Assignment # 2

Employee Relations and Employment laws in Pakistan

Hadeed Ahmed.

1. What impressions are you forming about Harbor Community Bank? (3 marks)

Ans: A bank that places an emphasize on community and trust as well as relationship building with its
customers, projecting an image of caring. It also seems to have sound financial basis however its lean
organizational culture and staffing practices seems to overwork staff. They have also done well in difficult
times thanks to sticking to their strong and well thought out organizational values.

2. What impressions are you forming about the key characters “Russell, Dwyer, and Scorolli?

Ans: Russel, seems to a consummate professional that takes pride in her work and achievements and seems
quite honest as well. However her drawback seems to that prefers to avoid confrontation.

Dwyer seems to do well at her job despite significant constraints and lack of resources and is a role model
bank manager for the entire organization, however she almost seems to do a little too well, like impossibly
well. She also seems to live beyond her means.

Scorolli might be an ex-felon however his interactions with other people are fine and he has not done
anything wrong. His past shouldn’t be held against him only verifiable information with regards to his actions
with the bank and its employees is to be considered.

3. Should Russell address her concerns with Dwyer and if so, how? (3 marks)

Ans: No, suspicion is not proof more information is required particularly concerning Dwyer’s personal
finances. Yes, there have been some proof regarding dishonesty with how the branch is run however
confronting too soon might let a larger problem get away, specifically Dwyer maybe misappropriating bank
cash and may have manipulated data to make her branch look better.

4. If you were Russell, what would you think about the branch experience you just had? (3 marks)

Ans: Suspicious but further investigation and concrete proof is required to fully be able to go in for a
confrontation.

The presence after hours, time mismanagement, absence of manger against SOPs and regulation, and the
dishonest reporting of how the branch is run should all be reported to higher management as well as a
request for further investigation.
5. Based on the ladder of inference, how have you made you conclusions? (3 marks)

Ans: The ladders steps are:

Observe: Saw empirical facts and data regarding Dwyer and Scoroli behaviors in person. Personally
experienced her branch staff be evasive on being questioned and tapes revealed wrong and dishonest
reporting with respect to following Bank SOPs in how the branch is run.

Select data: Dwyer is the common point in all 3, her boyfriend, her branch, her staff. Hence the focus of my
attention. The boyfriend is irrelevant focus on Dwyer. If he did do anything wrong Dwyer enabled it. The
staffs disregard of SOPs also own Dwyer she probably enabled it. Hence disregard other information and
focus on Dwyer as she seems to be the heart of the problem.

Add context: Possible rich banker dad may explain her expensive buys OR her odd activities and defense
behavior may be linked to possible misappropriation of bank finances, her defensive response shows clearly
she has something that she would like to hide. A little latitude and flexibility in SOPs is to be merely rectified
not punished however in case there is a larger problem more information should be dug up to lay a solid case
against her.

It’s also possible the branch was run more efficiently by disregarding rules and SOPs. However it brings unfair
recognition to her branch as others that followed SOPs are unable to solve genuine staffing shortages as
“Dwyer does it” is used as an excuse to say that’s it’s a management issue not a lack of resource issue. Her
dishonesty might be hampering the organizations ability to recognize and solve a problem.

Assume: Nothing, simply explore all avenues of interest and investigate further. Perhaps what we know can
be used to get further information.

Draw conclusions: Further investigation and a strengthening one’s own case is required before investigation.
To put it simply she should be buried in evidence if she is a party to anything unfair or criminal.

Form beliefs based on conclusions: She may be innocent or she may be very guilty of something big. If there
is to be a confrontation stack the deck in your own favor so that when it does occur winning is already a
foregone conclusion. Multiple points need to bought against Dwyer, bank reporting practices dishonesty is
just one irrefutable piece of evidence require more such points to bury Dwyer. Her finances need to be
investigated.

If nothing more concrete shows up against her simply rebuke her for not following SOPs and ensure stricter
measures for doing so in the future.

Action: Not possible to take any action right now because evidence is not sufficient to conclusively answer
the question of Dwyer’s guilt or innocence. Bide your time and observe, strengthen your hand and case
before making a move, collect more information, investigate further. Report current findings to boss and
leverage it for further investigation.

****