CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  Directions: Read the passage and answer the f... Start Learning for Free
Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

In an attempt to improve the overall performance of clerical workers, many companies have introduced computerized performance monitoring and control systems that record and report a worker’s computer-driven activities.

However, at least one study has shown that such monitoring may not be having the desired effect. In the study, researchers asked monitored clerical workers and their supervisors how assessments of productivity affected supervisors’ ratings of workers’ performance.

In contrast to unmonitored workers doing the same work, who without exception identified the most important element in their jobs as customer service, the monitored workers and their supervisors all responded that productivity was the critical factor in assigning ratings.

This finding suggested that there should have been a strong correlation between a monitored worker’s productivity and the overall rating the worker received.

However, measures of the relationship between overall rating and individual elements of performance clearly supported the conclusion that supervisors gave considerable weight to criteria such as attendance, accuracy, and indications of customer satisfaction.

It is possible that productivity may be a “hygiene factor,” that is, if it is too low, it will hurt the overall rating. But the evidence suggests that beyond the point at which productivity becomes “good enough,” higher productivity per se is unlikely to improve a rating.
Q. It can be inferred that the author of the passage discusses “unmonitored workers” primarily in order to
  • a)
    Compare the ratings of these workers with the ratings of monitored workers
  • b)
    Provide an example of a case in which monitoring might be effective
  • c)
    Provide evidence of an inappropriate use of CPMCS
  • d)
    Emphasize the effect that CPMCS may have on workers’ perceptions of their jobs
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.In an a...
Explanation:

Unmonitored Workers Comparison:
- The author discusses unmonitored workers to compare their job perceptions with those of monitored workers.
- Unmonitored workers prioritize customer service, while monitored workers focus on productivity.

Effect of Monitoring:
- This comparison highlights the potential impact of monitoring on workers' perceptions of their jobs.
- Monitoring may shift workers' priorities from customer service to productivity.

Inappropriate Use of CPMCS:
- The passage suggests that the use of Computerized Performance Monitoring and Control Systems (CPMCS) may not be having the desired effect.
- The study shows that supervisors place more importance on criteria like attendance, accuracy, and customer satisfaction, rather than just productivity.

Impact on Workers:
- The evidence indicates that high productivity alone may not necessarily lead to a better rating for monitored workers.
- This suggests that the focus on productivity through monitoring may not always align with the criteria that supervisors use to evaluate performance.
In conclusion, the discussion of unmonitored workers serves to emphasize the potential impact of monitoring on workers' perceptions and the possible limitations of relying solely on productivity measures in evaluating performance.
Attention CAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CAT.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.In an attempt to improve the overall performance of clerical workers, many companies have introduced computerized performance monitoring and control systems that record and report a worker’s computer-driven activities. However, at least one study has shown that such monitoring may not be having the desired effect. In the study, researchers asked monitored clerical workers and their supervisors how assessments of productivity affected supervisors’ ratings of workers’ performance. In contrast to unmonitored workers doing the same work, who without exception identified the most important element in their jobs as customer service, the monitored workers and their supervisors all responded that productivity was the critical factor in assigning ratings. This finding suggested that there should have been a strong correlation between a monitored worker’s productivity and the overall rating the worker received. However, measures of the relationship between overall rating and individual elements of performance clearly supported the conclusion that supervisors gave considerable weight to criteria such as attendance, accuracy, and indications of customer satisfaction.It is possible that productivity may be a “hygiene factor,” that is, if it is too low, it will hurt the overall rating. But the evidence suggests that beyond the point at which productivity becomes “good enough,” higher productivity per se is unlikely to improve a rating.Q. According to the passage, before the final results of the study were known, which of the following seemed likely?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.In an attempt to improve the overall performance of clerical workers, many companies have introduced computerized performance monitoring and control systems that record and report a worker’s computer-driven activities. However, at least one study has shown that such monitoring may not be having the desired effect. In the study, researchers asked monitored clerical workers and their supervisors how assessments of productivity affected supervisors’ ratings of workers’ performance. In contrast to unmonitored workers doing the same work, who without exception identified the most important element in their jobs as customer service, the monitored workers and their supervisors all responded that productivity was the critical factor in assigning ratings. This finding suggested that there should have been a strong correlation between a monitored worker’s productivity and the overall rating the worker received. However, measures of the relationship between overall rating and individual elements of performance clearly supported the conclusion that supervisors gave considerable weight to criteria such as attendance, accuracy, and indications of customer satisfaction.It is possible that productivity may be a “hygiene factor,” that is, if it is too low, it will hurt the overall rating. But the evidence suggests that beyond the point at which productivity becomes “good enough,” higher productivity per se is unlikely to improve a rating.Q. According to the passage, a “hygiene factor” is an aspect of a worker’s performance that

