These are managerial situations/cases which involve management principles, concepts or

practices, a philosophy of thought or a system of values.

As a would be manager, you are to a) peruse the case, b) define the problem or problems
correctly, c) identify the cause or causes of the problem or problems, d) recommend and justify the
action or actions to be taken, e) specify how the problem or problems could have been avoided, and f)
formulate a policy to be used as a guide in future situations.

*problem
*cause of problem
* recommend and justify recommendations
* how problems could have been avoided
* formulate a policy to be used as a guide in future situations

Case 1: Ph.D. with an Attitude

Our product development laboratory was headed by a nationally acknowledged specialist who
holds an M.S. degree. Over the years through hard work, he has built up the laboratory into a highly
accredited one.

To help him in his work, we hired a young man who holds a Ph.D. degree to be his assistant, and
there was where our problem begins. The young man refused to take orders from his superior whose
academic background was inferior to his.

I have explained to him repeatedly that while his superior does not have a doctorate, he is a
nationally recognized authority in the field and taking instructions from him does not demean his
professional standing. He was unconvinced.

The laboratory war escalated.

Case 2: The Cuckoo

- Exemplary performance but lacking in leadership qualities so he was not promoted
- Let it slip about his mental condition and assumed that it was because of his history of mental
illness that’s why he wasn’t promoted
- The superintendent, upon learning of the history of Alvarado and his failure to disclose it in his
employment record, thinks of whether he should or should not fire Alvarado
** 1st problem with Alvarado is the fact that he reacted violently without knowing all the
pertinent facts about the promotion. He immediately assumed that the basis for his being
sidetracked was because of his history of mental illness.
** Another problem is Alvarado’s withholding of material information from his employer about
his stay in a mental institution. Granted that his mental condition might not be a factor in his
work as a mail sorter, if said information was asked before he was hired, it should have been
disclosed to his employer.
** Alvarado cannot be fired merely because of his mental illness if said condition does not affect
his work. It would be an act of discrimination.
 When Bruno Alvarado III learned that he was not selected for a supervisory position at the post
office, he angrily accosted his superintendent. In a threatening voice, he said, “You didn’t promote me
because you know I spent five years in the National Mental Hospital.”

Alvarado had been employed as mail sorter for 10 years. He had performed satisfactorily.
Others in his group, however, had more seniority and had shown better leadership qualities over the
years. For these reasons, he was sidetracked for the promotion.

The superintendent did not know that Alvarado spent some time in a mental hospital so he
called the Personnel Department to verify the truth about it. Apparently, Alvarado failed to provide
such information in his employment record.

From the grapevine, the superintendent learned that Alvarado has a gun collection and an
extremely violent streak. He has even figured out in two shootouts.

For failing to provide all necessary employment information, the superintendent thought of
firing him. Should he or shouldn’t he?

Case 3: The St. John’s College Case

The following memo was sent to all the 35 faculty members of St. John’s College:

“Our consultant, Wilson and Guzman, Inc., has recommended the use of polygraph test as part
of our faculty development program. I approved the recommendation. The schedule for the test will be
posted on the bulletin board next week. Your cooperation in this regard will be appreciated.”

(Sgd.) The President

Two days later, the college president received the following letter signed by 30 faculty
members:

“We, the undersigned, serve the notice to the president of St. John’s College that we consider
the taking of polygraph test an invasion of our privacy and, refuse to comply with request.”

(Sgd.) 30 Faculty Members