Question

Consider the following solutions to the problem mentioned above:
1. Marathe should transfer Kale to Chennai office
2. Marathe should try and verify the facts from other sources as well
3. Kale should be sacked
4. Kale should be demoted
5. Marathe should suggest Kale to visit a family counselor
Which of the following would be the most appropriate sequence of decisions in terms of immediacy: starting from immediate to a longer term solution?

• A. 2, 1, 5
• B. 1, 4, 2
• C. 2, 3, 4
• D. 2, 5, 1
• E. 2, 5, 4
• A. 1
• B. 2
• C. 3
• D. 4
• J. 5
• A. A Government of India study established that employees with 5-10 years of work experience tend to have conflicting responsibilities at home and office. However, these conflicts wither away after 10 years of experience.
• B. Another article published in the magazine, Xaviers Quarterly, highlighted that employees’ problems at home affect their performance at work
• C. In the latest issue of a reputed journal, Xaviers Business Review, it was published that most top managers find it difficult to work in a group.
• D. It was published in Xaviers Management Review (another reputed journal) that individuals who cannot work in teams find it difficult to adjust to a new location.
• O. Bhonsle was of the opinion that emotionally unstable persons find it difficult to get back to normal working life.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Identify the most immediate and logical first action.
Before taking any action against an employee, a responsible manager must first confirm the claims. Marathe has received reports about Kale's behavior from Bhonsle and Gore. The most critical and immediate step is to investigate and verify these facts. [2] This makes action (2) the clear starting point for any fair process. Actions like transferring, sacking, or demoting without verification would be premature and unprofessional.
Step 2: Determine the appropriate mid-term solution.
Once the facts are verified, the next step is to address the workplace problem. Sacking (3) and demoting (4) are harsh, punitive measures that should be a last resort, especially since Kale is described as "conscientious and dedicated" when working alone. Transferring Kale (1) to a solo researcher role in the Chennai office is a constructive, mid-term solution. It resolves the team conflict in Mumbai while placing Kale in a position that aligns with his strengths.
Step 3: Identify the long-term, supportive solution.
The passage indicates that Kale has significant personal problems (an ailing wife and a difficult family situation), which could be the root cause of his workplace behavior. Addressing this underlying issue is a long-term strategy for employee well-being and rehabilitation. [8] Suggesting a family counselor (5) is a supportive, long-term measure aimed at helping Kale manage his personal stress, which could, in turn, improve his professional conduct.
Step 4: Form the sequence from immediate to long-term.
The logical order of operations is: First, investigate the claims. Second, implement a practical solution to the immediate work environment problem. Third, offer support to address the root cause for long-term improvement. This creates the sequence:
Immediate: (2) Verify the facts.
Mid-Term: (1) Transfer Kale to a suitable role.
Long-Term: (5) Suggest counseling.
This corresponds to the sequence 2, 1, 5.
Therefore: The most appropriate sequence of decisions is 2, 1, 5. \[ \boxed{\text{2, 1, 5}} \]

Answer 2

Step 1: Understand Lakhote's core opinion.
Lakhote's principle is very clear: "the company's responsibility is restricted to the workplace and it should not try to address the personal problems of employees." This establishes a strict boundary between professional and personal spheres.
Step 2: Evaluate each solution against Lakhote's principle.
We need to determine which of the five proposed solutions crosses the line from a workplace issue into a personal one.
Solution 1 (Transfer): This is a managerial decision about job roles and location. It is entirely within the workplace sphere.
Solution 2 (Verify facts): This is a standard procedural step for handling a workplace complaint. It is a core professional responsibility.
Solution 3 (Sack): This is a disciplinary action based on workplace performance and conduct. It is a workplace solution.
Solution 4 (Demote): Similar to sacking, this is a disciplinary action related to job performance. It is a workplace solution.
Solution 5 (Suggest a family counselor): This action directly addresses Kale's known personal issues (ailing wife, family stress). Suggesting counseling is an attempt by the company to intervene in and help solve an employee's personal problems.
Step 3: Identify the solution that is weakened.
Lakhote's opinion directly contradicts the action proposed in solution 5. If Marathe agrees with Lakhote, he would not suggest a family counselor because doing so would mean the company is trying to "address the personal problems of employees." Therefore, adopting Lakhote's opinion weakens the justification for pursuing solution 5.
Therefore: The solution that would be weakened is 5. \[ \boxed{\text{5}} \]

Answer 3

Step 1: Identify the primary reason for potentially sacking Kale.
The core problem leading to the consideration of sacking Kale is his inability to work collaboratively. He "frequently fight[s] with his colleagues," "refuses to work with colleagues, in a team," and is "too authoritative to work under anyone." Therefore, any statement that weakens this core justification will be the answer.
Step 2: Analyze each statement's impact on the decision to sack Kale.
(A) This statement suggests Kale's issues might be temporary, as he has 7 years of experience. This weakens the decision to sack him to some extent, suggesting patience might be a better course. However, it doesn't excuse his current disruptive behavior.
(B) This provides a general explanation for poor performance but doesn't specifically weaken the case for termination. It explains the "why" but doesn't diminish the negative impact on the team, which is the company's main concern.
(C) This statement directly addresses Kale's primary flaw—difficulty working in a group—and reframes it. If "most top managers" share this trait, then it is not necessarily a career-ending flaw but a common characteristic of leaders. This powerfully weakens the argument for sacking him for this specific behavior, as it suggests the company might be firing someone with the traits of a top manager.
(D) This statement argues against transferring Kale, as it predicts he would fail in a new location. By eliminating a viable alternative to sacking, it indirectly *strengthens*, rather than weakens, the case for termination.
(E) This is an opinion suggesting Kale is unlikely to improve. If true, this would strongly *support* the decision to sack him, as it implies the problem is permanent.
Step 3: Compare the weakening arguments.
Statement (A) offers a moderate reason to wait. However, statement (C) is the most powerful weakener because it fundamentally challenges the premise that Kale's behavior is a fireable offense. It normalizes his key weakness and associates it with high-level success, making the decision to sack him for it seem misguided and potentially counterproductive to the company's long-term leadership goals.
Therefore: The statement that most weakens the decision to sack Kale is (C). \[ \boxed{\text{(C)}} \]