As per your instructions in the category. we are subjecting analysis study on the instance “Can a Strong Culture Be Too Strong” . as our official entry towards the group-assignment constituent of the Written Analysis and Communication class. PGP Mumbai. IIM Indore. This study analyses the quandary faced by Indira Pandit. Vice President of HR. while make up one’s minding whether to back new Peoples Support map. This study includes a elaborate analysis of the state of affairs at manus and the different options available. The major standards used for rating are alliance of Peoples Support map with company civilization and its impact on the keeping of the employees. After much analysis our recommendation would be non to back the People Support map. In instance CEO of the company insists on implementing the map. a eventuality program is included proposing the alterations required to be made in People Support map in order to harvest maximal benefits.
Executive sum-up
With Parivar doing a grade above 2nd grade IT companies. Parivar has been looking to implement People Support map in an effort to beef up its employee lovingness civilization. better turnaround rate and to supply best employee patterns in industry. But Operations caput. Kumar has certain concerns sing cost. scalability and direction of Peoples Support map. Therefore Vice President of HR. Indira is in quandary whether to back People Support map. Based on the rating we recommend that Indira should non back Peoples Support map. A eventuality program is provided in the terminal. in instance CEO insists on implementing the map. [ Wordss: 100 ]
Situation AnalysisParivar was turning in its grosss. profitableness and repute. and lifting above 2nd grade IT services companies. But as Parivar grew it was confronted with the challenge of losing its employees at a much faster rate than its employee hiring rate. its turnover rate up to 35 % and more than 100 employee giving notice in recent hebdomads. Parivar had an inclusive work civilization and fostered the doctrine of echt lovingness for its employees by giving attending to both personal and professional affairs of the employees. Indira and her squad along with some employees had come up with an thought of Peoples Support map which was meant to command the employee abrasion and pull new professionals. But the proposal of Peoples Support had been problematic with Indira. Vikram and Kumar debating on. that the household like work environment had no longer been able to retain the employees and it was the wage hiking which had been the motive for the employees to work for a company in IT services sector.
After the issue interview with Amal. in which Amal told that he was alienated from interacting with senior executives. the differences in sentiment of Amal and Amal’s director. and the abrasion Numberss in her manus. Indira was left inquiring with what precisely was true. Further there had been inquiries on the feasibleness of the People Support map as Sudhir and the direction staff discussed the cost of the map. its scalability. rating of the assigned hearers and so on. Sudhir held the position that people everyplace want their company to take attention of them but insisted on hearing an honest sentiment from Indira. Indira on the other manus had her incredulity and was non certain of how the household like civilization of Parivar can be formalized into procedures and functions. Furthermore the employee abrasion Numberss told a different narrative with regard to Parivar’s cultural doctrine. With all these. Indira was left in a quandary of whether Peoples Support map was the solution Parivar was looking for and what to state to Sudhir in the approaching meeting. Problem Statement
Should Indira back People Support map.Options1. Indira should back People Support map.2. Indira should non back Peoples Support map.Standards for Evaluation1. Cost of Function: Cost of implementing People Support to company 2. Scalable: Ease of execution as the company grows3. Employee Retention: Consequence of map on addition in employee keeping 4. Employee Productiveness: Addition in employee productiveness due to implementation 5. Competitive Edge: Consequence of map on company’s competitory border 6. Alliance with Company Culture: Alliance of map with the company civilization 7. Employee Satisfaction: Addition in employee satisfaction due to implementation 8. Talent Attraction: Function of map in pulling endowment
Evaluation of Options1. Option 1: Indira should back People Support mapImplementing People Support will be in a heartfelt way to the company and it will be hard to retroflex the map as company grows in size and across the Earth. Implementing the map will non guarantee employee keeping. productiveness. and satisfaction as employee penchant for supportive civilization and pecuniary benefits is non really apparent. The map will be in perfect alliance with company’s supportive civilization but this will non guarantee a clear competitory border for company. The map will pull new endowment but non to a great extent because of the lower pecuniary compensation. 2. Option 2: Indira should non back Peoples Support map Not implementing the map will hold undermentioned effects:
1. Monetary economy as no extra cost is involved2. Scalability job will non originate3. Move will non be aligned with company civilization4. Employee satisfaction will stay at similar degree5. New endowment attractive force will non happen6. It will non hold any consequence on competitory border of the company. employee productiveness and employee keeping OptionsEvaluation StandardsOption 1Option 2Cost of FunctionHighNothingScalableNoYesEmployee RetentionMay Be–Employee ProductivityMay Be–Competitive EdgeMay Be–Alliance with Company CultureYesNoEmployee SatisfactionMay beNoEndowment AttractionMay beNoRecommendationBased on our analysis we recommend Indira non to back People Support map. Eventuality PlanAs a eventuality program to our recommendation we would suggest “Partial and Informal execution of the People Support idea” . In our execution. alternatively of commiting people support thought in a formal manner dwelling of officially trained “listeners” between the direct studies and the director. We would instead develop the directors themselves to be “listeners” every bit good as develop a more informal civilization in company which will enable the direct studies to make out to the directors with their grudges. This would extinguish the extra bed of people between directors and direct studies which could hold added to the jobs by increasing the communicating spread between the two. Contingency Action Plan
1. Supply preparation to the directors on how to be a good “listener” 2. Develop a contributing informal civilization in the company which makes the directors more accessible by their direct studies 3. Empower the directors so that they can decide the grudges reported to them 4. For the grudges which are NOT-solvable by the directors. develop a channel so that the directors can describe it to the pertinent authorization which would be able to decide it [ Wordss: 983 ]
