1. According to me, Mr. Dilgi is at fault.

First of all, as the work of the group of 7 was indistinguishable and as those 11 employees were belonging to all 4 groups, payment of all 28 people, and not only those specific 11, should have been stopped. Secondly, even if Mr. Dilgi found them lazy and inefficient, a proper reason or evidence for it should have been given, so that the management would have let them convey what actually went wrong. Also, as those 11 employees were organizations long serving employees, everyones working style might not have changed suddenly, so before taking any decisions, Mr. Dilgi should have consulted colleagues about their behavior, before taking a harsh decision against their bread and butter. Also, as that type of action was first time taken in the history of the company, the management should have questioned him about his decision, because of which he could have been asked to make better observations and presented better notes, so as to support his claim. This might have made Mr. Dilgis claim powerful or it might have caused management to discuss the issue with Mr. Dilgi much before. As according to the proverb, Prevention is better than cure, this problem would not have occurred or might have dealt with better clarity. Because of this action, the trust of those employees might have damaged, making them leave the organization or even make other people take decision based on this incidence. Even though, Mr. Dilgi is at fault majorly, even the management is at fault. As management was aware about the past record of those employees, management could have asked for more information regarding the claim of Mr. Dilgi. Before actually raising the issue to the highest level, the validity of the issue should have been

checked. This might have made the management not feel guilty and embarrassment of Mr. Dilgi would have avoided.

2. Although according to the policy of the company, the recommendation of the respective department head only was required to stop increment of the employee, he should have verified his claim with the management before telling them about the decision. He himself being relatively new in the organization was unaware of the past history of those employees. Also as there was no information about why the decision of stopping the increment was taken, made him embarrassed. So he should have talked with the management before taking the final decision. Also, he should have talked with those employees, this would have helped him gather more information about why he called them lazy and inefficient or might have even made him understand real root of the problem of appearing lazy and inefficient. He would have worked with them on their issues and solved them, so as to make them efficient. This would have solved the actual issue as well as would not have made him embarrassed. Another thing he intentionally or unintentionally did was, he didnt stop increment of all 28 employees. As the work of all of them was indistinguishable, everyone in the group of 7 should have been blamed. This caused even management to feel guilty about it and made him feel more embarrassed in front of all of them. He should have talked to the management even about this aspect, because of employees would have blamed management even though they had no hand in the issue other than actually implementing the decision. So according to me, before implementing decision, the management as well as Mr. Dilgi should have spoken with those employees, so as to get better clarity of the actual issue. He also should have spoken directly with the management, so as to take

decision if all of them or only 11 of them should have been punished. This might have avoided his embarrassment, but would have made him as a better department head and a decision maker of everyones well-being.