Seeking Help with UGC-NET HR Case Study: Can We Discuss These Questions Together?

Dear Seniors,

I have posted the same matter in the 'Exam Section'; however, the response is mostly from aspirants of NET qualification, and no one really seems to be in the mood to discuss, I guess. I need some assistance. Attached is the UGC-NET's HR's Dec 2007 paper III. Can we please discuss the case study (the paragraph followed by 5 questions)?

Let me start:

Q1: I think it's an issue of faulty job analysis (once he was re-hired) which led to employee dissatisfaction and a drop in productivity.

Q2: Suresh displays closed behavior and is not ready to take feedback; however, he is also demotivated.

Please come forward to discuss all the questions. Seniors, your help is highly appreciated.

Regards,
Satarupa

Hi Satarupa,

It seems you have appeared for UGC NET with HR and IR as specializations. Could you please tell me if I, a PGDM graduate in HR specialization, am eligible to sit for the exam? What are the career prospects after clearing the NET in HR? Thank you.

Hi Swassaha,

I haven't appeared for UGC-NET as yet. I am planning to take it up this year. Before that, I want to make sure that I am prepared for it.

Anyone who is a master's degree holder can take up the NET exam in their related field. So, you can take up the NET exam.

If you are interested in teaching and delivering lectures in colleges, either to undergraduate or postgraduate students, it's a prerequisite to be a successful lecturer. Also, if you want to continue for higher studies, i.e., Ph.D. or M.Phil, NET helps you to an extent that you don't have to take up the entrance exams.

Regards,

Dear Ms. Satarupa,

Interesting case. Let me give my views on this case.

• I do not agree with your view that it is an issue of faulty job analysis and employee dissatisfaction leading to poor productivity. In my view, this is a case of loose control and a soft, timid attitude on the part of management and very unprofessional handling of the situation by Management.

• There is not much evidence in this case to say that Suresh is displaying closed behavior, since Management has done very little to convey to him that his behavior and attitude are anti-organization and not acceptable. He needs to change, improve himself, and fall in line; failing which management has the right to initiate appropriate corrective and disciplinary action against him. Due to Management's soft and easy handling of the situation, it is very convenient for a person like Suresh to have his way, as he can very well stonewall the feedback, knowing that Management is soft and he can bend management as per his convenience.

• I do not agree at all that Suresh is demotivated; rather, he is negatively motivated by the soft attitude of management. He feels and has demonstrated that management will not take any action against him, and would rather roll back its decision to suit Suresh.

• In the first place, Management should have terminated the services of Suresh after completion of the inquiry. Management had enough ready-made reasons for the termination of his services. By not terminating him and reinstating him under pressure from the Union, Management demonstrated its weakness and unprofessional approach. Secondly, Management should have had a fair idea about the future of Suresh's union, which was losing control, and another union becoming powerful. Termination of Suresh would have had a very limited impact and backlash from the union and workers.

• Management again showed weakness and an unprofessional attitude by tolerating low performance by Suresh and not taking appropriate action to correct the situation.

• Proper minimum acceptable output standards should have been set up by Management by doing scientific work study/time and motion study to establish below-par performance by any worker.

• The reason for low performance given by Suresh appears to be a mere excuse, and the same was readily accepted by Management at face value. Another example of weak and unprofessional attitude.

• Suresh should have been examined by an independent Medical Professional (Doctor) to verify and certify the extent of his injury and its impact on his working and performance. If there was a real impact of the injury as certified by the Doctor, then probably Management can accept below-par performance from Suresh until his health improves, or he can be given a lighter job assignment requiring less physical effort. Management didn't do any of these.

• The only positive and professional step from Management was the attempt by Goel, Supervisor, to motivate him, but which yielded no results, demonstrating the negative attitude of Suresh.

• Mr. Singh, on whose recommendation Suresh was appointed, should have been used in a better way. He should have been used to motivate him to change his attitude and to warn him of the ill effects of low performance and negative attitude. Mr. Singh should have also shared some accountability to improve Suresh's performance in his department under his direct supervision and motivation. Suresh should not have been transferred back to his original department. His transfer back gives an impression as if nothing has happened, everything was alright, and Management corrected its own mistake by transferring back Suresh. It also sends the message that Suresh and others like him can have their way, and Management won't take any action against them.

• Suresh should have been transferred to another department with clear written instructions that he is transferred to another department because of low performance in the earlier department, which is not acceptable. He should meet the performance expectations in the new department. This transfer should be viewed as an opportunity to improve performance and to mend his attitude and behavior at work. The letter should also warn him that, in case he fails to perform, appropriate action would be initiated against him. But Management didn't do this.

