Public sector HR policy – Should PSUs be allowed to adopt a hire-and-fire policy? Arguments to evaluate: I. Yes, it enables removal of non-performers and rewarding performers. II. No, management may misuse the policy indiscriminately. III. Yes, it.

Question

Solve this multiple-choice question and choose the correct option.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:We must judge the strength of arguments about introducing a hire-and-fire policy in public sector undertakings (PSUs). Multiple arguments can be simultaneously strong if each is logical and relevant. Given Data / Assumptions: Goal tensions: efficiency and accountability versus job security and due process. PSUs may face performance issues; misuse risks exist without safeguards. “Hire-and-fire” refers to flexible separation aligned to performance. Concept / Approach:A strong pro-argument highlights genuine performance benefits; a strong con-argument highlights credible risks to fairness if safeguards are weak. Both can coexist as valid policy considerations. Step-by-Step Solution: I: Strong. Performance-linked separations can remove chronic non-performers and reinforce meritocracy when supported by transparent appraisal systems.II: Strong. Without robust checks, such powers can be abused (bias, arbitrary dismissals); the caution is policy-relevant.III: Strong. Aligning incentives and accountability plausibly improves efficiency and profitability. Verification / Alternative check: Modern HR frameworks pair flexibility with due process: performance metrics, appeals, and labour-law compliance. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option excluding one of I/II/III ignores either real benefits or real risks; both sides offer strong, policy-relevant points. Common Pitfalls: Treating the issue as binary; ignoring the role of safeguards and governance. Final Answer:All are strong

More Questions from Statement and Argument

Discussion & Comments