In 1954, Sri Rama Paper Mills Ltd. was founded in Rajahmundry (A.P.). The corporation chose this location because it had access to labour and raw materials. The majority of the manual labourers hired by the corporation were from scheduled caste groups, along with technical professionals who were Muslims and managerial staff who were from other communities.
Since the bulk of the workforce (nearly all manual labourers and management personnel) practise Hinduism, the corporation observes Saturday as a weekly holiday. On Saturdays, Hindus, particularly in the AP Religion, worship Lord Venkateswara.
Throughout terms of both labour relations and performance, the corporation exceeded expectations in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. From 1980 to 1985, Christianity grew significantly in the countryside, especially among members of the scheduled caste. As a result, practically all of the manual labourers (who were members of the scheduled caste) became Christians.
They discovered that going to the workplace on Sundays had been more harder for them than going to church. They insisted that Sunday be designated as the weekly holiday rather than Saturday by the administration. Due to the fact that all of the board members and executives practise Hinduism, the management refused to comply with this requirement.
Hindu-affiliated workers coordinated protests and urged management to maintain Saturday as a weekly holiday. In the meanwhile, Muslim technologists asked management to take into account their proposal for Friday to be a weekly holiday. None of these requests were given any thought by management. Suddenly, none of the manual labourers showed up for work on Sunday.
As a consequence, the plant was shut down that day, and management instituted the “no pay, no work” policy and terminated the employment of all temporary employees. All manual labourers immediately organised into a union, went on strike, and demanded that Sunday be become a weekly holiday in response to the management’s decision.
QUESTIONS
What is the underlying reason for conflict between labour and management?
If you were the company’s managing director, how would you resolve the issue?
If you were the organization’s personnel manager, what advice would you provide to the managing director?
Read the case below attentively, then respond to the questions at the end:
A sales competition was suggested by Joseph Mahoney, general manager of Universal Automotive, Inc. in Chicago, to boost the company’s flagging sales performance. This was his answer to the first-quarter sales figures that were well below quota. A sales content, according to Mahoney, would, among other things, provide an incentive to increase sales to or over territorial quotas.
A whole range of vehicle components and accessories were produced and supplied by Universal. Its sixty-person sales staff was based out of nine district offices spread throughout the country.
The base wage and bonus were the only components of the sales force’s remuneration package. The territorial quota was established by the general sales manager in cooperation with the branch sales manager, and it served as the basis for the bonus.
Mahoney suggested a sales competition that he thought would spur salespeople to meet their objectives. He believed that the contest should include the wives of the salespeople.
Each salesperson would be given a weekly sales volume quota, set by the general sales manager and the district manager, for the duration of the thirteen-week tournament. A district sales volume quota would also be set for each of the nine sales districts.
Mahoney had given considerable thought to utilising total sales volume instead of a percentage, but decided on a weekly $200 cash award for the salesperson who exceeded their quota by the biggest percentage. For the thirteen-week period, each salesperson who met quota received a $ 300 bond.
The salesperson who exceeded the thirteen-week quota by the largest percentage would be awarded an extra $ 400, with second, third, and fourth-place finishers receiving incentives of $ 250, $200, and $100, respectively.
Mahoney’s suggested sales competition would also include spouses as participants. A salesperson’s spouse would be given five chances to win a product reward for every $100 in bonus earnings over and above their weekly or quarterly bonus.
A three-day conference would be held in the Chicago headquarters for those salesmen who met their quotas and brought along their wives. The three days would be a combination of work and play, with the drawing for the product prize capping off a gala dinner dance.
The sales district that exceeded its quota by the highest percentage would win an award of $ 800, which would be split among its salespeople in the competition between the sales districts. The districts’ second, third, and fourth-place finishes would each be rewarded $600, $400, and $200, respectively.
