Question 1

Situation–Reaction (Overworked; need to deliver a PPT as manager): You must deliver a PowerPoint presentation but are already bogged down with work. What should you do?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Managers often juggle competing commitments. The test checks prioritization, accountability, and stakeholder management under pressure. Given Data / Assumptions: PPT is expected; audience/time likely fixed. You are overworked, not incapacitated. Delegation may be possible with oversight. Concept / Approach: Professionalism requires honoring critical commitments. Reprioritize, timebox, and leverage templates or prior materials. Delegation can assist, but you must retain ownership of narrative, key data, and delivery. Cancelling risks credibility unless unavoidable. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Triage tasks; defer low-impact items.2) Draft a lean outline; use standard slides/assets.3) If helpful, assign a team member to prepare visuals while you craft the message; review before delivery. Verification / Alternative check: Confirm audience expectations; if format flexibility exists, a concise talk with minimal slides may be acceptable—but the obligation remains. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Alternative mode without stakeholder consent may disappoint. Cancel/reschedule damages trust. Passing the buck abdicates leadership. Common Pitfalls: Overbuilding slides; neglecting rehearsal. Final Answer: Prioritise and carve out time to deliver the PPT (using smart delegation as needed).

Question 2

Situation–Reaction (Presentation flop after hard work on idea): You worked hard on a breakthrough idea but the presentation fell flat. How should you respond?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Innovation involves iteration. A poor presentation can mask a good idea. Resilience and growth mindset transform setbacks into better outcomes. Given Data / Assumptions: The content had potential; delivery underperformed. Feedback is available. You will have future opportunities. Concept / Approach: Adopt a retrospective: what to keep, improve, drop. Seek actionable feedback on storyline, audience fit, visuals, demo reliability, and time management. Emotion is natural, but lingering on it hinders progress. Dismissing suggestions blocks learning. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Gather feedback from trusted stakeholders.2) Rework narrative: problem, insight, solution, proof, impact.3) Rehearse with a timebox; test demos; simplify slides. Verification / Alternative check: Pilot with a small internal audience before the next major review; measure clarity and engagement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Ignoring suggestions misses learning. Breaking down or self-labeling as a loser harms morale and performance. Common Pitfalls: Overloading slides; underestimating storytelling; skipping dry runs. Final Answer: Take it as a learning experience and prepare to do better next time.

Question 3

Situation–Reaction (Train about to start; little time to buy ticket): At the station, your train is about to start and there is hardly time to purchase a ticket. What is the best action?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Public transport compliance requires valid travel authority and personal safety. This question weighs urgency against legality and risk. Given Data / Assumptions: Train is starting imminently. Ticket purchase facility exists. Boarding a moving train is risky. Concept / Approach: The sound choice is to secure a ticket first and avoid unsafe boarding. If the train departs, there are official options (next train, unreserved ticket + penalty via TTE where permitted). Intentionally riding without a ticket is an offence. Boarding a moving train elevates accident risk. Buying first maintains compliance; if you miss it, you remain safe and lawful. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Attempt rapid ticket purchase (counter/automatic app if valid).2) If you miss the train, choose the next available legal option.3) Where railways allow, approach TTE proactively with proof of intent (but do not rely on this as default). Verification / Alternative check: Some systems allow platform tickets or on-board penalties; still, safety and compliance take precedence over catching the immediate departure. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Travelling quietly is illegal; boarding moving trains is dangerous; informing TTE later may still incur penalties and is not best-first choice. Common Pitfalls: Assuming forgiveness is guaranteed; risking injury while boarding. Final Answer: Buy the ticket first; board only if it is safe and still available.

Question 4

Situation–Reaction (Found lady’s purse with cash): You find a lady’s purse dropped on the road and, on picking it up, discover ₹1000 inside. What should you do?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Lost property handling is a matter of law and ethics. Personal items like purses usually contain IDs, cards, or clues, and must be processed through proper channels to reach the rightful owner securely. Given Data / Assumptions: Purse found on a public road; contains cash. Owner is not visible immediately. Police station or beat post is accessible. Concept / Approach: Turning the purse in to police (or official lost-and-found) ensures chain of custody, records the incident, and protects you from allegations. Simply waiting may be impractical; taking the purse or cash is misappropriation. Officers can use IDs/CCTV to contact the owner. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Secure the purse intact; do not remove items.2) Go to the nearest police post promptly and lodge a brief report.3) Obtain an acknowledgment/diary entry if available. Verification / Alternative check: If it is immediately feasible and safe, checking for an ID to call the owner from the station is helpful—still via official processes. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Taking the purse/money is unlawful. Waiting indefinitely is inefficient and risky. Common Pitfalls: Handling cash without witnesses; posting contents online. Final Answer: Deposit it at the nearest police station intact.

