CASE STUDY
The foreman catches two men fighting on the shop-floor. The fight is between Ramu and Gopi. Ramu had been fooling Gopi for some small matter. Gopi lost his temper and gave Ramu a poke. Ramu hit back. Both of them have had clean records in the past.
QUESTIONS
1. Give a suitable title to the case. 2. What is the core issue in this case? 3. What is the Peculiarity of this case? 4. What are the strategic mistakes did by both Ramu & Gopi? 5. Should both men receive equal punishment? Or Should Gopi be punished more severely for starting the fight or Ramu for provoking it? Why? 6. What is the nature of punishment you will recommend? 7. Will you go for a formal enquiry or settle informally? Why? 8. What are your strategies to prevent aggravation of further tension between RAMU and GOPI? 9. What are the leanings from the case?

Date: 3 March 2015
CASE ANALYSIS BY THE FACULTY (D.Mavoothu,Ph.D.)
(Strictly for SMS Classrooms Only)

Title: ROLE MODELS-TURNED ROGUE MODELS
What is the core issue in this case?
There is a moral Vs. legal dilemma that whether RAMU and GOPI should equally be punished?
Peculiarity of the case? Normally, in any in disciplinary incident, there will be a culprit and a victim. But in this case both RAMU and GOPI were turned out to be culprits.
Strategic Mistake by RAMU? * RAMU should have kept himself as a victim by not hitting back GOPI. RAMU will be in a better position if he maintained his victimship. By hitting back GOPI he made himself also a culprit.
“Retaliation is counter-poison, and poison breeds more poison”
Strategic Mistake by GOPI? * GOPI should have lost his temper, but not to the extent of giving a poke to RAMU. “Just losing temper” and “losing temper and giving a poke” are two different things. GOPI must know his limit.
Why RAMU was Fooling Around GOPI? * May be because of his friendship with Gopi * Taken freedom with Gopi * We do opposite thing to express our love and affection. * May be to fulfill his social needs (Maslow’s Theory – Physiological,Safety,Social,Esteem&SA) * May be he was in a happy mood.

Why GOPI Reciprocated with Violence? * May be to settle score with RAMU for his past misbehavior * May be in a bad mood * Family problem * Work stress * Loss of sleep * Sudden Health problem * Social pressure * May be deprived (at that moment) of basic (Physiological) needs ((Maslow’s Theory)

Should both men receive equal punishment? Should Gopi be punished more severely for starting the fight or Ramu for provoking it? Why? * In one sense RAMU should be punished more because he provoked GOPI and also hit him back. * Quantitatively speaking, RAMU must be punished more, because * He Provoked GOPI * Also, he hit back GOPI * Qualitatively speaking, GOPI must be punished more, because he took the law in his own hand by reciprocating with violence. * From moral point of view RAMU is more guilty, but from legal point of view GOPI is more guilty because he reciprocated with violence. * In another sense, as both have clean past records, it is very difficult to say who should be punished more.
Should law give credit to one’s past records while dealing with non-compliance? No. One’s current non-compliance is more authentic than one’s past good record. What he/she is today is more important than what s/he was.
“In business, you can’t pay dividend out of capital”
Likely Verdict on the question of who has to be punished more [if such situation emerges]
Morally and mathematically, it is RAMU who has to be punished more than GOPI because both have indulged in violence, but RAMU was the instrumental for provocation. [But remember provocation is only a “minor misconduct”] But legally, GOPI has to be punished more than RAMU because he reciprocated with violence that is amounted to a “major misconduct”. I.e. He reciprocated with major misconduct for a minor misconduct. Bible recommends “Equity” in punishment by saying “eye for eye and hand for hand”. There is no equity in GOPI’s behavior. He took the law in his own hand. In a formal judgment as per the rule, violation of law will attract more punishment. This makes GOPI qualified for more punishment.
Follow equity in punishment rather than equality. No punishment is better than equity punishment. Equal punishment demonstrates our inability to distinguish the guilty people on the basis of their respective contribution to the problem. The biggest strength today’s managers should possess is “ability to discriminate the people positively”. Equity in punishment conveys a message that the management is smart enough to analyze and understand the role of each culprit.
Relating the Discipline to Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension “Individualism Vs. Collectivism”
The “Individualism Vs. Collectivism” dimension of Hofstede’s Cultural Analysis says that the rewards (and punishments) are individualized in individualistic culture and grouped in a collective culture. For example, a company where more importance is given for innovation, then the people are highly individualistic. Because only an individualistic thinking brings innovation. So the reward is individual specific. Where as in a team work or collective work culture, the reward is group specific. In this case, RAMU will be punished more if the company has the culture of “Individualism”. RAMU and GOPI will be punished equally if the company has the culture of “Collectivism”.
Will you go for a formal enquiry or settle informally? Why?
Avoid enquiry to avoid demoralization of both RAMU and GOPI. Also, enquiry will make the affair a legal one. But at the same time use this opportunity to tell them that this is a concession done for them just because they are friends and have clean past records.
Whether the management will go for formal enquiry or not depends on the culture of the organization. Hofstede’s cultural dimension analysis says that workplace where low avoidance of uncertainty is there will have flexibility and informality. So, the problem can be solved without formal procedures. But workplace where high avoidance of uncertainty is there will have rigidity and formality. So, the problem will be solved through formal procedures.
Criteria for Deciding the Need for Formal Enquiry / Amount of Punishment [In a + or - 10 point scale] Sl.No. | Criterion | | Remarks | | | (out of 10) | | I. | Duration of the Issue | -2 | Very Short | II. | Frequency of the Issue | -2 | Rare | III. | History of the Culprits | +10 | Past clean records | IV. | Extenuating Factors | +10 | No | V. | Disciplinary Practices | -5 | Not Credible | VI. | Management Backing | -5 | Unreliable | | | | | VII. | Seriousness of Issue | -10 | Very High | VIII. | Implications | -10 | So much | Net Score (Points) | -14 | Tolerable |

