Strategic HRM

Assignment I

Case study 1:
Title of the case: A case study describing a conflicting situation between the manager
and the employee due to miscommunication and how the manager handled it efficiently.

Organization: INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS COMPANY

Character with designation:

 Mr. Satish – Deputy Manager

 Mr. George – Vice President
 Mr. Preet – Marketing Director
 Mr. Ketan – Product Manager

Summary of the case:

Case study 1 is about a professional incident in which an employee whom was promoted to head
office was new to his role and within a short time within his role was advised to attend to the
meeting which his boss Mr. Ketan could not attend as he was absent. Within this meeting of product
managers were called to attend. Satish which was the newly promoted employee was scrutinized by
the VP, Mr. George whom Mr. Preet made clear at the introduction of the meeting has new.

During this meeting, Satish was address by Mr. George which practically embarrassed him in the
spot light and made a smart comment to insinuate that Mr. Satish was not current in his reporting.
Needless to say, when the meeting was over Mr. George decided to meet with Satish about his
behavior.

Analysis of the case:

Satish was a Sales Manager for an Industrial Products company and got promoted to the Product
management team. After a week in his new role there was a meeting headed by the VP Mr George
which included all the Product Managers. Satish's new boss (Product Manager Ketan) was not able
to attend due to some other preoccupation. Hence, the Marketing Director, Preet - asked Satish to
attend the meeting as this would give him an exposure into his new role. At the beginning of the
meeting, Preet introduced Satish very briefly to the VP. The meeting started where George got into a
series of questions from him to every Product Manager.

When George started grilling Satish, being new to the product, he was quite confused and fared
miserably. Preet immediately understood that George had possibly failed to remember that Satish
was new to the job. As he was thinking to interrupt George and making him aware of the situation,
George strongly commented on his disappointment from Satish’s lack of knowledge. Satish was
visibly angry at the treatment meted out by George but he also chose to keep mum. After the
meeting George asked Preet to stay back and questioned him whether he was too hard on Satish.
Preet disclosed the original matter to him then. On hearing this, George called perplexed Satish to
his room and apologized for his behaviour. He further stated, “For everybody, time is required for
learning. I will expect you to know all the nuances of your product in three months’ time. Until then
you have my complete confidence" and ended the conversation with a big reassuring handshake

Questions and possible solutions to be analyzed:

1. Was it at all necessary for George to apologise to such a junior employee like Satish?
I agree to the solutions because I certainly do believe it was necessary for George to
apologize to Satish.
The act of an apology shows Satish that he is in an environment where mistakes and wrong
doings are accepted and rectified and a VP whom can accept when he is wrong and rectifies
his mistakes.
2. If you were in Satish's place, how would you to respond to George's apology?
I partially agree to the solution given. If I was Satish, I would have told Mr. George that I
accept his apology. Then would have proceeded to tell Mr. George that look forward to
working hard within this position and today would be the last day that I am unprepared for
any and all future meeting.
3. Was George correct in saying that Satish is there to correct the "stupid mistake" of his boss
and George?
George was very unprofessional for making such comments to Satish because as VP. And the
words “stupid mistakes” doesn’t give a clarity about which mistake Mr. George was talking
about.
4. Would you employ George in your company?
I agree with solution. Because Georges position that he holds can be the result of his hard
work and dedication. I would employ George at my company because of his work ethic and
 his commitment to what he does and would ensure that he receives the proper training and
leadership skills to manage individuals.
5. Did Preet make a mistake by not intervening during the meeting and correct George's
misconception about Satish?
I agree to the solution suggested as I honestly believe that Preet handled the situation with
professionalism and poise. I certainly do believe that if Preet did interrupt Mr. George and
correct him in front of the other Product Manager it would have been a display of disrespect
and disregard for authority. As a result, sending a bad message to Satish and all other person
present.
6. As an HR man, how would you define the character of George - bullying but later
regretting? Does his attitude need to be corrected?
I agree with the solution as an HR man, I would define the character of George to be focused
solely on the product. Yes, I can agree that focus can bring about growth and development
for the benefit of the company however George did not stop for a second and think before
reacting. Causing Satish to be embarrassed and angered by his approach. I do commend
George for recognizing his actions and seeking to make restitution quickly to avoid any
workplace conflict arising. I do not believe that George behaviour was intentional to hurt or
offend Satish but I certainly do agree that it was harsh. George character speaks of one who
is focused on his duties and responsibilities.
7. Would you be happy to have George/Preet as your boss?
I agree with the solution that I would be happy to have Preet as my boss because he
displayed professionalism. I would not disapprove of George as my boss because he did
rectifies his mistake and apologised to Mr. Satish to avoid conflict and misunderstanding
between them.

