Question

Sayan, a recent MBA graduate with a specialization in sales and marketing, applied for the position of sales manager in a firm producing industrial fabrication tools. The management of the company took pride in its non-discriminatory recruitment policy. In offering Sayan the position, the management made it clear that an indispensable feature of the job involved entertaining purchasing agents, and that a certain amount of social drinking was necessary. Sayan assured them that he was a moderate drinker with no moral or religious prejudices against drinking.

During the following two years Sayan became a successful manager and, on two occasions, received awards for achieving the highest sales for the quarter. However, he found that he was encountering a problem resulting from the necessity of entertaining customers at least two or three times a week. He felt that he was becoming an alcoholic, since he had recently been overindulging even when not entertaining customers. The problem became progressively worse until he found himself in a constantly inebriated condition, unable to work without resorting to drinking at work.

On reporting his problem to the management, Sayan was sent, at company expense, to an alcoholic rehabilitation centre, from which he was discharged after six weeks of rest and recuperation. However, within two months of resuming duties, Sayan was arrested in a local pub and charged with drunkenness and assault. The victim of his assault was a customer whom he had taken to the pub to discuss a sale.

The management viewed the incident extremely negatively and fired Sayan. Shortly thereafter, a lawyer representing Sayan informed the management that Sayan intended to bring legal action against the company. Sayan felt the company was liable since his alcoholism was a result of his employment. He argued that drinking was a requirement of his job, and therefore alcoholism represented an occupational hazard. The management decided to form a committee to discuss the matter and recommend a course of action, one that would prevent a recurrence of such a situation.

Question: Assuming that the management has no constraints in implementing changes in policy, the following possible recommendations can be made confidently about the company's recruitment and selection policy:
A. All that is required to sell the product is to entertain the purchase officers. The company should predominantly hire college graduates, particularly those who know how to interact socially.
B. The firm would be better off hiring sales managers from the market rather than those fresh out of business schools.
C. The firm should have only one sales manager. The sales manager should know the technical details of the product and its pricing, and should have the authority to offer price discounts to clients. At the next level, the firm should have a team of sales representatives responsible for developing contacts and reporting back to the sales manager for follow-up.
D. The firm should have an intense induction period where newly appointed employees are trained in the managerial aspects of the job and given training in social skills, including how to manage drinks.
E. People passing out of MBA colleges without work experience are as good as high school kids. The firm should avoid them at all costs, as they would often end up as a liability to the firm.
The option that makes good business sense and represents the choices for management, in increasing order of alignment with respect to its policy of non-discrimination, is:

• A. A, B, C, E
• B. A, C, B, D
• C. A, E, C, D
• D. A, C, E, D

Hint:

Rank by how much each recommendation filters candidates on a personal trait or background versus improving the process without excluding anyone; D's explicit inclusiveness makes it the most aligned.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
We must arrange four of the five recommendations, A, C, D, and E, from least aligned to most aligned with the firm's stated non-discrimination policy.

Step 2: Key Approach:
Ask of each option: does it filter out candidates based on a personal trait or background at the hiring stage, or does it improve the process without excluding anyone? The more a recommendation excludes people on non-job-related grounds, the lower its alignment.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
A turns "being social" into a near-universal hiring requirement for college graduates, screening out anyone who does not fit that personality mould, regardless of sales ability. This is the broadest personal-trait based filter of the four, so it ranks lowest.
E excludes one defined group, MBA freshers with no experience, on the basis of a job related factor (prior experience), even though the wording is harsh. Because the exclusion is narrower and tied to a job relevant criterion rather than personality, it ranks just above A.
C changes how the sales function is organised, one sales manager plus a team of representatives, and says nothing at all about who should or should not be hired. Since it applies no exclusionary filter, it ranks well above A and E.
D goes further and explicitly commits to training "all sales managers, both experienced and newly appointed," which is openly inclusive language that covers every current and future hire. This makes it the most aligned recommendation of all, so it ranks last (highest alignment).

Step 4: Final Answer:
The increasing order of alignment with the non-discrimination policy is A, E, C, D. This is option 3.