Several objections were raised when Mahoney officially introduced his idea for a sales competition. Arguments focused on the sadness and annoyance of those who lost, the potential for overaggression from ambitious salesmen who are determined to win at all costs, the disruption of daily routines brought on by the convention, and the transient nature of the stimulation offered. A number of executives rejected the competition, contending that its drawbacks outweighed any potential advantages.
Mahoney spoke in opposition, arguing that a contest would boost morale among the whole sales force, appeal to the competitive nature of the sales force, and allow salespeople to get some recognition.
Despite the lack of consensus, Mahoney called a meeting of his eight-person team to debate whether it would be wise to have a sales competition:
QUESTIONS
Should Universal Automotive Inc. have organised a sales competition to spur on its salespeople to increase their performance? If not, why not?
Why are spouses allowed to participate in the competition? Would spouses who work and those who don’t respond differently?
Answer the questions at the conclusion after carefully reading the case that is presented.
The Goldmine Plan
A piece rate incentive programme of Rs. 10 per produced product unit was offered by Sterling & Co. to manufacturing workers. The firm reported an average monthly output of 18,000 good units for the year ending March 31, 1987. 2,000 nits per month were excluded since they had to be trashed after all production processes because of the company’s strict quality control criteria. Scrap has a marketable value of 20 rupees per unit. The product’s unit price structure is as follows:
Rs. 80 for Variable Manufacturing Cost (without Piece Rate Incentive to Employees).
$25 was spent on marketing and distribution.
Price of sale: Rs. 160
monthly fixed costs of Rs. 3,60,000
Mr. Patel, the company’s managing director, was contacted by Mr. Lal, a labour union official, for a stronger incentive programme that would significantly benefit the employees.
The incentive payment would be raised to Rs. 15 each good unit created, subject to a minimum new incentive plan accomplishment of 20,000 good units per month, it was decided after extensive consideration and discussion between the Union and Management.
Additionally, it was decided that the trial period would first last for three months and would then be extended for an additional three years, subject to Mr. Patel’s evaluation. Mr. Patel shall be free to impose any additional requirements at the time of such a review, subject to the union’s proper acceptance, without raising the 20,000 unit monthly objective.
All of the employees were really pleased with the new plan, which boosted their incentive amount by 50%, and they all had high hopes of hitting the monthly goal. They gave the new plan the exuberant moniker “Goldmine,” which quickly gained popularity throughout the organisation.
The trial’s three-month timeframe showed an increase in average monthly output of excellent units to 21,000 units. 3,000 units needed to be scrapped each month at the same time. Mr. Patel was quite happy when he saw the increase in quality unit manufacturing.
After some reflection, he realised how much the sudden increase in units being rejected worried him. No price rise was conceivable due to fierce competition, although fixed costs each month rose by 10% as a result of higher production levels.
QUESTIONS
(A) Has the adoption of the “Goldmine” Scheme been advantageous to the company?
(b) Do you see any errors in the “Goldmine” Scheme’s formulation?
(c) What action should Mr. Patel take going forward?
Examine the following scenario attentively and respond to the questions at the conclusion and Find out inter-personal relations depicted in this case:
Inter-Personal Relationships/MBO
An engineering company with 50 years of success behind it, Vikas Pvt. Ltd., is well-known across India for its high-quality goods. In a short period of ten years, despite having a humble beginning, it rose to become the industry’s leading supplier of crucial spare parts and equipment for the engineering and transportation sectors.
It later advanced quickly in several product lines, including electronics, thanks to the introduction of industrial planning, which was started by the Government of India. This was also due to its position in the engineering industry. Its assets were in the range of Rs. 200 crores in 1960, and it employed over 10,000 people throughout all major industrial hubs in India.
With management becoming more complicated, senior management often debated the necessity to reorganise the whole company along functional lines before introducing decentralised administration on April 1, 1974.
Since 1964, Mr. Vasudeva, a Harvard MBA graduate with a background in mechanical engineering, has been in head of the Mechanical Engineering Section. In April 1974, he received a promotion to Chief Executive of the Division.
