Q.1

The examinees were required to explain the  factors like personal appeal, perceived intension and perceived authority, which are likely to have an impact on the persons to whom the communication is being made. Most of them were able to define the concepts. However very few were able to provide proper explanation and examples. Few of them also went into unnecessary details. Some candidates narrowed down the concept of perceived authority to ‘official power’ or ‘authority by designation’ rather than ‘power by expertise’.

Q.2

In this question a proposal was required to be submitted to a bank for establishment of its HRM system.

Students’ performance in this question was unsatisfactory.  Most answers were in the form of inter office memo or letter writing. Moreover, very few papers covered some spirit of a proposal while rest were just an introduction and incomplete document. Generally the aspects of a good proposal such as scope of work, methods, cost benefit analysis etc. were not covered. It was evident that even the better of the lot had been taught the theoretical aspects and had not practiced proposal writing. 

Q.3

Part (a) was well attempted and well scored by most candidates. In part (b), most candidates skipped core aspects such as agenda, objectives, participation and minutes etc. and emphasized upon trivial/obvious points such as venue, refreshments, appointment of chair etc.

Q.4

Most candidates were able to describe the terms i.e. Physical, Social and Temporal Dimensions but the ability to express accurately was lacking.

Q.5

This question required the writing of a report about the feasibility of opening a new office in another city. A graph was also required as a part of the report.

Most of the students got atleast some marks by discussing the points given in the question itself. Only a few good students could however refer to the findings, methodology or conclusion of the report. A few prepared the graph as required while the rest only drew lines or boxes on coordinates which were meaningless.

Q.6

A press release was required. Majority missed the heading, date and contact address. Body of the press release was fairly attended by some of the students whereas many examinees could only emphasise on the installation of additional generation capacity and did not discuss any other steps taken by the company.

Q.7

Answers to the first part of the question were adequate. But only a few candidates could explain the implications of the axioms.

Q.8

Most of the students seemed well versed as regards the format of the letter and gained marks. Body of the letter was also fair in most of the papers. One common observation was that although it was clearly mentioned in the question that this would be the first letter to the customer, many students kept the language of the body very rigid and at times quiet harsh.

Q.9

Part (a) was well answered. However, some candidates mixed up the concept of role conflict and role ambiguity. Part (b) was a simple question and was very well answered by most candidates. Some very interesting suggestions were also given.

Q.10

Part (a) was a conceptual question but answers were not very clear. Candidates were unable to clearly distinguish between vision, mission, goals and objectives. Part (b) needed practically drafting vision, mission, goals and objectives of Jet Air. Most candidates drafted general type of statements probably as they tried to reproduce some of the material they had managed to memorize by rote learning. Statements relevant to the situation were mostly missing.

Q.11

A simple question but only a few students could mention more than two distinct points/strategies to reduce the resistance to change in internal business environment. Most candidates tried to repeat the same suggestion in different ways.