General:

Overall performance remained average despite the fact that the paper was quite simple and straightforward. Key issues highlighted from the students’ approach were a blend of inability of expression, poor grammatical skills, difficulty in structuring the answer with logical arguments and analysis and also problems in interpreting the requirements of the questions correctly.

Question-wise comments:

Q.1

(a)

Candidates generally performed well in the first part of this question, i.e., the definition of perception. However, some candidates did face problems in the second part of the question asking for elaboration on why mind is a unique filter. Candidates, who could even refer to individual factors influencing perception, were unable to articulate how/why the mind acts as a perceptual filter.

(b)

The question was generally understood well by the students but due to lack of reading they were unable to cover all dimensions of IPC’s role in individual’s growth and development. Answers given by a good number of candidates were very general and once again due to inability of expression, candidates could not score high marks in this question which had a maximum of 9 marks.

Q.2

(a)

The answers to this question fell evenly on two extremes: either the answers were comprehensive or absolutely meaningless. This was a simple question and poor performance here portrayed ignorance of basic management concepts.

(b)

Concept of unit objective was mostly clear and students were able to substantiate it with correct examples.

(c)

This part of the question was also simple and generally handled well, however, some candidates misunderstood the question and they elaborated on conflicts between departments instead of conflict between goals.

Q.3

(a)

Majority of the students performed well in this question. Generally, the students made the following mistakes:

·        used the letter format to write the advertisement.

·        job description was omitted in most papers, which is an important aspect to attract the right candidate.

Package details, fringe benefits etc. were included and handled well.

(b)

Students had the understanding of non-verbal cues and signals but were generally unable to interpret the cues, hence could not score high marks in this part of the question.

Q.4

This question tested candidates on two accounts: the structure of the short formal report and imagination to paint a scenario based on the broad details given in the question. There were very few candidates who demonstrated prowess on both aspects of the report. While there were few who completely understood the structure and contents of a report, fewer still had the creativity and articulation to build up a comprehensive feasibility document.

Q.5

(a)

This was a simple and scoring question. The question contained hints for answers and was handled satisfactorily.

(b)

Across the entire lot, the candidates seemed not to have understood the requirements of this question that asked for the basic guidelines to follow for composing a good proposal and was performed very poorly. No specific details were given and general guidelines of good written communication were given as answers.

Q.6

All the three parts of this question relating to minutes and agenda of the meeting were well attempted by the students.

Q.7

The answer to this question was oversimplified and based on general understanding of the students. It was not attempted in the required perspective where it should have been related to the motivation theories.

Q.8

(a)

This was a most commonly misunderstood question. Very few candidates comprehended that questions asked about conditions needed to make participation in decision making meaningful and effective. Instead, most candidates elaborated on theories of employee motivation and commitment.

(b)

Once again the question was misunderstood and students’ answers were geared towards hygiene factors rather than non-work factors affecting attitude towards work.

Q.9

Both parts (a) & (b) were simple questions in which students scored good marks.