Executive summary for Right Man wrong Job case by IMDR, Pune students

1. I.M.D.R.Pune
CASES IN ORGANISATION BEHAVIOUR
Group 1
CASE 1: RIGHT MAN WRONG JOB
Submitted To: Prof.Parikshit Mahankal
Institute of Management Development & Research
2015-2017
Submitted By,
Chandrakanth Athukuri (17)
Tejas Chintamani (23)
Pallavi Dudhe (33)
Harshal Gawali (37)
Sagar Kadam (51)
Rahul Pareek (83)
Kunal Poul (93)

2. I.M.D.R.Pune
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The case revolves around Amit Roy, who was recommended by Deewankar Hansa, VP
Catalyst solutions & was appointed as the business head at XANites under Dave Daughty
who was the country head for XANites operations. Also the case explores the various factors
related to the disappointment of Amit roy towards his job & Hansa’s concern towards the
issue regarding this potential & efficient guy. It also shows the Management’s views towards
the same issue.
KEY FACTS:
 Deewankar & Dave both believed that they have hired the best candidate for the
companies needs.
 Amit roy was seen as the key person in any organizations he worked & was foreseen
as the active & energized person by all he worked with.
 It became very critical for Amit roy to network with several heads due to the matrix
structure the company was working with & was also stuck in the web of conflicts.
 Deewankar hansa was concerned for Amit & tried to explore why things were not
turning for him.
 Dave though convinced with Amit’s capabilities, also knew that their organization
didn’t work the way his expectations were.
ASSUMPTIONS:
 The analysis, opinions formed & the theories applied are in the views of the group &
may or may not exactly apply to the case as it is.
ANALYSIS & OPINIONS:
1. There was a major gap in Amit’s expectations & organizations working. The
management was working on the Autocratic model, wherein Amit expected it to be
the supportive one. Even every top management person was seeking for their own
interests keeping the objectives of the company aside.

3. I.M.D.R.Pune
2. Amit’s traits consisted of activeness, energized person, attentive towards
subordinates; he was competent, efficient and optimistic, also enjoyed doing work.
Wherein he could not found any motivating factors like Challenges in the job & even
the recognition for his work done was least bothered by the higher management.
3. Even the matrix structure of the organization & the complex reporting relationships
were major barriers in Amit’s free thinking or executing the operational work.
Rather, the simple functional structure or divisional structure would have served the
purpose more conveniently.
4. The group also believes that Dave lacked at certain fronts to minimize the mismatch
between the management’s working & employees’ expectations which he seems to
be not doing. Dave would have adopted a Win/Win policy for both management &
Amit, by trying to convince management for certain changes for the overall benefit &
try to convince Amit to sustain & be patient with regards his expectations.
5. Also, catalyst solutions failed to recognize & study the right organizational model or
culture wherein the traits of Amit’s leadership would have best fitted in.