IGNOU MBA MS-2 (Management of Human Resources) term-end exam notes/study materials,books/blocks free download.
IGNOU MBA all semester new revised 1st semester (january-june),2nd semester (july-december) solved assignments,term-end exam notes,study materials,important questions,books/blocks,previous years question papers,old papers free download.
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME
Term-End Examination MS-2 (Management of Human Resources)
Notes-1
SECTION - A
1. Explain the scope of Human Resource Management. Briefly describe and discuss various
perspectives of Human Resource Management,with relevant examples.
2. Differentiate between Recruitment and Selection.Highlighting the significance and purpose of
interview as a process, describe its various types,limitations and guidelines for improvements. Give
examples.
3. Explain the concept of 'Assessment Centres'.Describe various functions and usage of Assessment Centres. How are Assessment Centres different from Development Centres ? Cite examples.
4. What is a Team ? How is a team developed ? Briefly discuss the ways and characteristics of
making a Team Effective. Explain with examples.
5. Write short notes on any three of the following :
(a) Job Description
(b) Training Evaluation Techniques
(c) Compensation Strategy
(d) Functions of Trade Unions
(e) Grievance Handling
SECTION - B
6. Read the case given below and answer the questions given at the end.The National Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as NTC), a leading transport organization with a fleet strength of 200 vehicles, is engaged in Parcel Services in South India. The NTC has its headquarters at Madras,
and has branches in important locations in Tamil Nadu and other southern states.Madhavan, a loadman of NTC at Salem,was transferred from Salem to Madura, for long absence from work in the beginning of 1985,though the corporation could have discharged him from service for long absence without permission, for a period of two months. The Branch Manager of Salem, NTC requested the
Head of the Human Resources Division to transfer the employee to another location, to enable the
employee to correct himself in future. Madhavan was in NTC from the beginning of 1982.
Madhavan reported for duty at Madura,and again after six months of service, started absenting from work as before. The Branch Manager of Madura counselled him several times,but Madhavan did not show any real change in his attitude. A written warning was given to him in October 1985. He again absented himself from duty on 17th December, 1985 for ten days, and after joining duty on 15th January, he was again absent for 10 days. Disciplinary action followed.At the departmental enquiry held in February 1986, Mr. Madhavan pleaded that he was suffering from jaundice and that he rushed
to his village near Salem for taking Ayurvedic treatment and rest. No medical certificate was
produced. He admitted his mistake in not applying for leave, to the enquiry officer and requested for mercy.Based on the admission of the misconduct, the enquiry officer gave the findings that he was
guilty. The Branch Manager, Madura was informed about the findings. He recommended
dismissal (for provisions refer to Annexure-A).The Chief Executive of NTC, the punishing
authority, took the decision that the delinquent was not willing to work regularly. He however,
again directed a transfer to Madras, rather than passing an order of dismissal. This was done, once
again, to enable the employee to correct himself.Before issue of orders, Mr. Madhavan approached the Chief Executive of NTC and requested for mercy. He was not in favour of
changing the order of transfer. He, however referred the matter to the Manager of the Human Resources Division for proper disposal.
Before the Manager (HRD)
The Manager HRD, asked Madhavan, the reasons for absence. He asked Mr. Madhavan how a company would tolerate such absenteeism. He was asked why he failed to produce medical certificates, if he was really sick ? Was he not given an opportunity twice to correct himself, once by
the Branch Manager, Salem and later by the Branch Manager, Madura ? Madhavan had no answer to these questions. He however, requested the Manager to give him one last chance. He had
no complaints against the Branch Managers. The management assured support to him if his version
was convincing. Madhavan then narrated his family background.
Madhavan's Family Background
He was born to Gundappan and Palaniammal. He had two elder sisters, four elder brothers and another brother younger to him. His sisters and two brothers were living separately after marriage. He got the job as a loadman in NTC in 1982 at Salem, through his brother-in-law, another senior loadman at NTC. Another unmarried brother of his, aged 33 was employed in a hotel and was living separately. He was living with his parents, a disabled brother aged 35 and his younger brother at Kamandapatti (Please refer Annexure-B) till the end of 1984 in the family house. He was the bread winner of the family.Madhavan was now living at Omalur, with his wife Madhavi aged 22. Madhavi's tale was a tragic one. A native of Taramangalam, 10 kms from Omalur, her father was in the military, and was now no more.
