An employee 'called on the carpet' for poor performance tells his supervisor that his recent behavior has been due to a serious family problem. The supervisor suggests several social agencies which may be able to help him. The supervisor's action was:

• A. Bad; the supervisor should not involve himself in the personal affairs of his subordinates
• B. Good; personal problems frequently affect job performance
• C. Good; the discussion with the supervisor will in itself tend to solve the problem
• D. Bad; the employee may consider the supervisor responsible for the action of the social agencies

Answer: (B)

The main idea being tested is that personal problems that affect work performance should be acknowledged and addressed with supportive, concrete help. When the supervisor suggests social agencies, they’re not intruding into private life; they’re connecting the employee with resources that can resolve the underlying issue and, in turn, improve job performance. This is good supervision because it shows concern for the employee and takes practical steps to remove a barrier to work.

Why this fits best: personal challenges, especially serious family problems, can directly impact behavior and effectiveness on the job. Offering access to support services demonstrates a proactive, constructive approach that aims to help the employee rather than just criticizing the performance. It also helps maintain a productive work environment.

Why the other ideas don’t fit as well: simply discussing the problem without offering help tends to overlook the real cause and misses an opportunity to improve performance. Treating personal issues as irrelevant ignores their impact on work. Finally, implying the supervisor is responsible for the actions of external social agencies miscasts responsibility—the supervisor’s role is to guide the employee to appropriate resources, not to be accountable for those services.