MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME
Term-End Examination
December, 1999
MS1 : MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS AND BEHAVIOUR
Time: 3 hours
Maximum Marks: 100
(Weightage 70%)
(ii) Attempt any three questions from Section A, each question carrying 20 marks.
(iii) Section B is compulsory and carries 40 marks.
1 What are the various determinants of organisational culture? How does leadership influence the culture of an origanisation?
2 Describe the responsibilities of a professional manager towards customers and society. Illustrate your answer with suitable examples.
3 Why do people generally resist change? Do personal factors play a role in this process? What are the common coping strategies for change?
4 Describe conflict avoidance, conflict diffusion and conflict confrontation strategies with the help of suitable examples.
5 Distinguish between decision making under risk and decision making under conflict or competition.
6 Write short notes on any three of the following :
(i) Line and staff functions
(ii) Managerial values and ethos
(iii) Socialisation process in an organisation
(iv) Management Information System
(v) Theory X and Theory Y
SECTION B
7 Read the case given below and answer the questions given at the end.
CASE
Modern Industries Limited (MIL) in Bangalore, a subsidiary of a multinational company, is a consumer durables manufacturing industry. Presently, the company has over 5000 employees and an annual turnover of about Rs. 75 crores. It is a reputed high-technology industry with a strong team of technological experts.
The company offers an excellent training scheme for fresh technical graduates, known as “Graduate Engineer Training (GET) Scheme” which is of 2 years’ duration. The objective of this scheme is to identify and train engineers for the specialised technological requirements of the company. Over the past decade several fresh graduates have undergone this training programme and at present hold key positions in the organisation, having proved their worth to the company. Even those who have left the organisation are reported to be doing extremely well in their jobs. The company regarded it as a Prize Scheme. It has gained high reputation among the student community and there is keen competition among graduates country-wide to join this scheme.
Mr. Mohan joined the company as a Graduate Engineer Trainee in 1986 after obtaining his B.Tech. degree in Mechanical Engineering from I.I.T. Bombay. He has secured the second position in the class, and had a brilliant academic record to his credit. After his B.Tech., he had several attractive offers for employment including a scholarship from an American University, but he preferred to join MIL as a GET. He had reasons to do so. Firstly, the scheme had a high reputation and was helping fresh engineers to start their career in industry on a sound footing. Secondly, he was interested in getting practical experience rather than continuing his education. Thirdly, he was the eldest son of his parents, who were settled in Bangalore, and he wanted to stay with them and lessen their financial burden.
He did quite well during his training, which included working in different departments on specific assignments. This helped the trainees to get a feel of the challenges in different functional areas and at the same time enabled the departmental managers to know them. This helped the managers to identify the aptitudes of trainees and place them finally in suitable areas of specialisation.
Mr. Mohan’s training was oriented towards his final placement in the production engineering department. After his training in 1988 he was placed in that department as an Engineer. The job was quite challenging: it called for a lot of hard work and ingenuity. He was required to tackle technical problems related to a particular manufacturing workshop, and was also expected to improve the existing process and parameters. The workshop was one of the key manufacturing areas. He was quick to understand the complexities of his job and was able to show improvements in a short period of time.
The company had a reasonably good system of performance appraisal and rewards, and the contributions of individuals were usually well rewarded. Mr. Mohan earned an additional increment in 1990 in appreciation of his contribution. This encouraged him to work with greater enthusiasm. He was also a member of some of the workgroups, which were formed from time to time for tackling specific problems; and did well in this capacity. He was quite competent in his area of work and earned an extra increment in 1991.
However, trouble started brewing from then onwards. he and his superior, Mr. Tagore did not agree on many matters. Mr. Tagore felt that Mr. Mohan was not cooperative, and tended to be dogmatic in his approach. This adversely affected their work relationship.
Mr. Tagore, who was the head of the production engineering department, had over 25 years’ experience and held a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. He had worked for other organisations before joining the company in 1976. He was placed as Manager of production engineering department in 1984. He had sound practical knowledge and was handling the production engineering department quite effectively.
Generally ex-trainees were considered for promotion after 3 to 4 years of experience. In 1992, many of those who completed training in 1988 were promoted as Senior Engineers. Mr. Mohan was expecting his name to be in the list of promotes, but to his surprise it was not. His performance during the year was rated as normal, and this upset him greatly leading him to feel frustrated. He met the Training Manager and appraised him of the situation. He requested him to arrange for his transfer to some other functional area. The Training Manager took up the case but could not transfer Mr. Mohan, as the workshop serviced by him was a critical one and his expertise was very much in demand there.
The difference between Mr. Tagore and Mr. Mohan were widening and becoming serious on technical matters. Mr. Tagore complained that Mr. Mohan unnecessarily argued on every minor detail, and that this amounted to disobedience. Mr. Mohan was considered an obstacle to work; his annual increment for 1993 was also withheld.
Mr. Mohan was thoroughly upset. He met the General Manager and contended that he was fully competent in his job and, therefore, there wan no reason for withholding his increment. He argued that his superior was less educated than him, and that this accounted for the widening of differences between him and the Manager. He requested the General Manager to look into the matter, and he promised to do.
A week later, the General Manager called him and informed him that he was being transferred to another department. Mr. Mohan was quite willing to work in that department provided he was posted there on promotion. Inter-departmental transfers were not uncommon. Young engineers, in particular, were transferred from one department to the other with a view building them up for higher positions which required better inter-functional understanding. In all such cases the practice was to post them on promotion. However, Mr. Mohan’s demand was not conceded. He was transferred in June 1993. His performance in the new department was far from satisfactory and he was considered to be a “deadwood” there. He was understandably disgusted. He tried for a scholarship abroad and succeeded. This lead to his decision to quite his job. He left the country in January 1994, full of bitterness and disgust.
Questions :
(a) How did a brilliant engineer turn out to be a “deadwood”?
(b) Was Mr. Mohan too sensitive and arrogant?
(c) Did Mr. Tagore handle sensitive and intelligent engineers properly?
(d) Was it not advisable to transfer Mr. Mohan in 1992 when the signs of trouble were seen?
(e) Should Mr. Tagore have stopped Mr. Mohan’s increment in 1993, knowing fully well that he was quite competent?
No comments:
Post a Comment