Question

Caselet (Questions 97-100): Om Chowdhury was one of the supervisors in the Fire and Safety (F&S) department of Maqsood Textile Mills. He was a distant cousin of Mr. Bhiwani, the General Manager (Personnel & Administration), and the Personnel and Administration department handled all personnel-related decisions. It was often rumored that Om had gotten the job because of his cousin's influence. Om, however, was careful in his work and never gave anyone a reason to complain. He was known to be a quiet man who kept to himself and his duties.

All F&S supervisors reported to Mr. Rabindra, the shop-floor manager. The mill ran on a three-shift basis, and Rabindra allotted supervisors to the different shifts. Supervisors had to stay present through the whole shift and run scheduled checks on the machinery and firefighting equipment. For some reason, Rabindra kept assigning Om to the night shift more often than the other supervisors. Om never objected to this, while the other supervisors often pleaded with Rabindra to be given day shifts instead. Staying awake and alert through the night shift was one of the hardest parts of the job.

After a while, Rabindra noticed that Om seemed indifferent to his work. Twice he found Om missing from his cabin, and others told him Om had been seen wandering different parts of the shop floor. Rabindra called Om in and reminded him of his responsibilities. Om did not argue and promised not to be careless again. Rabindra also raised the matter with Mr. Bhiwani, who called Om in for a personal talk and reminded him that their family tie made the situation awkward for everyone. Om agreed to improve, and soon he became a model supervisor, even going out of his way to help employees with their problems.

Three months later, Rabindra visited the plant at night and, looking into the F&S office, found Om playing solitaire on the office computer. Rabindra fired Om on the spot.

The next morning, Mr. Bhiwani called Rabindra and asked how he could fire an employee like that, and suggested he reconsider the dismissal. Rabindra replied, "This decision has already been made. There will be no turning back."

Question: The details of the entire episode have become common knowledge among all the employees of the company. Out of the options below, which one presents the best way for the top management to resolve the issue so as to benefit the organization as a whole?

• A. Revoke Rabindra's order. It can be communicated to others that firing was too severe a punishment for such a small incident of indiscipline.
• B. Ask Om for clarification. It can be communicated that since Om had clarified regarding his duties, the order has been taken back.
• C. Declare Rabindra's order as void. Reiterate officially the disciplinary processes that need to be followed by managers along with their scope of authority.
• D. Ask for feedback from other employees on the shop floor regarding Om's performance. This can be used to revoke Rabindra's order.

Hint:

Think about what fixes Om's specific case without weakening every manager's authority to discipline staff.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The whole company now knows about Om's firing, so top management must choose a response that fixes this specific case fairly while also protecting the organization's discipline system going forward.

Step 2: Key Approach:
The best fix should correct the immediate injustice (if Om did nothing wrong) without either humiliating Rabindra in a way that weakens his authority, or letting an unfair firing stand.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Since the previous question established that Rabindra fired Om without checking whether his duties were done, the direct fix is to ask Om himself for his side of the story. If Om's explanation shows his checks were in fact complete, the order can be reversed, and this reversal can be framed publicly as "Om clarified his position," not as management simply overruling Rabindra. This keeps Rabindra's authority intact while fixing the actual error. Option A reverses the order on the blanket claim that firing was "too severe," which weakens every manager's authority to discipline staff in future, a bigger organizational cost than this one case. Option C goes further and voids the order while rewriting the disciplinary process and authority rules company-wide, a much bigger structural response than this single incident calls for. Option D relies on other employees' opinions of Om's general performance, which is indirect and does not confirm what happened on the specific night in question.

Step 4: Final Answer:
Asking Om to clarify, and reversing the order on that basis, fixes the actual problem while keeping the disciplinary process credible.
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]