Q:-1-“Today managers need to perform various functions”: Elaborate the statement

Ans:-

Q:-2 “Skills are the tool for performance”-Explain various management skills

Ans:- Skills Management is the practice of understanding, developing and deploying people and
their skills. Well-implemented skills management should identify the skills that job roles require,
the skills of individual employees, and any gap between the two.

Overview
The skills involved can be defined by the organization concerned, or by third party institutions.
They are usually defined in terms of a skills framework, also known as a competency framework
or skills matrix. This consists of a list of skills, and a grading system, with a definition of what it
means to be at particular level for a given skill. (For an example of a mature skills framework,
see the Skills Framework for the Information Age, a technical IT skills framework owned by a
British not-for-profit organization.)

To be most useful, skills management needs to be conducted as an ongoing process, with

individuals assessing and updating their recorded skill sets regularly. These updates should occur
at least as frequently as employees' regular line manager reviews, and certainly when their skill
sets have changed.

Skills management systems record the results of this process in a database, and allow analysis of
the data.

In order to perform the functions of management and to assume multiple roles, managers must be
skilled. Robert Katz identified three managerial skills that are essential to successful
management: technical, human, and conceptual*. Technical skill involves process or technique
knowledge and proficiency. Managers use the processes, techniques and tools of a specific area.
Human skill involves the ability to interact effectively with people. Managers interact and
cooperate with employees. Conceptual skill involves the formulation of ideas. Managers
understand abstract relationships, develop ideas, and solve problems creatively. Thus, technical
skill deals with things, human skill concerns people, and conceptual skill has to do with ideas. A
manager's level in the organization determines the relative importance of possessing technical,
human, and conceptual skills. Top level managers need conceptual skills in order to view the
organization as a whole. Conceptual skills are used in planning and dealing with ideas and
abstractions. Supervisors need technical skills to manage their area of specialty. All levels of
management need human skills in order to interact and communicate with other people
successfully.

As the pace of change accelerates and diverse technologies converge, new global industries are
being created (for example, telecommunications). Technological change alters the fundamental
structure of firms and calls for new organizational approaches and management skills.
Employees who benefit
Skills management provides a structured approach to developing individual and collective skills,
and gives a common vocabulary for discussing skills. As well as this general benefit, three
groups of employees receive specific benefits from skills management.

Individual Employees

As a result of skills management, employees should be aware of the skills their job requires, and
any skills gaps that they have. Depending on their employer, it may also result in a personal
development plan (PDP) of training to bridge some or all of those skills gaps over a given period.

line manager

Skills management enables managers to know the skill strengths and weaknesses of employees
reporting to them. It can also enable them to search for employees with particular skill sets (e.g.
to fill a role on a particular job.

Organization Executives

A rolled-up view of skills and skills gaps across an organization can enable its executives to see
areas of skill strength and weakness. This enables them to plan for the future against the current
and future abilities of staff, as well as to prioritise areas for skills development.

Q:-3 What is negotiation? Explain the process of negotiation

Ans:- Negotiation is a dialogue intended to resolve disputes, to produce an agreement upon

courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, or to craft outcomes to satisfy
various interests. It is the primary method of alternative dispute resolution.

Negotiation occurs in business, non-profit organizations, government branches, legal

proceedings, among nations and in personal situations such as marriage, divorce, parenting, and
everyday life. The study of the subject is called negotiation theory. Professional negotiators are
often specialized, such as union negotiators, leverage buyout negotiators, peace negotiators,
hostage negotiators, or may work under other titles, such as diplomats, legislators or brokers

Approaches to negotiation
Negotiation typically manifests itself with a trained negotiator acting on behalf of a particular
organization or position. It can be compared to mediation where a disinterested third party listens
to each sides' arguments and attempts to help craft an agreement between the parties. It is also
related to arbitration which, as with a legal proceeding, both sides make an argument as to the
merits of their "case" and then the arbitrator decides the outcome for both parties.

There are many different ways to segment negotiation to gain a greater understanding of the
essential parts. One view of negotiation involves three basic elements: process, behavior and
substance. The process refers to how the parties negotiate: the context of the negotiations, the
parties to the negotiations, the tactics used by the parties, and the sequence and stages in which
all of these play out. Behavior refers to the relationships among these parties, the communication
between them and the styles they adopt. The substance refers to what the parties negotiate over:
the agenda, the issues (positions and - more helpfully - interests), the options, and the
agreement(s) reached at the end.

Another view of negotiation comprises 4 elements: strategy, process and tools, and tactics.
Strategy comprises the top level goals - typically including relationship and the final outcome.
Processes and tools include the steps that will be followed and the roles taken in both preparing
for and negotiating with the other parties. Tactics include more detailed statements and actions
and responses to others' statements and actions. Some add to this persuasion and influence,
asserting that these have become integral to modern day negotiation success, and so should not
be omitted.

