Case study 2
GAMA Ltd., specialized in manufacturing and trading of chemical products, with a
total of five directors and nine heads of departments, with 1,300 employees is
faced with market problems and as a consequence, with financial and human
resources issues. Therefore a total of 300 employees are to be dismissed from all
categories and from all departments. Heads of departments are asked to give the
list of those persons who are going to be dismissed. There are problems with
three departments. 15 workers from the department led by Vlad Popescu must be
fired. Analyzing the situation, he sets layoffs, based on equipment and less
important jobs to the production process, without consulting anyone, as he
actually proceeds in general. The employees complained to the director of
production for their head of department not taking into consideration any
professional training or their family situation. The department headed by Ilie
Ionescu is responsible to dismiss 20 workers. The head of the department calls for,
as in other similar situations, a session in which he explains to workers the reason
of that meeting and asks for solutions. They agreed upon the criteria for selection
and the chief completes the list. Three of the nominees do not agree with the list
and make a complaint to the management. The department headed by Victor
Georgescu should dismiss 12 workers. The head makes a list of people who
created problems over time and tries to convince them through individual talks to
voluntarily register on the list. Four of them refused to sign; Victor sent the list to
top management, not forgetting to mention this fact. Listening to the plaintiffs'
arguments and those of the heads of department, the Board decided to approve
the lists in the form sent by the heads of department. Eventually, everybody
calmed down and got along with the fate.
1. Which of the three heads of department managed the situation in a right
way, in your opinion? Justify your point of view?
In my opinion, Ilie Ionescu managed the situation in the most appropriate
way among the three heads of departments. Unlike Vlad Popescu, Ilie
involved employees in the decision-making process by calling a session to
explain the reasons for dismissals and seeking their input on solutions. This
approach fosters transparency, communication, and a more collaborative
atmosphere. While there were some disagreements and complaints, the
effort to engage employees and allow them a voice in the process is
commendable. Ilie demonstrated a more humane and considerate
approach, taking into account the concerns and perspectives of the affected
workers.
2. What would you have done if you were a member of the board?
If I were a member of the board, I would carefully review the processes and
decisions made by each head of department. While each approach has its
merits and drawbacks, I would prioritize fairness, transparency, and
employee well-being. I might recommend the following actions:
Encourage all heads of departments to adopt a more inclusive approach,
similar to what Ilie Ionescu did, by involving employees in the decisionmaking process.
Address the concerns raised by employees who disagreed with the
dismissal lists, ensuring that the criteria for selection are fair and
transparent.
Emphasize the importance of considering professional training and family
situations when making such significant decisions.
Implement a company-wide communication strategy to ensure that all
employees understand the reasons behind the dismissals and feel heard in
the decision-making process.
Consider alternative solutions to layoffs, such as retraining programs or
temporary measures, to mitigate the impact on employees and maintain a
positive work environment.