A Net Score of -14 (out of the Max. possible score of – 80 or +80) can be tolerated. So, a formal domestic enquiry can be avoided, and the punishment also can be very minimal, say just an oral warning.
A formal enquiry may irrigate their irritation towards each other. It is rubbing salt to the wound.

My (Faculty’s) Personal Option Tradition says that when you are in a dilemma and not in a position to take a logical decision, then pass on the benefit of dilemma to the victims/culprits (potential or actual). I.e. make oral warning and avoid formal enquiry.
What are your strategies to prevent aggravation of further tension between RAMU and GOPI?
“Once a Plumber was taken to Niagara by his friend.
On seeing the Niagara the plumber friend told him that
I can easily fix up this leakage”

Fixing the issue between Ramu and Gopi is rather not easy. But not impossible as well. * Criticize RAMU and GOPI separately, i.e., criticize privately after warning both of them. * One of them can be transferred. * When we judge two persons, we should not brand one person more guilty, and another person less guilty. It will further create mental tensions between them. We should say both are equally responsible for the incident. * Make them to realize that a conflict is not an end of a relationship. Ask them to see the other sides of a conflict also. A great lesson from a conflict is that the same conflict should not be repeated in future. Let them have conflict in future also, but not on the same/similar issue.
“Only robbers and gypsies say that one must never return where one has once been” – SOREN KIERKEGAARD

As Ramu and Gopi, neither they are robbers, nor they are gypsies, they can come back to their original relationship/friendship forgetting the unfortunate incident.
Learning from the Case * When we take disciplinary action, we should see his/her total personality, rather than the specific situation/ one aspect, * A good person does not mean s/he is absence of bad characters and vice-versa. All persons are good; all persons have some bad. Never expect good people always to be good.
“Aristotle’s idea of ordered universe divided the universe into corruptible earthly region and immutable perfect heavenly region”. This supports the view that even the ordered universe itself has both good and bad. For decades we recognized Pluto as a planet. But suddenly the scientists declared that Pluto has lost its planethood. So, it can happen to a good man to on his character. * RAMU & GOPI are role models-turned ROGUE Models. We have to learn to sustain our role model.
Conclusion
Law goes by logic and rigidity, whereas morality may go beyond law. All legal actions are morally bound, but not all moral actions are legally bound. E.g. Gandhiji’s Dandi Yatra. So, Morality is above the Law. Morality is superior to law.
*************
(The analysed case is the IP of D.Mavoothu,PhD.,Associate Professor,SMS,CUSAT,Kochi,India. Dt 3-3-2015. It is for SMS classroom circulations only)
djshdj