Dear Seniors,
I have posted the same matter in 'Exam Section' however teh response is mostly from aspirants of NET qualification, no one really is ina 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 its an issue of faulty job analysis (once he was re-hired) which led to employee dissatisfaction and drop in productivity.
Q2: Suresh displays a closed behavior and is not ready to take feedback, however he is demotivated also.
Please come forward to discuss all the questions. Seniors...ur help is highly appreciated.
Regards,
Satarupa
From India, Gurgaon
2I have posted the same matter in 'Exam Section' however teh response is mostly from aspirants of NET qualification, no one really is ina 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 its an issue of faulty job analysis (once he was re-hired) which led to employee dissatisfaction and drop in productivity.
Q2: Suresh displays a closed behavior and is not ready to take feedback, however he is demotivated also.
Please come forward to discuss all the questions. Seniors...ur help is highly appreciated.
Regards,
Satarupa
From India, Gurgaon
Hi satarupa,
it seems u hv apperaed for UGC NET taking HR, IR as specialisation. Will u pls tell me that whether I , an PGDM in HR specialisation can sit for the exam? what are the scopes after clearing the NET in HR?
From India, Arwal
it seems u hv apperaed for UGC NET taking HR, IR as specialisation. Will u pls tell me that whether I , an PGDM in HR specialisation can sit for the exam? what are the scopes after clearing the NET in HR?
From India, Arwal
Hi Swassaha,
I haven't appeared for UGC-NET as yet. I am planning to take it up this year. Before that want to make sure that I am prepared for it.
Anyone who is a master degree holder can take up NET exam in their related field. So u can take up NET exam.
If you are interested to teach and deliver lectures in colleges, either to Graduation or PG students. Its a pre requisite to be a successful lecturer. Also if u want to continue for
higher studies i.e. Ph.D or M.Phil, NET helps you to an extent that you dont have to take up the entrance exams.
Rgds,
From India, Gurgaon
I haven't appeared for UGC-NET as yet. I am planning to take it up this year. Before that want to make sure that I am prepared for it.
Anyone who is a master degree holder can take up NET exam in their related field. So u can take up NET exam.
If you are interested to teach and deliver lectures in colleges, either to Graduation or PG students. Its a pre requisite to be a successful lecturer. Also if u want to continue for
higher studies i.e. Ph.D or M.Phil, NET helps you to an extent that you dont have to take up the entrance exams.
Rgds,
From India, Gurgaon
Seniors...may I please get some help from you. Kindly help me to interpret the case study....
From India, Gurgaon
From India, Gurgaon
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 soft, timid attitude on part of management and very unprofessional handling of situation by Management.
• There is no much evidence in this case to say that, Suresh is displaying a closed behavior, since Management has done very little to convey to him that his behavior and attitude is anti organization and not acceptable and he needs to change and improve himself and fall in line and failing which management has right to initiate appropriate corrective and disciplinary action against him. Due to Management’s soft and easy handling of situation it is very convenient for a person like Suresh to have his way and he can very well stonewall the feedback since he knows 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 first place Management should have terminated services of Suresh after completion of enquiry. Management had enough readymade reason for termination of his services. By not terminating him and reinstating him under pressure from Union, Management demonstrated it’d weakness and unprofessional approach. Secondly Management should have had a fair idea about the future of the Suresh’s union, which was loosing control and another union becoming powerful. Termination of Suresh would have had very limited impact and backlash from union and workers.
• Management again showed weakness and 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.
• Reason for low performance given by Suresh appears to be a mere excuse and same was readily accepted by Management on face value. Another example of weak and unprofessional attitude.
• Suresh should have been examined by a independent Medical Professional (Doctor) to verify and certify extent of his injury and its impact on his working and performance. If at all there was real impact of injury as certified by 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 efforts. Management didn’t do any of these.
• Only positive and professional step from Management was attempt by Goel, Supervisor to motivate him but which yielded no results, demonstrating 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 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 a impression as if nothing has happened, everything was alright and Management corrected it’s 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 at earlier department which is not acceptable and he should meet the performance expectation at new department. This transfer should be viewed as an opportunity to improve performance and to mend his attitude and behavior at work. 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 in the hands of hard nuts, rather than cracking them.
• Views from fellow citeher members are most welcome.
Thanks & Regards
From India, Pune
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 soft, timid attitude on part of management and very unprofessional handling of situation by Management.
• There is no much evidence in this case to say that, Suresh is displaying a closed behavior, since Management has done very little to convey to him that his behavior and attitude is anti organization and not acceptable and he needs to change and improve himself and fall in line and failing which management has right to initiate appropriate corrective and disciplinary action against him. Due to Management’s soft and easy handling of situation it is very convenient for a person like Suresh to have his way and he can very well stonewall the feedback since he knows 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 first place Management should have terminated services of Suresh after completion of enquiry. Management had enough readymade reason for termination of his services. By not terminating him and reinstating him under pressure from Union, Management demonstrated it’d weakness and unprofessional approach. Secondly Management should have had a fair idea about the future of the Suresh’s union, which was loosing control and another union becoming powerful. Termination of Suresh would have had very limited impact and backlash from union and workers.
• Management again showed weakness and 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.
• Reason for low performance given by Suresh appears to be a mere excuse and same was readily accepted by Management on face value. Another example of weak and unprofessional attitude.
• Suresh should have been examined by a independent Medical Professional (Doctor) to verify and certify extent of his injury and its impact on his working and performance. If at all there was real impact of injury as certified by 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 efforts. Management didn’t do any of these.
• Only positive and professional step from Management was attempt by Goel, Supervisor to motivate him but which yielded no results, demonstrating 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 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 a impression as if nothing has happened, everything was alright and Management corrected it’s 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 at earlier department which is not acceptable and he should meet the performance expectation at new department. This transfer should be viewed as an opportunity to improve performance and to mend his attitude and behavior at work. 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 in the hands of hard nuts, rather than cracking them.
• Views from fellow citeher members are most welcome.
Thanks & Regards
From India, Pune
Dear vkokamthankar,
Thank you so much for elaborative discussion on the case.
I agree to most of the oints u have written except few, though they don not stand to have extreme disagreement but just a point of view.
You had written, "In first place Management should have terminated services of Suresh after completion of enquiry. Management had enough readymade reason for termination of his services."
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.
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.
3. I guess there is an issue with the supervisors' leadership skills which could have been partcipative with an amount of authority.
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??
Input is appreciated.
Regards,
Satarupa
From India, Gurgaon
Thank you so much for elaborative discussion on the case.
I agree to most of the oints u have written except few, though they don not stand to have extreme disagreement but just a point of view.
You had written, "In first place Management should have terminated services of Suresh after completion of enquiry. Management had enough readymade reason for termination of his services."
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.
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.
3. I guess there is an issue with the supervisors' leadership skills which could have been partcipative with an amount of authority.
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??
Input is appreciated.
Regards,
Satarupa
From India, Gurgaon
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
From India, Pune
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
From India, Pune
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Why u shud Never send or put ur snap on net....zip
SAP -HR Certification Exam Details with Syllabus [1].doc