Question 5

Situation–Reaction (Man falls off train from rear coach): While travelling by train, you notice a man from the coach behind yours fall off the train. What should you do immediately?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Rail emergencies demand immediate, safe actions that involve the entire system. The alarm chain is provided exactly for on-board emergencies that require the train to halt to prevent loss of life. Given Data / Assumptions: You witnessed a fall from a nearby coach. You are on a moving train. Alarm chain is accessible. Concept / Approach: Pulling the alarm chain signals an emergency, initiates a controlled stop, and enables coordinated assistance. Jumping off a moving train endangers you and may create multiple casualties. Waiting until the next station delays care. Shouting at the fallen person is futile and unsafe. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Pull the alarm chain immediately and inform coach staff/TTE about the incident and coach location.2) After the controlled stop, inform railway staff precisely where the person fell.3) Assist trained personnel; avoid track hazards. Verification / Alternative check: In some jurisdictions, alarm misuse is penalized—but emergencies like a fall clearly warrant activation; it is the quickest way to mobilize help. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Jumping off risks severe injury. Waiting for next station wastes golden minutes. Yelling offers no real aid. Common Pitfalls: Panicking; not providing clear details after the stop. Final Answer: Pull the alarm chain so the train stops and coordinated help can reach the fallen person.

Question 6

Situation–Reaction Test — Job Interview Priorities: You are being interviewed for a new job. Among the following, which question is the most important for you to ask the employer?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This scenario checks professional judgment: when facing an interview, which single question signals long-term fit and maximizes career growth, impact, and satisfaction? While pay and promotions matter, choosing the lever that drives sustained performance and visibility is key. Given Data / Assumptions: You are at an interview for a new role. You can ask one question highlighting what you value. All listed factors are desirable; you must prioritize the one with the highest strategic value for career success. Concept / Approach: Intrinsic motivators (autonomy, mastery, purpose) strongly predict performance and retention. Asking about scope for ideas probes autonomy, influence on processes, and the organization’s openness to innovation—factors that also correlate with future promotions and compensation. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Evaluate each choice against long-term growth and control over outcomes.2) Compensation (pay) is necessary but often adjusts with impact; promotion pathways follow demonstrated value.3) Scope for ideas indicates culture, empowerment, and the chance to create measurable wins—improving leverage for both pay and advancement.4) Therefore, prioritize the question that uncovers autonomy and impact. Verification / Alternative check: Teams that invite employee ideas typically show better engagement and performance. Demonstrated initiative tends to unlock promotions and better pay organically. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Opportunities for promotion” and “Remuneration” are important but downstream of impact; “All equally important” avoids prioritization; “Work–life balance” is valuable but not the strongest signal of growth leverage in this context. Common Pitfalls: Over-optimizing for starting pay without ensuring you can create value; assuming promotions are guaranteed without influence on work. Final Answer: Scope to develop and use your ideas to improve the organization.

Question 7

Situation–Reaction Test — Drowning Child Emergency: You are passing by a river and you know swimming. Suddenly, you hear the cry of a drowning child. What would you do?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item evaluates emergency response ethics and practical judgment. When life is at immediate risk and you possess the relevant skill (swimming), the expected response is timely, direct intervention while maintaining your own safety. Given Data / Assumptions: You are present at a river. You are competent at swimming. A child is actively drowning—seconds matter. No professional rescuer is immediately on scene. Concept / Approach: In rescue priorities, immediate, safe action is paramount. Standard guidance: shout for help, quickly assess currents/entry points, avoid hazardous dives, use reach/throw aids if possible, but if none are available and you are capable, enter the water with a safe approach (rear approach, minimal contact risk). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Raise alarm to attract assistance; call emergency services if feasible.2) If a reachable aid (stick/rope/float) is available, use it; otherwise proceed to a controlled entry.3) Approach from behind to avoid being grabbed; support the airway and move to shore.4) After rescue, assess breathing and provide basic first aid while awaiting medical help. Verification / Alternative check: Rescue guidelines emphasize speed balanced with rescuer safety—delays looking for professionals can be fatal in active drowning. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Waiting (b) or searching for divers (c) wastes critical seconds; consoling parents (d) does not address the immediate threat; only calling for help (e) without action ignores your capacity to intervene. Common Pitfalls: Panicked dives, unsafe entries, or direct frontal grabs that endanger both rescuer and victim. Final Answer: Act immediately and safely: enter and rescue the child.

