All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >   Binaca Corp. hired three fresh graduates Ram... Start Learning for Free
Binaca Corp. hired three fresh graduates Ramesh, Suresh and Mahesh from the top-most engineering colleges in the city. This was a deviation from the previous practice of hiring employees only through referrals and minimum one year of work experiences. These three individuals were placed in a team of 10 where all others had one year of work experience. Since these individuals were from the best college in the city, they got a package which was 20% higher than the rest. Now, one year has been completed and HR manager, Sneha, has to review the performance of this team in conjunction with the team leader, Minakshi.
On a deeper analysis and looking into the situation, Sneha and Meenakshi found that Ramesh and Suresh have generally been found to be open to suggestions and have maintained a cordial relationship with other members of the team. Mahesh, on the other hand, has generally maintained a frosty relationship with the others and clearly believes he possess superior qualification and education. When it comes to performance, Mahesh by far has been the best performer amongst the 3 of them and did contribute to some exceptional ideas in the complete team; whereas Ramesh and Suresh have performed at par with each other. Minakshi and Sneha need to figure out what needs to be done in the given case. They have the following options:
I. Inform their bosses about Mahesh and let them make the call.
II. Tell Mahesh to either improve his attitude or else quit.
III. Ask Ramesh and Suresh to improve their performance or consider other opportunities.
IV. Provide Mahesh with his annual appraisal but provide him mentoring for improving workplace behaviour.
  • a)
    I, II & III
  • b)
    II, III & IV
  • c)
    I & III
  • d)
    III & IV
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your CAT doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
Binaca Corp. hired three fresh graduates Ramesh, Suresh and Mahesh fr...
Statement I: This means Sneha and Minakshi are not doing their job.
Statement II: This makes no sense; you can't let go of your good resource.
Statement III: These two individuals are expected to perform better (because of their background).
Statement IV: This is the obvious correct choice, given that Mahesh did perform well at work, but needs to improve on his behavioral skills at workplace.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Directions: Binaca Corp. hired three fresh graduates Ramesh, Suresh and Mahesh from the top-most engineering colleges in the city. This was a deviation from the previous practice of hiring employees only through referrals and minimum one year of work experiences. These three individuals were placed in a team of 10 where all others had one year of work experience. Since these individuals were from the best college in the city, they got a package which was 20% higher than the rest. Now, one year has been completed and HR manager, Sneha, has to review the performance of this team in conjunction with the team leader, Minakshi.Sneha went through the performance review for the team and realized that Ramesh, Suresh and Mahesh had not even performed at par with the other members of the team. Sneha needs to figure out a plan for these employees with Minakshi. What should she do?I. Fire these three individuals as this is a potential cause for a huge problem in the company.II. Give these individuals an honest feedback and one opportunity to improve in the following quarter.III. Decrease their salary by 20% and place them on the watch-list.

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience.Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.The hypothesis mentioned in the passage tests at least one of the following ideas.

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.There is only one term in the left column which matches with the options given in the second column. Identify the correct pair from the following table

Top Courses for CATView all

Top Courses for CAT

Binaca Corp. hired three fresh graduates Ramesh, Suresh and Mahesh from the top-most engineering colleges in the city. This was a deviation from the previous practice of hiring employees only through referrals and minimum one year of work experiences. These three individuals were placed in a team of 10 where all others had one year of work experience. Since these individuals were from the best college in the city, they got a package which was 20% higher than the rest. Now, one year has been completed and HR manager, Sneha, has to review the performance of this team in conjunction with the team leader, Minakshi.On a deeper analysis and looking into the situation, Sneha and Meenakshi found that Ramesh and Suresh have generally been found to be open to suggestions and have maintained a cordial relationship with other members of the team. Mahesh, on the other hand, has generally maintained a frosty relationship with the others and clearly believes he possess superior qualification and education. When it comes to performance, Mahesh by far has been the best performer amongst the 3 of them and did contribute to some exceptional ideas in the complete team; whereas Ramesh and Suresh have performed at par with each other. Minakshi and Sneha need to figure out what needs to be done in the given