IIPM

PGP/WINTER BATCH / YEAR 2012-14 FIRST SEMESTER END TERM EXAMINATION 2012 Subject: Organisation Behavior Maximum Marks: 75 Time: 3 Hrs
INSTRUCTIONS: You have to attempt the questions as per the instructions for this paper. Carefully note the marks for each question. Begin answer to a new question on a new page. Write legibly and keep the length of the answer as per the weightage (in terms of marks) assigned to each question. DO NOT be unduly short or long in providing the relevant details. The question number of the answer to the question you are attempting must match with the corresponding question number in the question paper. Cheating in any form is strictly prohibited. Failure to follow any of instructions will lead to deduction of marks for you. NOTE: The paper is divided into 3 sections. Section A contains Q1 and Q2. You have to compulsorily answer both. Section B contains 3 questions; select any 2 for answering. Section C again contains 3 questions, out of which you have to select 2 questions. Thus, including the 2 compulsory questions you have to answer (2+2+2) six questions in all. The marks for individual questions have been mentioned alongside the question. ALL THE BEST SECTION A Answer both the questions Question 1 (20 mm) Read the following case study carefully and then answer the questions that follow: Teams to Get Things Done After years of difficulties and many attempts to change, a Myerstown, Pennsylvania, pharmaceutical plant, part of the commission Care Division of German-owned Bayer Corporation, instituted a teams-based changed program. The facility had been sold several times in recent years and had operated under various organizations. The fifty-year-old factory was staffed at less than 50 percent when it was purchased by Bayer. There has been no plant manager 1

for almost a year, and morale was at an all-time low. Worse yet, the factory was losing money, and the remaining employees feared a shutdown. The outlook was bleak, but in the absence of leadership from the top level, the Human Resource Department, under the guidance of director John Danchisko, decided that the employees themselves could turn the low-performing facility around. First, ninety-three employees were selected at random to participate in seven focus groups. At the meetings, workers brainstormed the answers to open-ended questions such as Why do people work here? and Why do people leave here? Their answers were compiled and sent to every employee for comments and input. Employees were impressed; they liked the new proactive and collaborative management style. Rick Higley, a pharmaceutical operator, says, The thing I rally appreciated about the process was that the managers listened to what everyone had to say , treated is as equals, and really valued our opinions. Next, an eighteen-member cross-functional team was formed to recommend and help implement improvements. The team approach was clearly popular because fifty people volunteered for those eighteen slots. The team focused on five key priorities: 1. Define site goals and strategy and communicate them interactive employee conferences. Job security concerns and a need to see how shorter-term goals to fit into the long-term strategy were important to employees. 2. Develop a site communication process. Employees felt that their best option for information was no better than a rumor mill while supervisors often werent given critical information. Having consistency of information from the top to the bottom of the organization benefited everyone. 3. Develop hourly employee and supervisory role definitions and competency profiles. Changing ownership had led to too many abandoned programs, and training has been inconsistent. Decision-making authority, span of control, and management roles were just a few of the areas of confusion. 4. Identify areas of perceived inconsistencies in site practices and policies and determine appropriate actions. Employees wanted to ensure that any system used at the facility would be used consistently and that all workers would be treated the same. 5. Developed a performance measurement process (a performance scorecard system). Without some type of measurement system, workers and supervisors were unsure whether goals were being reached. One of the biggest obstacles to change was the factories past history of failed changes. An employee noted, It would be nice if [managers] were really sincere in this, but weve all been through this before. I think this is going to be another flavor of the month. Employee skepticism began to change as the teams focused on what really mattered to the hourly workers. Employees began by asking, Whats in it for me?but the teams proposed a pay-for-performance system, with employees earning up to an additional 8 percent on top of their base pay when profitability was above target. In its first year, the facility reached four of its five financial goals and became profitable earlier than expected. Employee satisfaction is now up, and accidents are down. On-time completion of weekly production quotas has risen from 53 percent (about average for this industry) to 85 percent. In 2000, the plant received Workforce magazines Optimas award for excellence in human resources. Management was so pleased with the results of the program that the teams have become permanent, with rotating membership. Danchisko says, When we first started this, we didnt realize how big it would actually become for our site. Hire We are, a few 2

years down the road, and were still heavily into this. The sites teams process has become a model for other Bayer facilities. Werner Wenning, the new chairman of Bayer, has taken control of the firm at a difficult time. The stock price is declining, new products are slow to reach market, and the company is restructuring its divisional organization. Wenning admits that Bayer was too slow in its response to changing market condition, noting, In the future, we have to act more quickly. Perhaps the CEO ought to consider the team-based methods that were developed by his own employees at the Myerstown facility. Questions: 1. Based on group performance factors, what do you predict will be the likely performance of the eighteen-member cross-functional team? 2. Initially, workers at the Myerstown plant were skeptical about the use of teams and resisted the change. What conflict resolution approach was used to address this problem? Is that the approach you would recommend for this situation? Why or why not? Question 2 (30 mm) Define / explain all the following 15 terms given below 1. Contributing Disciplines to OB
2. Stereotyping 3. Halo Effect 4. Punishment 5. Positive Reinforcement 6. Transformational leadership 7. Mentoring 8. Classical Conditioning 9. Organisational Environment 10. Hofstedes Framework 11. Two-Factor Theory 12. Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) 13. Contingency Factors 14. Interpersonal Communication 15. Management

SECTION B Select any 2 questions for answering (12.5 mm) 3

Question 3 . In an increasingly globalised world, fast change has become an imperative for all organizations. Discuss the challenges and opportunities facing organizations and individuals today. Question 4 What is the difference between a leader and manager? How would you discuss your basic leadership style? Give specific examples of how you practise it in the Institute? Question 5 The various psychological processes can be thought of as pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and personality as the completed puzzle picture. Elaborate. SECTION C Select any 2 questions for answering (12.5 mm) Question 6 How is job satisfaction related to attitude of an individual. Explain. Also mention the barriers to changing attitudes. Question 7 How do teams in todays organisations differ from traditional work groups? Illustrate with teams formed in corporates vis a vis groups. Question 8 What effect can perceptual process have on organisational behaviour? Which component of the process is most dominant in you while framing perceptions about politicians, and why?