Premise 1: Delayering is the process of removing those levels of management that are seen to be unnecessary.
Premise 2: delayering can improve the speed at which decisions are made,
Premise 3: a business must be run as efficiently as possible in order to make profit
Conclusion: it would be wise for
any organization to implement delayering.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
A. Once a layer of management is removed, the remaining tasks are usually assigned to other managers, increasing their workload.
Tempting but wrong. Even though a manager's workload increases, total time to make a final decision after delayering may be less than that before delayering. i.e, before delayering, there were 2 managers, each spend 2 days to make a decision --> time to make a decision = 4 days. After delayering, there is only 1 manager, even though the manager's time to make a final decision increases from 2 to 3 days, total time is still less than 4 days.
B. Delayering can help to improve
client relations since there are fewer middlemen between the client-and top levels of management.
Wrong. Out of scope.
c. On Its own, delayering does not usually result in an increase in profits; it must be
accompanied by tactics designed to increase employee Involvement.
Wrong. Out of scope.
D. In
some Industries, delayering is more likely to result in decreased employee motivation, causing permanent delays in the production schedule.
[b]Correct.[/b] The argument says
ANY organizations should apply delayering, but D shows that it's not good for
SOME industries. D weakens the argument.
E. After delayering is implemented, additional personnel must be hired for the short-term to review and monitor performance.
Tempting but wrong. Same error as in A. Even though additional personnel must be hired, the total time to make final decisions after delayering may be less that before delayering.
Hope it helps.