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow."Productivity isn't everything, but in the long run it is almost everything," wrote Paul Krugman more than 20 years ago. "A country's ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise output per worker." There is a virtuous cycle between productivity and people: Higher levels of productivity allow society to reinvest in human capital (most obviously, though not exclusively, via higher wages), and smart investments result in higher labour productivity.Unfortunately, this virtuous cycle appears to be broken. Productivity in most developed economies has been anaemic. In the decade between 2005 and 2015, labour productivity in the US as measured by GDP per labour hour was less than 1% for 7 of the 10 years, according to the OECD. And wages are stagnant. US unemployment hit its lowest level in 16 years this past May, yet wage growth has been sluggish compared with similar periods in the past. Of course, low productivity can depress wages, but in recent decades, wages haven't grown as much as expected even during periods of robust economic productivity growth.All of this raises a chicken-or-egg question: Are we suffering from low productivity because we have underinvested in human capital? Or are we unable to invest in human capital because structural factors are permanently reducing productivity?The evidence suggests the former: We could improve productivity if we stopped systematically underinvesting in human capital. The most direct and obvious investment is increased wages. Beyond wages, other forms of investment in human capital include education and training, improved healthcare, and other, less obvious investments, such as the time and space to explore new ideas and professional development opportunities.Higher investment in wages does not need to come at the expense of customers and shareholders. Managed by Q, a cleaning and office services company in New York City, decided to pay employees higher wages than the prevailing market rate. In turn, the company is achieving lower levels of employee and customer churn, and correspondingly lower employee hiring and customer acquisition costs. The compounding and virtuous effects of increasing customer and employee advocacy more than offset the higher cost of wages. At the other end of the size spectrum, Walmart has committed to investing $2.7 billion in its associates through higher wages, better benefits and enhanced training.Our careless treatment of time represents a shocking level of underinvestment in human capital. For knowledge workers, time is incredibly scarce. Our research suggests that, on average, managers have fewer than seven hours per week of uninterrupted time to do deep versus shallow work. They spend the rest of their time attending meetings, sending e-communications or working in time increments of less than 20 minutes, a practice that makes it difficult to accomplish a specific task and in the worst cases can lead to employee burnout. We know that great ideas that drive breakthroughs in productivity come from human beings with the time, talent and energy to innovate.Perhaps the most transformational thing a company can do for its workforce is to invest in creating jobs and working environments that unleash intrinsic inspiration. This is the gateway to the discretionary energy that multiplies labour productivity: An inspired employee is more than twice as productive as a satisfied employee and more than three times as productive as a dissatisfied employee. Yet, only one in eight employees are inspired. We measure organizational energy through employee engagement, and despite decades of investment in engagement programs, levels of engagement remain systemically and stubbornly low.As companies think about how to change this, they should focus on the jobs that will survive into the future. The forces of creative destruction inevitably will continue to eliminate some work through automation, digitalization, or the virtualization of work, but these same forces also create new types of work and jobs.Robert Gordon, a macroeconomist at Northwestern University, has shown that periods of breakout productivity in the United States were not the result of capital deepening (applying more capital to each hour of labour), but of what economists call total factor productivity, a catch-all measure for the impact of technological innovation. Who has these inspirational ideas and translates them into productivity-driving innovations? People do. This is why we believe that human capital, not financial capital, is often your scarcest resource. Reinvesting in this scarcest resource could unlock new levels of labour productivity for the economies and companies around the world that are sorely in need of it.Q. What does the author seek to highlight when he gives the example of Robert Gordon's study of total factor productivity?

