DEVOX INDIA LIMITED

THE CASE OF A LESS EXEPNSIVE CUSTOMER

Presented By

• G E O R G E G U P TABUSINESS COMMUNICATION

DEVOX INDIA LIMITED

MULTINATIONAL COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE

BUSINESS OF SPORTSWEAR AND SPORTS

OBJECTIVE

Maximizing Profit

POLICY

Don’t Keep Goods From

The Second Lot

Refrain return of sod goods

DEVOX INDIA LIMITED

P . S . – C O L O R O F A C H A R A C T E R S Y M B O L I Z E S T H E M O O D / N A T U R E O F T H E S A M E

CHARACTERSMR. OBEROI (Customer)

MRS. OBEROI (Wife of customer)

RAHUL (Sales Executive Trainee)

MR. KHARE (General Manager )

MR. SHARMA (Store Manager)

SWOTANALYSIS

DEVOX

Strength

• Technologically sound and updated

• Less turnaround time to solve a problem

• Easily accessible (as the representative took the charge of getting back to him)

Weakness

• Very rigid policies which would force customers to wash their hands off the company in the long run

• Lack of check on the management practices prevailing on site

• Inadequate intervention in recruitment policies

• Absence of experienced Human Resource team

• Lackadaisical approach towards the rapport of the firm

• Absence of a good troubleshooter including the senior one’s in pecking order (in this scenario not generally)

DEVOX

Opportunity

• Policies should be in congruence to the customer’sneed in order to build more customers, and generatemore revenue and aid in expansion

• Intervene in recruitment policies, and make sure thatthe person being hired has correct mindset to takecontrol of a unit and to build a smudge free rapport

• Training after hiring should be more focused on

Threat

• Losing customers

• Devalued Rapport

• Less Revenue

• Stagnant Growth

RAHULStrength

• Polite, Calm, Composed, Honest

Weakness

• Ignorance to the customer

• Appropriate gestures utilized inefficiently

• Unprofessional – as he did not address the customer appropriately, (hold the box when customer offered him to have a look at them) and was candid and upfront in an obnoxious/ disagreeable/unpleasant way

• Having a rigid attitude (Grim Look, Steady Voice, Lack of smile on face)

RAHULOpportunity

• Improved body gestures

• He should have taken care of the existing feud and then taken over another

• Lack of intonation in voice, made him look inconsiderate, unprofessional and carefree. Intonation has a great effect on the psychology as it makes one look happy and portrays one to be sensible to understand the situation and lay stress on important things (unconsciously)

• Lack of smile on face (supposedly as it is not mentioned) made the incident look graver and have a pessimistic approach holistically, producing more negated feelings towards the firm from the customers’ perspective and also delivering an unfavorable outcome and experience to the customer

RAHULThreat

• He might have lost the job

• He might have been fined for his disproportionate gestures/ no gesticulation at all (assuming that he had his hands at his back all the time) which unconsciously aggravated the rage in Mr.Oberoi as he comes from an HRD mindset of an MNC with a particular frameset of ideologies and practices that he developed and enforced in himself and the companies he worked with during his career span.

MR. OBEROI

Strength

• Incessant, Resolute – Did not budge from what he professed

• Man of action, Experimental

Weakness

• Casual – Dressed in a very erratic manner, which lead his perception and attitude to be in congruence with the way he carried himself, which eventually turned out to be troublesome

• Negative Attitude – He did not reciprocate with similar attitude when Rahul greeted him upon arrival. He started admonishing the shoe(s) as soon as he arrived

• Aggressive – Turned aggressive within two rebuttals from Rahul

• Dominating – Raised his voice, slammed shoes on the floor

• Egoist and Impatient – When Rahul began introducing him to Mr.Sharma, he promptly identified himself with his name alone and started explaining the concern swiftly

• Bad Memory – Doesn’t even remember where did he keep/whom did he handover, the receipt to

MR. OBEROIOpportunity

• Should have verified whether he had thereceipt, because it would have likely gottenthe shoes returned after a deduction of someamount

• He should have been polite to get his work done

Threat

• Short Temper

• His dominance (due to the feeling of being superior, which can be seen in the way he dresses and approaches to a store) may have gotten him into trouble at this situation