case. They have the following options:I. Inform their bosses about Mahesh and let them make the call.II. Tell Mahesh to either improve his attitude or else quit.III. Ask Ramesh and Suresh to improve their performance or consider other opportunities.IV. Provide Mahesh with his annual appraisal but provide him mentoring for improving workplace behaviour.a)I, II & IIIb)II, III & IVc)I & IIId)III & IVCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Binaca Corp. hired three fresh graduates Ramesh, Suresh and Mahesh from the top-most engineering colleges in the city. This was a deviation from the previous practice of hiring employees only through referrals and minimum one year of work experiences. These three individuals were placed in a team of 10 where all others had one year of work experience. Since these individuals were from the best college in the city, they got a package which was 20% higher than the rest. Now, one year has been completed and HR manager, Sneha, has to review the performance of this team in conjunction with the team leader, Minakshi.On a deeper analysis and looking into the situation, Sneha and Meenakshi found that Ramesh and Suresh have generally been found to be open to suggestions and have maintained a cordial relationship with other members of the team. Mahesh, on the other hand, has generally maintained a frosty relationship with the others and clearly believes he possess superior qualification and education. When it comes to performance, Mahesh by far has been the best performer amongst the 3 of them and did contribute to some exceptional ideas in the complete team; whereas Ramesh and Suresh have performed at par with each other. Minakshi and Sneha need to figure out what needs to be done in the given case. They have the following options:I. Inform their bosses about Mahesh and let them make the call.II. Tell Mahesh to either improve his attitude or else quit.III. Ask Ramesh and Suresh to improve their performance or consider other opportunities.IV. Provide Mahesh with his annual appraisal but provide him mentoring for improving workplace behaviour.a)I, II & IIIb)II, III & IVc)I & IIId)III & IVCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Binaca Corp. hired three fresh graduates Ramesh, Suresh and Mahesh from the top-most engineering colleges in the city. This was a deviation from the previous practice of hiring employees only through referrals and minimum one year of work experiences. These three individuals were placed in a team of 10 where all others had one year of work experience. Since these individuals were from the best college in the city, they got a package which was 20% higher than the rest. Now, one year has been completed and HR manager, Sneha, has to review the performance of this team in conjunction with the team leader, Minakshi.On a deeper analysis and looking into the situation, Sneha and Meenakshi found that Ramesh and Suresh have generally been found to be open to suggestions and have maintained a cordial relationship with other members of the team. Mahesh, on the other hand, has generally maintained a frosty relationship with the others and clearly believes he possess superior qualification and education. When it comes to performance, Mahesh by far has been the best performer amongst the 3 of them and did contribute to some exceptional ideas in the complete team; whereas Ramesh and Suresh have performed at par with each other. Minakshi and Sneha need to figure out what needs to be done in the given case. They have the following options:I. Inform their bosses about Mahesh and let them make the call.II. Tell Mahesh to either improve his attitude or else quit.III. Ask Ramesh and Suresh to improve their performance or consider other opportunities.IV. Provide Mahesh with his annual appraisal but provide him mentoring for improving workplace behaviour.a)I, II & IIIb)II, III & IVc)I & IIId)III & IVCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Binaca Corp. hired three fresh graduates Ramesh, Suresh and Mahesh from the top-most engineering colleges in the city. This was a deviation from the previous practice of hiring employees only through referrals and minimum one year of work experiences. These three individuals were placed in a team of 10 where all others had one year of work experience. Since these individuals were from the best college in the city, they got a package which was 20% higher than the rest. Now, one year has been completed and HR manager, Sneha, has to review the performance of this team in conjunction with the team leader, Minakshi.On a deeper analysis and looking into the situation, Sneha and Meenakshi found that Ramesh and Suresh have generally been found to be open to suggestions and have maintained a cordial relationship with other members of the team. Mahesh, on the other hand, has generally maintained a frosty relationship with the others and clearly believes he possess superior qualification and education. When it comes to performance, Mahesh by far has been the best performer amongst the 3 of them and did contribute to some exceptional ideas in the complete team; whereas Ramesh and Suresh have performed at par with each other. Minakshi and Sneha need to figure out what needs to be done in the given case. They have the following options:I. Inform their bosses about Mahesh and let them make the call.II. Tell Mahesh to either improve his attitude or