Management 2023 Paper I 50 marks Explain

Q3

(a) "A person can have thousands of attitudes but organizational behaviour focuses its attention on a very limited number of job-related attitudes." Explain the different job-related attitudes. How do they differ from other non-job-related attitudes? (20 marks) (b) "Does delegation of authority mean loss of power or enhancement of power?" Critically explain. (15 marks) (c) How does an organization determine the effectiveness of its recruitment process? To avoid the high cost involved in the recruitment process, what alternatives are used by organizations? Explain. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "एक व्यक्ति के हजारों दृष्टिकोण हो सकते हैं किन्तु संगठनात्मक व्यवहार अपना ध्यान बहुत सीमित संख्या में कार्यक्षेत्र से संबंधित दृष्टिकोणों पर केंद्रित करता है।" कार्यक्षेत्र से संबंधित विभिन्न दृष्टिकोणों की व्याख्या कीजिए। वे किस प्रकार अन्य गैर-कार्यक्षेत्र संबंधी दृष्टिकोणों से भिन्न हैं? (20 अंक) (b) "क्या प्राधिकार के प्रत्यायोजन का अर्थ शक्ति में कमी या शक्ति में वृद्धि है?" आलोचनात्मक व्याख्या कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) कोई संगठन अपनी भर्ती प्रक्रिया की प्रभावशीलता कैसे निर्धारित करता है? भर्ती प्रक्रिया में लगने वाली ऊँची लागत से बचने के लिए, संगठनों द्वारा किन विकल्पों का उपयोग किया जाता है? समझाइए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 Management questions

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' demands conceptual clarity with cause-effect linkages across all three parts. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget (~400 words) to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each (~300 words) to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction defining attitudes and delegation; body addressing each part sequentially with definitions, theories, and distinctions; conclusion synthesizing how attitudes, delegation, and recruitment interconnect for organizational effectiveness.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Define job-related attitudes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, employee engagement) and distinguish from non-job attitudes (political, religious, social attitudes) using specificity, measurability, and behavioral impact criteria
  • Part (a): Explain three-component model (cognitive, affective, behavioral) and cite Robbins/Judge or Luthans framework for attitude structure
  • Part (b): Analyze delegation through French-Raven power bases; explain how delegation enhances referent and expert power while redistributing legitimate power, citing examples like Tata's leadership grooming
  • Part (b): Critically examine both views—loss of control vs. multiplier effect—using Chester Barnard's acceptance theory or Peter Drucker's effective executive principles
  • Part (c): List recruitment effectiveness metrics (yield ratio, cost per hire, time to fill, quality of hire) and evaluation methods like cost-benefit analysis
  • Part (c): Explain alternatives to external recruitment—internal promotions, job rotation, succession planning, temp-to-perm, outsourcing, campus partnerships, and employee referrals with Indian examples like TCS's campus connect or Infosys's internal job postings

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines job-related attitudes (satisfaction, commitment, engagement) with three-component structure; accurately distinguishes delegation from decentralization; correctly identifies recruitment metrics and alternatives without conflating selection with recruitmentBasic definitions present but conflates job attitudes with values/personality; treats delegation simplistically as task distribution; mixes recruitment with selection conceptsConfuses attitudes with behavior or emotions; describes delegation as mere task assignment without power dimension; unable to distinguish recruitment effectiveness from selection validity
Framework citation20%10Cites Robbins & Judge for attitude structure; French-Raven/Barnard for power-delegation; Breaugh & Starke or Cascio for recruitment metrics; uses Indian studies like Rao's HRM models where relevantMentions generic OB/HRM theories without specific attribution; cites only one framework across all parts; uses outdated or mismatched theoriesNo theoretical framework cited; relies on commonsense explanations; misattributes theories (e.g., attributing Herzberg to attitudes)
Case / Indian example20%10Uses specific Indian illustrations: TATA group for attitude surveys and delegation grooming; Infosys/TCS for campus recruitment alternatives; Maruti or BHEL for internal promotion systems; recent startup examples for cost-saving recruitmentGeneric MNC examples (Google, Microsoft) or vague references to 'Indian companies'; no specific organizational names or practices citedNo examples provided; or factually incorrect examples (e.g., citing non-existent policies); purely theoretical treatment
Multi-perspective analysis20%10For (a): contrasts job vs. non-job attitudes on dimensions of specificity, stability, and behavioral prediction; For (b): presents both loss-of-power and enhancement arguments with situational contingencies; For (c): balances quantitative metrics with qualitative indicators and cost-quality trade-offsOne-sided treatment of delegation debate; treats recruitment alternatives as universally applicable without context; limited comparative analysisNo critical or comparative element; purely descriptive across all parts; ignores situational or contextual factors
Conclusion & recommendation20%10Synthesizes how positive job attitudes enable effective delegation, which together improve recruitment outcomes; offers actionable recommendations for Indian public sector (UPSC, PSUs) and private sector; suggests integrated HRM approachSummarizes main points without synthesis; generic recommendations not tailored to question context; no forward-looking elementNo conclusion provided; or abrupt ending without addressing all three parts; recommendations contradict earlier analysis or are irrelevant to Indian context

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 Management 2023 Paper I