Paper II — Q2
(a) "The environment is a major contingency for which an organisation must plan and to which it must adapt." Explain. 20 (b)…
(a) "The environment is a major contingency for which an organisation must plan and to which it must adapt." Explain. 20 (b) Discuss the important structural dimensions of organisations. 10 (c) "Rules are different from norms." In the light of this statement, explain the importance of rules and norms from the organisational design perspective. 20
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) "वातावरण एक प्रमुख आकस्मिकता है जिसके लिए किसी संगठन को अवश्य ही योजना बनानी चाहिए एवं उसे अनुकूल करना चाहिए।" समझाइए। 20 (b) संगठनों के महत्वपूर्ण संरचनात्मक आयामों की विवेचना कीजिए। 10 (c) "नियम मानदण्डों से भिन्न होते हैं।" इस कथन के आलोक में, संगठनात्मक ढाँचे के परिप्रेक्ष्य में नियमों एवं मानदण्डों के महत्व को समझाइए। 20
Directive word: Explain
This question asks you to explain. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.
See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.
How this answer will be evaluated
Approach
The directive 'explain' requires clear exposition with causal reasoning across all three parts. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, 20% to part (b), and 40% to part (c). Structure with a brief integrated introduction, then address each sub-part sequentially with clear sub-headings, and conclude with a synthesis on how environmental contingencies, structural dimensions, and rules/norms collectively shape effective organisational design.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Environment as contingency — explain PESTEL dimensions, uncertainty, resource dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancik), and strategic responses (buffering, smoothing, forecasting, adaptive vs. non-adaptive structures per Lawrence & Lorsch's contingency framework)
- Part (a): Planning and adaptation mechanisms — discuss environmental scanning, scenario planning, flexible structures, and the environment-structure fit (mechanistic vs. organic forms)
- Part (b): Structural dimensions — define and elaborate on formalisation, specialisation, hierarchy of authority, complexity (horizontal, vertical, spatial), centralisation, and professionalism (Hall's dimensions or Robbins' framework)
- Part (c): Distinction between rules and norms — rules as formal, codified, explicit controls vs. norms as informal, emergent, shared expectations; reference to institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell) and organisational culture literature
- Part (c): Importance for organisational design — rules ensure consistency, predictability, coordination; norms facilitate flexibility, commitment, innovation; optimal design balances both (bureaucratic vs. clan control per Ouchi)
- Integration: How environmental uncertainty (a) influences structural choices (b) and the appropriate mix of rules/norms (c) — demonstrating contingency thinking throughout
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demand-directive understanding | 20% | 10 | For (a), explains 'why' environment is a contingency with causal mechanisms, not just description; for (b), discusses dimensions analytically rather than merely listing; for (c), clarifies the distinction thesis before elaborating importance — all showing precise grasp of 'explain' and 'discuss' directives | Addresses all parts but treats (a) descriptively, lists dimensions in (b) without elaboration, and conflates rules/norms in (c) or misses the distinction premise | Misinterprets directives — describes when explanation needed, or explains when discussion required; ignores the 'different from' framing in (c); significant mismatch between response and question demands |
| Content depth & accuracy | 20% | 10 | Demonstrates command of contingency theory, Lawrence & Lorsch's differentiation-integration framework, Hall/Robbins structural dimensions, and institutional theory on rules/norms; accurate technical usage; connects to organisational design implications throughout | Covers basic concepts but with gaps — mentions environment-structure fit without theorists, lists dimensions incompletely, or describes rules/norms superficially without institutional theory; some inaccuracies in application | Major conceptual errors — confuses environment with culture, structural dimensions with design parameters, or rules with policies; omits core theoretical foundations; factually incorrect statements about contingency relationships |
| Structure & flow | 20% | 10 | Clear tripartite organisation with explicit (a), (b), (c) headings; logical progression within each — thesis-antithesis-synthesis for (c), cause-effect for (a), definition-elaboration for (b); smooth transitions between parts; proportional length reflecting marks (2:1:2 ratio) | Present in three parts but uneven development — (b) overly brief or (a) excessively long; some organisational headings but weak internal logic; abrupt shifts between theoretical discussion and application | Poorly organised — no clear part demarcation, or jumbles (a), (b), (c) together; illogical sequencing; grossly disproportionate allocation (e.g., 80% on one part); lacks paragraph coherence |
| Examples / case-law / data | 20% | 10 | For (a): Indian examples — ITC's diversification responding to tobacco regulation, or Reliance Jio's entry exploiting digital environment; for (b): specific structural configurations (e.g., Tata Group's matrix elements, ISRO's project structure); for (c): contrast SBI's formal rules with startup norms, or Maruti's quality circles (norms) vs. ISO procedures (rules) | Generic examples without Indian specificity — mentions 'a bank' or 'a tech company' without naming; examples partially relevant but not tightly linked to theoretical points; missing in one sub-part | No examples or irrelevant ones — hypothetical 'XYZ Ltd' repeatedly, or personal anecdotes; examples contradict the theory being illustrated; completely missing from two or more parts |
| Conclusion & analytical edge | 20% | 10 | Synthesises across parts: environment (a) shapes structural choices (b) which require calibrated formal-informal control mix (c); offers critical insight — e.g., digital disruption increasing environmental velocity makes rigid rules obsolete, elevating normative control; or critiques contingency theory's deterministic assumptions; forward-looking implications for Indian organisations | Brief summary of three parts without integration; restates main points; no critical evaluation or synthesis; conventional closing without analytical advancement | Missing conclusion or abrupt ending; introduces new content in conclusion; purely descriptive summary; contradictory to body arguments; no evidence of independent analytical thinking |
Practice this exact question
Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.
Evaluate my answer →More from Commerce & Accountancy 2021 Paper II
- Q1 Explain the following in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) Non-Verbal Communication 10 (…
- Q2 (a) "The environment is a major contingency for which an organisation must plan and to wh…
- Q3 (a) "An organisation without goals is like a rudderless ship." Comment and explain the im…
- Q4 (a) Explain how promotion can be used as a tool to enhance job performance. 10 (b) What i…
- Q5 Explain the following in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) Strike vs. Lockout 10 (b) Per…