else quit.III. Ask Ramesh and Suresh to improve their performance or consider other opportunities.IV. Provide Mahesh with his annual appraisal but provide him mentoring for improving workplace behaviour.a)I, II & IIIb)II, III & IVc)I & IIId)III & IVCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Binaca Corp. hired three fresh graduates Ramesh, Suresh and Mahesh from the top-most engineering colleges in the city. This was a deviation from the previous practice of hiring employees only through referrals and minimum one year of work experiences. These three individuals were placed in a team of 10 where all others had one year of work experience. Since these individuals were from the best college in the city, they got a package which was 20% higher than the rest. Now, one year has been completed and HR manager, Sneha, has to review the performance of this team in conjunction with the team leader, Minakshi.On a deeper analysis and looking into the situation, Sneha and Meenakshi found that Ramesh and Suresh have generally been found to be open to suggestions and have maintained a cordial relationship with other members of the team. Mahesh, on the other hand, has generally maintained a frosty relationship with the others and clearly believes he possess superior qualification and education. When it comes to performance, Mahesh by far has been the best performer amongst the 3 of them and did contribute to some exceptional ideas in the complete team; whereas Ramesh and Suresh have performed at par with each other. Minakshi and Sneha need to figure out what needs to be done in the given case. They have the following options:I. Inform their bosses about Mahesh and let them make the call.II. Tell Mahesh to either improve his attitude or else quit.III. Ask Ramesh and Suresh to improve their performance or consider other opportunities.IV. Provide Mahesh with his annual appraisal but provide him mentoring for improving workplace behaviour.a)I, II & IIIb)II, III & IVc)I & IIId)III & IVCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Binaca Corp. hired three fresh graduates Ramesh, Suresh and Mahesh from the top-most engineering colleges in the city. This was a deviation from the previous practice of hiring employees only through referrals and minimum one year of work experiences. These three individuals were placed in a team of 10 where all others had one year of work experience. Since these individuals were from the best college in the city, they got a package which was 20% higher than the rest. Now, one year has been completed and HR manager, Sneha, has to review the performance of this team in conjunction with the team leader, Minakshi.On a deeper analysis and looking into the situation, Sneha and Meenakshi found that Ramesh and Suresh have generally been found to be open to suggestions and have maintained a cordial relationship with other members of the team. Mahesh, on the other hand, has generally maintained a frosty relationship with the others and clearly believes he possess superior qualification and education. When it comes to performance, Mahesh by far has been the best performer amongst the 3 of them and did contribute to some exceptional ideas in the complete team; whereas Ramesh and Suresh have performed at par with each other. Minakshi and Sneha need to figure out what needs to be done in the given case. They have the following options:I. Inform their bosses about Mahesh and let them make the call.II. Tell Mahesh to either improve his attitude or else quit.III. Ask Ramesh and Suresh to improve their performance or consider other opportunities.IV. Provide Mahesh with his annual appraisal but provide him mentoring for improving workplace behaviour.a)I, II & IIIb)II, III & IVc)I & IIId)III & IVCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Binaca Corp. hired three fresh graduates Ramesh, Suresh and Mahesh from the top-most engineering colleges in the city. This was a deviation from the previous practice of hiring employees only through referrals and minimum one year of work experiences. These three individuals were placed in a team of 10 where all others had one year of work experience. Since these individuals were from the best college in the city, they got a package which was 20% higher than the rest. Now, one year has been completed and HR manager, Sneha, has to review the performance of this team in conjunction with the team leader, Minakshi.On a deeper analysis and looking into the situation, Sneha and Meenakshi found that Ramesh and Suresh have generally been found to be open to suggestions and have maintained a cordial relationship with other members of the team. Mahesh, on the other hand, has generally maintained a frosty relationship with the others and clearly believes he possess superior qualification and education. When it comes to performance, Mahesh by far has been the best performer amongst the 3 of them and did contribute to some exceptional ideas in the complete team; whereas Ramesh and Suresh have performed at par with each other. Minakshi and Sneha need to figure out what needs to be done in the given case. They have the following options:I. Inform their bosses about Mahesh and let them make the call.II. Tell Mahesh to either improve his attitude or else quit.III. Ask Ramesh and Suresh to improve their performance or consider other opportunities.IV. Provide Mahesh with his annual appraisal but provide