• To conclude, this is a case of soft and unprofessional handling of disciplinary matters and playing into the hands of hard nuts, rather than cracking them.

• Views from fellow citeher members are most welcome.

Thanks & Regards

Dear vkokamthankar,

Thank you so much for the elaborative discussion on the case.

I agree with most of the points you have written, except a few. Though they do not signify extreme disagreement but are just a matter of perspective.

You mentioned, "In the first place, Management should have terminated the services of Suresh after the completion of the enquiry. Management had enough ready-made reasons for the termination of his services."

1. However, in the case, it is mentioned that after the enquiry he was reinstated. There is no evidence which shows that he did not come out clean from the enquiry. Maybe that is why the management did not terminate him.

2. I feel that instead of terminating Suresh, the management should have reinstated him on a probationary basis, just to give him a fair chance to prove himself along with necessary behavioral and skill training so as to achieve zero negative motivation.

3. I believe there is an issue with the supervisors' leadership skills which could have been more participative with a certain level of authority.

4. So, what could be the core issue in this case? Management's wrong decision to reinstate Suresh, display of improper leadership traits, or a simple motivation and training issue??

Your input is appreciated.

Regards,

Satarupa

Ms. Satrupa,

Thanks for your feedback and for seeking further inputs. I appreciate your point of views and your thorough approach towards case. I am giving my views on the points raised by you.

• 1. However in the case it is mentioned that after the enquiry he was reinstated. Ther is no evidence wich shows that he did not come out clean from the enquiry. May be that is why the management did not terminate him.

In given case outcome of enquiry is not at all mentioned but it is mentioned that, ‘under the pressure from the union, Suresh was reinstated in the factory', which clearly goes to show that, irrespective of the outcome of the enquiry, reason for Suresh's reinstatement was pressure from union. This clearly shows that, Management bent before union and had fallen pray to its pressure tactics.

• 2. I feel instead of terminating Suresh, the managemen should have reinstated him on a probationary basis, just to give him a fair chance to prove himself along with necessary behavioral and skill training so as to achieve zero negative motivation.Statutory and standard procedure applicable in all industrial disputes and disciplinary matters is to first conduct enquiry; offer fair chance to the accused to defend himself by following principal of natural justice and based on the findings of Enquiry; Management can decide appropriate disciplinary action. From the given facts of the case, it appears that, Management reinstated services of Suresh under pressure from union though he should have been terminated.

Secondly, legally reinstatement means restoring services of the employee on the same terms and conditions and with continuity in service. Hence legally you can not put employee on probation when he is reinstated in service. However, there is no harm in giving behavioral training.

• 3. I guess there is an issue with the supervisors' leadership skills which could have been partcipative with an amount of authority.Given case mentions that, supervisor tried to motivate him to improve his performance but to no effect. Ultimately either suresh or Supervisor or both of them can be blamed for this failure.

• 4. So what can be the core issue in this case? Management's wrong decision to reinstate Suresh, Display of improper leadership trait, or simple motivation and training issue??To me, here the primary issue is about improper handling of situation by Management, Not taking right steps at right time and allowing things to go out of control. Suresh was simply reinstated under pressure from union. Even if we assume that, termination would have been very severe punishment for his misconduct, there should have been some penalty for his misconduct. Instead of letting him off the hook so honorably, as if nothing has happened has sent a message that, if you have support of union you can get away with anything and Management will bend before union as per union's wish. This is vindicated by the behavior of Suresh. He did not perform, supervisor's efforts to motivate him did not yield any results, his transfer to another department also did not show any positive effect.

• I have attempted to answer and counter your arguments and queries from my own perspective, based on my practical industrial experience. My experience has taught me that, management has to cultivate the culture of discipline and performance in an organization. Management has to demonstrate it's commitment to Discipline and Performance by establishing and practicing concurrent Policies, Systems and Procedures. I strongly felt that this very basic principal was ignored by the management in this case.

• A Psychologist or a counselor may view and analyze this case differently and may suggest that, Suresh can be counseled trained and motivated to give better output. But still I would say that, first he needs to be made aware of the fact that, he as a employee has to follow discipline of the organization and he also has to deliver performance up to the acceptable level, failing which he will have to face the consequences. After doing this, management can refer him to psychologist, trainer or counselor to change his behavior.

• Views from fellow citehr members are most welcome.

Thanks & Regards