Abstract

This case study follows the journey of Arjun Mishra, a newly promoted assistant manager at NetSol Networks, as he navigates his first leadership assignment. Tasked with training and leading a newly hired team of thirty fresh graduates, Arjun enthusiastically embraces a “friendly” management style in hopes of being a well-liked boss. The case describes how this approach, while fostering initial camaraderie, leads to unintended consequences – lapses in discipline, perceptions of favoritism, and a sudden wave of attrition in his team. As Arjun faces a crisis with one-third of his team quitting within weeks, he must reflect on what went wrong and how to regain trust and stability. The narrative is set against the backdrop of India’s booming networking industry and touches on themes of leadership styles, first-time manager challenges, and the balance between being approachable and being authoritative. The case ends with Arjun at a crossroads, preparing to explain the situation to his own boss and seeking a path forward.

Keywords: First Time Project Manager, Knowledge Workers, Leadership Style, Role- models, Software Industry, Work Culture.

Introduction

Arjun Mishra sat in his cubicle late one evening in September 2024, staring at a list of five names team members who had resigned barely a month after completing their four-week technical training. Only weeks earlier, he had profoundly celebrated the successful completion of the training programme, where he had served as a programme director, fora batch of thirty fresh engineering graduates. Fourteen of them were later assigned to his unit as support engineers. Now, just four weeks into operations, Arjun found himself preparing for a difficult conversation with his boss Tarun, to explain what had gone wrong. This was his first major leadership challenge since being promoted to assistant manager at NetSol Networks and his long held dream of becoming a beloved manager was unfolding far quicker than he could have imagined.

In his late twenties and newly promoted, Arjun had aspired to be the kind of leader who was admired and enjoyed by his team. A star performer in his earlier technical role, he seized the leadership opportunity with enthusiasm, pouring energy into building a warm, family-like team culture. Yet the outcome was the opposite of what he had intended—multiple resignations, disengaged employees, and growing criticism of his management style. As he prepared for the debrief with Tarun the following morning, troubling questions crowded his mind. Had his effort to be the “cool, friendly boss” backfired? Could he have acted differently to prevent the situation? And most urgently, what could he do now to restore stability and trust before matters worsened? These doubts lingered as Arjun reflected on the turbulent first weeks of his managerial career.

NetSol Networks

During the late 2010s, India’s networking industry experienced significant growth. NetSol Networks was a multinational networking equipment and services company. It specialised in designing and supporting network infrastructure – routers, switches, and network software solutions – for clients worldwide, and it had a significant presence in India. At the time of this case, NetSol’s Delhi office was in a phase of rapid expansion. The company had been winning new contracts and investing in growth. Building new teams was a key part of NetSol’s strategy to scale its operations in India.

Tarun Sharma, Arjun’s division manager, was a senior manager overseeing multiple support teams. Tarun was known as a steady, process-driven leader who gave his managers considerable autonomy. When the thirty new graduate engineers were hired in Delhi, Tarun needed someone to train and lead the group from scratch. Instead of assigning a veteran manager, he chose Arjun – one of his top-performing Subject Matter Experts to train and lead the team.

Arjun – The First Time Manager

Arjun’s promotion to Assistant Manager came in July of that year, following a strong track record as an SME. Thrilled by the opportunity, Arjun was excited to excel in his new role. Tarun had informed Arjun that he would have to build a team from scratch. NetSol has recruited a group of 30 fresh engineering graduates. Arjun was given the responsibility to train them for 4 weeks in the technologies and systems being used by NetSol. After the successful completion of the training, about half of them would work with Arjun and the remaining graduates would be allotted to another manager.

Arjun approached this challenge with a mix of excitement and nervousness. He just had one week to design the contents and methodology for delivering the training programme. The programme design included technical fundamentals, product knowledge, company processes, and even some soft skills. He wanted to make the training relevant, valid and an enjoyable experience for the trainees. He aspired to come through as a mentor-cum-caring boss for the trainees. Arjun wanted to create a supportive familial atmosphere for the trainees. He did not want the team to think of him as a strict boss who was feared by the team members.