him mentoring for improving workplace behaviour.a)I, II & IIIb)II, III & IVc)I & IIId)III & IVCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Binaca Corp. hired three fresh graduates Ramesh, Suresh and Mahesh from the top-most engineering colleges in the city. This was a deviation from the previous practice of hiring employees only through referrals and minimum one year of work experiences. These three individuals were placed in a team of 10 where all others had one year of work experience. Since these individuals were from the best college in the city, they got a package which was 20% higher than the rest. Now, one year has been completed and HR manager, Sneha, has to review the performance of this team in conjunction with the team leader, Minakshi.On a deeper analysis and looking into the situation, Sneha and Meenakshi found that Ramesh and Suresh have generally been found to be open to suggestions and have maintained a cordial relationship with other members of the team. Mahesh, on the other hand, has generally maintained a frosty relationship with the others and clearly believes he possess superior qualification and education. When it comes to performance, Mahesh by far has been the best performer amongst the 3 of them and did contribute to some exceptional ideas in the complete team; whereas Ramesh and Suresh have performed at par with each other. Minakshi and Sneha need to figure out what needs to be done in the given case. They have the following options:I. Inform their bosses about Mahesh and let them make the call.II. Tell Mahesh to either improve his attitude or else quit.III. Ask Ramesh and Suresh to improve their performance or consider other opportunities.IV. Provide Mahesh with his annual appraisal but provide him mentoring for improving workplace behaviour.a)I, II & IIIb)II, III & IVc)I & IIId)III & IVCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Binaca Corp. hired three fresh graduates Ramesh, Suresh and Mahesh from the top-most engineering colleges in the city. This was a deviation from the previous practice of hiring employees only through referrals and minimum one year of work experiences. These three individuals were placed in a team of 10 where all others had one year of work experience. Since these individuals were from the best college in the city, they got a package which was 20% higher than the rest. Now, one year has been completed and HR manager, Sneha, has to review the performance of this team in conjunction with the team leader, Minakshi.On a deeper analysis and looking into the situation, Sneha and Meenakshi found that Ramesh and Suresh have generally been found to be open to suggestions and have maintained a cordial relationship with other members of the team. Mahesh, on the other hand, has generally maintained a frosty relationship with the others and clearly believes he possess superior qualification and education. When it comes to performance, Mahesh by far has been the best performer amongst the 3 of them and did contribute to some exceptional ideas in the complete team; whereas Ramesh and Suresh have performed at par with each other. Minakshi and Sneha need to figure out what needs to be done in the given case. They have the following options:I. Inform their bosses about Mahesh and let them make the call.II. Tell Mahesh to either improve his attitude or else quit.III. Ask Ramesh and Suresh to improve their performance or consider other opportunities.IV. Provide Mahesh with his annual appraisal but provide him mentoring for improving workplace behaviour.a)I, II & IIIb)II, III & IVc)I & IIId)III & IVCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Binaca Corp. hired three fresh graduates Ramesh, Suresh and Mahesh from the top-most engineering colleges in the city. This was a deviation from the previous practice of hiring employees only through referrals and minimum one year of work experiences. These three individuals were placed in a team of 10 where all others had one year of work experience. Since these individuals were from the best college in the city, they got a package which was 20% higher than the rest. Now, one year has been completed and HR manager, Sneha, has to review the performance of this team in conjunction with the team leader, Minakshi.On a deeper analysis and looking into the situation, Sneha and Meenakshi found that Ramesh and Suresh have generally been found to be open to suggestions and have maintained a cordial relationship with other members of the team. Mahesh, on the other hand, has generally maintained a frosty relationship with the others and clearly believes he possess superior qualification and education. When it comes to performance, Mahesh by far has been the best performer amongst the 3 of them and did contribute to some exceptional ideas in the complete team; whereas Ramesh and Suresh have performed at par with each other. Minakshi and Sneha need to figure out what needs to be done in the given case. They have the following options:I. Inform their bosses about Mahesh and let them make the call.II. Tell Mahesh to either improve his attitude or else quit.III. Ask Ramesh and Suresh to improve their performance or consider other opportunities.IV. Provide Mahesh with his annual appraisal but provide him mentoring for improving workplace behaviour.a)I, II & IIIb)II, III & IVc)I & IIId)III & IVCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup