MS1 Management Functions and Behaviour June 2001

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME
Term-End Examination

June, 2001

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. Define organisational effectiveness. How do you differentiate effectiveness from efficiency? Comment critically with suitable examples from Indian organizations.

2. “Hiring good people is still a relatively simpler task as compared to the task of retaining them. People may join a company because of its favorable image but will stay on only if they find appreciation for and satisfaction from their work.” Critically evaluate the statement and discuss the underlying concepts.

3. What are the salient features of different models of decision making? Explain any two of them in details and compare them.

4. What are the consequences of inter-group conflict? What are the ways to reduce the negative consequences of inter-group conflict?

5. Why do people generally resist change? Do personality factors have any role in the process? Explain common coping mechanisms adopted for managing change.

6. Write short notes on any three of the following:
(i) M.B.O.
(ii) Managerial Values and Ethos
(iii) Brain-Storming
(iv) Effective delegation
(v) Leadership Styles

SECTION B

7. Read carefully the case and answer the questions given at the end.

SARVODAYA STRUCTURALS LTD.

Sarvodaya Structural Limited was engaged in the fabrication o f heavy structural. The company had six shops besides engineering, accounts, personnel, sales, and administrative departments. It employed 7000 men. The chief executive of the company was the General Manager.

In one of the shops employing 1000 men. 900 tons of structural were fabricated every month. The day-to-day management of the shop was entrusted to the Manager, who was assisted by the shop were Preparation. Marking, and Finishing.

In the Marking and Finishing Sections, the work was supervised by two Foremen each. The Preparation Section was under the direct supervision of the Senior Foreman, who , in addition, planned and coordinated the work of all the three sections. The Preparation Section was responsible for the collection and classification of own and his satisfaction. You are anyway, carrying out an in-process quality control, and you might be able to make good use of Govindan in view of his long technical experience of production work. Think it over, and let me know by tomorrow.

Rao thought over the matter.

PMA company had been a successful enterprise until March 1972 at which time it suffered a sharp decline of profits: sales had fallen off, and production costs had risen. The president adopted three measures which he hoped would improve the condition. First, by creating an Industrial Engineering department for establishing work standards on all production operations, to determine which manufacturing costs were out of line and where remedial action should be taken. Rao. 28 years old, who had been with the company for two years in the Purchasing department, was selected. Rao had B.E. and MBA degrees to his credit. What he lacked in his business experience he made up by his eagerness to learn. He was ambitious and liked by his associates. He wanted a transfer from. Purchasing to Production for better opportunities for advancement.

Secondly, he consulted a Management Consultation firm to make a study of the Production Department. They pointed out that the chain of command was too long from Production Manager through Plant Superintendent through Assistant Superintendent to Foremen. They recommended the elimination of the position of Assistant Superintendent.

Thirdly, he engaged an Industrial Psychologist to appraise all the Supervisory Personnel.

Govindan had been with the Company for 20 years since its founding and during this period had worked on every production operation, and his last 11 years had been in supervisory capacity. His manners were rough and aggressive, he had little formal education. The industrial Psychologist’s report about Govindan contained the following points:

(i) Evaluation for the position of Assistant Superintendent: Not good enough.
(ii) Capacity for good human relations in supervision: Will have friction frequently.
(iii) Need for development counseling; Counseling greatly needed.
(iv) General evaluation: Govindan had a good ability profile. He suffers from a sense of inferiority. He does not like the responsibility of making decisions. His supervision is that of Autocratic type. Though he has the ability, as far as his personality make-up is concerned, he is out of place in the present position.

Questions:

1. What is the problem in the case? Explain.
2. Explain Govindan’s behaviour and work experience vis-à-vis the psychologist’s report.
3. How do you see Naik’s suggestion to Rao? Give reasons.
4. What are Rao’s considerations is taking a decision? What should he do? Explain.