Paper II — Q4
(a) Why does organizational politics emerge? What are its consequences? Suggest measures to avoid them. (20 marks) (b) "There is…
(a) Why does organizational politics emerge? What are its consequences? Suggest measures to avoid them. (20 marks) (b) "There is a need for integrating individual and organizational goals." Examine this statement. How does it affect organizational effectiveness? (20 marks) (c) Distinguish between delegation of authority and decentralization. (10 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) संगठनात्मक राजनीति क्यों उभरती है? इसके परिणाम क्या होते हैं? इससे बचने के उपायों पर सुझाव दीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) "व्यक्तिगत एवं संगठनात्मक लक्ष्यों में समाकलन की आवश्यकता है।" इस कथन का परीक्षण कीजिए। यह संगठनात्मक प्रभावशीलता को किस प्रकार प्रभावित करता है? (20 अंक) (c) अधिकार प्रत्यायोजन और विकेन्द्रीकरण में अंतर कीजिए। (10 अंक)
Directive word: Examine
This question asks you to examine. 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 question demands critical examination across three interconnected organizational behavior themes. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) on organizational politics (20 marks), 40% to part (b) on goal integration (20 marks), and 20% to part (c) on delegation vs decentralization (10 marks). Structure with a brief integrative introduction, three clearly demarcated sections with sub-headings, and a conclusion synthesizing how structural design and goal alignment mitigate political behavior.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Causes of organizational politics—scarcity of resources, ambiguity in roles, performance evaluation subjectivity, zero-sum reward systems, and high-stakes decision making; distinguish between legitimate influence and illegitimate political behavior
- Part (a): Consequences—dysfunctional outcomes (reduced productivity, decreased job satisfaction, increased turnover, resource misallocation) and occasional functional outcomes (career advancement, innovation through coalition building)
- Part (a): Measures to minimize politics—transparent performance appraisal systems, clear job descriptions, participative decision making, equitable resource distribution, and strong ethical organizational culture
- Part (b): Critical examination of goal integration—draw from Barnard's acceptance theory of authority, McGregor's Theory Y, and Likert's linking-pin concept; address potential conflicts between individual self-actualization and organizational efficiency
- Part (b): Impact on organizational effectiveness—enhanced commitment, reduced alienation, improved productivity, lower absenteeism, and creation of psychological contract; reference Pareto optimality in goal congruence
- Part (c): Systematic distinction between delegation (temporary, superior-subordinate, specific tasks, accountability remains with delegator) and decentralization (permanent structural dispersal, autonomy to divisions, broader decision-making scope)
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demand-directive understanding | 20% | 10 | Demonstrates precise grasp of 'examine' in part (b) requiring critical analysis with evidence, 'why' and 'suggest' in part (a) demanding causal explanation and prescriptive solutions, and 'distinguish' in part (c) needing systematic differentiation; maintains appropriate analytical depth proportional to marks allotted | Addresses all three parts but treats 'examine' as mere description, offers superficial 'suggestions' without theoretical grounding, and presents delegation-decentralization as simple list rather than conceptual distinction | Misinterprets directives—describes when examination needed, lists causes without explaining 'why' politics emerges, or conflates the two concepts in part (c) entirely |
| Content depth & accuracy | 20% | 10 | Deploys seminal OB theories: Mintzberg's political games, Pfeffer's power model, Barnard's inducements-contributions balance, and Drucker's management by objectives; accurately distinguishes formal authority dispersion mechanisms with conceptual precision | Mentions organizational politics and goal alignment in general terms with basic textbook definitions; covers delegation-decentralization distinction but misses nuances like reversibility and scope dimensions | Confuses organizational politics with formal politics, conflates individual goals with group goals, or incorrectly states that delegation involves loss of accountability by superior |
| Structure & flow | 20% | 10 | Clear tripartite structure with explicit sub-headings (a), (b), (c); logical internal sequencing in part (a) from causes→consequences→remedies; part (b) flows from theoretical examination to practical effectiveness implications; smooth transitions between parts showing thematic interconnection | All three parts present but unevenly developed; part (a) may mix causes and consequences, part (b) lacks clear thesis-antithesis-synthesis progression; part (c) as bullet points without analytical framework | Disorganized response without part demarcation; rambling narrative that fails to separate the three distinct components; conclusion missing or addresses only one part |
| Examples / case-law / data | 20% | 10 | Illustrates with Indian corporate examples—Infosys's founder conflicts demonstrating politics, Tata Group's purpose-driven culture showing goal integration, or ITC's decentralized divisional structure; references relevant committee recommendations on corporate governance; cites empirical studies on goal congruence | Generic international examples (Microsoft, Google) without Indian context; hypothetical scenarios rather than documented cases; no specific organizational illustrations for delegation-decentralization distinction | No examples whatsoever; or irrelevant examples from political science/public administration rather than organizational behavior; factual errors in citing cases |
| Conclusion & analytical edge | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes three parts into coherent argument: organizational design choices (decentralization) and goal integration mechanisms serve as structural antidotes to dysfunctional politics; offers nuanced view that some politics is inevitable and occasionally functional; forward-looking observation on post-pandemic hybrid work and its political implications | Summarizes main points without synthesis; restates that politics is bad and should be avoided; no connection drawn between structural decentralization and reduced political behavior | No conclusion; or abrupt ending with no reference to question parts; purely descriptive closing without analytical insight; introduces new concepts not discussed in body |
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 2024 Paper II
- Q1 Answer each of the following questions in about 150 words: (a) How does sensation differ…
- Q2 (a) How have organizations been defined? Compare different perspectives of organizations…
- Q3 (a) What are the major criticisms levelled against Herzberg's two-factor theory of motiva…
- Q4 (a) Why does organizational politics emerge? What are its consequences? Suggest measures…
- Q5 Answer each of the following questions in about 150 words: (a) Discuss the problems faced…
- Q6 (a) "Tests are useful in predicting the failure rather than success of the candidate on t…
- Q7 (a) What do you mean by a model employer? Critically examine the role of public enterpris…