Human resources director: In the past, mentorship at my company was in

Question

Human resources director: In the past, mentorship at my company was informal. But our new mentor program pairs an employee seeking mentorship with a manager or executive who has volunteered to mentor for a certain length of time. It has also been proposed that we use a personality test to better match employees with mentors, but I have decided against this, for in my judgement it would reduce participation in the program.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the best justification for the human resources director's decision?

A - Employees at all levels are more likely to participate in mentoring programs if those programs are organized on a formal basis
B - Informal mentoring arrangements at the human resources director's company have helped many employees become more productive
C - A potential mentor is less likely to regard another employee as a competitor if that person has been randomly assigned to the mentor
D - Managers and executives are more likely to volunteer as mentors if they observe their peers doing so
E - Personality tests are required as part of the pre-employment screening process at the human resource director's company

Mingyuan · Accepted Answer

Conclusion is : use a personality test is not feasible, due to lower participation.
So, we should foucs on how to strengthen this claim, C means that random assignment ---> less likely to be regarded as competitor ---> more participation.
If you think your student is one of a competitor of you, would you like to give him your lessons or some experience?

Jammy88 · Answer

I honestly struggle to understand this. I had chosen E but clearly got it wrong. Why is C the correct answer? I don’t get the logic behind this. Thank you

Abhishek009 · Answer

Earlier : Informal Ment.
Now : Paired with Exec/Mgr (Who Volntrd).
Prop : Paired by using Person test.
Auth : It iwll red perticipation.

New method of pairing Exec/Mgr with employees using personality test will reduce participation.

(A) if those programs are organized on a formal basis - The author talks about new method.
(B) have helped many employees become more productive - We are not concerned, we are concerned about the effects of the new method and why it will reduce participation.
(C) Randomly assigned = Pairing + Personality test , regarding other employee as competition = NEgative feeling ------> reduced participation, Looks good.
(D) observe their peers doing so - Irrelevant.
(E) required as part of the pre-employment screening process - Irrelevant as discussion is on new mentorship program, further it doesn't answer the question why the method will lead to reduced participation.

Answer will be (C)

acethegmat6969 · Answer

Seems like this question is assuming using personality test to match for a mentor is not random, which imo is a bit ambiguous.

sayan640 · Answer

KarishmaB  Requesting your take on this question. Even though I picked C but I am struggling to see a valid and strong reason to eliminate E.

Posted from my mobile device

sayan640 · Answer

That's exactly why I went with C. But I find E a strong option too. Would you like to share your reasoning for eliminating E ?

Posted from my mobile device

Mingyuan · Answer

I think to solve this problem, we need to focus on the conclusion, focus on the relationship between  using personality test for mentorship  and  participation . E is about  this test  and  pre-employment screening process,  so it is unrelated.

sayan640 · Answer

MartyMurray  , Can you please provide your explanation for this question ?

Posted from my mobile device

sachi-in · Answer

Summary :  HR is organizing a formal mentorship program ( earlier it was informal - i.e not organized formally ). But in it's ( programmes's ) current form HR Director rejected the idea of personality matching.

We have to find out the rationale behind our HR's decision :
What could be possible reason ?
 It could be that people choose mentors with different personality cuz they can learn more about conflict resolution.
It could be that Mentors may not choose mentees with similar personality trait due to some psycological factors
etc. etc.  (we can home in on the ans if we can find a similar logic)

The Best option that matches this line of thinking is:

It could be that Mentors see Mentees with similar personality trait as competition. Option C Correct.

Jammy88  We can check the other options specially E

A - Employees at all levels are more likely to participate in mentoring programs if those programs are organized on a formal basis
 we know that the process will be formal now, but it doesnot explain the HR's rational about personality matching 
B - Informal mentoring arrangements at the human resources director's company have helped many employees become more productive
 it provides support for informal mentorship, we are concerned with HR's rationale 
D - Managers and executives are more likely to volunteer as mentors if they observe their peers doing so
 It doesn't explain how personlaity matching will affect the participation ( it brings another dynamics into play ) 
E - Personality tests are required as part of the pre-employment screening process at the human resource director's company
 That would mean we already have the test results from pre-employment screening , we may not need a new test and we can simply use the old test result for matching the Mentors and Mentees. 
 But why does the HR manager think that Personality matching part of the programme will reduce participation ? 
 HR is  not judging  wheather or not a  personality test / re-test  is needed. 
HR is  judging  wheather a  personality matching  is needed.

SmileAndSolve · Answer

Human resources director: In the past, mentorship at my company was informal. But our new mentor program pairs an employee seeking mentorship with a manager or executive who has volunteered to mentor for a certain length of time. It has also been proposed that we use a personality test to better match employees with mentors, but I have decided against this, for in my judgement it would reduce participation in the program.

Soln:

2 things have been proposed:
1. But our new mentor program pairs an employee seeking mentorship with a manager or executive who has volunteered to mentor for a certain length of time.
2. It has also been proposed that we use a personality test to better match employees with mentors

But opinion has only been given on the second.

Question is asking to provide justification for the opinion/decision.
Since opinion on only second is provided, that is the one we will be providing justification on. Why do they think personality test matching would reduce participation?

Hence, C.

VibhuAnurag · Answer

The answer is C.

A. The HR director has already implemented a formal mentorship program. This option supports formal programs but says nothing about the effect of personality tests on participation. Irrelevant to the decision at hand.
B. While this highlights the success of past informal mentoring, it does not justify rejecting personality tests in the current formal program. Irrelevant to the decision's rationale.
 C. Random assignment avoids perceived favoritism or rivalry, which could arise with personality-test-based matching. This increases mentor willingness to participate, directly supporting the HR director’s concern about maintaining high participation. 
D. While this might indirectly encourage participation, it does not explain why avoiding personality tests is better. It fails to address the decision’s specific rationale.
E. This is merely a fact about existing practices and offers no justification for rejecting personality tests in mentorship pairings.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Human resources director: In the past, mentorship at my company was in

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Human resources director: In the past, mentorship at my company was in

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards