• Save
Ppt on case study of near misses in singhania textile mills
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Ppt on case study of near misses in singhania textile mills

on

  • 3,843 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,843
Views on SlideShare
3,843
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Ppt on case study of near misses in singhania textile mills Ppt on case study of near misses in singhania textile mills Presentation Transcript

    • BY GROUP NO# 2 PGPM-09-11 Batch ASIAN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT,BHUBANESWAR UNDER THE GUIDENCE OF DR.SASMITA MISHRA
    • SUMMARY
      • SINGHANIA TEXTILE MILLS
      • Mr.Singhania- CEO
      • Mr.Bhwani- General manager (personnel and administration)
      • Mr.Rabindra- Manager (operation)
      • Om choudhury- Supervisor in fire and safety department
      • Location- Surat in Gujarat
      • Functions- Spinning, dyeing, weaving and garment manufacturing
    • The Fire And Safety Department
      • Worst industrial accidents
      • Six supervisors in fire and safety department
      • Typical job description
      • Rumour about Om
      • Reporting
      • Allocation of Supervisor
      • Performance appraisal of supervisors
      • Performance appraisal of Om
    • Q 1. Is the performance appraisal system being used by the organization justified?
      • No
      • It was linked to the reward system (annual bonus)
      • No option for self appraisal or appraisal by multiple appraiser or by subordinates
      • No parameter for giving emphasis to the night workers
      • Appraisal system was not made transparent by the manager. (Rabindra)
      • There is no punishment for deflated evaluation which led to motivation for distortion, (Though Om was maintaining the logbook, it was of no use, as manager did the appraisal on his own.)
    • a. If the same system is used for the line employees , is it justified for line employees?
      • No
      • For Supervisors:
      • Parameter required-
        • target achievement
        • decision making
        • Directing
        • Controlling
      • For workers:
      • Parameter required-
        • Leadership skills
        • Problem solving etc
        • Main focus should be target & behavior of workers
      Should be Different for different department, e.g marketing department is also line but type of job is different.
    • b. Is the system justified for the staff employees?
      • No
      • Efficiency is judged, but not the effectiveness
      • No parameter for Planning & Co-ordinating activities
      • Weightage problem (instead of leadership, safety consciousness should be given more weightage for supervisors)
      • Rather leadership should not be a parameter.
      • (As his only responsibility was to follow the manual.
    • Q.2 Is Om justified in helping the employees in doing a pre-audit so that the employees would correct the problem areas?
      • Yes
      • The audit was negatively used to penalize the worker but not the managers controlling them
      • Informal interaction led to win the trust and build good relation
      • Workers were free to disclose the areas needing corrective action.
      • Necessary actions leads to increased productivity
    • Thank you