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow."Productivity isn't everything, but in the long run it is almost everything," wrote Paul Krugman more than 20 years ago. "A country's ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise output per worker." There is a virtuous cycle between productivity and people: Higher levels of productivity allow society to reinvest in human capital (most obviously, though not exclusively, via higher wages), and smart investments result in higher labour productivity.Unfortunately, this virtuous cycle appears to be broken. Productivity in most developed economies has been anaemic. In the decade between 2005 and 2015, labour productivity in the US as measured by GDP per labour hour was less than 1% for 7 of the 10 years, according to the OECD. And wages are stagnant. US unemployment hit its lowest level in 16 years this past May, yet wage growth has been sluggish compared with similar periods in the past. Of course, low productivity can depress wages, but in recent decades, wages haven't grown as much as expected even during periods of robust economic productivity growth.All of this raises a chicken-or-egg question: Are we suffering from low productivity because we have underinvested in human capital? Or are we unable to invest in human capital because structural factors are permanently reducing productivity?The evidence suggests the former: We could improve productivity if we stopped systematically underinvesting in human capital. The most direct and obvious investment is increased wages. Beyond wages, other forms of investment in human capital include education and training, improved healthcare, and other, less obvious investments, such as the time and space to explore new ideas and professional development opportunities.Higher investment in wages does not need to come at the expense of customers and shareholders. Managed by Q, a cleaning and office services company in New York City, decided to pay employees higher wages than the prevailing market rate. In turn, the company is achieving lower levels of employee and customer churn, and correspondingly lower employee hiring and customer acquisition costs. The compounding and virtuous effects of increasing customer and employee advocacy more than offset the higher cost of wages. At the other end of the size spectrum, Walmart has committed to investing $2.7 billion in its associates through higher wages, better benefits and enhanced training.Our careless treatment of time represents a shocking level of underinvestment in human capital. For knowledge workers, time is incredibly scarce. Our research suggests that, on average, managers have fewer than seven hours per week of uninterrupted time to do deep versus shallow work. They spend the rest of their time attending meetings, sending e-communications or working in time increments of less than 20 minutes, a practice that makes it difficult to accomplish a specific task and in the worst cases can lead to employee burnout. We know that great ideas that drive breakthroughs in productivity come from human beings with the time, talent and energy to innovate.Perhaps the most transformational thing a company can do for its workforce is to invest in creating jobs and working environments that unleash intrinsic inspiration. This is the gateway to the discretionary energy that multiplies labour productivity: An inspired employee is more than twice as productive as a satisfied employee and more than three times as productive as a dissatisfied employee. Yet, only one in eight employees are inspired. We measure organizational energy through employee engagement, and despite decades of investment in engagement programs, levels of engagement remain systemically and stubbornly low.As companies think about how to change this, they should focus on the jobs that will survive into the future. The forces of creative destruction inevitably will continue to eliminate some work through automation, digitalization, or the virtualization of work, but these same forces also create new types of work and jobs.Robert Gordon, a macroeconomist at Northwestern University, has shown that periods of breakout productivity in the United States were not the result of capital deepening (applying more capital to each hour of labour), but of what economists call total factor productivity, a catch-all measure for the impact of technological innovation. Who has these inspirational ideas and translates them into productivity-driving innovations? People do. This is why we believe that human capital, not financial capital, is often your scarcest resource. Reinvesting in this scarcest resource could unlock new levels of labour productivity for the economies and companies around the world that are sorely in need of it.Q. It can be inferred from the passage that the author is likely to agree with all of the following EXCEPT

