RC: After the second World War, unionism in the Japanese

[Khush]

Below is a passage and an inference question from a GMATPREP Software RC:

After the Second World War, unionism in the Japanese auto industry was company-based, with separate unions in each auto company. Most company unions played no independent role in bargaining shop-floor issues or pressing autoworkers' grievances. In a 1981 survey, for example, fewer than 1 percent of workers said they sought union assistance for work-related problems, while 43 percent said they turned to management instead. There was little to distinguish the two in any case: most union officers were foremen or middle-level managers, and the union's role was primarily one of passive support for company goals. Conflict occasionally disrupted this cooperative relationship--one company union's opposition to the productivity campaigns of the early 1980s has been cited as such a case. In 1986, however, a caucus led by the Foreman's Association forced the union's leadership out of office and returned the union's policy to one of passive cooperation. In the United States, the potential for such company unionism grew after 1979, but it had difficulty taking hold in the auto industry, where a single union represented workers from all companies, particularly since federal law prohibited foremen from joining or leading industrial unions.

The Japanese model was often invoked as one in which authority decentralized to the shop floor empowered production workers to make key decisions. What these claims failed to recognize was that the actual delegation of authority was to the foreman, not the workers. The foreman exercised discretion over job assignments, training, transfers, and promotions; worker initiative was limited to suggestions that fine-tuned a management-controlled production process. Rather than being proactive, Japanese workers were forced to be reactive, the range of their responsibilities being far wider than their span of control. For example, the founder of one production system, Taichi Ohno, routinely gave department managers only 90 percent of the resources needed for production. As soon as workers could meet production goals without working overtime, 10 percent of remaining resources would be removed. Because the "OH! NO!" system continually pushed the production process to the verge of breakdown in an effort to find the minimum resource requirement, critics described it as "management by stress."

It can be inferred that the author of the passage sees which of the following as the primary advantage to companies in implementing the "OH! NO!" system?
(A) It permitted the foreman to take initiative.
(B) It minimized the effort required to produce automobiles.
(C) It ensured that production costs would be as low as possible.
(D) It allowed the foreman to control the production process.
(E) It required considerable worker empowerment to achieve managers' goals.

OA: C

I chose answer B. Then after realizing that the answer is C, i read the choice B again.
The second paragraph talks about the reduction in the Number of RESOURCES in delivering more work in Less TIME. Therefore, the same work will require more effort (as the number of resources is fewer and the time taken is less now). Hence, concluded that choice B says the opposite and therefore is incorrect.

On the other hand, i do not get why is C the correct inference.
Although workers don't do overtime and fewer workers do finish the work, production costs may depend on other factors. Moreover, the passage does not mention anything about "Production Costs" anywhere in the passage.

Could you please help here?

[RonPurewal]

The passage states that the oh-no system allowed production to meet the "minimum resource requirement". Use of minimum possible resources = lowest possible production cost.

I see what you're getting at here, in the sense that "cost" is usually cast in terms of money, and money isn't explicitly mentioned here. But, think about how you would define "minimum resources" when you're talking about ALL the resources required for some production process.
If you were talking about just one resource, then you could define this in all sorts of different ways -- dollars, pounds, gallons, whatever. But the only reasonable way to aggregate a whole bunch of disparate resources into a single measurement is to put that measurement in dollars. Hence, "minimum resources used" = minimum production cost.

[RonPurewal]

More to the point --
If you had issues with choice C, which OTHER choice did you see as a contender?

Even if you quibble with choice C over the dollars/resources distinction, it should be clear that the other choices are all much worse.
Choice B, as you wrote above, is a wrong-way answer, as is choice E (the whole point here is that workers really weren't empowered at all).
Choices A and D are acknowledged as true, but are certainly not presented as advantages to the company.

Remember, something has to be the correct answer. You can't just argue against answers; you also have to pick one to argue for.

[Khush]

Thanks much Ron!

