Question

Read the following caselet and answer the question that follows.

Mr. Rajiv Singhal, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Loha India Ltd. (a steel manufacturing company), had just been visited by several other directors of the company. The directors were upset with the recent actions of the company president, Mr. Ganesh Thakur. They demanded that the board consider firing the president.

Mr. Thakur, recently appointed as president, had undertaken to solve some of the management-employee problems by dealing directly with individuals as often as possible. The company did not have a history of strikes or any other form of collective action and was considered to have a good work culture. However, Mr. Thakur felt that by dealing directly with individuals, he could show the management's concern for the employees. An important step Mr. Thakur took was to negotiate the wages of the supervisors with each supervisor one on one. In these negotiation meetings he did not involve anyone else, including the Personnel Department which reported to him, so that he could take an unbiased decision. After negotiation, a wage contract was drawn up for each supervisor. He felt this would recognise and reward the better performers. Mr. Thakur carried out this process for most of the supervisors, except those working the night shift. For them he drew up the contracts on his own, benchmarking the night shift supervisors' wages against the day shift supervisors' wages.

For several days, Ram Lal, a night shift supervisor, had been trying to get an appointment with Mr. Thakur about his wages. He was upset, not only because he could not see the president, but also because there had been no discussion about his wage contract before it was put into effect. As a family man with six dependents, he felt his weekly wage should be higher than what he had been given.

Last Thursday afternoon, Ram Lal stopped by the president's office and tried to see him. Mr. Thakur's secretary refused his request on the grounds that Mr. Thakur was busy. Angry, Ram Lal walked into the president's office and confronted the startled Mr. Thakur with his demand for a better wage. Mr. Thakur stood up and told Ram Lal to get out of his office and raise his grievance through the official channel. Ram Lal took a swing at the president, who in turn punched Ram Lal on the jaw and knocked him unconscious.

The most important causal factor for this entire episode could be:

• A. Trying to follow a divide-and-rule policy in his dealings with the supervisors.
• B. A paternalistic approach towards mature individuals in the organisation.
• C. A legalistic approach to employee problems.
• D. Inconsistent dealings of Mr. Thakur with the supervisors.

Hint:

Ask which option explains the difference in how day shift and night shift supervisors were treated.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

This question wants the single deepest cause behind the whole chain of events, not a symptom of it. The best way to solve it is to test each option as a story that would explain everything the caselet describes.

1. Divide-and-rule policy: for this to be the cause, Mr. Thakur would need to be intentionally splitting supervisors to control them. The caselet instead shows him wanting to reward good performers through direct talks, a very different goal from divide-and-rule.
2. Paternalistic approach: this would mean treating grown employees like they need to be guided or protected from their own choices. Nothing in the case shows Mr. Thakur overriding employees' choices, his actions are about wage contracts, not personal decisions.
3. Legalistic approach: a legalistic manager leans on formal rules and procedure. Mr. Thakur did the opposite, he cut the Personnel Department out of the loop and negotiated informally, one to one, so this label does not fit him.
4. Inconsistent dealings with supervisors: this fits every piece of the story. Most supervisors got a negotiation. Night shift supervisors, including Ram Lal, got a contract handed to them with no discussion. That gap in treatment is exactly what left Ram Lal feeling ignored, which is what pushed him to force his way into the president's office.

Since only the inconsistency option connects cleanly to every stage of the episode, from the unilateral contract to the final confrontation, it is the strongest causal explanation.

Let's summarize:

• A root-cause option must explain the full sequence of events, not just one incident.
• Rule out options that assign a manager an intent or style the passage never actually shows.

So the entire episode traces back to Mr. Thakur dealing inconsistently with his supervisors.