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow."Productivity isn't everything, but in the long run it is almost everything," wrote Paul Krugman more than 20 years ago. "A country's ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise output per worker." There is a virtuous cycle between productivity and people: Higher levels of productivity allow society to reinvest in human capital (most obviously, though not exclusively, via higher wages), and smart investments result in higher labour productivity.Unfortunately, this virtuous cycle appears to be broken. Productivity in most developed economies has been anaemic. In the decade between 2005 and 2015, labour productivity in the US as measured by GDP per labour hour was less than 1% for 7 of the 10 years, according to the OECD. And wages are stagnant. US unemployment hit its lowest level in 16 years this past May, yet wage growth has been sluggish compared with similar periods in the past. Of course, low productivity can depress wages, but in recent decades, wages haven't grown as much as expected even during periods of robust economic productivity growth.All of this raises a chicken-or-egg question: Are we suffering from low productivity because we have underinvested in human capital? Or are we unable to invest in human capital because structural factors are permanently reducing productivity?The evidence suggests the former: We could improve productivity if we stopped systematically underinvesting in human capital. The most direct and obvious investment is increased wages. Beyond wages, other forms of investment in human capital include education and training, improved healthcare, and other, less obvious investments, such as the time and space to explore new ideas and professional development opportunities.Higher investment in wages does not need to come at the expense of customers and shareholders. Managed by Q, a cleaning and office services company in New York City, decided to pay employees higher wages than the prevailing market rate. In turn, the company is achieving lower levels of employee and customer churn, and correspondingly lower employee hiring and customer acquisition costs. The compounding and virtuous effects of increasing customer and employee advocacy more than offset the higher cost of wages. At the other end of the size spectrum, Walmart has committed to investing $2.7 billion in its associates through higher wages, better benefits and enhanced training.Our careless treatment of time represents a shocking level of underinvestment in human capital. For knowledge workers, time is incredibly scarce. Our research suggests that, on average, managers have fewer than seven hours per week of uninterrupted time to do deep versus shallow work. They spend the rest of their time attending meetings, sending e-communications or working in time increments of less than 20 minutes, a practice that makes it difficult to accomplish a specific task and in the worst cases can lead to employee burnout. We know that great ideas that drive breakthroughs in productivity come from human beings with the time, talent and energy to innovate.Perhaps the most transformational thing a company can do for its workforce is to invest in creating jobs and working environments that unleash intrinsic inspiration. This is the gateway to the discretionary energy that multiplies labour productivity: An inspired employee is more than twice as productive as a satisfied employee and more than three times as productive as a dissatisfied employee. Yet, only one in eight employees are inspired. We measure organizational energy through employee engagement, and despite decades of investment in engagement programs, levels of engagement remain systemically and stubbornly low.As companies think about how to change this, they should focus on the jobs that will survive into the future. The forces of creative destruction inevitably will continue to eliminate some work through automation, digitalization, or the virtualization of work, but these same forces also create new types of work and jobs.Robert Gordon, a macroeconomist at Northwestern University, has shown that periods of breakout productivity in the United States were not the result of capital deepening (applying more capital to each hour of labour), but of what economists call total factor productivity, a catch-all measure for the impact of technological innovation. Who has these inspirational ideas and translates them into productivity-driving innovations? People do. This is why we believe that human capital, not financial capital, is often your scarcest resource. Reinvesting in this scarcest resource could unlock new levels of labour productivity for the economies and companies around the world that are sorely in need of it.Q. Which of the following is the most suitable title for the passage?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.In an attempt to improve the overall performance of clerical workers, many companies have introduced computerized performance monitoring and control systems that record and report a worker’s computer-driven activities. However, at least one study has shown that such monitoring may not be having the desired effect. In the study, researchers asked monitored clerical workers and their supervisors how assessments of productivity affected supervisors’ ratings of workers’ performance. In contrast to unmonitored workers doing the same work, who without exception identified the most important element in their jobs as customer service, the monitored workers and their supervisors all responded that productivity was the critical factor in assigning ratings. This finding suggested that there should have been a strong correlation between a monitored worker’s productivity and the overall rating the worker received. However, measures of the relationship between overall rating and individual elements of performance clearly supported the