She was married in 1983 to her father's sister's son Gopal. However, she was ill-treated by both her in-laws and her husband and deprived of her ornaments. Disillusioned, she applied for a divorce and got an alimony of Rs. 20,000. This helped her to establish a small grocery shop at Omalur and settling down with her sister's family.Here Madhavan developed intimacy with Madhavi much to the dislike of her sister, and another Gunapalan, a person known to Madhavan. Gunapalan wanted to marry Madhavi. But Madhavi had no interest in him.Gunapalan in this background posed serious
problems to Madhavi especially after Madhavan's transfer to Madura. Gunapalan was determined
to win her hand. He told her twice that she will have to forget Madhavan, or else she will have to
blame herself for the consequences. Threats followed.Madhavan got a letter from Madhavi. She
wanted real protection. She had antagonised Gunapalan and could not completely rely on her
married sister. They should marry - she wrote to him. Madhavan reached Omalur to see that Madhavi's shop was burgled by unknown persons. There was a rumour in the air that Gunapalan was behind everything.Madhavan decided to marry Madhavi. He married her from the Madura Temple and later went on a pilgrimage for a fortnight. He however,did not inform the NTC officials and employees about his marriage. He never applied for leave as well during the marriage on 6th January, 1986.What followed was the disciplinary action against Madhavan and his entreaty against transfer.
The HRD Manager's Decision
Madhavan gave a definite undertaking to the Manager that he would be diligent in the work in future and that the management could terminate his services, upon any complaint in future.
The Manager (HRD) contacted the Branch Managers of Madura and Salem and took them into confidence. The family background was fully explained to both the Branch Managers. It transpired that Madhavan had never explained his problem to either of them. Both Managers agreed to abide by the decision of the Manager (HRD) to help the employee concerned. Both promised to counsel Madhavan as well, if he was posted either at Madura or Salem.The Manager (HRD) taking into account his family background passed an order transferring the employee to Salem.
Questions :
(a) How would you approach this issue as the Head of HRD Division to correct the employee ?
(b) Do you think that the employee cannot be corrected and that sympathy shown to him will amount to a premium on indiscipline,adversely affecting the corporate image of the organisation and the employee ?
(c) Do you subscribe to the view that it is possible to correct him by the theory of constructive discipline and if so, how ?
(d) Would you subscribe to the view that if you transfer him to his home town, Salem,Madhavan would prove himself to be a good performer as he will be in a position to discharge his duties as an employee and as a sincere family member ?
Annexure - A
Provisions in Standing Orders
Habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than 10 days.Habitual late attendance
Punishment - An employee who is found guilty of a misconduct may be punished as provided herein, depending upon the gravity of the misconduct committed by the employee.
(a) Fine, up to 2% of monthly salary
(b) Warning
(c) Demotion
(d) Stoppage of increment
(e) Suspension for 30 days
(f) Discharge or dismissal
The management has tue right to transfer employees from head office to branches and vice versa for exigencies of service.
Notes-2
SECTION - A
1. What are the Primary Responsibilities of a Human Resource Manager in an organisational set-up ?
Briefly explain with suitable examples.
2. What are the Techniques of collecting information for Job Analysis ? Differentiate between Job
Description and Job Specification. Describe the Technique of writing Job Description. Explain
with relevant example.
3. What are usual problems and errors faced in Performance Appraisal Process ? Briefly discuss
the ways to make Performance Appraisal Process more effective. Explain with examples.
4. What are the objectives of Reward Systems in a formal organisational set-up? Briefly discuss
different forms in which organisations reward their employees.
5. Write short notes on any three of the following :
(a) Determinants of compensation
(b) Purpose and objectives of Disciplinary Action
(c) Measures for effective WPM
(d) Employers' Association
(e) Performance Coaching
SECTION - B
6. Read the following case carefully and answer the questions given at the end.Modern Industries Limited (MIL) in Bangalore is a consumer durables manufacturing industry and a subsidiary of a multinational company. Presently the company has over 500 employees and an annual turnover of about Rs.75 crores. It has maintained an excellent record of performance and growth in the past few years.The company has its own fleet of cars, trucks and other materials-handling vehicles. The cars
are generally meant for the use of company officials while on business. The trucks are used
for transporting the goods to their main channels of distribution. The material-handling vehicles like
forklift trucks, powered trolleys etc., are used in their manufacturing plants. These vehicles,
numbering about 70, are maintained by the Transport Department.The department was headed by
Mr. Hukam Singh, the Senior Foreman, who reported to the Administrative Manager. He had
two supervisors reporting to him. They normally came in 1st and 2nd shifts on rotation.The department has its own maintenance workshop with about 20 skilled mechanics. The nature of
work in the department was such that it involveda great deal of coordination and internal correspondence. Mr. Singh was heavily loaded with paper work. He was basically a craftsman with training as a Motor Mechanic and had a cumulative experience of over 25 years. He was
generally weak in paper work and spent considerable time on it which left him practically
no time to perform the maintenance function effectively. As a result, there was a deterioration
in the upkeep of the vehicles. It was felt that there was a need for another person at the level of Foreman to look after the maintenance workshop. Both the present supervisors had risen from the ranks. They were found unsuitable for promotion to the position of foreman. There were no other candidates available within the company for filling up the position.Hence the vacancy for foreman for the Auto Maintenance Workshop was advertised.
