Question Description
Directions: Read the passage given below and then answer the questions given below the passage. Some words may be underlined for your attention.The big fuss about consensus management is an issue that boils down to a lot of noise about not much. The consensus advocates are great admirers of the Japanese management style. Consensus is what Japan is famous for. Well, I know the Japanese fairly well: They still remember Douglas MacArthur with respect, and they still bow down to their Emperor. In my dealings with them, I found that they talk a lot about consensus, but there's always one guy behind the scenes who ends up making the tough decisions. It doesn't make sense to me to think that Mr. Toyoda or Mr. Morita of Sony sits around in committee meetings and says, "We've got to get everybody in this organization, from the janitor up, to agree with this move". The Japanese believe in their workers' involvement early on in the decision-making process and in feedback from employees. And they probably listen better than we do. But you can bet that when the chips are down, the yen stops at the top guy's desk. So, we're wasting time trying to emulate something I don't think really exists.Business structures are microcosms of other structures. There were no corporations in the fifteenth century. But there were families. There were city governments, provinces, and armies. There was the Church. All of them had, for lack of a better word, a pecking order.Why? Because that's the only way you can steer clear of anarchy. Otherwise, you'll have somebody come in one morning and tell you: "Yesterday I got tired of painting red convertibles, so today I switched to all baby-blues on my own". You'll never get anything done right that way.What's to admire about consensus management anyway? By its very nature, it's slow. It can never be daring. There can never be real accountability - or flexibility. About the only plus that I've been able to figure out is that consensus management means consistency of direction and objectives. And so much consistency can become faceless, and that's a problem too. In any event, I don't think it can work in this country. The fun of business for entrepreneurs, big or small, lies in the free enterprise system, not in the greatest agreement by the greatest number.Q. What according to the author is the problem with 'consistency'? a)Too much consistency can become facelessb)Too much consistency can become objectionablec)Too much consistency can become undirectedd)Too much consistency can be more flexiblee)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for Banking Exams 2025 is part of Banking Exams preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Banking Exams exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the passage given below and then answer the questions given below the passage. Some words may be underlined for your attention.The big fuss about consensus management is an issue that boils down to a lot of noise about not much. The consensus advocates are great admirers of the Japanese management style. Consensus is what Japan is famous for. Well, I know the Japanese fairly well: They still remember Douglas MacArthur with respect, and they still bow down to their Emperor. In my dealings with them, I found that they talk a lot about consensus, but there's always one guy behind the scenes who ends up making the tough decisions. It doesn't make sense to me to think that Mr. Toyoda or Mr. Morita of Sony sits around in committee meetings and says, "We've got to get everybody in this organization, from the janitor up, to agree with this move". The Japanese believe in their workers' involvement early on in the decision-making process and in feedback from employees. And they probably listen better than we do. But you can bet that when the chips are down, the yen stops at the top guy's desk. So, we're wasting time trying to emulate something I don't think really exists.Business structures are microcosms of other structures. There were no corporations in the fifteenth century. But there were families. There were city governments, provinces, and armies. There was the Church. All of them had, for lack of a better word, a pecking order.Why? Because that's the only way you can steer clear of anarchy. Otherwise, you'll have somebody come in one morning and tell you: "Yesterday I got tired of painting red convertibles, so today I switched to all baby-blues on my own". You'll never get anything done right that way.What's to admire about consensus management anyway? By its very nature, it's slow. It can never be daring. There can never be real accountability - or flexibility. About the only plus that I've been able to figure out is that consensus management means consistency of direction and objectives. And so much consistency can become faceless, and that's a problem too. In any event, I don't think it can work in this country. The fun of business for entrepreneurs, big or small, lies in the free enterprise system, not in the greatest agreement by the greatest number.Q. What according to the author is the problem with 'consistency'? a)Too much consistency can become facelessb)Too much consistency can become objectionablec)Too much consistency can become undirectedd)Too much consistency can be more flexiblee)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Banking Exams 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the passage given below and then answer the questions given below the passage. Some words may be underlined for your attention.The big fuss about consensus management is an issue that boils down to a lot of noise about not much. The consensus advocates are great admirers of the Japanese management style. Consensus is what Japan is famous for. Well, I know the Japanese fairly well: They still remember Douglas MacArthur with respect, and they still bow down to their Emperor. In