Question 8

Situation–Reaction Test — Discovering a Friend’s Dishonesty: You find that a person you consider a friend has been cheating you. What would you do?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question probes emotional regulation, conflict resolution, and ethical leadership. A measured response preserves dignity, clarifies boundaries, and allows for correction while protecting yourself from future harm. Given Data / Assumptions: You have credible evidence of cheating. The person is within your social circle as a “friend.” You must choose the most constructive immediate response. Concept / Approach: Best practice is to confront privately with specifics, seek an explanation, establish consequences, and decide future engagement based on accountability and restitution. The approach balances fairness and self-protection. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Gather and present facts calmly, avoiding accusatory language.2) Ask for their perspective; differentiate misunderstanding from intent.3) Request corrective action/restitution and set clear boundaries.4) Decide on the relationship based on their ownership and behavior change. Verification / Alternative check: Constructive confrontation tends to produce either resolution (apology/restoration) or clarity for disengagement, both preferable to retaliation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Immediate breakup (a) may be premature without dialogue; retaliation (b) is unethical and escalatory; gossip (d) harms reputations and reduces chances of resolution; ignoring (e) invites repeat harm. Common Pitfalls: Explosive reactions, public shaming, or allowing the issue to fester without closure. Final Answer: Calmly confront with facts to make the person realize and correct the mistake.

Question 9

Situation–Reaction Test — Bus Ticket at Your Stop: You are in a crowded bus; it reaches your stop, and you still have not purchased the ticket because of heavy rush. What will you do?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This scenario tests civic responsibility and integrity in public transport. Even under crowding and time pressure, compliance with fare rules is expected. Given Data / Assumptions: Heavy rush prevented a timely ticket purchase. The bus has reached your stop. You can still contact the conductor. Concept / Approach: Ethical action is to pay and obtain a ticket before alighting. This protects you from penalties and supports fair operation of public services. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Politely call the conductor’s attention.2) Pay the fare and receive the ticket.3) Alight safely after completion. Verification / Alternative check: Rules generally require passengers to hold a valid ticket while onboard; enforcement inspections can occur at stops. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Jumping out (a) evades fare and risks injury; passing money through strangers (c) risks loss/miscommunication; giving money to the driver (d) breaks role separation; ignoring payment (e) is unethical. Common Pitfalls: Bowing to social pressure or rush; assuming “small” fare evasion is acceptable. Final Answer: Pay the conductor and obtain the ticket before alighting.

Question 10

Situation–Reaction Test — Maid Invites You to Her Daughter’s Wedding: How would you respond appropriately and respectfully?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This scenario tests empathy, inclusivity, and social respect across economic strata. A thoughtful response recognizes the relationship and the importance of the occasion for the host family. Given Data / Assumptions: The maid has extended a personal invitation. The event is significant (a daughter’s wedding). You have reasonable ability to attend or support. Concept / Approach: Respectful inclusion suggests acknowledging the invitation, participating if possible, and offering meaningful support. A considerate gift and practical help honor the relationship and the occasion. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Accept sincerely; check schedule to attend.2) Offer a culturally appropriate gift within your means.3) If feasible, provide small logistical help or guidance, demonstrating care. Verification / Alternative check: Strong social ties and respect build trust and dignity; your response can have outsized positive impact. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Ignoring (a) is disrespectful; merely attending (b) is positive but less supportive; making excuses (d) avoids inclusion; a brief message (e) is minimal. Common Pitfalls: Performative charity or condescension; overspending beyond means; neglecting to follow through. Final Answer: Attend with a thoughtful gift and offer help.