Mr. Raghu Menon was employed in the supervisory cadre in a Central Government Automobile Workshop. His was a transferable job,which was causing problems for the education of his two children who were studying in schools.He was looking for a job which could allow him to settle down in some place and promptly responded to the advertisement. He was called for interview and was selected. The job was a non-transferable one and suited him perfectly.Though it did not bring him a very high monetary gain, he accepted the job as it met his other requirements. He joined MIL in November 1982.According to the company's rules, he was to be on probation for one year after which he couldbe confirmed. As per the terms of employment, the company could terminate the services of a probationer by giving only a month's notice and without assigning any reason.
Mr. Menon was quite happy with the job and started off with enthusiasm. He was getting to know the job and the people in the organisation. There were several problems he had to encounter on the job. The supervisors were quite detached from him and the craftsmen were uncooperative. He worked hard to cope up with these problems. He could not draw much support from Mr. Singh, who was lukewarm in his attitude towards him. He put up a brave front and hoped to set things right.
The people in the workshop were working in an informal manner. There was no standard procedure for taking up any work in the department - the supervisors allocated the vehicles to different mechanics, who used, to complete the repairs and maintenance in the way they liked.Mr. Menon thought of introducing some new procedures and formats for use in the department.He discussed these with Mr. Hukam Singh and accordingly the new procedures were introduced in May 1983. Each mechanic was given a daily work card, showing the work undertaken by him on the day. The approximate time taken for each task was also to be indicated. The idea was to make everyone concentrate on the work assigned to him and avoid wastage of his own and other's time. It
was also felt that this would help to bring about proper allocation of work in this organisation.
It was a general practice with some of the senior executives of the company to give their private vehicles also for servicing or minor repairs in the workshop on nominal charge. After the introduction of the daily work card system in the workshop, many of the executives felt that they were being overcharged. There was a rumour that some of them complained to the Administrative Manager about this. In September 1983,Mr. Menon was called for a meeting by the Administrative Manager. He had not met him since he joined. He thought this would be a good opportunity for discussing with him various matters relating to his job and some of his ideas about reorganising the department. However,when he met the Administrative Manager, he was informed to his utter surprise that his service would be terminated before the completion of the probationary period. He was shocked and
enquired as to the reason for this decision. He was told, that he was not capable of meeting the
technical requirements of his job and there was no improvement in the upkeep of the vehicles.
Mr. Menon pleaded, that he had very little time to show improvements. As regards, the technicalities of the job he was fully competent to tackle any problem, he maintained.Mr. Menon met the General Manager (Personnel) of the company, Mr. Chandra, and apprised him of the situation. Mr. Chandra was well-known for his fair dealings and professional approach. He promised to look into the matter.
However, after a week Mr. Menon received the termination notice.
He met the Managing Director of the company and contended that he was being givenan unfair deal. The company had ample means of judging his technical competence at the time of selection. He had a Diploma in Automobile Engineering and had also gone through an elaborate written test, a preliminary and a final interview at the time of selection, which would have established his level of competence. He was prepared to present himself for assessment by any competent panel. He requested the Managing Director, to revert the termination decision in the light of these facts. He also pleaded that the unexpected termination would seriously affect his career and family life.However, notwithstanding his plea,Mr. Menons's services were terminated in the second week of October, 1983.
Questions :
(a) What went wrong in the maintenance department ?
(b) Who is responsible for this incident ? Was the selection panel incompetent ?
(c) Why did Mr. Chandra, known for his fairness, not intervene ?
(d) Is it legally and morally right for a company to terminate the services of a probationer without assigning any valid reason ?
IGNOU MBA term-end exam notes for all semester Download
IGNOU MBA all semester books/blocks study materials Download
IGNOU MBA project Download
