Mr.Venkat Raman Joined Southern Fertilizers manufacturing company in January 1987 as a Junior Operator Trainee. The company had five levels from P to P5 within the non-executive category. Raman Joined at the P2 level. After training, he was absorbed in the Ammonium sulfate Shop as a Junior Operator. He rose up to the level of P4 in December 1991 because of his sincere and hard work. All through these years, he kept away from union activities. He never refused or avoided any job. Very often his officers used to ask him to do additional jobs which he did willingly. Gradually Raman became a handyman for all sundry assignments which others might have refused.
Since February 1992, Raman was regularly asked to perform certain duties that were actually to be done by a P5 level operator as th post in the higher grade was vacant. However, as per the company's rules, Raman was not eligible for promotion to a higher grade at that time.
Gradually, Raman started performing all the duties attached to the higher post. At about this time, Raman started taking an interest in union activities. On August 8, 1993, Raman was instructed by his superior to stop one agitator pump and start another one. He was also asked to normalize the operation of the sulfate drier. Later his boss alleged that he did not attend to these jobs and neglected his normal inspection duty as a result of which tar got settled in a tank which was to remain free of tar. On August 12, Raman was instructed to attend to the breakdown of the discharge feeder chain and conveyor. Later his superior alleged that he did not do the job. On both these days, Raman did not fill the section's log book which was a part of his normal duty.
On August 25, a show-cause notice was served on Raman demanding an explanation within 48 hours as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. He replied on August 29, denying the allegations and stating that the management had fabricated the charges. As per the company's rules, he was charge-sheeted on October 18, for
a) Neglect of duty, and
b) Wilful insubordination and disobedience of the lawful and reasonable orders of his superiors.
Raman replied on October 25, denying all the charges and requesting the management to withdraw the charges immediately. Thereafter, an enquiry committee consisting of an officer from the ammonium Nitrate department and an officer from the personnel department was set up to look into the charges. Raman was given an oppurtunity to produce evidence on his behalf and defend himself. The committee held 20 sittings and throughout the proceedings, Raman denied the allegations levelled against him and asserted that his boss was prejudiced against him because of his union activities.
In April 1995, the inquiry committee brought out the following points in the findings.
a) There was a provision in the company for paying acting allowance to those operators who acted in the higher grade temporarily for more than three months. It appeared that Raman had been demanding the acting allowance, but he was not paid due to some procedural problems.
b) It could not be proved beyond doubt that the instructions were given to him and that he did not abide by the instructions given to him on August 8, 1993.
c) On August 8, 1993, Raman deliberately neglected his normal inspection duty resulting in the deposit of tar in the tank. The loss to the company was, however, insignificant.
d) Raman did not attend to the breakdown on August 12, 1993, as instructed by his boss.
e) Raman did not fill the section's log book on August 8 and 12, 1993 as was expected of him.

Question:
Critically explain the change in Raman's behavior. 

What would you have done if you were his immediate boss? 

Do you feel that the recurrence of such cases can be avoided by improving the motivational climate of the organization?

What steps would you initiate as Chief Executive of the company?