Joseph, a plant-level worker, has twenty years of experience at Zeal Zink Ltd, a large-scale industrial establishment in Maharashtra. He is a hardworking, competent, punctual, and reliable employee of Binani Zink Ltd. He has good interaction and interrelation with his superiors, co-workers, and other members in the organization. The management has a positive impression and appreciation of his performance and commitment. The only disagreement the management has with him is his affiliation with one of the trade unions in the organization. The management doesn't have a favorable impression of trade unions within the organization, believing that trade unions mislead and exploit the workforce, acting as a significant hurdle in the organization's smooth progress.
To make Joseph more work-oriented, the management decided to promote him to a supervisory level, a decision beyond his expectations. He was thrilled with the promotion and felt obliged to the management. Only hardworking, competent, and skilled employees are promoted to higher positions. The supervisory roles in the organization offer better compensation packages, power, and authority in relation to responsibilities. Joseph was highly motivated to work for the organization and felt grateful towards the management. He quickly gained acceptance and recognition in the supervisory position from his superiors and coworkers within a short span. He performed his duties according to the management's expectations.
Joseph met with a senior-level official, Mr. Kiran, in his cabin as per the official communication. Kiran detailed new responsibilities and tentative targets to Joseph, setting management's expectations. After formal discussions, Kiran initiated an informal conversation with Joseph, inquiring about employee welfare, satisfaction levels, and various other topics, including Joseph's family members. During the conversation, Kiran also asked about Joseph's trade union activities and his strong affiliation with them. Kiran expressed management's unhappiness regarding Joseph's trade union affiliation, especially as he held a managerial role in the organization. Kiran requested Joseph to gradually separate from the trade union and work for better career prospects with the management. Joseph was asked to consider this request and make a decision promptly. Without commenting on Kiran's demand, Joseph returned to his plant.
Kiran's demand for Joseph to quit the trade union membership was disappointing. Joseph felt that the trade union had supported him in protecting his rights and privileges. The existence of the trade union made employees feel safe and secure in their jobs. Joseph was conflicted with questions about whether he should quit the trade union, considering the support it had provided him in the past. He pondered about the fairness of the situation and the disparity between workers and managers within the organization, leading to confusion in making the right decision.
Despite having significant information about the management's approach towards employees, Joseph decided to align with management for future prospects. He gradually distanced himself from trade union meetings and activities, citing personal reasons, and focused more on work activities. The trade union leadership noticed Joseph's changed behavior and demanded clarification from him. Joseph informed the management about his gradual separation from the trade union, a decision that was well-received by the management, who extended full support to his career growth.
With a peaceful mindset and a focus on work as a managerial supervisor, Joseph began his newly assigned tasks. The tasks required team collaboration, involving supervisors from different departments. While working as a team, the members had to follow timely instructions from senior managers, limiting their autonomy in decision-making. Joseph and other supervisory members worked diligently to achieve the predetermined results expected by the management.
The annual production statistics revealed a low-performance report from the department where Joseph was working. Inspectors highlighted quality-related problems, leading the top management to criticize junior to middle-level managers and supervisors for the department's low performance. In turn, middle and junior-level managers shifted blame to supervisors and team members, showcasing negligence and lack of commitment on their part. The supervisory members, including Joseph, who had worked hard, disagreed with the allegations, emphasizing that they followed their superiors' instructions. They decided to meet with top management to present the actual situation through a memorandum.
Two days later, Joseph was asked to meet Kiran, the Senior Manager, for further discussion regarding the issues raised in the memorandum. Kiran conveyed the top management's dissatisfaction with the supervisory members' performance and announced the decision to transfer some members to other departments and even to sister concerns. Joseph's name was included in the transfer list, with Kiran stating that Joseph lacked the necessary knowledge and competency to handle new responsibilities, requiring additional training. Management also decided to withdraw extra incentives due to the nature of the transfers being seen as a training program rather than a reward.
Joseph was shocked and disappointed by the management's decision, feeling that it showcased favoritism towards middle and junior-level managers. He believed that the transfers were a way to marginalize and victimize them, lacking justification from the management's end. Joseph perceived the management's actions as protecting themselves and neglecting employee support during crises. In response, he decided to maintain his trade union membership and filed a complaint with the trade union, citing victimization.
