years having
previously been a production line supervisor and, prior to that, a worker on the
production line. Gupta, being the eldest in his family, has taken up the job quite
early in life and completed his education mostly through correspondence
courses. From their first meeting, it looked as though Gupta and Madhuri could
not get along together. There seemed to be an underlying animosity between
them, but it was never too clear what the problem was.
Venkat Kumar, age 44, is the plant manager of Dr. Reddy instruments. He has
occasionally observed disagreements between Madhuri and Gupta on the
production line. Absenteeism has risen in Gupta‘s department since Madhuri
was hired as quality control inspector. Venkat secretly decided to issue a circular
calling for a meeting of all supervisory personnel in the production and twelve
quality control departments. The circular was worked thus
Attention : All supervisors Production Quality Control Departments.
A meeting is scheduled on Monday, Feb 20 at 10.40 a.m. in room 18. The
purpose is to sort out misunderstandings and differences that seem to exist
between production and QC personnel.
Sd. Venkat Kumar
Plant Manager
Venkat started the meeting by explaining why he had called it and then asked Gupta for his
opinion of the problem. The conversation took the following shape :
Gupta : That Delhi girl you recruited is a ‗fault finding machine‘ in our department. Until
she was hired, we hardly even stopped production. And when we did, it was only because of a
mechanical defect. But Madhuri has been stopping every thing if ‘one’ defective part comes
down the line.
Madhuri : That‘s not true. You have fabricated the story well.
Gupta : Venkat, our quality has not undergone any change in recent times. It‘s still the same,
consistently good quality it was before she came but all she wants to do is to trouble us.
Madhuri : May I clarify my position at this stage ? Mr. Gupta, you have never relished my
presence in the company. I still remember some of the derisive remarks you used to make
behind my back. I did take note of them quite clearly !
Suresh (another quality control supervisor) : I agree with Madhuri ,Venkat,I think that
every one knows that the rules permit quality control to stop production if rejections exceed
three an hour. This is all Madhuri has been doing.
Gupta : Now listen to me. Madhuri starts counting the hour from the moment she gets the
first reject. Ranga Rao never really worried about absolute reject rule when he was here. She
wants to paint my department in black. Is not that true Riaz Ahmed?
Ahmed (another production supervisor) : It sure is Gupta. Every time Madhuri stops
production, she is virtually putting the company on fire. The production losses would affect
out bonuses as well. How long can we allow this ‗nuisance‘ to continue. Thirty minutes later
Madhuri and Gupta were still lashing out at each other. Venkat decided that ending the
meeting might be appropriate under the circumstances. He promised to clarify the issue, after
discussion with management, sometime next week.
Questions :
1. Should Venkat have called a meeting to sort out this problem ? Why or why not ?
2. What do you say about the rule calling for production to halt if there are more than three
rejects in an hour? Should it have been enforced ? Explain.
3. What do you feel is the major problem in this case ? The solution ?