sharathnair14 wrote:
Within the Performance Appraisal process, measuring means determining the level of performance by judging the Quality, Quantity, and Timeliness of the work against a set of standards. Precisely evaluating the efficiency and dedication of employees who spend more than 12 hours at the office is difficult. Presume, for example, most office-goers in Country X are proud of sleepless nights and staying late at the office, thinking that the boss will appreciate their working overtime. What if people waste time during the typical eight-hour workday to create reasons to work overtime such as to claim overtime wages and to look diligent?
The objection implied above to the productivity measure described is based on doubts about the truth of which of the following statements?
A. Office goers are representative of overtime workers in general.
This definitely not true and cannot be implied from the given premise
B. Misemploying office-hours is the primary activity of office employees.
It may be tertiary , quatenary we are clueless on the above fact therefore out
C. The performance appraisal process should be ascribed to departments or divisions within an organization, not to individuals.
Why not individuals , if they can do an exceptional job of disciplining them why not
D. The Quality of work delivered cannot be ignored during the performance appraisal process.
Definitely this is the main reason for bringing the regulation in the first place therefore let us hang on to it
E. The number of hours clocked in at work is relevant to measuring the performance level of employees.
This definitely counts however , the fact that the hours are still a relevant factor and reduced to a lesser margin than quality of the hours make it a inferior option to D
Therefore IMO D