TEACHING NOTES FOR CASE STUDY:

“WHEN THE PIECES DON’T FIT”

Prepared and submitted by

1) Vikas Sethi 3) Sairam. N,

6138454 6187781
Senior Engineer, Product Engineering FB Engineer, Product Engineering FB
BHEL, Trichy BHEL, Trichy
Email: vikassethi@bheltry.co.in Email: sairam@bheltry.co.in

2) Dheeraj Kumar
6137199
Senior Engineer, Product Engineering FB
BHEL, Trichy
Email: dheeraj@bheltry.co.in
CASE SUMMARY
Vikrant Abraham, a native of Lucknow graduates in Mechanical Engineering from a premier
institution in Kanpur. He chooses BHEL despite receiving offers from two reputed IT companies.
Joining BHEL is a dream come true for him. Despite the 1500 mile distance that separated his work
place from his native, he is thrilled at the prospect of working in a core manufacturing company. He
carries out his tasks with admirable commitment and enthusiasm. On one hand, sensing the huge
potential in him, he is groomed for future by his superiors. While on the other, despite the fact that
everything has been going well in his professional life so far, there is no denying that, at times, deep
down he is engulfed by a feeling of emptiness. Vikrant’s appetite for work is slowly diminishing and
is being replaced by a growing sense of boredom. He starts missing his family. To top it all, one
morning he learns his mother has fallen ill. The extent of hardships he has to face on his way home
does little to improve the frame of mind he already is in. When he returns to work, he is no longer the
happy and hardworking Vikrant he once was. Everyone is of the assumption that much of his
transformation is due to the current state of health of his mother. But Vikrant’s performance continually
drops and his demeanor becomes more miserable with time. Noticing his continuous deterioration, his
boss Mr. Ravindran, a patient and a considerate man seeks him out and holds a personal conversation
to better understand his thoughts and help him out, if necessary. During the conversation, Ravindran
learns that Vikrant wants a transfer to a place nearby his native to take care of his mother. Ravindran
promises to look into his request. On careful analysis of Vikrant’s case at a higher level, it is decided
not to grant Vikrant the transfer. Mr. Ravindran tries his best to convince Vikrant that his transfer is
not possible. As Vikrant is desperate in getting away, he dismisses Mr. Ravindran’s arguments as
sophisticated jargons and irrelevant. Mr. Ravindran optimistically hopes that Vikrant will overcome
his frustration and anger over a period of time. Unfortunately, even after six months there is no sign of
any progress. He turns out to be a drag in the department.

THEME OF THE CASE

This case focuses largely on management issues such as resource allocation, employee management,
motivation, engagement & retention, orientation of employee towards company’s goals, management-
employee conflict etc.
LEARNING PERSPECTIVES/UTILITIES PRESENTED BY THE CASE
 The case illustrates the challenges associated with allocating a new recruit or transferring an
employee to a location far from his native.
 After all the investments of the management in the employee, he eventually becomes a drag in
the organization. Hence the case is an avenue for HR recruitment executives to think, at the
time of recruitment itself, of ways to achieve win-win scenarios for both the organization and
a new employee.
 It also forces such new recruits to strongly question themselves, if their transformed indifferent
attitude (because of denied request) is justified or appropriate, especially after the company has
invested in their training/welfare?
 This case gives readers the opportunity to explore what the management & the employee can
do in such a circumstance to arrive at a win-win scenario.

TARGET AUDIENCE
This case presents a typical conflict between the employee and the management and is suitable for all
students in final year of undergraduate/post-graduate programmes/fresher seeking a job. This case is
of value to any HR recruitment executive to think of ways and avenues to eliminate such misfits in the
organization thereby providing win-win environment for both the employee and the employer. The
case is relevant to employees of any organization, urging them to question themselves if such
unresponsive work-place behaviour is rational.