This was done in honour of his great work in helping to create new product lines, particularly in the field of compressor-cumulative-vacuum pumps. In fact, the company established a solid reputation in the export market and won an export prize between 1973 and 1974.
Mr. Vasudeva was also renowned for his integrity, leadership, and decisiveness. Being a great engineer, he constantly put out effort to be one step ahead of his rivals in the industry. The management was really proud of him since he was essentially a thing-tank.
He has been revamping the export model-T compressor-cumvacuum pump set for the last six months. He was confident after talking to his international counterparts that with a little more work, the business could revamp the model and cut manufacturing costs while increasing productivity by 16–20%. He
was totally dependent on Mr. Hanuman, a foreman of extraordinary talent and perseverance. Additionally, Mr. Hanuman had a positive influence on others around him and earned the respect of his direct reports.
Everyone involved believed it was undesirable to inform others of what was occurring on the work floor since the manufacture of the new model was still in its early stages. Furthermore, concealment was the way business was conducted, so it was obvious to the foreman and others reporting to him that this issue would not be brought to the attention of Mr. Keshav, the new Works Manager and a recent hire.
They were completely absorbed in their new position and always appreciated any compliments that their leader, Mr. Vasudeva, offered when he visited the shop floor.
Young and vivacious Mr. Keshav has a flare for mechanical engineering goods. Although he had taken a few courses in productivity control and materials management, he knew nothing about management.
He always placed a strong emphasis on correct supervision actions, was knowledgeable in his line of work, and always anticipated that others would complete their tasks on time. He could never put up with lack of discipline. He was known among his coworkers as “the genuine fire-brand” of the business.
Before leaving for home one evening, Mr. Keshav went to the shop floor where he saw six machinists and assistants working on creating a replacement component for the pump set following Mr. Vasudeva’s instructions. Mr. Kesav was pleased to see his subordinates so invested in their job.
However, when he realised that what they were doing was not a typical aspect of their business, his joy disappeared like morning mist. “Oh, dear. What in the hell are you doing? “He said angrily.
The workers were perplexed, they did not know what to say. But Mr. Hanuman soon showed up and explained the current project and the advantages of its success.
The Works Manager got very angry with Hanuman and reprimanded him severely. In reality, he was scolded in the presence of his subordinates and technicians working on the shop-floor.
Mr. Hanuman was perplexed and hurt. As if this was not enough he got a show cause notice from the Works Manager demanding an answer within 24 hours. This was adding insult to injury. He had no option but to report to the head, but to his disappointment, he learned that Mr. Vasudeva had already departed on international tour and was anticipated return a month later.
Mr. Hanuman was hounded and travelled from pillar to post, but he felt as if he was nearing a dead end. He went to the General Manager and gave him his resignation letter after becoming frustrated and upset.
Mr. Hanuman was renowned for his integrity, frugality, and diligence. He had only been able to advance from the position of an ordinary assistant to that of foreman within a 10-year period by the effort of hard labour.
Everyone was aware of his contribution to the creation of a new Model-T vacuum pump set prototype. His one flaw was that he was very sensitive and would never budge on anything that would undermine his character or decency. He was revered by everybody in general.
His resignation’s word spread like wildfire. The technicians, employees, and other supporters of his cause were frightened and anxiously awaited the result.
The case raises the following issues:
1. Was it correct for the GM to accept Mr. Hanuman’s resignation?
2. Given that Mr. Keshav was the Works Manager, was it a good idea to keep him in the dark about the ongoing project?
3. Mr. Keshav rebuke Mr. Hanuman in a hasty manner?
4. What steps need to be made right away?
5. How will this occurrence affect everyone involved?
Write a report analysing the case presented below.
Personal Conflicts
Including Muthusamy, the departmental manager at a significant transportation business, Hariharan, 53, was the employee with the most departmental seniority. Hariharan was regarded as one of the more competent workers. He put in a lot of effort and was very diligent.