Arjun’s First Two Bosses at NetSol

Gaurav was the first boss of Arjun at NetSol. He was technically very competent and enjoyed being with team members. He always said the right thing at the right time. He knew when he had to use his authority and when to use compassion to manage his team members. He had a habit of talking to his team members during tea breaks. During these meetings, he would talk very little about projects and deliverables but rather talk about topics like food, travel, movies etc. When the workload was too high, and if Gaurav sensed that his team was exhausted, he would somehow find a way to take his team out for a small party. It was his way of building close relationships with team members. He was also knowledgeable about organisational systems and processes and used it to solve some systemic problems of his team members. A team member of Gaurav’s team did not show up to office for 5 days without any official leave request in system. It would have become a discipline case, but he somehow managed the HR and leadership for not sending him a show cause. There were many more such instances where Gaurav went out of the way and bypassed the system to take care of the needs of his team members. Gaurav believed that listening to team members and solving their problems was a powerful way to build an adhesive team. His team members loved him and were ready to stay back when he needed, and did his grunt work if required. They also proactively provided referrals to attract good talent for the team.

After some time, Arjun had the opportunity to work with another manager, Chinmay who worked for another geography on similar technology. Chinmay was completely different from Gaurav. He believed in limited task related communication with team members and followed the systems and processes as defined by the organisation. He made no exceptions related to project requirements and he did not bend any rules to favour his team members. His policy was simple, “You are in office for 9 hours, I need you to be on top of your work during this time, deliver what is expected of you and go home”. His team members liked him and were happy as Chinmay never asked them to stay back after their shift. Chinmay’s bosses were also happy with him, and he had his promotion three months before Gaurav got promoted.

Arjun had worked as a team member with Gaurav and Chinmay. He was productive and met his project targets working with both. However, when he had to decide about his leadership style, he was reminded of the good time he had with Gaurav; and he decided to follow leadership style of Gaurav.

Initial Few Weeks of Training

From Day 1 of training, Arjun’s approach was informal and upbeat. He asked the trainees to address him by his first name “Arjun” and in fact he objected when they tried to address him as “Sir.” He introduced a few games and icebreakers for the team members. He peppered the training sessions with jokes, encouraged open discussions, and organised a few team-building games on Fridays to keep morale high. The trainees responded with enthusiasm. They found Arjun approachable, and the training environment relaxed. By the end of the first week, the group had started to gel, and Arjun felt proud that he was living up to his ideal of being a “cool boss.”

However, as the weeks progressed, Arjun started noticing behaviour of some trainees as being too cool and casual. Arjun’s emphasis on being nice to team members over discipline led to a gradual erosion of structure and team discipline. The first session of the day, which was scheduled to start at 9,00 a.m., would start at 9:15 or 9:30, as Arjun would wait for everyone to arrive for the start of the session. If trainees did not submit assignments on time, he would extend the deadlines for them. When someone skipped an afternoon class for personal reasons, Arjun would not warn them. He was consciously trying to avoid the image of a “strict teacher” or micromanager.

The immediate effect of this leniency was a comfortable and casual training atmosphere. By the third week, several trainees started taking advantage of the slack. A few began arriving habitually late, knowing there would be no real penalty. Checking phones or engaging in side conversations during lectures had become a common phenomenon. Those who were casual in the class compensated for their casual behaviour by laughing more loudly at Arjun’s friendly jokes. Two bold individuals even snuck out early on occasion, knowing well that Arjun would not pull them.

Trainees such as Jassi who were extrovert and enjoying meeting and being with people, would reach out to Arjun’s desk during breaks and would share talk about his college days and cricket. Arjun enjoyed these chats and gave Jassi a lot of personal attention. Similarly, Neha and Karan often joined Arjun for lunch or walks, and Arjun welcomed their company. Arjun felt that his team members enjoyed his company, and he felt that he had succeeded in helping the trainees to accept him as their friend and a mentor. He believed these bonds would translate into a tight-knit team with high morale.

However, quieter or more serious team members such as Priya and Sameer began to feel a bit left out and even disillusioned with evolving team culture. They observed that certain trainees could get away with delayed completion of work if they were on friendly terms with Arjun. For example, when Karan turned in a project two days late due to an issue at home, Arjun sympathetically replied, “No problem. Try to be in time.” However, when Priya submitted an assignment one day late; Arjun had remarked “Priya, you were a bit late on this one. Let us manage our time better, okay?” Priya had felt that Arjun was unfair to her by calling out her name in front of her colleagues, while others were let off the hook.

On one occasion, Sameer, who was hardworking and punctual came to Arjun with a question during a break. Arjun continued his light-hearted discussion with the others and asked Sameer to wait for few minutes. The break ended and Sameer’s query remained unresolved. Sameer felt that one had to be part of Arjun’s inner circle to get his attention and time. He had shared his experiences with Priya and few others, and they had similar views about Arjun’s behaviour towards the trainees. By the end of Week 3, a subset of the trainees was whispering that Arjun had “favorites” and that his easy-going style with his favorites was creating an uneven playing field within the team.