Questions:
1. Is the management's attitude towards the trade union justified?
2. Does the annual decline in the yearly production reflect Joseph's inefficiency as a Manager?
3. "Business World indulges in Organizational Politics by showing carrots of Career Planning." Comment.
4. Does this case reflect Joseph as a poor decision-maker?
5. How are the theory of equity and the theory of expectancy related to this case study?
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(2)
Amend(0)
2To make Joseph more work-oriented, the management decided to promote him to a supervisory level, a decision beyond his expectations. He was thrilled with the promotion and felt obliged to the management. Only hardworking, competent, and skilled employees are promoted to higher positions. The supervisory roles in the organization offer better compensation packages, power, and authority in relation to responsibilities. Joseph was highly motivated to work for the organization and felt grateful towards the management. He quickly gained acceptance and recognition in the supervisory position from his superiors and coworkers within a short span. He performed his duties according to the management's expectations.
Joseph met with a senior-level official, Mr. Kiran, in his cabin as per the official communication. Kiran detailed new responsibilities and tentative targets to Joseph, setting management's expectations. After formal discussions, Kiran initiated an informal conversation with Joseph, inquiring about employee welfare, satisfaction levels, and various other topics, including Joseph's family members. During the conversation, Kiran also asked about Joseph's trade union activities and his strong affiliation with them. Kiran expressed management's unhappiness regarding Joseph's trade union affiliation, especially as he held a managerial role in the organization. Kiran requested Joseph to gradually separate from the trade union and work for better career prospects with the management. Joseph was asked to consider this request and make a decision promptly. Without commenting on Kiran's demand, Joseph returned to his plant.
Kiran's demand for Joseph to quit the trade union membership was disappointing. Joseph felt that the trade union had supported him in protecting his rights and privileges. The existence of the trade union made employees feel safe and secure in their jobs. Joseph was conflicted with questions about whether he should quit the trade union, considering the support it had provided him in the past. He pondered about the fairness of the situation and the disparity between workers and managers within the organization, leading to confusion in making the right decision.
Despite having significant information about the management's approach towards employees, Joseph decided to align with management for future prospects. He gradually distanced himself from trade union meetings and activities, citing personal reasons, and focused more on work activities. The trade union leadership noticed Joseph's changed behavior and demanded clarification from him. Joseph informed the management about his gradual separation from the trade union, a decision that was well-received by the management, who extended full support to his career growth.
With a peaceful mindset and a focus on work as a managerial supervisor, Joseph began his newly assigned tasks. The tasks required team collaboration, involving supervisors from different departments. While working as a team, the members had to follow timely instructions from senior managers, limiting their autonomy in decision-making. Joseph and other supervisory members worked diligently to achieve the predetermined results expected by the management.
The annual production statistics revealed a low-performance report from the department where Joseph was working. Inspectors highlighted quality-related problems, leading the top management to criticize junior to middle-level managers and supervisors for the department's low performance. In turn, middle and junior-level managers shifted blame to supervisors and team members, showcasing negligence and lack of commitment on their part. The supervisory members, including Joseph, who had worked hard, disagreed with the allegations, emphasizing that they followed their superiors' instructions. They decided to meet with top management to present the actual situation through a memorandum.
Two days later, Joseph was asked to meet Kiran, the Senior Manager, for further discussion regarding the issues raised in the memorandum. Kiran conveyed the top management's dissatisfaction with the supervisory members' performance and announced the decision to transfer some members to other departments and even to sister concerns. Joseph's name was included in the transfer list, with Kiran stating that Joseph lacked the necessary knowledge and competency to handle new responsibilities, requiring additional training. Management also decided to withdraw extra incentives due to the nature of the transfers being seen as a training program rather than a reward.
Joseph was shocked and disappointed by the management's decision, feeling that it showcased favoritism towards middle and junior-level managers. He believed that the transfers were a way to marginalize and victimize them, lacking justification from the management's end. Joseph perceived the management's actions as protecting themselves and neglecting employee support during crises. In response, he decided to maintain his trade union membership and filed a complaint with the trade union, citing victimization.
Questions:
1. Is the management's attitude towards the trade union justified?
2. Does the annual decline in the yearly production reflect Joseph's inefficiency as a Manager?
3. "Business World indulges in Organizational Politics by showing carrots of Career Planning." Comment.
4. Does this case reflect Joseph as a poor decision-maker?
5. How are the theory of equity and the theory of expectancy related to this case study?
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
Hi, I need help in answering these case studies. Please help me.