Due to his skill and experience, he often obtained the best job assignments and was the highest paid worker in the division. Even though he wasn’t officially assigned to any of the “special” projects, Hariharan handled them routinely.
When Muthusamy hired Neelakandan, 23, a likeable, clever, and diligent worker, a problem arose. Neelakandan was able to adapt to work routine much more quickly than was typical for a new employee because of his two years of prior experience in closely comparable job.
He worked diligently and was pushy. Muthusamy saw tension escalating between the two workers, Neelakandan and Hariharan, on a number of times. He didn’t want to become involved in people’s personal issues, however, and the job was being done as planned.
When Hariharan concluded that the new employee Neelakandan was taking on far too many of his own responsibilities one day, the tension erupted. Will you kindly tell him once and for all which projects are mine and which are his? he practically dragged Neelakandan to Muthusamy’s desk.
Everyone in the workplace suddenly became silent as they anticipated Muthusamy’s response. The sudden clash rendered further delay unthinkable.
QUESTIONS
How has the organising role of the management contributed to this issue? Could a better organisation have prevented it? How?
Assess Muthusamy’s effectiveness as a planner.
What should Muthusamy do in response to Hariharan’s demand?
Review the case below, analyse it, and then create a report:
Punishment and Discipline
Mr. X, a management-trained commerce graduate, works as a junior officer at a company with more white-collar than blue-collar employees. Mr. X is a workaholic who is very committed to his profession. He uses all contemporary management strategies to achieve success; he is a problem solver and go-getter. Because of his attitude and expertise, he is admired and respected by his staff, who would do whatever to finish the task he has given them.
In the same company, Mr. Y has a middle management position. Despite lacking professional management training, he implements management strategies that are appropriate for the organisation. His management technique has been very effective. He is very informed and has the appropriate contacts to make things happen.
When it comes to his supervisors, he has a “achieving organisational objective at whatever cost” attitude while taking a more maternal approach with his employees. Freedom, independence, and protection are his guiding principles for his subordinate officers, and Mr. X has chosen him to be his mentor.
The highest manager on this ladder is Mr. Z. He is effective as general manager because he listens well and makes judgments based on his own judgement. Although he sometimes expresses his irritation, he typically does not believe in harsh reprimands and penalties. Instead, he lavishes praise, especially on his subordinates. He is renowned for having a strong preference for regimented behaviour.
Mr. Z, the General Manager, had often praised Mr. X and shown his thanks to him during conversations between Mr. X and Mr. Z whenever Mr. X performed well. On a few of these instances, Mr. Y had also been in attendance.
On a few times, Mr. Y burst out a fit of rage in front of his coworkers and confronted Mr. X for certain errors. On these occasions, Mr. X has also been contentious and has insisted that what he had done was proper and that there had just been a communication breakdown or that Mr. Y had not comprehended the issues correctly.
Mr. Y publicly rebuked Mr. X on one occasion when he was very upset with him. Mr. X was offended, and the issue was escalated.
Mr. X was arguing with Mr. Z, the top boss, about how “praise should be given in public and reprimand in private” and how Mr. Z was praising Mr. X in private while Mr. Y was reprimanding him in public, which was bad for Mr. X and bad for the organisation.
A BEST WAY TO EARN WHILE YOU STUDY, JOIN THIS APP UPLOAD PHOTOS, SAVE MONEY FROM NOW ON : https://bit.ly/3g7PxAg
Mr. Z clarified that he lavished praise on Mr. X in private, mostly to inspire and drive him to produce greater achievements. He also never forgot to mention Mr. X with praise at the proper higher levels and at the proper times. Additionally, if Mr. X received public recognition, this may incite jealously among his coworkers, which might make it difficult for him to be accommodated in day-to-day operations due to a lack of appropriate horizontal contact.