Arjun was unaware of the undercurrent in his team, and he continued to believe that he was a nice boss to his team members and they all very much liked him. He noticed that a few trainees had become quieter or less engaged, however he did not realise that it was because of his behaviour as a team leader. Tarun, his boss, did a brief check-in at the end of Week 3 with Arjun to ask how training was going. Arjun gave a positive report. He highlighted that “the team is gelling very well” and that he had “a good rapport with them.” Tarun acknowledged that bonding was important, but reminded Arjun that once training was over, performance and meeting targets would be crucial.

Feedback from Priya

During the third week, Arjun noticed Priya lingering as others packed up. She looked troubled. Arjun asked Priya if everything was all right. Priya hesitantly spoke: “I just wanted to say… some of us are feeling uneasy. We feel like you are closer to a few folks in the batch. And that is defining how things are happening in our group.”

Arjun was shocked and surprised. He said, “You mean you feel I’m favoring someone?” Priya nodded, staring at the floor. She said “Some people consistently came late or skipped tasks, and it was overlooked, while others felt singled out for even small lapses.

It might not be intentional,” she added, “but it’s creating a feeling of inequality.”

This conversation was a blow to Arjun’s self-image. He immediately assured Priya that he never meant to play favorites. He explained that Karan’s missed deadline was due to a personal emergency and that Jassi’s rapport with him was just based on common interests. Priya politely acknowledged his explanation but gently said that he should know “how it looks to some of us.” She emphasised that the team did like him as a person, but the perception of bias was harming morale. Arjun thanked Priya sincerely for speaking up, encouraging her to always bring such issues to him. After Priya left, Arjun sat alone, replaying her words in his mind. He felt embarrassed and defensive at first – how could anyone think he was unfair when he had tried so hard to be kind? Soon, though, embarrassment turned into introspection. Arjun realised that in his eagerness to be liked, he had lost a degree of objectivity and authority.

Determined to regain the team’s trust, Arjun thought a positive grand finale to the training programme might help reset the team’s morale. He remembered how his mentor Gaurav used to occasionally take the team out for spontaneous fun as a morale booster. An off-site team party would not only lift spirits but also show that Arjun cared about each team member. Team members felt enthused with the idea of the off-site party and the team wanted the party to be on last Friday afternoon after the assessment reviews of the trainees.

Arjun was both tempted and cautious. He was worried about an off-site party during working hours. A team outing during work hours would need management and HR approval, which could be hard to get on short notice. But the trainees excitedly suggested a nearby club in Connaught Place for lunch and the party. It was argued that once the final training assessment was done, there would not be much left to be done on Friday afternoon. Though Arjun knew it was bending the rule, he agreed to the lunch party during working hours on Friday afternoon. Arjun rationalised that if the whole team had fun together, some of the pain points from the training period would be forgotten. Arjun told the team not to speak about the party plan to anyone within the organisation.

The Party – and Its Fallout

On Friday, by 12:30 PM, the assessments were done (28 out of thirty trainees passed; the two would get additional training later). Arjun and the thirty trainees quietly left the office and headed to the club in small groups to avoid being noticed by others from the organisation. At the venue, a buffet lunch was enjoyed, and soon music and dancing followed. Initially, Arjun hung back, mindful of being the leader of the group, but Jassi and others pulled him to the dance floor. To the delight of the group, Arjun danced along with his team members. He was good at dancing, and he tried the latest Bollywood dance moves amid cheers and laughter.

Some trainees ordered a round of beers and cocktails to celebrate. Arjun noticed this and felt concerned – drinking during office hours was against policy. Arjun stuck to a soft drink to maintain a clear head as a manager in charge of the group. Throughout the event, Arjun made a conscious effort to socialise with every team member. Priya’s feedback about favoritism was fresh in his mind, so he made sure not to just cluster with his usual friends. By all appearances, it seemed that everyone enjoyed the party. Priya was seen smiling and dancing with colleagues, and even the quieter folks were laughing along. Arjun felt relieved, this finally looked like the happy, united team he had imagined.

The party was closed around 4.00 PM. Arjun ensured safe rides home for everyone, and those who had been drinking did not drive. The trainees showered him with thanks: “This was awesome, Arjun – best manager ever!” Arjun could not have felt more proud hearing that. They had pulled off the secret outing, and the team was closer than ever as perceived by Arjun. That evening, as he got home, Arjun felt he had redeemed himself. In their WhatsApp group, selfies from the club and appreciative messages to Arjun flew back and forth. He went to bed thinking that he had solved the morale problem. He was expecting that Monday morning everyone would be energised and ready to work hard together.

