Analysing deviations

Two negative trends require diagnosis before action. The entrepreneur should examine cost records, service processes, quality, complaints, and customer feedback to identify the causes and their relationship. Only after this analysis can suitable corrective measures be chosen. Raising prices, blaming customers, or closing immediately may worsen the problem without evidence.

The governing concept is corrective control. In management, control compares actual performance with planned standards, identifies a deviation, analyses its cause, and takes corrective action. If output is low because a machine is defective, repairing that machine addresses the real source of the deviation and can restore performance. It is therefore improvement-oriented, not punishment-oriented. Option B imposes punishment without evidence or diagnosis. Option C prevents analysis, while option D eliminates the standard needed for meaningful comparison. The case may also involve feedback for future planning, but the central clue is finding the cause and correcting it. Hence, option A is the only sound example of controlling as a constructive function.

The governing concept is controlling through comparison, deviation analysis and corrective action. Staffing ensures that suitable people are recruited and placed, while directing guides and motivates them. Even when both functions are properly performed, actual results may differ from planned results because of inefficient methods, inadequate materials, changing conditions, errors, weak coordination or unrealistic standards. Controlling identifies such differences by measuring actual performance, comparing it with standards and investigating the reasons for deviations. Thus option A is correct. The word ‘causes’ is especially important: control is not merely observing failure; it diagnoses why it occurred and supports corrective action. The other options describe narrower functions that do not provide the complete performance-investigation process.