“PRATAP MEHTA CASE STUDY”

WRITTEN ANALYSIS & COMMUNICATION

 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
KL Varnishwalla
Managing Director
Indian Paints Limited,
Nagpur

18th February 1974

Mr. Pratap Mehta

MBA Batch 1972-74
IIM, Ahmedabad

Subject: Answers to the queries

Dear Mr. Mehta,

We value the time and effort you have invested in applying for IP’s interview for our executive
assistant position. Also, we received your letter requesting a briefing on some issues you are
facing while selecting the offer. Unfortunately, we are unable to accept your requirements in
this instance.
Blessings for your future.

Best Regards,
KL Varnishwalla
Indian Paints Limited

1
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IIM Ahmedabad student Pratap Mehta received two job offers, one from Indian Paints (IP) and
the other from Hindustan Synthetics (HS). Then he was invited to IP, Nagpur. After returning
from Nagpur, he wrote a letter regarding his concerns to Mr. Varnishwalla, MD of IP. Further
within the letter, it is clear that he shifted the attention towards his personal pursuits. The
fundamental issue here is that Mr. Varnishwalla had to make a choice regarding Mr. Mehta's
appointment. It can be inferred that Mr. Mehta's candidacy won't be taken into account for the
next step after considering the applicable factors.

(100 words)

2
 CONTENTS

1. Situation Analysis……………………………..4
2. The Problem Statement………………………..5
3. The Options……………………………………6
4. Criteria for Evaluation…………………………7
5. Evaluation of Options………………………..8-9
6. The Recommendation…………………………10
7. Action Plan……………………………………11

3
 SITUATION ANALYSIS
In January 1974 Mr. Pratap Mehta, a student of IIM Ahmedabad got two job offers after having
gone through four placement interviews, one from Indian Paints Limited (IP), Nagpur, and the
other from Hindustan Synthetics (HS), the Indian subsidiary of Universal Synthetics, a
diversified multinational conglomerate that was also a company where he had earlier worked
after his graduation in Chemical Engineering as a junior works engineer. Mr. Jal A Rustomjee,
the Personnel Director of IP, selected Mr. Mehta and four other students in the initial round.
For the next round of interviews, all five students were invited to Nagpur by Mr. KL
Varnishwalla, Managing Director of IP. Out of five, Mr. Varnishwalla made offers to Mr.
Mehta and two others. A few days after returning from Nagpur, Mr. Mehta wrote a letter to
Mr. Varnishwalla regarding his queries and concerns. In the letter, after mentioning the trip in
brief he said that he was excited by the offer given to him by IP. Then he referred to another
offer received by him from his previous employer HS and elaborated on it by giving details
about the position offered, remuneration, etc. He also emphasized on details related to his
career development and personal growth. Providing these many details about another offer
shows that he is trying to negotiate with Mr. Varnishwalla. Thereafter, Mr. Mehta asked many
questions related to long-term goals, strategic management of the company, growth rate,
decision-making mechanisms, and the vision of IP. From this, it could be inferred that Mr.
Mehta didn’t do his research about the company before considering the offer, also he could
have asked many of these questions either in the first round of interviews or during his trip to
Nagpur. Later, he showed that he was eager to meet divisional heads of the company and also
sought clarification about perks and reimbursements. Although initially, he seemed
professional in the letter afterward he turned his focus towards his interests which shows a lack
of professionalism. After reading his views Mr. Varnishwalla is in dilemma whether to consider
Mr. Mehta’s application for further process or not.

4
 THE PROBLEM STATEMENT
The case's most pressing issue is "How Mr. Varnishwalla should reply to Mr. Mehta's inquiries
and what approach should be used to settle this situation.”

5
 THE OPTIONS
Mr. Varnishwalla should thoroughly examine the following options to make the best decision
for his organization:
1. He should answer Mr. Mehta's questions and address his concerns before approving his
application.
2. Mr. Mehta's application should be rejected by him.

6
 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
The following criteria can be considered for better recommendation while analyzing the
situation:
1. Tenor of the letter
2. Efficiency
3. Work ethics
4. Characteristics of Persona

7
 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS
1. Consider the request and hire:

I. Tenor of the letter: From the letter’s tenor it could be derived that Mr. Mehta’s
letter writing skills exhibit a degree of proficiency in communication while also
seeming like a thoughtful individual. He expressed his demands and inquiries
in the manner he desired, demonstrating his ability to put his views on paper.
Having such a person with certain talents will boost the IP's professionalism.
II. Efficiency: It can be deduced from the letter that Mr. Mehta applies logical
thinking techniques before making a choice. He makes decisions after
considering all the possible measures which enhance decision-making. He is a
person with logical views and he would be able to support his plans using his
high degree of reasoning. Not to mention that Mr. Mehta has a good
qualification background and experience, which will allow him to deliver his
skills in those areas.
III. Characteristics of persona: Mr. Mehta does not follow the crowd; instead, he
develops fresh ideas that may contribute to IP's organizational development. He
enjoys putting things in his perspective and making insightful
recommendations. This will be a plus for Mr. Varnishwalla when considering
him for the position since such individuals add dynamism to the organization.

2. Reject the candidature:

I. Tenor of the letter: In the initial part, he sounds professional while proceeding
towards the end of the letter it can be seen that Mr. Mehta’s attitude towards
work has changed slightly. He became more focused on his personal growth i.e.,
money, and other perks. It could be perceived that Mr. Mehta might not work
in IP for long if he gets a better opportunity in terms of pay scale which will
make the company bear the recruitment and training cost again. Also, he was
trying to be too diplomatic when he mentioned all the facilities and
reimbursements he wanted and then stated them as minor considerations, and
many other things he mentioned in the letter state the same.
II. Efficiency: Even after two rounds of interviews Mr. Mehta was unable to
address his issues with Mr. Varnishwalla or Mr. Rustomjee, but he was able to
do so in the letter. As a result, it may be assumed that Mr. Mehta is hesitant or
lacks confidence given that he struggled to connect his thoughts during the

8
 interview. Given that Mr. Mehta was offered a position requiring daily verbal
interaction with people, this may not be beneficial for IP.
III. Work ethics: In the letter, Mr. Mehta asked questions about IP’s decision-
making mechanism and strategic planning before joining the organization. Such
type of data might be confidential and asking for the confidential data indicates
his unprofessionalism.
IV. Characteristics of persona: Mr. Mehta is a self-centered person which can be
observed by several factors like asking many questions about allowances,
subsidies, and entertainment expenses. He is also trying to negotiate while
stating that another offer is better. He is indeed ignorant as he didn’t consider
gathering knowledge about the firm before appearing for the selection process.

9
 THE RECOMMENDATION
On basis of the situation analysis and evaluation of options, Mr. Mehta's application should be
rejected by Mr. Varnishwalla.

10
 ACTION PLAN
1. Mr. Varnishwalla should inform Mr. Rustomjee and his Human Resource team about
the decision he made on Mr. Mehta’s candidature.
2. He should then ask his team to write a Letter of Transmittal to Mr. Mehta stating his
decision.
3. He should also tell his staff to find another candidate for the position.

11