Regarding Mr. Y’s behaviour, he informed Mr. X that a public reprimand would be taken seriously and that he would make amends in addition to giving the impression to others that Mr. Y was not biassed or had a peculiar attachment to Mr. X, and that Mr. Y’s position would be known to all of his coworkers and subordinates.
This will also lessen Mr. X’s coworkers’ envy of him and may even elicit some pity from them, which will lead to better outcomes. If a reprimand or other disciplinary action is given in secret, nobody will know if it was fair or not, and it won’t be able to change other people’s behaviour in the future.
Mr. X disagreed with the opinions of both employers since he was a certified management graduate and had always been advised that “reprimands should be issued in secret and praises in public.” The following issues are raised by the case study in question:
Write a report analysing coordination case presented below.
The current spring firm produces springs in accordance with manufacturer requirements. They manufacture bumper springs, tension springs, and leaf springs. The majority of the springs are sent to auto, truck, and bus makers.
Misunderstandings in the company’s line and personnel interactions have been happening lately. The company’s Chairman-Cum-Managing Director is looking for an appropriate strategy for line-staff coordination and understanding.
The line officers at contemporary concerns tend to be covert targets of informal staff authority, in contrast to many concerns where the line makes little use of staff support and advice and the staff finds it convenient to take line authority.
The line officials often only accept suggestions and advice from staff members who possess the requisite technical expertise. For instance, the director of R & D finished his doctoral work last year, and line employees are more accepting of his views.
The managing director is personally responsible for many of the staff personnel. The line officers often saw these staff members’ advice and guidance as command via status. As an example, the people manager had little trouble persuading the plant manager last year that all workers’ training need to be a part of the personnel function.
The majority of the staff members are friendly, college-educated, and skilled salespeople. Top management is becoming more and more aware that line and staff are controlled by human attributes.
For instance, the manager of publicity and public relations has on occasion been given permission to act on behalf of line management. However, it seems that unauthorized power tends to gather in this division and is used by the management for partisan gain.
Modern employees do not believe it is vital to provide the finest ideas to top management. The managing director is a staunch supporter of the employee role. This has sometimes been construed by line managers as command via punishment.
For instance, the sales manager has dealt more and more with the managing director’s staff assistant in recent years of the company’s rapid expansion when it comes to special projects, creating plans, and establishing rules than with the managing director himself.
QUESTIONS
How would you characterise the organisational staff’s style of thinking?
Examine the company’s use of informal worker authority. Why does this implied power function well in so many circumstances? Does it make sense?
Offer the managing director a viable strategy for line-staff coordination and comprehension.
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).
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?
Read the case below attentively, then respond to the questions at the conclusion.
Role Reversal
EF Ltd. was one of the affiliates of the AL Group of Firms, which had six sister companies. A general manager ran each business. The other five businesses, including EF Ltd., were providing auxiliary components to the primary company, AL Ltd. The Managing Directors of the many firms in the group got along well with one another. The Managing Director of EF Ltd. was Mr. Swami.
A recognised union affiliated with one specific state-wide governing party was present at EF Ltd. The flagship AL Ltd. and the other five businesses all have unions affiliated with different political parties. The administration, including the one that belonged to EF Ltd., and the unions typically got along well. When Mr. Swami served as the managing director of EF Ltd., the company’s output exceeded its objective by 200%.
As a consequence, AL Ltd. likewise expanded production, with attendant advantages for the workers’ perks. The unions’ contribution to the higher output level was proportionately equal. The managing director of EF Ltd. and the managing director of AL Ltd. had a disagreement on one specific occasion at one of the coordination meetings. Being the central figure of the whole group, the Managing Director of AL Ltd. had more influence. He and the family members had a significant portion of the enterprises.
Mr. Swami, the EF Ltd.’s managing director, as well as other individuals listed on the company’s registers, were in fact compensated managing directors. Because of his outstanding management and engineering credentials as well as the expertise he had acquired through his numerous travels overseas, Mr. Swami was renowned for his integrity, forthrightness, and enormous knowledge.
