Kerala University 2012-2nd Sem M.B.A (ft/pt) (2009 scheme) 204:: human resource managemnet - Question Paper

SECOND SEMESTER MBA(FT/PT) DEGREE EXAMINATION, JULY 2012
(2009 SCHEME)
MBA 204:: HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

TIME:: 3HOURS
MAX MARKS ::60

PART A
ans ANY five ques..EACH ques. CARRIES three MARKS (5*3= 15MARKS)

1. describe PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.
2. WHAT IS HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING?
3. WHAT IS JOB ANALYSIS?
4. WHAT IS MERIT RATING?
5. WHAT IS TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT?
6. WRITE A SHORT NOTE ON QUALITY CIRCLE
7. elaborate THE OBJECTIVES OF TRADE UNION ACT?
8. WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING?
PART B
ans ANY three ques.. every ques. CARRIES 10 MARKS (3*10=30)

9. discuss THE FUNCTIONS OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.
10. discuss THE PRINCIPLES OF WAGES AND SALARY ADMINISTRATION
11. define THE ROLE OF PERSONNEL MANAGER IN MANAGEMENT OF change
12. discuss THE STRATEGIES TO BE FOLLOWED FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF TRADE UNIONS
13. HOW DOES WORKERS PARTICIPATION IN MANAGEMENT ENSURE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANISATIONS?
PART C - COMPULSORY (15 marks)
learn THE subsequent CASE AND ans THE ques. AT THE END

PETER,53 HAD MORE DEPARTMENTAL SENIORITY THAN ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE,INCLUDING JOHNSON,THE DEPARTMENTAL MANAGER IN A MAJOR TRANSPORT COMPANY. PETER WAS CONSIDERED 1 OF THE MOST CAPABLE EMPLOYEES. HE WAS EXTREMELY ATTENTIVE IN ALL MANAGERIAL FUNCTIONS. AS A outcome OF HIS CAPABILITY AND SENIORITY ,HE NORMALLY RECEIVED THE option WORK ASSIGNMENTS AND WAS THE HIGHEST PAID EMPLOYEE IN THE DEPARTMENT.ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO FORMAL DESIGNATION OF different SPECIAL PROJECTS AS BELONGING TO PETER ,HE HANDLED THEM AS A MATTER OF COURSE.

A issue DEVELOPED WHEN JOHNSON EMPLOYED MICHAEL,28,A PERSONABLE,INTELLIGENT AND DILIGENT EMPLOYEE .MICHAELS two YEARS PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE IN CLOSELY RELATED WORK MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO CATCH ON TO WORK ROUTINE MUCH MORE RAPIDLY THAN WAS CUSTOMARY FOR A NEW EMPLOYEE.HE WAS BOTH HARDWORKING AND AGGRESSIVE. ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS,JOHNSON BECAME AWARE OF TENSION DEVELOPING ranging from THE 2 EMPLOYEES i.e. PETER AND MICHAEL .HOWEVER HE DID NOT WISH TO INTRUDE INTO PERSONAL CONFLICTS ,AND THE WORK WAS BEING ACCOMPLISHED ON SCHEDULE.

ONE AFTERNOON,THE TENSION REACHED THE BOILING POINT WHEN PETER DECIDED HIS PERSONAL DUTIES WERE BEING TAKEN OVER FAR TOO EXTENSIVELY BY THE NEW EMPLOYEE MICHAEL.HE PRACTICALLY PULLED MICHAEL TO THE FRONT OF JOHNSONS DESK AND DEMANDED," WILL YOU PLEASE TELL HIM ONCE AND FOR ALL WHICH PROJECTS ARE MINE WHICH ARE HIS?". THE OFFICE SUDDENLY BECAME QUIET AS EVERYONE AWAITED JOHNSONS REPLY.THE ABRUPT CONFRONTATION MADE FURTHER NO PROCRASTINATION IMPOSSIBLE.

QUESTIONS::
1. WHAT IS THE cause FOR THE CONFRONTATION IN THE ABOVE CASE? COULD IT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BY THE BETTER MANAGEMENT? HOW?

2. HOW SHOULD JOHNSON RESPOND TO THE DEMAND OF PETER?

Earning:   Approval pending.