Question

Amelia is disappointed with the performance of Nicky, Manoj and Benita. She came to know that ABC was not their first choice and they had spent the first ten months applying to other organizations. However, they have now started liking ABC and promised to do their best henceforth. Amelia has to rate their annual performance and decide about their future. She has the following choices:
1. Fire them from ABC for insincerity and save the organization’s time and money.
2. Give them average ratings with a year to prove their worth and fire them from ABC if they fail to show significant progress.
3. Impose a pay-cut of 15% since they have not delivered on the promise, but give them relatively high ratings.
4. Give them relatively poor ratings with one year time to improve and fire them from ABC if they fail to show significant progress.
5. Give them high ratings and give them a second chance to prove their worth.
Which of the following options rank the above choices in the order of MOST APPROPRIATE to LEAST APPROPRIATE?

• A. 1, 2, 4
• B. 2, 1, 4
• C. 4, 2, 5
• D. 4, 3, 1
• E. 5, 2, 3
• A. Henceforth, she should be lenient with the trio.
• B. She should promise the trio an early promotion if they can help her recruit good talent from top B-schools.
• C. Henceforth, she should occasionally invite the trio for dinner and informal outings.
• D. She should tell her boss that it is unfair to link her promotion to the trio’s behaviour.
• J. She should convey the trio’s unhappiness to her boss.
• A. 1 and 5
• B. 2 and 4
• C. 2 and 5
• D. 3 and 4
• O. 3 and 5

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Assess fairness and organizational interest.
The employees were insincere initially, but have now shown willingness to contribute. A balanced approach is required: accountability for the past, but scope for improvement in the future.
Step 2: Evaluate each option.
1. {Immediate firing} (Option 1) — harsh and does not acknowledge their change in attitude. Least appropriate.
2. {Average ratings with a chance to prove} (Option 2) — fair but not fully accounting for past insincerity. Moderately appropriate.
3. {Pay-cut but high ratings} (Option 3) — inconsistent and ethically questionable (salary cut without reflecting poor performance in ratings). Inappropriate.
4. {Poor ratings with chance to improve} (Option 4) — fairer since it penalizes past insincerity but still offers improvement opportunity. Most appropriate.
5. {High ratings with second chance} (Option 5) — too lenient, ignoring past behavior, but still shows positivity. Less appropriate than (2) and (4).
Step 3: Ranking order.
Most to least appropriate: 4 (best balance), 2 (moderate balance), 5 (too lenient).
\[ \boxed{\text{Answer: C (4, 2, 5)}} \]

Answer 2

Step 1 (Understand Amelia’s dilemma).
- Amelia’s promotion may depend on the trio’s perception of the organization.
- The trio is already unhappy and has expressed it to Amelia.
- Her boss is unaware of the full extent of the trio’s dissatisfaction.
Step 2 (Evaluate options).
(A) Being lenient is not a solution—it compromises professionalism and does not address the real issue.
(B) Promising early promotion is unethical and beyond Amelia’s authority.
(C) Inviting them for outings is superficial and does not address structural dissatisfaction.
(D) Confronting her boss about unfairness may sound defensive and does not solve the trio’s unhappiness.
(E) Sharing the trio’s concerns with her boss is proactive, transparent, and constructive. It helps leadership address the root problem, which indirectly protects Amelia’s professional standing.
Step 3 (Conclude).
The best course of action is Option (E): Amelia should escalate the trio’s unhappiness to her boss. This is responsible, professional, and aligned with organizational improvement.
\[ \boxed{\text{Correct Answer: (E) She should convey the trio’s unhappiness to her boss.}} \]

Answer 3

Step 1: Evaluate Nicky’s case.
Nicky is helpful outside the workplace but her performance on the job is disappointing. Since professional evaluations must focus on job performance, her helpfulness outside cannot compensate for poor results. Sending her to training meant for top performers (option 2) is inappropriate. Escalating to higher authorities (option 1) is premature, as Amelia should first handle the issue. The fair approach is option (3) — serve an ultimatum to improve in six months or face termination. This balances firmness with fairness.
Step 2: Evaluate Manoj and Benita’s case.
Both Manoj and Benita are strong performers in their respective jobs. Workplace performance must be recognized and rewarded fairly. Their disinterest in helping outside work should not impact ratings. Option (5) — giving them high ratings based on their actual job performance — is fair and encourages meritocracy. Option (4), giving them average ratings, would be unjust and demotivating.
Step 3: Combine best choices.
Thus, the best combination is:
- For Nicky: (3) Ultimatum to improve.
- For Manoj and Benita: (5) High ratings for strong job performance.
\[ \boxed{\text{Correct Answer: (E) 3 and 5}} \]