Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hint:

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

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

We need to order A, C, D, and E from the least aligned with the company's non-discrimination policy to the most aligned, based on what each recommendation actually does at the hiring stage.

1. A: this recommendation says the firm should hire "predominantly" college graduates who are naturally social, turning a personal trait, sociability, into a blanket hiring filter for everyone. That screens out capable people purely on personality, so it is the least aligned with a non-discrimination policy, and comes first.
2. E: this recommendation excludes one specific group, fresh MBA graduates with no work experience, calling them a liability to "avoid at all costs." It is still discriminatory, but it targets a narrower, job-related factor (experience) rather than a personal trait applied to every hire, so it is slightly less sweeping than A and comes second.
3. C: this recommendation restructures the sales team itself, one senior sales manager plus a team of representatives, without setting any hiring filter based on personal traits or background. Since it does not exclude any class of candidate, it is far more aligned with non-discrimination, and comes third.
4. D: this recommendation explicitly trains "all sales managers, both experienced and newly appointed" in social skills. Because it is openly inclusive of every employee regardless of background, it is the most aligned with the non-discrimination policy, and comes last.

Let's summarize:

• A and E set discriminatory hiring filters (personality profiling and blanket exclusion of freshers), so they rank lowest on alignment.
• C and D are structural or developmental steps that do not exclude any candidate group, so they rank highest, with D's explicit inclusiveness placing it last (most aligned).

So the increasing order of alignment is A, E, C, D, which is option 3.