Question 11

Situation–Reaction Test — Team Misunderstanding and Social Freeze-Out: You are a member of your college sports team. Due to a misunderstanding, other members stop talking to you. What will you do?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This tests conflict-repair skills in a team setting. High-functioning teams depend on open communication and rapid de-escalation of misunderstandings. Given Data / Assumptions: A misunderstanding triggered social withdrawal by teammates. You want to restore trust and performance. No evidence of hostility that endangers safety. Concept / Approach: Direct, respectful dialogue is the fastest path to resolution. Proactivity signals accountability, reduces rumor formation, and shortens the disruption window that can impair training and results. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Approach teammates one-on-one or in a small group, without blame.2) State your understanding, invite their perspective, and listen actively.3) Clarify facts, apologize where appropriate, and propose next steps.4) Confirm agreements and move forward with shared goals. Verification / Alternative check: Teams that resolve conflicts quickly maintain better cohesion and performance metrics. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Mediation (a) can help but may delay; waiting (b) or isolating (c) prolongs damage; escalating to the coach (e) prematurely may entrench sides. Common Pitfalls: Defensiveness, public confrontation, or using group chats that inflame tensions. Final Answer: Proactively reopen communication and clear the misunderstanding.

Question 12

Situation–Reaction Test — Dinner Etiquette with a Persistent Host: You are a guest at dinner. The host urges you to take another chapati, but you are already full. What should you do?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Social etiquette often requires balancing honesty (you are full) with kindness (appreciation for the host). The best response preserves health and courtesy. Given Data / Assumptions: You are full and cannot eat more comfortably. The host is insistent out of hospitality. You want to maintain a positive relationship. Concept / Approach: Use a polite decline coupled with genuine appreciation to satisfy both needs—clear boundary and warmth. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Thank the host sincerely and praise the food.2) State you are full and cannot have more.3) If needed, accept a small takeaway instead of eating more immediately. Verification / Alternative check: Etiquette guides endorse appreciative refusals to maintain goodwill without discomfort. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Bad face (a) is rude; eating more (b) may cause discomfort; blunt refusal (d) lacks tact; leaving (e) is abrupt. Common Pitfalls: Over-explaining or fabricating excuses; sounding dismissive. Final Answer: Decline kindly with appreciation: “It was delicious; I’m already full.”

Question 13

Situation–Reaction Test — Classmate Who Wronged You Meets with an Accident: A classmate who recently got you into trouble with a teacher has met with an accident (correcting the typo “ancient” to “accident”). What will you do?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This scenario examines empathy and maturity. Ethical conduct favors compassion over vindictiveness, even when the injured person previously caused you harm. Given Data / Assumptions: The classmate wronged you earlier. They are now injured and hospitalized. You must choose the most appropriate immediate response. Concept / Approach: Choosing empathy fosters personal integrity and can reset relationships. Visiting them signals humanity and may open a path to reconciliation while prioritizing their well-being. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Set aside past grievance in the face of a medical emergency.2) Visit (or at least send wishes) and check practical needs.3) Keep the interaction respectful and brief; do not re-litigate past issues at the bedside. Verification / Alternative check: Pro-social responses in crises strengthen social fabric and self-respect, regardless of future relationship status. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Gloating (a) and moralizing (c) are unkind; indifference (b) ignores humanity; broadcasting on social media (e) is insensitive. Common Pitfalls: Using the visit to score points or demand apologies; making the situation about yourself. Final Answer: Visit the classmate and offer humane support.