MR. SHARMAStrength

• Effective Communicator – He was able to convey themessage as Rahul did

• Better listener, Calm and Composed– Patiently listened to Mr.Oberoi when he got into a ruffle with Rahul and maintained his calm even when Mr.Oberoi threw shoes on the floor in rage

• Polite – Even after a distasteful/unpleasant/disrespectful act/behavior (throwing shoes on floor), he maintained his calm (even though he felt humiliated) and asked for the receipt in a very courteous tone/manner

• Observer – He observed Mr.Oberoi and Rahul having a disagreement, even after being unaware of the sensitivity of the matter, he sensed that likely his presence would help the problem to come to an end, hence, he approached Rahul willingly, to settle the matter

MR. SHARMA

Weakness

• Lack of decision making ability – He asked for a few minutes albeit, to come up with the best possible resolution, however he still could not decide on his own, and deferred the problem to 2 days (a week eventually due to Mr.Oberoi’s prior commitments)

• Submissive – Gave in, in just one attempt when Mr.Oberoi threw shoes on the floor, and probably, he also thought of returning the shoes as he asked for the receipt.

• Egoist and Unprofessional – When Mr.Sharma went in to the cabin along with Rahul to talk about the final move, instead of accompanying Rahul in returning, out of his hurt ego (when Mr.Oberoi threw shoes) he sent the message through Rahul alone, which was again a humiliating gesture, which however luckily did not bring sny adversity along due to the customer being already occupied a lot with the concern

MR. SHARMAOpportunity

• Adherence – Should have adhered to the policies of thecompany. However, on the contrary, by not adhering tothe policies, he posed to be a threat to Rahul’s image ashe was adamant of shoes not being returnable,whereas Mr.Sharma almost submitted to getting theshoes returned

• Could have been a better decision maker instead of consulting the Headquarter on a trivial/puny matter

Threat

• Being submissive can be a grave concern in bigger matters and threaten the image of the company (in the case of company policies) in the market

• Unprofessional may have had him landed into trouble had the customer not been so occupied already with his own anguish

MR. KHAREStrength

• Bold – Very upfront while responding to the letter

• Tactical – Played tactically keeping in mind the profits for the company

Weakness

• Unsympathetic and Shrewd– Though his resolution showed that he is in thoughts of the profit for the firm, however, it also displayed his insensitivity towards the consumer sentiment and his sole concern for profit. His last statement did show that he is shrewd

Opportunity

• He can decide to replace the shoes (as being in power gives him the authority to make an exception once) to Mr. Oberoi, which would reflect in the goodwill building of Devox

MR. KHARE

Threat

• He is profit oriented and discriminatingdecisions are going to be threatening forDevox as well as for his own career

Mrs. OBEROI

Strength

• With experience purchase of diversifiedcommodities, she knew that the item would notbe returned and had also intimidated Mr.Oberoi

Weakness

• She should have been with Mr.Oberoi when he went into the store to be a psychological support

• Being a female had she said the same thing it would have made more impact on the sales man and Mr.Sharma as well, in return to which the decision may have been taken either sooner or in their favor out of Chivalry

Mrs. OBEROI

Opportunity

• Had she been present at the scenario she would havegauged the forthcoming reaction of Mr.Oberoi andprevented the intimidating gestures (looking hard andthrowing shoes on the floor) which would have againworked in their favor

Threat

• Her ignorance of not being present at the site (inspiteknowing the consequence and the scourge/fallout as well)

• In the end she should not have said “I told you that they would not return the shoes”, having done so, infused the feeling of failure in Mr.Oberoi, which flamed his ego to hold his ground more firm and assure himself in a more challenging way to get the shoe returned, which in turn made him give a stern look to Rahul when his challenged remained unaccomplished

• The problem here persisted due to a differentiatedattitude prevailing in almost all the key characters

• The situation got worse due to rigid policies of the company

• Unconsciously pre-conceived expectations

• Consequences would have been favorable had Mr. Oberoi not behaved pompously

• Having more faith in Mrs. Oberoi’s experience would have prevented the unpleasant experience to Mr. Oberoi

• More receptive behavior, even with the same outlook towards the resolution would have acted to be in favor of the company yet contending the customer

• A better decision maker would have handled the situation in a better way

CASE ANALYSIS

THANK YOU !!

DEVOX INDIA LIMITED