conclusion that supervisors gave considerable weight to criteria such as attendance, accuracy, and indications of customer satisfaction.It is possible that productivity may be a “hygiene factor,” that is, if it is too low, it will hurt the overall rating. But the evidence suggests that beyond the point at which productivity becomes “good enough,” higher productivity per se is unlikely to improve a rating.Q. It can be inferred that the author of the passage discusses “unmonitored workers” primarily in order toa)Compare the ratings of these workers with the ratings of monitored workersb)Provide an example of a case in which monitoring might be effectivec)Provide evidence of an inappropriate use of CPMCSd)Emphasize the effect that CPMCS may have on workers’ perceptions of their jobsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.In an attempt to improve the overall performance of clerical workers, many companies have introduced computerized performance monitoring and control systems that record and report a worker’s computer-driven activities. However, at least one study has shown that such monitoring may not be having the desired effect. In the study, researchers asked monitored clerical workers and their supervisors how assessments of productivity affected supervisors’ ratings of workers’ performance. In contrast to unmonitored workers doing the same work, who without exception identified the most important element in their jobs as customer service, the monitored workers and their supervisors all responded that productivity was the critical factor in assigning ratings. This finding suggested that there should have been a strong correlation between a monitored worker’s productivity and the overall rating the worker received. However, measures of the relationship between overall rating and individual elements of performance clearly supported the conclusion that supervisors gave considerable weight to criteria such as attendance, accuracy, and indications of customer satisfaction.It is possible that productivity may be a “hygiene factor,” that is, if it is too low, it will hurt the overall rating. But the evidence suggests that beyond the point at which productivity becomes “good enough,” higher productivity per se is unlikely to improve a rating.Q. It can be inferred that the author of the passage discusses “unmonitored workers” primarily in order toa)Compare the ratings of these workers with the ratings of monitored workersb)Provide an example of a case in which monitoring might be effectivec)Provide evidence of an inappropriate use of CPMCSd)Emphasize the effect that CPMCS may have on workers’ perceptions of their jobsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.In an attempt to improve the overall performance of clerical workers, many companies have introduced computerized performance monitoring and control systems that record and report a worker’s computer-driven activities. However, at least one study has shown that such monitoring may not be having the desired effect. In the study, researchers asked monitored clerical workers and their supervisors how assessments of productivity affected supervisors’ ratings of workers’ performance. In contrast to unmonitored workers doing the same work, who without exception identified the most important element in their jobs as customer service, the monitored workers and their supervisors all responded that productivity was the critical factor in assigning ratings. This finding suggested that there should have been a strong correlation between a monitored worker’s productivity and the overall rating the worker received. However, measures of the relationship between overall rating and individual elements of performance clearly supported the conclusion that supervisors gave considerable weight to criteria such as attendance, accuracy, and indications of customer satisfaction.It is possible that productivity may be a “hygiene factor,” that is, if it is too low, it will hurt the overall rating. But the evidence suggests that beyond the point at which productivity becomes “good enough,” higher productivity per se is unlikely to improve a rating.Q. It can be inferred that the author of the passage discusses “unmonitored workers” primarily in order toa)Compare the ratings of these workers with the ratings of monitored workersb)Provide an example of a case in which monitoring might be effectivec)Provide evidence of an inappropriate use of CPMCSd)Emphasize the effect that CPMCS may have on workers’ perceptions of their jobsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.In an attempt to improve the overall performance of clerical workers, many companies have introduced computerized performance monitoring and control systems that record and report a worker’s computer-driven activities. However, at least one study has shown that such monitoring may not be having the desired effect. In the study, researchers asked monitored clerical workers and their supervisors how assessments of productivity affected supervisors’ ratings of workers’ performance. In contrast to unmonitored workers doing the same work, who without exception identified the most important element in their jobs as customer service, the monitored workers and their supervisors all responded that productivity was the critical factor in assigning ratings. This finding suggested that there should have been a strong correlation between a monitored worker’s productivity and the overall rating the worker received. However, measures of the relationship between overall rating and individual elements of performance clearly supported the conclusion that supervisors gave considerable weight to criteria such as attendance, accuracy, and indications of customer satisfaction.It is possible that productivity may be a “hygiene factor,” that is, if it is too low, it will hurt the overall rating. But the evidence suggests that beyond the point at which productivity