Case study of a Controversial Person : Case 5

Write a report analysing the case presented below.

The Controversial Person’s Case

S & Co. Ltd. was a company that produced consumer goods. The corporation employed a sizable number of both blue and white collar workers in its factories and offices. The plant has a number of technical supervisors. The technical supervisors of the factory also had a route or outlet for promotion to the management cadre at the corporate office, provided the corporate office had a distinct wing dealing with any unique element of a specific shop.

While the managers at all levels were at the corporate office. There were various stores that fit into this category, including the completed product department, millright, sample testing sections, etc. Mr. Ram served as the company’s personnel manager and is a human resources development specialist (in the middle management cadre-directly reporting to the top).

Check here for latest case studies and research book : https://kit.co/Anurooba/case-analysis-text-books

Mr. Krishna, who works in a separate area and handles technical issues for the business, is a colleague of Mr. Ram’s. Every time a promotion is requested by the corporation for any position falling under the category of lower level managers, the top brass must review the recommendations of these two before approving the promotion.

One lower level manager position became available in the completed products section at the corporate office. In addition to other tasks, this department of the plant was handling the issues of its employees, and the manager was in charge of this job. There were to be recommendations made.

For the position, Mr. Prasad and Mr. Kumar were the qualified candidates. In response, papers claiming that both of them did commendable job were posted. While Mr. Kumar was a non-interfering type who allowed judgments to be made at lower levels, Mr. Prasad was a go-getter who used to make hasty decisions (sometimes incorrectly as well).

Additionally, there were rumours that Mr. Prasad had been targeted for charges on one or two prior times as a result of some very unpopular decisions that were ultimately not carried through. Although some subordinates tagged him as controversial, the job output under his direction was quite excellent and many employees appreciated him for the simple reason that he used to make decisions without delaying them.

Along with being a non-controversial and non-interfering individual, Mr. Kumar also wished for others in the organisation to consult him for advice when needed, but not to mention him anywhere (particularly to the top or whenever his guidance has resulted in something going wrong).

Because Mr. Prasad was a go-getter and a competent decision-maker, Mr. Ram, the personnel manager, wanted to suggest him. But since Mr. Kumar didn’t interfere, Mr. Krishna wanted to endorse him for the position. The personnel manager argued with his colleague in favour of his suggestion, saying that decision-making is crucial in an organisation, especially at the level of manager in a division, whether it be lower, medium, or higher.

He stated that decisions are dependent on a variety of elements, including the circumstances, and that this cannot always be avoided. Mr. Krishna said that Mr. Prasad is a contentious individual because he shown power and assertiveness in the past, which was unwise given the current situation and the fact that he had to manage a significant group of blue-collar workers.

Mr. Ram disagreed with this viewpoint and said that Mr. Kumar may not make a good manager since he tends to play it safe and avoid making decisions whenever the situation allows. Additionally, Mr. Kumar is seen favourably in Krishna’s eyes since he was not interested in enforcing the processes and avoided upsetting anybody, which was ultimately bad for the organisation. No management is immune from contentious individuals, Mr. Ram said.

A BEST WAY TO EARN WHILE YOU STUDY, JOIN THIS APP UPLOAD PHOTOS, SAVE MONEY FROM NOW ON : https://bit.ly/3g7PxAg

Human nature dictates that certain people can’t help but remark on other people and other people’s behaviour, so they have to say something negative or unfavourable about the performances in order to stir up controversy. In fact, a controversial person is always better for the organisation because, without competition, there wouldn’t be higher production.

This is especially true in the Indian context because there is no room for the Japanese style of cooperative leadership and cooperative ego because only individual ego drives results in this nation. Since they couldn’t agree on anything, they submitted in separate recommendations for Mr. Prasad and Mr. Kumar, citing the aforementioned factors among others and left the decision up to the head.

If you were to make the choice as the “head,” who would you choose and why?

Case study of a Controversial Person : Case 5

Write a report analysing the case presented below.

The Controversial Person’s Case

0 Comments

4 Pingbacks

Recent Posts

Categories