USING THE CASE

The scenario described in this case is prevalent at all levels in all organizations. The summary of the
case can be presented to the target group as a whole and the group can be asked to contemplate
possibilities to arrive at a win-all scenario. The process works the best when the group is encouraged
to prepare a one page summary response to each of the guiding questions. This helps facilitate the
discussion and avoids groupthink issues that are prone to arise during discussions. The brainstorming
sessions can possibly bring about a solution to the described predicament.
 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION

1. After initially accepting in his personal interview that he

was prepared to work anywhere, was Vikrant’s request
for transfer reasonable?
2. Was Vikrant’s indifferent behaviour following the
denial of his request appropriate?
3. Considering Vikrant’s mental state, was the company
right in refusing his request?
4. Who is responsible for Vikrant having become a liability
to the organization? Is it the company or Vikrant
himself? Is there a win-win situation?
5. Should the company be more judicious in allocating the
location for its new recruits to avoid such Vikrants in the
future?

CASE ANALYSIS
Was Vikrant’s request reasonable?
In this case, Vikrant initially accepts in his personal interview that he is ready to work anywhere across
the country. But over the course of time, circumstances demand Vikrant to request a transfer. It is
possible that the company might have recruited him based on his willingness to work anywhere. Given
all this, was Vikrant’s request for transfer reasonable?
On the other hand, it is natural for any applicant seeking a job to agree willingly to work anywhere, to
secure his job. Do companies make decisions based on such obvious consents during interviews? If so,
should they?

Was Vikrant’s indifferent attitude following the denial of his request appropriate?
It is evident that Vikrant’s mother is ill and that he needs a transfer to take care of her. He is particularly
bitter about the fact that his transfer is turned down whereas few others with similar background or
who claimed so, have got their transfers. So it is but natural for anyone in Vikrant’s shoes to show
resentment towards the company by choosing to display lackadaisical attitude. But considering that
Vikrant earns his income from the company, is Vikrant’s behaviour ethically correct? Do his actions
justify the investments/faith shown by the company in him?

Was the company’s decision to deny Vikrant’s transfer request right?

On a careful analysis of Vikrant’s case at a higher level, it was decided not to grant Vikrant the transfer.
What constraints could the company possibly have in turning his request down? Possibly to avoid many
Vikrants coming up with such requests. Probably the company deemed Vikrant suited the current
portfolio the best and transferring him was not the greatest of decisions in terms of organizational goals.
Maybe the management was of the opinion that arranging/finding out a suitable replacement and
training him to Vikrant’s level was pointless and redundant.

On second thought, considering Vikrant’s case was genuine, did Mr. Ravindran take up the matter with
the higher management seriously? It is natural for the management to receive such requests on a regular
basis. Could it be possible the management dismissed Vikrant’s request without careful consideration?

What can the organization do to avoid such Vikrants emerging in the future?

As long as there are branches of an organization spread across a country, there will always be
employees desperate for transfers and depressed when they don’t get one. However, the company, to
minimize such incidents, can frame policies within its limitations, that locate its employees as close to
their natives as possible at the time of recruitment itself. The organization can also set criteria based
on which its employees would be given preference for their place of posting. This might not only reduce
a number of transfer requests but will also aid in employee motivation and retention.

Who is responsible for Vikrant having become a liability to the organization? Is it the company or
Vikrant himself? Is there a win-all situation?

Once Vikrant learns that his transfer is not possible, he exhibits sharp contrast in his behaviour. He
starts ignoring the directions of Mr. Ravindran and acts as per his own whims, even behaving arrogantly
at times. Did the company fail to foresee Vikrant’s behaviour or was Vikrant not matured enough to
compose himself and conduct in a manner expected of him? Might it be possible the company
misjudged the intensity of the situation and dismissed Vikrant’s request as a routine? Could it be that
the company did not provide the right counselling and guidance when Vikrant was desperate?
 If the transfer was really possible, should the management have gone ahead with agreeing to
Vikrant’s appeal? By failing to do so, has the company turned an asset into a liability for the
organization? On the other hand, if the management had genuine constraints in accepting Vikrant’s
request, could they have come up with alternate offers or solutions to ease the situation on Vikrant?
On-Duty for 6 months or a year? Or perhaps a deputation or special leave granted for a year or two?
Anything that could benefit Vikrant in his current predicament?

Or it could also be that the management did genuinely consider his case but was not in a position
to accede to his request owing to organizational constraints. If so or so not, instead of exhibiting such
lackadaisical behaviour, should not Vikrant be inclined more towards making adjustments in his
personal life and attitude? Rather than being naïve in letting emotions get the better of him, should not
he be more understanding of the circumstance and urge himself to place organizational goals ahead of
his personal constraints?