MS1 Management Functions and Behaviour June 2008

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME
Term-End Examination

MS1: MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS AND BEHAVIOUR

Time: 3 hours
Maximum Marks: 100
(Weightage 70%)

Note : (i)There are two Sections A and B.
(ii) Attempt any three questions from Section A, each question carrying 20 marks.
(iii) Section B is compulsory and carries 40 marks.

SECTION A

1. Briefly describe different skills required for a manager and discuss the role of a manager in Institution Building.

2. Describe different phases of decision making according to Mintzberg and their relevance. Discuss any two models of decision-making process.

3. Explain the process of conflict and different strategies of conflict management in organisational context. Give examples.

4. Describe and differentiate between delegation, decentralisation and centralisation. Discuss the problems in delegation and how to overcome them to make the process more effective.

5. Write short notes on any three of the following :
(i) Johari window
(ii) Informal communication
(iii) Matrix structure
(iv) Kurt Lewin's model
(v) Domino effect

SECTION B

6. Read the following case and answer the questions given at the end.

The ABC Manufacturing Company is a metal working plant under the direction of a plant manager who is known as a strict disciplinarian. One day a foreman noticed Bhola, one of the workers, at the time-clock punching out two cards his own and the card of Nathu, a fellow worker. Since it was the rule of the company that each man must punch out his own card, the foreman asked Bhola to accompany him to the Personnel Director, who interpr eted the incident as a direct violation of a rule and gave immediate notice of discharge to both workers. The two workers came to see the Personnel Director on the following duy. Nathu claimed innocence on the ground that he had not asked for his card to be punched and did not know at the time that it was being punched. He had been oflered a ride by a friend who had already punched out and who could not wait for him to go through the punch-out procedure. Nathu was worried about his wife who was ill at home and was anxious to reach home as quickly as possible. He planned to take his card to the foreman the next morning for reinstatement, a provision sometimes exercised in such cases. These circumstances were verified by Bhola. He claimed that he had punched Nathu's card the same time he punched his own, not being conscious of any wrongdoing.

The Personnel Director was inclined to believe the story of the two men but did not feel he could reverse the action taken. He recognized that these men were good workers and had good records prior to this incident. Nevertheless, they had violated a rule for which the penalty was immediate discharge. He also reminded them that it was the policy of the company to enforce the rules without exception.

A few days later the Personnel Director, the Plant Manager, and the Sales Manager sat together at lunch. The Sales Manager reported that he was faced with the necessity of notifying one of their best customers that his order must be delayed because of the liability of one department to conform to schedule. The department in question was the one from which the two workers had been discharged. Not only had it been impossible to replace these men to date, but disgruntlement over the incident had led to significant decline in the cooperation of the other workers. The Personnel Director and the Sales Manager took the position that the discha rge of these two valuable men could have been avoided if there had been provision for onsidering the circumstances of the case. They pointed out that the incident was costly to the company in the possible loss of a customer, in the dissatisfaction within the employee group, and in the time and money that would be involved in recruiting and training replacements. The Plant Manager could not agree with this point of view. "We must have rules if we are to have efficiency; and the rules are no god unless we enforce them. Furthermore, if we start considering all these variations in circumstances, we will find ourselves loaded down with everybody thinking he is an exception." He admitted that the grievances were frequent but countered with the point that they could be of little consequence if the contract agreed to by the union was followed to the letter.

Questions

(a) Identify the core issues in the case

(b) Place yourself in the position of the Personnel Director. Which of the following courses of action would you have chosen and why ?

(i) Would you have discharged both men ?
(ii) Would you have discharged Bhola only ?
(iii) Would you have discharged Nathu only ?
(iv) Would you have discharged neither of them ? Justify your choice of decision.
(c) What policy and procedural changes would you recommend for handling such cases in future ?