my dealings with them, I found that they talk a lot about consensus, but there's always one guy behind the scenes who ends up making the tough decisions. It doesn't make sense to me to think that Mr. Toyoda or Mr. Morita of Sony sits around in committee meetings and says, "We've got to get everybody in this organization, from the janitor up, to agree with this move". The Japanese believe in their workers' involvement early on in the decision-making process and in feedback from employees. And they probably listen better than we do. But you can bet that when the chips are down, the yen stops at the top guy's desk. So, we're wasting time trying to emulate something I don't think really exists.Business structures are microcosms of other structures. There were no corporations in the fifteenth century. But there were families. There were city governments, provinces, and armies. There was the Church. All of them had, for lack of a better word, a pecking order.Why? Because that's the only way you can steer clear of anarchy. Otherwise, you'll have somebody come in one morning and tell you: "Yesterday I got tired of painting red convertibles, so today I switched to all baby-blues on my own". You'll never get anything done right that way.What's to admire about consensus management anyway? By its very nature, it's slow. It can never be daring. There can never be real accountability - or flexibility. About the only plus that I've been able to figure out is that consensus management means consistency of direction and objectives. And so much consistency can become faceless, and that's a problem too. In any event, I don't think it can work in this country. The fun of business for entrepreneurs, big or small, lies in the free enterprise system, not in the greatest agreement by the greatest number.Q. What according to the author is the problem with 'consistency'? a)Too much consistency can become facelessb)Too much consistency can become objectionablec)Too much consistency can become undirectedd)Too much consistency can be more flexiblee)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the passage given below and then answer the questions given below the passage. Some words may be underlined for your attention.The big fuss about consensus management is an issue that boils down to a lot of noise about not much. The consensus advocates are great admirers of the Japanese management style. Consensus is what Japan is famous for. Well, I know the Japanese fairly well: They still remember Douglas MacArthur with respect, and they still bow down to their Emperor. In my dealings with them, I found that they talk a lot about consensus, but there's always one guy behind the scenes who ends up making the tough decisions. It doesn't make sense to me to think that Mr. Toyoda or Mr. Morita of Sony sits around in committee meetings and says, "We've got to get everybody in this organization, from the janitor up, to agree with this move". The Japanese believe in their workers' involvement early on in the decision-making process and in feedback from employees. And they probably listen better than we do. But you can bet that when the chips are down, the yen stops at the top guy's desk. So, we're wasting time trying to emulate something I don't think really exists.Business structures are microcosms of other structures. There were no corporations in the fifteenth century. But there were families. There were city governments, provinces, and armies. There was the Church. All of them had, for lack of a better word, a pecking order.Why? Because that's the only way you can steer clear of anarchy. Otherwise, you'll have somebody come in one morning and tell you: "Yesterday I got tired of painting red convertibles, so today I switched to all baby-blues on my own". You'll never get anything done right that way.What's to admire about consensus management anyway? By its very nature, it's slow. It can never be daring. There can never be real accountability - or flexibility. About the only plus that I've been able to figure out is that consensus management means consistency of direction and objectives. And so much consistency can become faceless, and that's a problem too. In any event, I don't think it can work in this country. The fun of business for entrepreneurs, big or small, lies in the free enterprise system, not in the greatest agreement by the greatest number.Q. What according to the author is the problem with 'consistency'? a)Too much consistency can become facelessb)Too much consistency can become objectionablec)Too much consistency can become undirectedd)Too much consistency can be more flexiblee)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Banking Exams. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Banking Exams Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the passage given below and then answer the questions given below the passage. Some words may be underlined for your attention.The big fuss about consensus management is an issue that boils down to a lot of noise about not much. The consensus advocates are great admirers of the Japanese management style. Consensus is what Japan is famous for. Well, I know the Japanese fairly well: They still remember Douglas MacArthur with respect, and they still bow down to their Emperor. In my dealings with them, I found that they talk a lot about consensus, but there's always one guy behind the scenes who ends up making the tough decisions. It doesn't make sense to me to think that Mr. Toyoda or Mr. Morita of Sony sits around in committee meetings and says, "We've got to get everybody in this organization, from the janitor up, to agree with this move". The Japanese believe in their workers' involvement early on in the decision-making process and in feedback from employees. And they probably listen better than we do. But you can bet that when the chips are down, the yen stops at the top guy's