Appreciate all your responses.

I got it.

You are right in saying that elimination could have been a right approach in this situation. Under time pressure, i usually do not give a second thought to an answer choice like C. Although, after the exam is over, i often realize that the one i missed was better than others. In this question i kept B as contender of C. While reviewing the answers, i rejected B as per the aforementioned reason.

[RonPurewal]

Two ways to reject B.

1/
Everyday common sense.

The "oh no" method relied on continually taking away resources from workers.

Doing a job with fewer resources will almost always involve more effort, not less effort.

NEVER pick a choice that violates common sense. Never ever ever, even if you think you found evidence for it. Pick something else.

2/
The passage explicitly says that this method "pushed the production process to the verge of breakdown". Does that sound like (a) minimum effort, or (b) absolutely maximum effort?
Yeah.

[Khush]

I got your point Ron.

Much Thanks for showing a new way to reject answer choices!

[RonPurewal]

Sure.

(Hopefully, using everyday common sense doesn't seem like a "new way' to do anything. If that's so, then that's problematic.)

[Khush]

:-))

I was actually thinking in general terms for all your responses and somehow wrote like that.
Of course, common sense way was not a new way at all :)

I have edited my post to avoid confusion.

Thank You again!

[RonPurewal]

Ok.

[soumya2022]

Another question from the same passage:
The author of the passage mentions the "OH! NO!" system primarily in order to
A. indicate a way in which the United States industry has become more like the Japanese auto industry
B. challenge a particular misconception about worker empowerment in the Japanese auto industry
C. illustrate the kinds of problem-solving techniques encouraged by company unions in Japan
D. suggest an effective way of minimizing production costs in auto manufacturing
E. provide an example of the responsibilities assumed by a foreman in the Japanese auto industry

picked the right answer B, but was confused between B and E-took too much time to zero in on the answer.
Any suggestions how I could cut down on time, Sir.

Warm regards
Soumya

[RonPurewal]

Some specifics would help.
How did you approach the problem? What was your goal in searching the text?
What did you find appealing about each of those choices?
Etc.

Thanks.

[chetan86]

Some specifics would help.
How did you approach the problem? What was your goal in searching the text?
What did you find appealing about each of those choices?
Etc.

Thanks.

Hi Ron,

I selected option E, because I thought the mentioned text is given as an example, and before the "OH! NO!" text, the role of foreman is mentioned (The foreman exercised discretion xxx)

But after checking the answer I analyzed the structure of the paragraph. In the first line, the author has acknowledged the decentralized authority, but from next line author has criticized the system. So answer B is the correct answer.

Option E is explaining the given example but not suggesting the role it is playing in the passage. ( I think this is the common trap answer choice, which explains the highlighted text but does not suggest the role it playing in the passage)

Could you please confirm whether my reasoning is correct?

Thanks!!

[RonPurewal]

well, basically. but you'll do better if you predict your answers to these kinds of questions before looking at the choices.

"What is the purpose of mentioning xxxx?" is a question you could quite literally ask someone, if (s)he were telling you about this thing.

"Why are you telling me about this Ohno system?"
... the answer would probably be something like "it's an example of how random stressful situations were thrown at japanese workers."

it's definitely not an example of the responsibilities of a foreman.

[chetan86]

well, basically. but you'll do better if you predict your answers to these kinds of questions before looking at the choices.

"What is the purpose of mentioning xxxx?" is a question you could quite literally ask someone, if (s)he were telling you about this thing.

"Why are you telling me about this Ohno system?"
... the answer would probably be something like "it's an example of how random stressful situations were thrown at japanese workers."

it's definitely not an example of the responsibilities of a foreman.

Hi Ron,

Thanks a lot for your reply and the tip for approaching this kind of questions.
I saw your many videos on vimeo. They are great and helped me alot to approach different questions.

Kind regards,
Chetan

[RonPurewal]

excellent.