Question

Caselet (Questions 97-100): Om Chowdhury was one of the supervisors in the Fire and Safety (F&S) department of Maqsood Textile Mills. He was a distant cousin of Mr. Bhiwani, the General Manager (Personnel & Administration), and the Personnel and Administration department handled all personnel-related decisions. It was often rumored that Om had gotten the job because of his cousin's influence. Om, however, was careful in his work and never gave anyone a reason to complain. He was known to be a quiet man who kept to himself and his duties.

All F&S supervisors reported to Mr. Rabindra, the shop-floor manager. The mill ran on a three-shift basis, and Rabindra allotted supervisors to the different shifts. Supervisors had to stay present through the whole shift and run scheduled checks on the machinery and firefighting equipment. For some reason, Rabindra kept assigning Om to the night shift more often than the other supervisors. Om never objected to this, while the other supervisors often pleaded with Rabindra to be given day shifts instead. Staying awake and alert through the night shift was one of the hardest parts of the job.

After a while, Rabindra noticed that Om seemed indifferent to his work. Twice he found Om missing from his cabin, and others told him Om had been seen wandering different parts of the shop floor. Rabindra called Om in and reminded him of his responsibilities. Om did not argue and promised not to be careless again. Rabindra also raised the matter with Mr. Bhiwani, who called Om in for a personal talk and reminded him that their family tie made the situation awkward for everyone. Om agreed to improve, and soon he became a model supervisor, even going out of his way to help employees with their problems.

Three months later, Rabindra visited the plant at night and, looking into the F&S office, found Om playing solitaire on the office computer. Rabindra fired Om on the spot.

The next morning, Mr. Bhiwani called Rabindra and asked how he could fire an employee like that, and suggested he reconsider the dismissal. Rabindra replied, "This decision has already been made. There will be no turning back."

Question: The options below give combinations of a possible root cause of the problem and its justification. Given the details in the case, which one can be inferred to be the best option?

• A. Hiring of Om. Reason: That ensured Om was perpetually casual towards his duties.
• B. Om favouring to work during the night shift. Reason: Absence of Rabindra ensured that Om could relax.
• C. Rabindra's bias against Om. Reason: Rabindra had been assigning too many night shifts to Om while being lenient with other supervisors.
• D. Rabindra jumping to conclusions. Reason: He should have investigated whether Om had carried out his duties.

Hint:

Look for the option where the "reason" genuinely explains the "root cause," not just a fact from the story.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

This question asks which pairing of "root cause" and "reason" best fits the facts of Om's firing. Let's weigh each option against what actually happened.

1. A. Hiring of Om, because it made him casual: the case says the opposite, Om was meticulous and became a model supervisor after his one warning, so "perpetually casual" does not match his record.
2. B. Om favouring night shifts to relax in Rabindra's absence: nothing in the story shows Om asked for night shifts or that Rabindra was ever absent from the plant; this is guesswork with no support in the text.
3. C. Rabindra's bias in shift allocation: this is a real pattern (Om got more night shifts) but it explains scheduling, not why Rabindra fired Om the moment he saw him at the computer.
4. D. Rabindra jumping to conclusions, because he should have checked Om's duties first: this fits cleanly. Rabindra saw one moment of apparent idleness and fired Om instantly, without confirming whether the required safety checks had been done that night.
5. E. The firing causing a clash with Bhiwani: this reverses cause and effect; the clash happened after and because of the firing, so it cannot be the firing's own root cause.

The best fit is D: Rabindra reacted to a single observation without investigating the facts, which is a classic case of jumping to conclusions.

Let's summarize:

• A snapshot of behaviour is not proof of a pattern, especially against three months of good performance.
• A good manager checks the record before punishing based on what he happens to see once.

So the most defensible root cause is option D.