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 supervisors. 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 elsewhere. 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 effective supervisor. Something more is required for this as he has to get things done rather than do himself. ” Mukherjee said, “l have a high opinion of Chatterjee. He proved his technical competence 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. e 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 behavior of employees? 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.