Question 14

Situation–Reaction Test — Underperforming Colleague: Your colleague is not performing duties up to the mark. What will you do to protect customers and the company’s reputation while remaining professional?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This scenario assesses professionalism, customer centricity, and ethical judgment at work. When a teammate underperforms, your response should protect customers and brand trust while avoiding impulsive blame or self-promotion. Given Data / Assumptions: Customer experience and company reputation are at stake. The colleague’s performance gap is affecting outcomes now. You have enough bandwidth to stabilize the situation in the short term. Concept / Approach: Prioritize customers first, then address root causes. A professional response balances immediate service recovery with constructive escalation through proper channels, focusing on facts and solutions rather than personal gain. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Cover urgent customer touchpoints so service quality does not degrade.2) Document issues neutrally (dates, impacts, customer risk).3) Offer the colleague help or clarifying SOPs; identify skills/support gaps.4) If problems persist, brief the manager privately with solutions (retraining, workload rebalance). Verification / Alternative check: Customer-first actions reduce churn and complaints. Managers value teammates who stabilize outcomes and propose fixes without drama. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Ignoring (a) lets issues worsen; opportunism (b) is unethical; immediate punitive escalation (c) without stabilizing customers is shortsighted; public confrontation (e) harms morale and may embarrass the colleague. Common Pitfalls: Personalizing the issue; venting in group chats; neglecting documentation. Final Answer: Protect customers now, then pursue supportive, solution-oriented remediation.

Question 15

Situation–Reaction Test — Crowded Bus, Ticket Not Yet Purchased: The bus reaches your stop, but due to heavy rush you still do not have a ticket. What is the correct action before alighting?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This tests civic responsibility in public transport. Valid fare possession is a legal and ethical duty; crowding does not exempt you from compliance. Given Data / Assumptions: Heavy rush prevented timely ticketing. The bus has arrived at your stop. The conductor is present and reachable. Concept / Approach: Fare compliance must occur while on board. You should proactively settle the fare before alighting to avoid violations and penalties, and to model responsible citizenship. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Signal the conductor courteously.2) Pay the exact fare if possible; collect the ticket.3) Alight safely after the transaction. Verification / Alternative check: Transport rules generally require a valid ticket during the journey; inspectors can check at stops. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Jumping out (a) evades fare and risks injury; passing cash via strangers (c) risks loss; paying the driver (d) is improper; leaving first (e) is noncompliant. Common Pitfalls: Letting social pressure or time pressure justify non-payment. Final Answer: Obtain the ticket from the conductor before getting off.

Question 16

Situation–Reaction Test — Hot Soup Spilled on the Boss at a Dinner Party: In the middle of an important dinner, the waiter spills steaming hot soup on your boss’s lap. How should you respond immediately and appropriately?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This assesses crisis composure, duty of care, and prioritization. A burn risk exists; the humane, professional response is to provide first aid and facilitate medical treatment without grandstanding or blame. Given Data / Assumptions: Hot liquid contact may cause first- or second-degree burns. Medical evaluation may be required. You have authority to coordinate assistance. Concept / Approach: First aid sequence: stop exposure, cool the area (cool running water if feasible; avoid ice), remove soaked hot fabric if safe, protect dignity/privacy, and organize professional care. Maintain calm to reassure all present. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Move the boss to privacy; call for a first-aid kit.2) Cool the burn area with clean, cool (not ice-cold) water; remove soaked garments if not adhered.3) Cover with a sterile, non-fluffy dressing; assess pain and shock.4) Arrange transport to a clinic if needed; delegate hosting continuity to a trusted colleague. Verification / Alternative check: Burn first-aid protocols prioritize cooling and professional assessment. Emotional containment preserves event stability. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Panic/yelling (a,c) delays care; dousing with a full jug (d) can worsen scald spread and humiliation; ignoring (e) is negligent. Common Pitfalls: Applying ice or butter; pulling off fabric stuck to skin; public dramatics. Final Answer: Provide first aid and medical help immediately, with calm coordination.

Question 17

Situation–Reaction Test — Late for College and No Bus Available: You are getting late for college and no bus is available. What is the most practical and responsible step?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This checks problem-solving under time pressure. The goal is punctuality without irresponsible shortcuts or giving up unnecessarily. Given Data / Assumptions: You are already late and buses are unavailable. Alternate transport options likely exist. Attendance and commitments matter. Concept / Approach: Effective time management includes flexible routing. Evaluating alternatives quickly (rideshare, metro, carpool, bicycle, shuttle) is superior to passively waiting or abandoning the plan. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Check fastest viable modes (apps, metro timings, carpool chats).2) Balance cost vs. lateness penalties; choose the best ETA.3) Inform concerned faculty if unavoidable delay persists. Verification / Alternative check: Students who plan backups and adapt routes maintain reliability and reduce stress. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Walking (a) may be too slow; returning home (b) forfeits learning; waiting (d) wastes time; malingering (e) is dishonest. Common Pitfalls: Decision paralysis; ignoring real-time transit info. Final Answer: Quickly select a practical alternative conveyance to arrive as close to on time as possible.

