Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

CASE STUDIES- SOLUTIONS (Brijendra Singh)

CASE A
1. FACTS
i.
State capital-severe traffic problems; narrow roads, not widened.
ii.
Upcoming session of Legislature- TIME-BOUND.
iii.
Committee: Roundel must be demolished - recco. is not binding.
iv.
Temple atop the roundel- recent + illegal construction.
v.
Possibility of agitations.

2. FUDAMENTAL OBJECTIVE
i.
Resolve traffic problems.
ii.
Maintain public order.

3. PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS
STAKEHOLDER
Distt Magistrate
Chief Minister
Locals (near roundel)
Citizens of City

FAVORABLE
UNFAVORABLE
-Figure of authority
May be
perceived
-Resources
authoritarian
Political
authority
and
influence
Singular focus of authority
-Religious sentiments
-Resistance
Public support
Indifference

4. ASSESSING THE PARAMETERS


i)

Legality : -temple is illegal.


- recco. of committee is to demolish; not binding.
ii) Societal :
- religious sentiments; possibility of agitations.
- identify figure of authority/ leader.
iii) Financial :
- cost & funds for possible relocation of temple.
iv) Administrative :
- authority to punish for encroaching on public land.
- participatory approach - engage with citizens; gather public support.
- alternative location for temple; poor precedent.
- measures to curb illegal constructions.
v) Political :
- support of CM; local politicians- reduce resistance.

as

5. GENERATING ALTERNATIVES
1.

IMMEDIATE
ONGOING

Demolition; public support.


Curb illegal constructions.

2.

SITUATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL

Religious sentiments + resistance


Larger public good; Precedent.

3.

AUTHORITY
PRACTICALITY

Political & Administrative


Participatory approach

6. COURSE OF ACTION

1. Demolish Roundel
2. ORDER those who
made/ are managing it
to demolish/relocate
3. Give incentives for
demolition/relocation

4. Alternate
infrastructure

traffic

ADVANTAGE
Traffic problems ease
Traffic problems ease
+
No agitations
Traffic problems ease
+
No agitations
+
Lowers resistance
Traffic problems ease
+
No agitations

CASE B
1. FACTS
i.
Director- has authority.
ii.
As a Cardiologist- lacks expertise in this matter.
iii.
Allegation, but not ascertained.
iv.
Poor work culture- THREATENING to strike.
v.
Swine-flu epidemic.
vi.
Media- loss of public trust.

2. FUDAMENTAL OBJECTIVE
i.
Ascertain why the tragedy occurred.
ii.
Ensure there is no suspicion of bias.

PROBLEM
Possibility of
agitation
Resistance

Poor precedent
+
Financial burden

Poor precedent
+
Financial burden

3. PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS
STAKEHOLDER
Director
Patients Family
Staff
Doctor
Media

FAVORABLE
Authority

UNFAVORABLE
-Lack of expertise
-Possibility of bias
If convinced, can diffuse the -Trauma of tragedy.
situation.
-Suspect negligence.
-Subordinates.
-Agitating.
-Bound by rules.
-Threatening.
-Subordinate.
Uncertainty w.r.t. his actions.
-Can restrain the staff.
Can be used to share info
-Trial by media.

4. EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE
MERIT
Constitute an inquiry into the -Thorough investigaton
matter & personally head it.
-Personal supervision.

DEMERIT
-Lack of expertise.
-Suspicion of bias.

Suspend the doctor, assure -Prompt action.


reinstatement, using reassurance -Strike can be averted.
to prevent strike.

-Allegations not verified.


-Possibility of strike

For welfare of citys population, -Strike is averted.


refuse to entertain the familys -Immediate public welfare.
allegations but assure them due
diligence was ensured.

-Bias towards doctor.


-Same problem may reoccur.
-Grievance not addressed.

5. GENERATING ALTERNATIVES
1.

IMMEDIATE
ONGOING

-Convince family to accept body for last rites.


- Begin investigation into tragedy.
-Fairness of investigation- experts from outside this hospital.
-Time-bound investigation.

2.

SITUATIONAL

-Delicate situation.
-Needs tactful handling + impartiality.

3.

AUTHORITY
PRACTICALITY

Can suspend doctor.


Allegations not verified.

6. RECCOMENDATIONS

1. Personal Representation

2. Formal Inquiry
(Team of outside experts)
3. Work Culture
(Ongoing)

MERIT
-Chance to admit.
-Prompt resolution.
-No strike.
-Thorough investigation.
-Impartiality.
-Public welfare at first priority.
-Duty over self.