desk. So, we're wasting time trying to emulate something I don't think really exists.Business structures are microcosms of other structures. There were no corporations in the fifteenth century. But there were families. There were city governments, provinces, and armies. There was the Church. All of them had, for lack of a better word, a pecking order.Why? Because that's the only way you can steer clear of anarchy. Otherwise, you'll have somebody come in one morning and tell you: "Yesterday I got tired of painting red convertibles, so today I switched to all baby-blues on my own". You'll never get anything done right that way.What's to admire about consensus management anyway? By its very nature, it's slow. It can never be daring. There can never be real accountability - or flexibility. About the only plus that I've been able to figure out is that consensus management means consistency of direction and objectives. And so much consistency can become faceless, and that's a problem too. In any event, I don't think it can work in this country. The fun of business for entrepreneurs, big or small, lies in the free enterprise system, not in the greatest agreement by the greatest number.Q. What according to the author is the problem with 'consistency'? a)Too much consistency can become facelessb)Too much consistency can become objectionablec)Too much consistency can become undirectedd)Too much consistency can be more flexiblee)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the passage given below and then answer the questions given below the passage. Some words may be underlined for your attention.The big fuss about consensus management is an issue that boils down to a lot of noise about not much. The consensus advocates are great admirers of the Japanese management style. Consensus is what Japan is famous for. Well, I know the Japanese fairly well: They still remember Douglas MacArthur with respect, and they still bow down to their Emperor. In my dealings with them, I found that they talk a lot about consensus, but there's always one guy behind the scenes who ends up making the tough decisions. It doesn't make sense to me to think that Mr. Toyoda or Mr. Morita of Sony sits around in committee meetings and says, "We've got to get everybody in this organization, from the janitor up, to agree with this move". The Japanese believe in their workers' involvement early on in the decision-making process and in feedback from employees. And they probably listen better than we do. But you can bet that when the chips are down, the yen stops at the top guy's desk. So, we're wasting time trying to emulate something I don't think really exists.Business structures are microcosms of other structures. There were no corporations in the fifteenth century. But there were families. There were city governments, provinces, and armies. There was the Church. All of them had, for lack of a better word, a pecking order.Why? Because that's the only way you can steer clear of anarchy. Otherwise, you'll have somebody come in one morning and tell you: "Yesterday I got tired of painting red convertibles, so today I switched to all baby-blues on my own". You'll never get anything done right that way.What's to admire about consensus management anyway? By its very nature, it's slow. It can never be daring. There can never be real accountability - or flexibility. About the only plus that I've been able to figure out is that consensus management means consistency of direction and objectives. And so much consistency can become faceless, and that's a problem too. In any event, I don't think it can work in this country. The fun of business for entrepreneurs, big or small, lies in the free enterprise system, not in the greatest agreement by the greatest number.Q. What according to the author is the problem with 'consistency'? a)Too much consistency can become facelessb)Too much consistency can become objectionablec)Too much consistency can become undirectedd)Too much consistency can be more flexiblee)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the passage given below and then answer the questions given below the passage. Some words may be underlined for your attention.The big fuss about consensus management is an issue that boils down to a lot of noise about not much. The consensus advocates are great admirers of the Japanese management style. Consensus is what Japan is famous for. Well, I know the Japanese fairly well: They still remember Douglas MacArthur with respect, and they still bow down to their Emperor. In my dealings with them, I found that they talk a lot about consensus, but there's always one guy behind the scenes who ends up making the tough decisions. It doesn't make sense to me to think that Mr. Toyoda or Mr. Morita of Sony sits around in committee meetings and says, "We've got to get everybody in this organization, from the janitor up, to agree with this move". The Japanese believe in their workers' involvement early on in the decision-making process and in feedback from employees. And they probably listen better than we do. But you can bet that when the chips are down, the yen stops at the top guy's desk. So, we're wasting time trying to emulate something I don't think really exists.Business structures are microcosms of other structures. There were no corporations in the fifteenth century. But there were families. There were city governments, provinces, and armies. There was the Church. All of them had, for lack of a better word, a pecking order.Why? Because that's the only way you can steer clear of anarchy. Otherwise, you'll have somebody come in one morning and tell you: "Yesterday I got tired of painting red convertibles, so today I switched to all baby-blues on my own". You'll never get anything done right that way.What's to admire about consensus management anyway? By its very nature, it's slow. It can never be daring. There can never be