Conclusion:

This case study a hypothetical situation displaying gap in communication can create
misunderstanding and conflicts in the organizations. These can be omitted based on how
miscommunication and judgements decisions are handled. Here, Mr. George decided to self-reflect
and made an immediate attempt to right his wrong and I do agree that he may need more training
when it concerns his communication, delivery and so forth but his drive is what will produce the
results that the company need.
Case study 2
Title of the case: HR Practitioner vs New Employee

Character with designation:

 Mr. Adam – HR Practitioner

 Mr. Roy – New employee
 Mr. Jean – Adam’s manager
 Mr. Sam – Roy’s buddy

Summary of the case:

The case study 2 revolves around Adam and newly recruited employee Mr. Roy. Adam was an HR
practitioner who was joint before a month and was given the responsibility to orient newly joined
employees. Roy was newly joined and oriented by Adam. After knowing that there is a buddy system
in the organization, Roy asked for a buddy to the HR Mr. Adam. Adam was busy in several things due
to which he forgot to allocate buddy for Roy which started the conflict between Adam and Roy. Roy
was unhappy and expressed it in front of his manager in a feedback session, where Adam had to
apologize for the things done wrong by him. Even after apologizing Roy was still unhappy with the
HR practitioner. Adam gave buddy and also arranged meet with the mentor but as there was delay in
things to happen Roy was unhappy with management skills of Adam.

Analysis of the case:

Case study 2 is about a professional incident in which an Mr. Adam, HR Practitioner whom was in
charge of the orientation program was asked to orientate Mr. Roy, a new employee. Roy was not
able to meet his mentor as his mentor was on leave and so he requested to opt for a buddy under
buddy system to Adam, which he later forgets due to his busy schedule. After a week later, Adam
met Roy and Roy displeasingly asked about his buddy request and Adam apologized and found Mr.
Sam-a buddy for Roy. Even then Roy was unhappy and asked about his meeting session with the
mentor. And Adam explained to Roy that the organization no current practice in place for meet up
sessions to be arranged between mentors and mentees and its a practice for mentees to take self-
initiative to do so in arranging for meetings with their mentors and also that his mentor is currently
out of town and will only be back the next day. The following day, Roy had a feedback session with
his manager. Roy brought up the issue on Adam's failure to get him a buddy promptly and that he
was not introduced to his mentor at all. Adam tried to explain to Roy and his manager about what
happened and also reassured Roy that he will take his suggestions of improving on the system and
was apologetic about the issue. Roy was still very unhappy with Adam and continued telling Adam
off in front of his manager.

Questions and possible solutions to be analyzed:

a) On an HR practitioner point of view, what should Adam do to resolve the issue?

I agree to the solution given as Adam was new to the job; therefore, he himself was in the
process of getting oriented to the job. During the HR briefing, Adam mentioned to Roy that
there is a buddy system in place but it is only on an opt-in basis. Roy requested to opt for a
buddy. Adam was rather surprised by Roy's request as according to Adam's manager-Jean,
no one in the organization has requested for a buddy. However, he did falter by not taking
the buddy request by Roy seriously. This was probably the only mistake that he committed
for which he later apologized. On the very day, a buddy-Sam was found for Roy.

(b) Roy is very unhappy with Adam and holds it against him even though all has been done
and followed up. What should Adam as HR do to resolve this and should Jean, as Adam's
manager do something?
Roy was very angered by Adam's response and told him off that he was very serious in
getting a buddy. Roy complained to Jean, manager of HR. In a feedback session Adam was
called upon to sit in as a part of the orientation programme. Roy brought up the Issue on
Adam's failure to get him a buddy promptly and that he was not introduced to his mentor at
all. He complained about the poor management of the HR mentor and buddy system and
that it was not effective at all and that he expressed that he is very unhappy with Adam as
he felt that he was not doing his job at all.
(c) What role does Roy's manager play in this issue and should he be implicated?
As an HR practitioner, Adam should let Roy know the whole situation and apologies, which
he does. Fair enough, he complained about Adam, think Jean should just warn Adam, as he
is new. Also, Jean should make sure Adam goes through the necessary procedure and knows
them well, lest he should repeat such a mistake.

Conclusion:

This case study is a hypothetical situation displaying a dissatisfaction of a Roy, new employee on
Adam, HR Practitioner and poor management of HR mentor. The solution I would give to this
problem is that Jean, Adam’s manger should warn Adam and Jean should make sure Adam goes
through the necessary procedure and knows them well, lest he should never repeat such a mistake.
And Roy should accept Adam’s apology and move on from this dissatisfaction.