However, his technical advice was not taken into consideration in one of the sessions, which led to a significant difference of opinion. The other four Managing Directors of the group backed the Managing Director of AL Ltd., and Mr. Swami was flatly informed that his technical advise would not be taken into account. Mr. Swami volunteered to resign after feeling offended.
As a result of ongoing arguments, Mr. Swami departed the company. The Executive Director was coordinating with the organisational work since no new Managing Director had been hired. Even while output remained above the desired level while Mr. Swami was in office, it significantly decreased after he departed, but the desired minimum level was maintained.
A meeting between the Union of EF Ltd. and the Management was scheduled after roughly a month. The Management, including the Managing Director, was taken aback to find Mr. Swami, the Chairman of the Union of EF Ltd., seated on the opposite bench. Mr. Swami promised the management that the relationship would be friendly. However, he gave the Management six requests.
The identical technical advise that Mr. Swami offered as Managing Director was proposed by the Union, and Mr. Swami emphasised that if the proposal was carried out, output would not suffer. The top management disagreed. When the issue of paying bonuses to the workers arose after roughly a month, the management noted that EF Ltd.’s output had decreased by 20%, which was less than the targeted production, which was down by 180% from the prior level.
A BEST WAY TO EARN WHILE YOU STUDY, JOIN THIS APP UPLOAD PHOTOS, SAVE MONEY FROM NOW ON : https://bit.ly/3g7PxAg
It was also said that AL Ltd., the major group, is also suffering as a result of EF Ltd.’s poor output. The Management stated that the Union’s lack of cooperation is the primary cause of the current situation. The Union emphasised that they have not changed at all and that the aim of the Managing Directors of the other organisations, as well as the Executive Director and other Directors of the AL Ltd., is what has caused the output to decrease.
The case study mentioned above raises the following questions:
(A) Do you share the Union’s position?
(a) Examine Mr. Swami’s actions both as the Union’s chairman and as its managing director.
(c) Examine the Managing Director of AL Ltd., the principal corporation, and his actions.
Review the case below, analyse it, and then create a report:
Selection and Recruitment
Tin-plated steel is produced by the Southern Steel Company particularly for the canning industry. It has roughly 5,000 employees. The business uses cutting-edge scientific techniques wherever applicable.
One such scientific approach was used by the personnel department to choose management trainees. The individuals’ hobbies, emotional stability, general intellect, and personalities were evaluated using a battery of tests.
.A company that excels in creating and analysing tests was used to administer the exams. The business obtained the exams from the organisation, distributed them to the candidates, and then handed them back to the organisation for evaluation.
The personnel director examined the information on the application forms in addition to the exams. The candidate who scored the highest on the exams and had a positive application rating was chosen for an interview with the personnel director. Following the interviews, decisions were made.
The business used this strategy to recruit 30 candidates by the end of the first year. The organisation was shocked to discover that 14 of these trainees lacked the credentials deemed essential for senior employees after evaluating them. Approximately Rs. 26,000 was spent on these incompetent trainees in total.
The recruiting and testing process was then put under scrutiny by the personnel department. It was discovered that other steel firms had successfully utilised the testing. Neither the administration nor the testing were determined to be flawed. The director of people wasn’t sure what to do.
A BEST WAY TO EARN WHILE YOU STUDY, JOIN THIS APP UPLOAD PHOTOS, SAVE MONEY FROM NOW ON : https://bit.ly/3g7PxAg
He raised the issue with the executive committee, which consists of the leaders of eight departments. The head of the department in charge of industrial relations advised abandoning the tests and devising a different system for choosing management trainees because they contained errors.
QUESTIONS
1) What are the flaws in the recruiting process at the company?
2) What steps should the business take to address the selection issue in light of the facts provided?
