Question

Sayan, a recent MBA graduate with a specialization in sales and marketing, applied for the position of sales manager in a firm producing industrial fabrication tools. The management of the company took pride in its non-discriminatory recruitment policy. In offering Sayan the position, the management made it clear that an indispensable feature of the job involved entertaining purchasing agents, and that a certain amount of social drinking was necessary. Sayan assured them that he was a moderate drinker with no moral or religious prejudices against drinking.

During the following two years Sayan became a successful manager and, on two occasions, received awards for achieving the highest sales for the quarter. However, he found that he was encountering a problem resulting from the necessity of entertaining customers at least two or three times a week. He felt that he was becoming an alcoholic, since he had recently been overindulging even when not entertaining customers. The problem became progressively worse until he found himself in a constantly inebriated condition, unable to work without resorting to drinking at work.

On reporting his problem to the management, Sayan was sent, at company expense, to an alcoholic rehabilitation centre, from which he was discharged after six weeks of rest and recuperation. However, within two months of resuming duties, Sayan was arrested in a local pub and charged with drunkenness and assault. The victim of his assault was a customer whom he had taken to the pub to discuss a sale.

The management viewed the incident extremely negatively and fired Sayan. Shortly thereafter, a lawyer representing Sayan informed the management that Sayan intended to bring legal action against the company. Sayan felt the company was liable since his alcoholism was a result of his employment. He argued that drinking was a requirement of his job, and therefore alcoholism represented an occupational hazard. The management decided to form a committee to discuss the matter and recommend a course of action, one that would prevent a recurrence of such a situation.

Question: From Sayan's perspective, which option allows him to salvage his career prospects?

• A. Make an offer to withdraw the case in return for a job back in the company. Thus the company would be saved from any protracted legal battle in the Indian legal system, and Sayan would be gainfully employed.
• B. Ask for a job in manufacturing, since it does not involve drinking. He had proved his competence while being a sales manager, and he can prove his competence in manufacturing also.
• C. Obtain documentation from the firm that highlights his performance and experience, abstain from legal action against the firm, have a settlement outside the legal system, and take a job in a totally different company.
• D. Obtain certificates from the company that reflect his performance on the job. Ask for help from the management in getting a job in the sister concern of the firm.

Hint:

Weigh which option trades something the company wants (avoiding a lawsuit) for something Sayan is already proven at (his old sales role), versus options that rely on uncertain goodwill or an unproven fit.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Let's weigh what each option actually gets Sayan, not just what it asks for.

1. Option 1 (trade the case for his old job back): Sayan has two quarterly sales awards on record, so this role is where his proven skill lies. Giving up the lawsuit removes the company's main reason to resist, so this deal is realistic and gets him back to steady income fastest.
2. Option 2 (ask for a manufacturing role): his two years of experience are entirely in sales, so this assumes both a spare opening and that his sales skills transfer, neither of which is certain.
3. Option 3 (settle quietly, join a different company): this gives away his legal leverage without lining up a real job first, and any new employer would still have to look past an assault charge with no guarantee of hire.
4. Option 4 (ask for help placing him in a sister concern): this relies on the goodwill of the same management that just fired him for the incident, which is a weak basis for a favour.

Let's summarize:

• Option 1 is the only choice that offers the company something it clearly wants (avoiding a lawsuit) in exchange for something Sayan is already proven at (his old sales role).
• The other three options depend on uncertain goodwill or an unproven fit, with no matching benefit to the company.

So the option that best salvages Sayan's career is option 1.