If you were to walk around one of Transocean Sedco Forex's oil rigs off the New Orleans coast, you'd see something that might puzzle you. Most of the workers have three stickers on their hard hats. One says, "Start to understand me." The other two are colored dots. What's this all about? The colored dots are there to tell co-workers about the personality under the hat. The company believes that workers are better able to understand each other and get along if they know the personalities of the people with whom they work.
Transocean has hired an outside consulting firm to provide personality assessments to its 8,300 workers worldwide. For instance, employees are presented with 28 sets of four words. Each worker picks a word that describes him best and a word that describes him least. A typical set: fussy, obedient, firm, playful. Employees then are shown how to score their tests and find out their two dominant colors. For instance, reds are driven. Yellows are emotional, talkative, and have a fondness for people.
Reds are strong-willed and decisive. Blues dislike change and can be a little wishy-washy. Rig workers wear their dots on their hats, while land-based employees post theirs outside their office doors. No one is forced to display their colors, and some think the program may be too intrusive. Tim Callais, a Transocean advisor for operational safety, says those who question the program's credibility are "probably blue people."
A number of employees seem to find the dots helpful. Thom Keeton, a red-green rig manager, keeps a color chart under the glass covering his desk for quick reference.
Tom Watkins, a senior rig hand on a drilling ship who is also a red-green, thinks the colors correctly reflect his personality: blunt, to the point, and not liking to talk much. David Gray, a blue-yellow, says the colored dots help him deal with high-strung red-greens now that he's figured out that he just has to get to the point more quickly.
This program is not being applied only at Transocean. Similar personality-based coding systems are being put into place with a number of blue-collar employees. Assembly line workers in Kentucky are using the system. So are police officers in Kansas, electricians in Texas, construction crews in Florida, and carpenters and plumbers in New York City.
Questions:
1. Are you surprised that oil rig workers would buy into a program like this?
2. How valid do you think color-coded personality ratings are?
3. Do you think having employees "wear their personalities on their hats" is a personal intrusion? Is it unethical?
4. Transocean's CEO supports the program but says, "I can be whatever color I want to be." Do you agree with him? Explain.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If you were to walk around one of Transocean Sedco Forex's oil rigs off the New Orleans coast, you'd see something that might puzzle you. Most of the workers have three stickers on their hard hats. One says, "Start to understand me." The other two are colored dots. What's this all about? The colored dots are there to tell co-workers about the personality under the hat. The company believes that workers are better able to understand each other and get along if they know the personalities of the people with whom they work.
Transocean has hired an outside consulting firm to provide personality assessments to its 8,300 workers worldwide. For instance, employees are presented with 28 sets of four words. Each worker picks a word that describes him best and a word that describes him least. A typical set: fussy, obedient, firm, playful. Employees then are shown how to score their tests and find out their two dominant colors. For instance, reds are driven. Yellows are emotional, talkative, and have a fondness for people.
Reds are strong-willed and decisive. Blues dislike change and can be a little wishy-washy. Rig workers wear their dots on their hats, while land-based employees post theirs outside their office doors. No one is forced to display their colors, and some think the program may be too intrusive. Tim Callais, a Transocean advisor for operational safety, says those who question the program's credibility are "probably blue people."
A number of employees seem to find the dots helpful. Thom Keeton, a red-green rig manager, keeps a color chart under the glass covering his desk for quick reference.
Tom Watkins, a senior rig hand on a drilling ship who is also a red-green, thinks the colors correctly reflect his personality: blunt, to the point, and not liking to talk much. David Gray, a blue-yellow, says the colored dots help him deal with high-strung red-greens now that he's figured out that he just has to get to the point more quickly.
This program is not being applied only at Transocean. Similar personality-based coding systems are being put into place with a number of blue-collar employees. Assembly line workers in Kentucky are using the system. So are police officers in Kansas, electricians in Texas, construction crews in Florida, and carpenters and plumbers in New York City.
Questions:
1. Are you surprised that oil rig workers would buy into a program like this?
2. How valid do you think color-coded personality ratings are?
3. Do you think having employees "wear their personalities on their hats" is a personal intrusion? Is it unethical?
4. Transocean's CEO supports the program but says, "I can be whatever color I want to be." Do you agree with him? Explain.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
THE KERALA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNION RULES, 2011.pdf
Trade union.ppt
History Trade Union.doc