DEMERIT
May
remain
inconclusive.
Time.
Time and Effort.

CASE C
1. FACT: Superiors instructions are questionable; do not have authority over him.
2. OBJECTIVE: Resist, even disobey, this order.
3. STAKEHOLDERS:
i) You/ Superior.
ii) Superiors superior.
iii)State- RBI Ombudsman; Judiciary.
iv) Fiduciary duty towards Citizens & Investors.
4. GENERATE ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE
Personal Negotiation
( Clarification; Reconsider;
Written Undertaking)
Superiors superior
Bank Management

MERIT
-May reconsider.
-May act as formal
guarantor.
-Have auth. over him.
-Can negate the order.

State

-Financial integrity of Time and effort.


bank.
-Fiduciary duty towards
public.

CASE D
1. FACT: Team-mate is wrong; do not have authority over him.
2. OBJECTIVE: Dissuade him.
3. STAKEHOLDERS:
i) You/ This team-mate/ Other team-mates.
ii) Coach- figure of authority.
iii)Governing officials at the meet.
iv) State & National citizens- image & reputation.

DEMERIT
-May not agree.
-May pressurize.
-May be biased.
-May act against me.

4. EVALUATE OBJECTIONS
OBJECTION
If he does not use substance, he will fail to
qualify. But if he does, he may even win
represent the country at an intl. level.
State govts apathy +poor support -athletes are
compelled to use such substances. Had the govt.
provided better training facilities and nutrition,
his performance would have been much better.
The purpose of a competition is to excel, to win.
What is the point of participating if you have to
go back home empty-handed?
Nobody else knows or needs to know about this.
History only remembers the victor, not what
means he used to win.

FLAW/JUSTIFICATION
-Does not deserve to win.
-Unfair to others.
-National image.
-No compulsion.
-Same facilities for everyone.

-Excel over oneself, not just others.


-Hollow victory.
-He & you will always know.
-History always remembers.

5. RECOMMENDATION/ADVICE

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

Purpose is to dissuade him from using the substance.


Personal appeal rational/emotional.
Coalition tactics (other team members).
Pressure tactics- warning, compel.
Authority- Coach; Officials.

CASE E
1. FACTS
i.
Director- has authority.
ii.
Refusal to treat- dereliction of duties.
iii.
Doctor-admits mistake.
- confession can be used to improve work culture.
iv.
Poor work culture
- threatening strike, despite admission of guilt.
- -similar issues may have happened in the past.
v.
Swine-flu epidemic.
vi.
Media- loss of public trust.

2. FUDAMENTAL OBJECTIVE
IMMEDIATE:

1. Enforce accountability.
2. Address insubordination.

ONGOING :

Improve poor work culture.

3. PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS
STAKEHOLDER
FAVORABLE
Director
Authority
Patients Family
-Have complained.
-Can testify.
Staff
-Subordinates.
-Bound by rules.
Doctor
-Subordinate.
-Has admitted guilt.
-Can restrain the staff.
Media
Can be used to share info.
Citizens
Can be asked to identify
deficiencies.

UNFAVORABLE
Trauma of tragedy.
-Unreasonable.
-Insubordination.
Uncertainty w.r.t. his actions.

Trial by media.
-Veracity of claims.
-Limitless complaints.

4. EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE
MERIT
Constitute an inquiry into the -Thorough investigaton
matter & personally head it.
-Personal supervision.

DEMERIT
-Waste of time.
-Delays decision.

Suspend the doctor, assure -Prompt action.


reinstatement, using reassurance -Strike can be averted.
to prevent strike.

-False assurance.

For welfare of citys population, -Strike is averted.


refuse to entertain the familys -Immediate public welfare.
allegations but assure them due
diligence was ensured.

-Bias towards doctor.


-Same problem may reoccur.
-Grievance not addressed.
-Poor work culture.

5. GENERATING ALTERNATIVES
1.

IMMEDIATE

ONGOING

-Penalize doctor- public apology, leave without pay, ACR,


suspension etc.
-Warn staff of similar consequences; Act against mischief
mongers; ESMA.
- Investigate into past complaints.

2.

SITUATIONAL

- Epidemic; need to avert strike

3.

AUTHORITY
PRACTICALITY

-Take immediate decision.


- Doctor may be shown some leniency.
- Staff has to be dealt with sternly.

6. RECCOMENDATIONS/JUSTIFICATIONS
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.

Punish doctor for dereliction of duties.


Stern action against mischief mongers.
Facilitate + Encourage citizens to report malpractices.
Encourage staff to report malpractices.
Strict and swift action against malpractices.

Вам также может понравиться