becomes “good enough,” higher productivity per se is unlikely to improve a rating.Q. It can be inferred that the author of the passage discusses “unmonitored workers” primarily in order toa)Compare the ratings of these workers with the ratings of monitored workersb)Provide an example of a case in which monitoring might be effectivec)Provide evidence of an inappropriate use of CPMCSd)Emphasize the effect that CPMCS may have on workers’ perceptions of their jobsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.In an attempt to improve the overall performance of clerical workers, many companies have introduced computerized performance monitoring and control systems that record and report a worker’s computer-driven activities. However, at least one study has shown that such monitoring may not be having the desired effect. In the study, researchers asked monitored clerical workers and their supervisors how assessments of productivity affected supervisors’ ratings of workers’ performance. In contrast to unmonitored workers doing the same work, who without exception identified the most important element in their jobs as customer service, the monitored workers and their supervisors all responded that productivity was the critical factor in assigning ratings. This finding suggested that there should have been a strong correlation between a monitored worker’s productivity and the overall rating the worker received. However, measures of the relationship between overall rating and individual elements of performance clearly supported the conclusion that supervisors gave considerable weight to criteria such as attendance, accuracy, and indications of customer satisfaction.It is possible that productivity may be a “hygiene factor,” that is, if it is too low, it will hurt the overall rating. But the evidence suggests that beyond the point at which productivity becomes “good enough,” higher productivity per se is unlikely to improve a rating.Q. It can be inferred that the author of the passage discusses “unmonitored workers” primarily in order toa)Compare the ratings of these workers with the ratings of monitored workersb)Provide an example of a case in which monitoring might be effectivec)Provide evidence of an inappropriate use of CPMCSd)Emphasize the effect that CPMCS may have on workers’ perceptions of their jobsCorrect 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 Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.In an attempt to improve the overall performance of clerical workers, many companies have introduced computerized performance monitoring and control systems that record and report a worker’s computer-driven activities. However, at least one study has shown that such monitoring may not be having the desired effect. In the study, researchers asked monitored clerical workers and their supervisors how assessments of productivity affected supervisors’ ratings of workers’ performance. In contrast to unmonitored workers doing the same work, who without exception identified the most important element in their jobs as customer service, the monitored workers and their supervisors all responded that productivity was the critical factor in assigning ratings. This finding suggested that there should have been a strong correlation between a monitored worker’s productivity and the overall rating the worker received. However, measures of the relationship between overall rating and individual elements of performance clearly supported the conclusion that supervisors gave considerable weight to criteria such as attendance, accuracy, and indications of customer satisfaction.It is possible that productivity may be a “hygiene factor,” that is, if it is too low, it will hurt the overall rating. But the evidence suggests that beyond the point at which productivity becomes “good enough,” higher productivity per se is unlikely to improve a rating.Q. It can be inferred that the author of the passage discusses “unmonitored workers” primarily in order toa)Compare the ratings of these workers with the ratings of monitored workersb)Provide an example of a case in which monitoring might be effectivec)Provide evidence of an inappropriate use of CPMCSd)Emphasize the effect that CPMCS may have on workers’ perceptions of their jobsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.In an attempt to improve the overall performance of clerical workers, many companies have introduced computerized performance monitoring and control systems that record and report a worker’s computer-driven activities. However, at least one study has shown that such monitoring may not be having the desired effect. In the study, researchers asked monitored clerical workers and their supervisors how assessments of productivity affected supervisors’ ratings of workers’ performance. In contrast to unmonitored workers doing the same work, who without exception identified the most important element in their jobs as customer service, the monitored workers and their supervisors all responded that productivity was the critical factor in assigning ratings. This finding suggested that there should have been a strong correlation between a monitored worker’s productivity and the overall rating the worker received. However, measures of the relationship between overall rating and individual elements of performance clearly supported the conclusion that supervisors gave considerable weight to criteria such as attendance, accuracy, and indications of customer satisfaction.It is possible that productivity may be a “hygiene factor,” that is, if it is too low, it will hurt the overall rating. But the evidence suggests that beyond the point at which productivity becomes “good enough,” higher productivity per se is unlikely to improve a rating.Q. It can be inferred that the author of the passage discusses “unmonitored workers” primarily in order toa)Compare the ratings of these workers with the ratings of monitored