The Senior Clerk Who Won't Switch
A private printing press has 18 office staff. The accounts section has used a computerised voucher system for eight months. Mr Deshmukh, a 58-year-old senior clerk with 22 years' service, continues to write vouchers in a register and asks a junior to enter them later. Two juniors have begun keeping 'back-up' notebooks. Month-end reconciliation now takes three days instead of one, and 600 vouchers are awaiting entry. Mr Deshmukh says the software 'lost data once' and that he will retire in two years, so training is 'a waste'. He is respected and knows supplier histories that are not in the system. The manager wants to issue a warning letter and transfer him to the dispatch section. A junior has complained of being scolded for a wrong entry that came from Mr Deshmukh's handwriting.
1. Diagnose the situation. Distinguish between a capability problem, an attitude problem and a system problem, and explain why the distinction matters.
Read the worked answer
The label matters because the remedy differs. Treating a system problem as disobedience, or a skill gap as laziness, will escalate the conflict and may be unfair.
Possible capability problem: Mr Deshmukh may not have been trained properly, may type slowly, or may not understand the voucher fields. His claim that training is a waste could be a face-saving way of hiding difficulty.
Possible attitude problem: He may be resisting loss of status, resenting a system introduced without his involvement, or testing whether the manager will enforce the rule. Asking a junior to enter his vouchers keeps him in control of the register and preserves his seniority.
Possible system problem: The claim that data was 'lost once' must be checked. If backups failed, if the software has no audit trail, or if the supplier master data is incomplete, his distrust is rational. The junior's wrong entry may also show that handwriting-to-screen transfer creates errors.
The juniors' back-up notebooks are a symptom of unclear authority: they are copying his behaviour because he is respected and no one has set a consistent rule.
The manager should investigate before punishing. Evidence needed: training records, the alleged data-loss incident, error logs, and a sample of vouchers. Only then can the manager say whether this is 'cannot do', 'will not do' or 'the system makes it hard to do'. The knowledge in his head is also an asset that a transfer would lose.
2. Design a six-week plan to bring Mr Deshmukh into the computerised system without humiliating him or losing his supplier knowledge.
Read the worked answer
The plan should be firm on the outcome and flexible on the route.
Week 1: conversation and evidence. Meet privately. State the requirement: all vouchers must be entered by the person who prepares them, with no junior scribe. Listen to the data-loss concern and promise to check it. Review the backup and audit trail with the accountant. If a real gap exists, fix it and tell him.
Week 2: supported practice. Assign a patient trainer, not the junior he scolded. He enters 15 to 20 vouchers a day under supervision. Provide a printed field guide and a checklist. Training is on paid time and not treated as a favour.
Week 3: reduced support. He enters a full day's vouchers with a sample check. The trainer is available for questions but does not take the keyboard.
Week 4: knowledge capture. Ask him to help build a supplier master list and a short note on supplier histories. This gives him status as a knowledge source while the entry rule stays in place.
Week 5: independent operation. He works without a scribe. Audit 10 per cent of his entries and give specific feedback.
Week 6: review. Discuss speed, accuracy and any remaining problems. Recognise progress publicly if genuine.
Throughout, document dates, instructions and support given. The aim is to make the required behaviour easy and normal, not to win an argument.
3. Evaluate the manager's proposal to issue a warning letter and transfer Mr Deshmukh to dispatch. What is the fair and defensible course?
Read the worked answer
The proposal is premature and probably not defensible as stated.
A warning letter is a disciplinary step. It requires a clear instruction, a reasonable opportunity to comply, and evidence of wilful refusal. On the facts, there has been no documented counselling, no verified check of the data-loss claim, and no written direction that he must enter his own vouchers. Issuing a warning now would look like punishing a long-serving employee for a system change he was never properly brought into.
A transfer to dispatch can be a legitimate administrative decision, but it must not be disguised punishment. It would also remove the supplier knowledge the office admits it needs, and it may be challenged as vindictive. Two years from retirement, the knowledge-transfer risk is immediate.
The fair course is progressive:
- Hold the week-one meeting and record the outcome.
- Verify the software complaint and fix any real weakness.
- Give training and a written expectation with a review date.
- If he still refuses after that, issue a show-cause notice and follow the company's disciplinary procedure, including a hearing.
- Consider transfer only if a genuine operational need exists, with reasons recorded and without loss of service benefits.
If misconduct is established later, the penalty should be proportionate. The manager should also address the juniors' back-up notebooks: once the rule is clear, keeping parallel records undermines the system and should be stopped.