Monday did start on a positive note. The fresh graduates were now officially out of “training” and into full-time operations. NetSol split the twenty-eight who passed into two teams of fourteen members. Arjun was given charge of one team of fourteen members, and another new manager was assigned to the other fourteen members. Arjun congratulated fourteen members of his team on completing training and gave a motivational speech about how they should aspire to be the best young team within the organisation. He also broadly defined the work expectations from the team members: they would start handling actual customer support cases gradually, and there were metrics like response time and resolution quality on which they would be measured. Arjun tried to balance a newfound serious tone with his usual friendly approach; He also reminded the team that his door was always open for help. The first couple of days went smoothly – the office environment was lively, and team members still spoke about the party, sharing inside jokes. Arjun felt he had successfully transitioned the team from being trainees to support engineers and he himself had graduated to be a first-time manager.

The honeymoon, however, was short-lived. Within the first two weeks on the job, trouble emerged in a way Arjun did not anticipate: team members started quitting. The first was Sameer – one of the most promising engineers – who resigned abruptly, citing an opportunity to pursue higher studies. Arjun was disappointed but accepted Sameer’s explanation at face value. A few days later, two more team members sent in their resignation emails. One vaguely mentioned a family reason; the other gave no reason at all. Before Arjun could fully process this, two additional people simply stopped coming to work without formal notice. In total, five out of Arjun’s 14 team members left the organisation within the first month of operations. That is over one-third of the team – a shocking attrition rate. It was far above what was normal for new hires at NetSol. Arjun was stunned and devastated.

Arjun tried to understand why. He made some informal calls to those who left, but got polite, non-committal answers. One person mentioned a better job elsewhere; another vaguely alluded to the work environment not meeting expectations but did not go into detail. These responses left Arjun uneasy. Was it something I did? he wondered.

The situation soon grabbed higher management’s attention. NetSol’s HR department conducted standard exit interviews with those who resigned. While such feedback is usually confidential, any alarming trends are escalated to the relevant leaders. Indeed, one day Tarun forwarded Arjun an email from HR that contained excerpts from an exit survey. Tarun’s note was brief: “Arjun, we need to discuss this. Please read the attached feedback and see me tomorrow at 10 AM.” Arjun’s heart pounded as he opened the attachment – it was a departing employee’s written comments. The person had written a candid paragraph explaining reasons for leaving. The letter cited bias and favoritism by the manager, lack of structure and discipline in training, and unprofessional behaviour by the manager (specifically mentioning “organising unofficial activities during work hours”) as reasons for the resignation. (See Exhibit 1 for an excerpt of the feedback.)

HR indicated that multiple exit interviews echoed similar themes, suggesting this was not an isolated perception. Arjun felt ashamed as he realised his mistakes had become a matter of official record. That night, Arjun hardly slept. By morning, Arjun had come to terms with a harsh reality: he had, in effect, mishandled his first leadership test. He kept wondering how he would face his boss at 10.00 a.m. and would explain to him what, how and why things had gone wrong during the four-week training.

Authors’ Note: The case is based on the real-life experiences of one of the case authors. Name of the organisation and characters in the case are camouflaged. The cases are meant to bring organisational reality into the classroom so that the participants can examine and work with the real-life data to enhance their decision-making competencies.

Exhibit 1: Excerpt from an exit interview!

“I felt the team was not managed in a professional way. The manager showed bias/ favoritism towards some team members, which was demotivating. The training lacked structure and discipline. While the manager was friendly, it sometimes made him unapproachable for work-related concerns. Some team members felt that he only listened to a few people. I did not feel confident about my future in the team given these issues. I believe the manager also behaved in an unprofessional manner at times (e.g., organising unofficial activities during work hours).”

References

1. Agrawal, Narendra M. (1991): Innovations in transfer of learning from classroom to work situations. Indian Journal of Training and Development, Vol. XXI (5-6), Sep-Dec. The paper was awarded the Best Paper Award by Indian Society for Training and Development for the Year 1991.

2. Blake, Robert R. and Mouton, Jane S. (1994). The Managerial Grid. Gulf Publishing.

3. Goleman, Daniel (1998): Working with Emotional Intelligence, Bantam

4. Hersey, Paul, Blanchard, Kenneth H. and Johnson, Dewey E. (2007). Management of Organisational Behaviour. United State Edition.

5. Likert, Rensis (1961): New Patterns of Management. McGraw Hill, US.

6. Schwartz, Tony & Catherine, McCarthy (2007): Manage Your Energy, Not Your Time. Harvard Business Review

7. Schön, D. A. (1983). “The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action”. Basic Books.