workersb)Provide an example of a case in which monitoring might be effectivec)Provide evidence of an inappropriate use of CPMCSd)Emphasize the effect that CPMCS may have on workers’ perceptions of their jobsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.In an attempt to improve the overall performance of clerical workers, many companies have introduced computerized performance monitoring and control systems that record and report a worker’s computer-driven activities. However, at least one study has shown that such monitoring may not be having the desired effect. In the study, researchers asked monitored clerical workers and their supervisors how assessments of productivity affected supervisors’ ratings of workers’ performance. In contrast to unmonitored workers doing the same work, who without exception identified the most important element in their jobs as customer service, the monitored workers and their supervisors all responded that productivity was the critical factor in assigning ratings. This finding suggested that there should have been a strong correlation between a monitored worker’s productivity and the overall rating the worker received. However, measures of the relationship between overall rating and individual elements of performance clearly supported the conclusion that supervisors gave considerable weight to criteria such as attendance, accuracy, and indications of customer satisfaction.It is possible that productivity may be a “hygiene factor,” that is, if it is too low, it will hurt the overall rating. But the evidence suggests that beyond the point at which productivity becomes “good enough,” higher productivity per se is unlikely to improve a rating.Q. It can be inferred that the author of the passage discusses “unmonitored workers” primarily in order toa)Compare the ratings of these workers with the ratings of monitored workersb)Provide an example of a case in which monitoring might be effectivec)Provide evidence of an inappropriate use of CPMCSd)Emphasize the effect that CPMCS may have on workers’ perceptions of their jobsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.In an attempt to improve the overall performance of clerical workers, many companies have introduced computerized performance monitoring and control systems that record and report a worker’s computer-driven activities. However, at least one study has shown that such monitoring may not be having the desired effect. In the study, researchers asked monitored clerical workers and their supervisors how assessments of productivity affected supervisors’ ratings of workers’ performance. In contrast to unmonitored workers doing the same work, who without exception identified the most important element in their jobs as customer service, the monitored workers and their supervisors all responded that productivity was the critical factor in assigning ratings. This finding suggested that there should have been a strong correlation between a monitored worker’s productivity and the overall rating the worker received. However, measures of the relationship between overall rating and individual elements of performance clearly supported the conclusion that supervisors gave considerable weight to criteria such as attendance, accuracy, and indications of customer satisfaction.It is possible that productivity may be a “hygiene factor,” that is, if it is too low, it will hurt the overall rating. But the evidence suggests that beyond the point at which productivity becomes “good enough,” higher productivity per se is unlikely to improve a rating.Q. It can be inferred that the author of the passage discusses “unmonitored workers” primarily in order toa)Compare the ratings of these workers with the ratings of monitored workersb)Provide an example of a case in which monitoring might be effectivec)Provide evidence of an inappropriate use of CPMCSd)Emphasize the effect that CPMCS may have on workers’ perceptions of their jobsCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.In an attempt to improve the overall performance of clerical workers, many companies have introduced computerized performance monitoring and control systems that record and report a worker’s computer-driven activities. However, at least one study has shown that such monitoring may not be having the desired effect. In the study, researchers asked monitored clerical workers and their supervisors how assessments of productivity affected supervisors’ ratings of workers’ performance. In contrast to unmonitored workers doing the same work, who without exception identified the most important element in their jobs as customer service, the monitored workers and their supervisors all responded that productivity was the critical factor in assigning ratings. This finding suggested that there should have been a strong correlation between a monitored worker’s productivity and the overall rating the worker received. However, measures of the relationship between overall rating and individual elements of performance clearly supported the conclusion that supervisors gave considerable weight to criteria such as attendance, accuracy, and indications of customer satisfaction.It is possible that productivity may be a “hygiene factor,” that is, if it is too low, it will hurt the overall rating. But the evidence suggests that beyond the point at which productivity becomes “good enough,” higher productivity per se is unlikely to improve a rating.Q. It can be inferred that the author of the passage discusses “unmonitored workers” primarily in order toa)Compare the ratings of these workers with the ratings of monitored workersb)Provide an example of a case in which monitoring might be effectivec)Provide evidence of an inappropriate use of CPMCSd)Emphasize the effect that CPMCS may have on workers’ perceptions of their jobsCorrect 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
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