Question 18

Situation–Reaction Test — Media Requests a Briefing on Pension Plan: As head of your office, media personnel arrive and request you to brief them about your organization’s pension plan. How should you respond?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This evaluates media handling, governance, and information accuracy. Public statements about policy must be correct, consistent, and authorized to prevent misinformation and liability. Given Data / Assumptions: Media are on premises requesting a briefing. Details may be complex or recently updated. You are accountable for accuracy and compliance. Concept / Approach: Adopt a “verify then brief” approach. Coordinate with subject-matter and legal/PR owners to ensure facts, eligibility criteria, and disclaimers are correct, and that you are cleared to speak on record. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Receive the request courteously; log representatives and questions.2) Consult pension/HR/legal teams for the latest approved lines.3) Provide a concise, accurate briefing and share official literature or links.4) Offer to follow up on technical queries requiring deeper review. Verification / Alternative check: Organizations with controlled communications avoid contradictory statements and reduce reputational risk. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Deferring without process (a) frustrates journalists; ad-hoc briefing (b) risks errors; eviction (c) is hostile; blanket refusal (e) appears opaque and may escalate speculation. Common Pitfalls: Speculating; sharing draft policies; speaking off the record without permission. Final Answer: Coordinate internally, then brief accurately and professionally.

Question 19

Situation–Reaction Test — Critical Project vs. Employee’s Family Medical Emergency: A key subordinate requests two weeks’ leave for a parent’s bypass surgery during a critical project. As the manager, what should you do?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This tests compassionate leadership under delivery pressure. Ethical management protects people in emergencies while safeguarding commitments through planning, redundancy, and knowledge transfer. Given Data / Assumptions: Parent requires bypass surgery; leave request is two weeks. The employee is important to a live project. You have some bench/parallel capacity or can rebalance workload. Concept / Approach: Demonstrate empathy and resilience: approve leave, activate contingency plans, redistribute tasks, and capture handover notes. A healthy culture improves loyalty and long-term performance. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Approve leave promptly; offer HR/insurance assistance.2) Secure a structured handover (status, risks, assets, contacts).3) Reassign tasks to a capable teammate; adjust scope if required.4) Communicate updated plan and risk mitigations to stakeholders. Verification / Alternative check: Teams with humane policies retain talent and meet goals via redundancy and clear playbooks. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Abdicating planning (a) risks delivery; lack of empathy (b) harms trust; declaring only one person can deliver (c) is a single-point-of-failure anti-pattern; punitive action (e) is unethical. Common Pitfalls: Skipping handover; failing to notify stakeholders; overloading the replacement without support. Final Answer: Approve leave and reassign work with a solid handover and stakeholder alignment.

Question 20

Situation–Reaction Test — Accident Disrupts Your Ability to Deliver an Urgent Task: You must complete a critical HQ task within two days, but you meet with an accident and your officer still insists you finish. What should you do?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This scenario probes duty of care and continuity planning. Safety and health are paramount, yet organizational obligations require a credible continuity plan to protect outcomes. Given Data / Assumptions: You suffered an accident and may be temporarily limited. A critical deliverable is due in two days. Your officer insists on completion despite circumstances. Concept / Approach: Provide for continuity without endangering yourself: nominate a qualified alternate, transfer context quickly, and keep HQ informed so timelines are preserved and risks are transparent. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Brief HQ on the incident and current capacity constraints.2) Propose one or two capable alternates with role clarity.3) Deliver a focused handover: objectives, status, blockers, contacts, files.4) Remain reachable for limited clarifications if medically feasible. Verification / Alternative check: Organizations that plan handovers recover faster from shocks; leadership values risk-aware continuity over heroics. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Extension only (a) may be denied; declaring inability (b) without a plan is unhelpful; disappearing (d) harms outcomes; working while injured (e) endangers health and quality. Common Pitfalls: Informal handovers; unclear ownership; failing to share access/credentials. Final Answer: Nominate an alternate and execute a crisp handover while prioritizing your medical care.

Situation Reaction Test Questions