real accountability - or flexibility. About the only plus that I've been able to figure out is that consensus management means consistency of direction and objectives. And so much consistency can become faceless, and that's a problem too. In any event, I don't think it can work in this country. The fun of business for entrepreneurs, big or small, lies in the free enterprise system, not in the greatest agreement by the greatest number.Q. What according to the author is the problem with 'consistency'? a)Too much consistency can become facelessb)Too much consistency can become objectionablec)Too much consistency can become undirectedd)Too much consistency can be more flexiblee)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the passage given below and then answer the questions given below the passage. Some words may be underlined for your attention.The big fuss about consensus management is an issue that boils down to a lot of noise about not much. The consensus advocates are great admirers of the Japanese management style. Consensus is what Japan is famous for. Well, I know the Japanese fairly well: They still remember Douglas MacArthur with respect, and they still bow down to their Emperor. In my dealings with them, I found that they talk a lot about consensus, but there's always one guy behind the scenes who ends up making the tough decisions. It doesn't make sense to me to think that Mr. Toyoda or Mr. Morita of Sony sits around in committee meetings and says, "We've got to get everybody in this organization, from the janitor up, to agree with this move". The Japanese believe in their workers' involvement early on in the decision-making process and in feedback from employees. And they probably listen better than we do. But you can bet that when the chips are down, the yen stops at the top guy's desk. So, we're wasting time trying to emulate something I don't think really exists.Business structures are microcosms of other structures. There were no corporations in the fifteenth century. But there were families. There were city governments, provinces, and armies. There was the Church. All of them had, for lack of a better word, a pecking order.Why? Because that's the only way you can steer clear of anarchy. Otherwise, you'll have somebody come in one morning and tell you: "Yesterday I got tired of painting red convertibles, so today I switched to all baby-blues on my own". You'll never get anything done right that way.What's to admire about consensus management anyway? By its very nature, it's slow. It can never be daring. There can never be real accountability - or flexibility. About the only plus that I've been able to figure out is that consensus management means consistency of direction and objectives. And so much consistency can become faceless, and that's a problem too. In any event, I don't think it can work in this country. The fun of business for entrepreneurs, big or small, lies in the free enterprise system, not in the greatest agreement by the greatest number.Q. What according to the author is the problem with 'consistency'? a)Too much consistency can become facelessb)Too much consistency can become objectionablec)Too much consistency can become undirectedd)Too much consistency can be more flexiblee)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the passage given below and then answer the questions given below the passage. Some words may be underlined for your attention.The big fuss about consensus management is an issue that boils down to a lot of noise about not much. The consensus advocates are great admirers of the Japanese management style. Consensus is what Japan is famous for. Well, I know the Japanese fairly well: They still remember Douglas MacArthur with respect, and they still bow down to their Emperor. In my dealings with them, I found that they talk a lot about consensus, but there's always one guy behind the scenes who ends up making the tough decisions. It doesn't make sense to me to think that Mr. Toyoda or Mr. Morita of Sony sits around in committee meetings and says, "We've got to get everybody in this organization, from the janitor up, to agree with this move". The Japanese believe in their workers' involvement early on in the decision-making process and in feedback from employees. And they probably listen better than we do. But you can bet that when the chips are down, the yen stops at the top guy's desk. So, we're wasting time trying to emulate something I don't think really exists.Business structures are microcosms of other structures. There were no corporations in the fifteenth century. But there were families. There were city governments, provinces, and armies. There was the Church. All of them had, for lack of a better word, a pecking order.Why? Because that's the only way you can steer clear of anarchy. Otherwise, you'll have somebody come in one morning and tell you: "Yesterday I got tired of painting red convertibles, so today I switched to all baby-blues on my own". You'll never get anything done right that way.What's to admire about consensus management anyway? By its very nature, it's slow. It can never be daring. There can never be real accountability - or flexibility. About the only plus that I've been able to figure out is that consensus management means consistency of direction and objectives. And so much consistency can become faceless, and that's a problem too. In any event, I don't think it can work in this country. The fun of business for entrepreneurs, big or small, lies in the free enterprise system, not in the greatest agreement by the greatest number.Q. What according to the author is the problem with 'consistency'? a)Too much consistency can become facelessb)Too much consistency can become objectionablec)Too much consistency can become undirectedd)Too much consistency can be more flexiblee)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Banking Exams tests.