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
Discussion & Comments