Bil Tarnofsky makes the following statement: 'We must become more flexible if we are to meet our personnel needs and maximize efficiency. In the past, we simply hired as many full-time employees as we thought we needed. But this focus has caused us to lose many valuable employees. We should offer flextime and job sharing options to help us keep and attract talented employees. "Margaret Robin responds by saying "Alternatives to traditional job design approaches can lead to significant cost savings. Next year we are expected to have 500 more employees than our current facility allows, but my analysis reveals that 600 of our employees could telecommute. Therefore, we can avoid costly actions such as moving our offices or building extensions if these workers became telecommuters, job sharing can also reduce facility costs as well as payroll costs. Tamnofsky and Robin would be most likely to disagree about which of the following questions?
A. Would telecommuting likely lead to cost savings?
B. Does the organization have a moral obligation to offer flextime and job sharing options?
C. If offering a job sharing option would not reduce costs, should the organization still offer it?
D. Would the organization be better able to keep valuable employees if it offered flextime and job sharing options?
E. Are any other organizational structure decisions important for the future of the organization?

The statement Bil Tarnofsky makes is focused on retaining talented employees and attract new talented employees, by offering flextime and job sharing options

The statement Margaret Robin responds with is the use of alternative job design, such as telecommuting could achieve higher cost savings from the need to accommodate the 500 more employees, by moving the offices and expanding the buildings, in the coming year

Tamnofsky and Robin would be most likely to disagree on the different focus of their statements which are; If offering a job sharing option would not reduce costs, should the organization offer it?