Cbseignou.com

Mehta Solutions Quality solutions

Saturday, 17 November 2012 10:51

Ms-22 june 2011

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

MS-22    June, 2011

MS-22 : HUMAN RESOURCE  DEVELOPMENT

1. What are the 3 Ss of Organisational Development ?  Discuss the Competency based Organisational  Development System. Explain with suitable  examples.

2. What are the objectives of compensation cum-  reward system ? Briefly discuss various  components of compensation system, citing  suitable examples.

3.  How does HRD Audit contribute towards  development process of an organisation ? Explain  the process of HRD Audit in an organisation.

4.What are the issues in managing technological  change in work organisation ? Briefly discuss the  role and relationship of HRD in managing  technological change.

5.  Write short notes on any three of the following :

(a)  360 Degree Appraisal

(b)  Mentoring

(c)  Role of Trade Unions in HRD

(d)  Career Transition and choices

(e)  Diversity Management

           

6.  Read the case and answer the questions given  at the end :

The HRD programme was decided to be  initiated in IOC as a totally fresh and  uncontaminated idea. To introduce HRD as a  fresh idea was in itself an innovative idea, since  the Corporation had well - established Human  Resources Management policies and practices.  Yet, the very idea was mooted as a concept,  accepted as a principle, presented to the top  management in the company represented by the  Directors and got cleared for introduction as a  necessary intervention, considering the growth  and development plans of the organisation.

To start with, the road -show of the concept  comprised a wide campaign to create extensive  awareness that HRD, as an issue, was everybody's  baby and that it needs to be properly nurtured  and cared for. When the whole objective was  explained to critical senior management groups,  the concept received wide acceptance. After all,  any new idea should be worth looking into !  The top and senior management groups in  the Corporation, thus backed and accepted in  principle, the process of undertaking a company  -wide campaign for the new-look HRD  programme. This, no doubt, implied that the   established policies will continue to be operated,  but are liable to be tested for validity and modified  for deficiency, wherever called for.  The awareness campaign was set in motion  with great vigour and gusto. The initial campaign  was concentrated on executives at all iceek. This  pre - supposed two things : top management commitment as a vanguard action and executive  involvement as a lead group activity. Within a  short time, conferences, seminars, workshops and  training programmes were designed, drawn -up  and delivered throughout the organisation to cover  virtually every executive.

What was missed in the process was the  large bulk of non- executives. Though there was

a plan to cover the non execuuive involment in the  second  leg  of the campaign, the the very fact intial  efforts  were  going only in the direction of executives  created its own rustles amid rambles.

The HRD action groups, who were  spearheading and controlling the HRD activities,  naturally had to take notice or the message which  had come too soon from the non --executive  categories of employees. It was, therefore, only  natural to recognise that  . without waiting for the  second leg of the campaign, the need was to  advance the campaign schedule and initiate the  HRD awareness programme for non- executives.

    as well. After : all. the milk has to  be  given gladly  to the baby which started crying !  But the  process  of covering the large mass  of non- executive employees was not an easy task.  The number  as well as the spread of numerous locations throughout the company made the task   to achieve coverage of maximum number of  non-executive employees to a one-day "HRD)  awareness programme". The programme outline  was centrally designed but the specific inputs were  left to be  decided  by the divisional and unit  functionaries.

The programme design provided for  executives as faculty, who would  cover  small  non - executive groups in lecture and discussion  sessions on the whole concept of new FIND  programme that the Corporation is contemplating.  When the executives speak to the non -executives  on any projected company programme, needing  involvement of non  executives, a pinch of salt is  always present ! This was true for the initial  awareness programmes organised for  non -executives as well. When it became clear that  the message was not really going down to the  participants, naturally the question arose whether  it was worthwhile going ahead with the rest of  the programmes covering the large majority of  non-executives.

     The HRD group stepped in and rolled back  their campaign at least temporarily to review  whether everything is going to be okay or not. It  was the general view that there is a "receptability  block" operating in the communication channel  between the executive faculty members and the  non -executive participants. This has to be  overcome if the programme is to give the  maximum possible return.

It was one of the ideas to try out the next  few programmes with faculty drawn from among  the non -executives themselves, rather than the  traditional executive faculty. Employees from  non - executive category with excellent  communication, comprehension and influencing  skills were identified and provided with a briefing  as to what exactly is the inherent purpose of the  awareness programme.

It was a revelation to find a sea - change in  the receptability of participants. Although, the  programme input was the same, the difference  lay in the fact that earlier the executive faculty  used to speak to the non - executive participants,  whereas now it was the non - executives  themselves functioning as faculty, speaking to  their own colleagues in a language perceived as  their own. We often tend to forget this and end  up reaping a harvest much below our expectation.

      Therefore, it is worth considering : why settle for  a lean harvest when you can afford to have the  full harvest ! It is small ideas that often bring big  results.

Questions :

(a)  What is the problem as you see it ?  Elaborate.

(b)  List the lessons learnt. What is your  recommendation in this situation ?

(c)  What is the "receptability block" ? Explain.

(d)  What were the changes witnessed ? How  did they occur ?

Read 698 times Last modified on Saturday, 17 November 2012 10:53
More in this category: « Ms-22 dec 2007 Ms-22 june 2010 »
Login to post comments