Skilled negotiators may use a variety of tactics ranging from negotiation hypnosis, to a straight
forward presentation of demands or setting of preconditions to more deceptive approaches such
as cherry picking. Intimidation and salami tactics may also play a part in swaying the outcome of
negotiations.

Another negotiation tactic is bad guy/good guy. Bad guy/good guy tactic is when one negotiator
acts as a bad guy by using anger and threats. The other negotiator acts as a good guy by being
considerate and understanding. The good guy blames the bad guy for all the difficulties while
trying to get concessions and agreement from the opponent.[1]

The advocate's approach

In the advocacy approach, a skilled negotiator usually serves as advocate for one party to the
negotiation and attempts to obtain the most favorable outcomes possible for that party. In this
process the negotiator attempts to determine the minimum outcome(s) the other party is (or
parties are) willing to accept, then adjusts their demands accordingly. A "successful" negotiation
in the advocacy approach is when the negotiator is able to obtain all or most of the outcomes
their party desires, but without driving the other party to permanently break off negotiations,
unless the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) is acceptable.

Traditional negotiating is sometimes called win-lose because of the assumption of a fixed "pie",
that one person's gain results in another person's loss. This is only true, however, if only a single
issue needs to be resolved, such as a price in a simple sales negotiation.
During the 1960s, Gerard I. Nierenberg recognized the role of negotiation in resolving disputes
in personal, business and international relations. He published The Art of Negotiating, where he
states that the philosophies of the negotiators determine the direction a negotiation takes. His
Everybody Wins philosophy assures that all parties benefit from the negotiation process which
also produces more successful outcomes than the adversarial “winner takes all” approach.

Getting to YES was published by Roger Fisher and William Ury as part of the Harvard
negotiation project. The book's approach, referred to as Principled Negotiation, is also sometimes
called mutual gains bargaining. The mutual gains approach has been effectively applied in
environmental situations (see Lawrence Susskind and Adil Najam) as well as labor relations
where the parties (e.g. management and a labor union) frame the negotiation as "problem
solving". If multiple issues are discussed, differences in the parties' preferences make win-win
negotiation possible. For example, in a labor negotiation, the union might prefer job security
over wage gains. If the employers have opposite preferences, a trade is possible that is beneficial
to both parties. Such a negotiation is therefore not an adversarial zero-sum game.

There are a tremendous number of other scholars who have contributed to the field of
negotiation, including Holly Schroth at UC Berkeley, Gerard E. Watzke at Tulane University,
Sara Cobb at George Mason University, Len Riskin at the University of Missouri, Howard Raiffa
at Harvard, Robert McKersie and Lawrence Susskind at MIT, and Adil Najam and Jeswald
Salacuse at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.[citation needed]

The new creative approach[2]

Perhaps the most famous negotiation parable involves an argument over an orange. The most
obvious approach was to simply cut it in half, each person getting a fair share. But, when the
negotiators began talking to each other, exchanging information about their interests, a better
solution to the problem became obvious. The person wanting the orange for juice for breakfast
took that part and the person wanting the rind for making marmalade took that part. Both sides
ended up with more. Neither agreement is particularly creative. The parable of the orange
becomes a story about creativity when both parties decide to cooperate in planting an orange tree
or even an orchard. In a similar way, Boeing buys composite plastic wings for its new 787
Dreamliner designed and manufactured by Japanese suppliers, and then sells the completed 787s
back to Japanese airlines, all with a nice subsidy from the Japanese government. This is what is
meant by creativity in negotiations. At business schools these days much is being learned about
creative processes. Courses are offered and dissertations proffered with “innovation” as the key
buzz word at academic conferences and in corporate boardrooms. And, the more heard about
innovation and creative processes the greater is the appreciation that the Japanese approach to
negotiations, by nature, uses many of the techniques commonly emphasized in any discussion of
creative processes. Indeed, there appears to be a deeply fundamental explanation why the
Japanese have been able to build such a successful society despite their lack of natural resources
and relative isolation. While Japanese society does have its own obstacles to creativity –
hierarchy and collectivism are two – they have developed a negotiation style that in many ways
obviates such disadvantages. Indeed, the ten new rules for global negotiations advocated by
Hernandez and Graham[3] nicely coincide with an approach that comes naturally to the Japanese:
 1. Accept only creative outcomes
2. Understand cultures, especially your own.
3. Don’t just adjust to cultural differences, exploit them.
4. Gather intelligence and reconnoiter the terrain.
5. Design the information flow and process of meetings.
6. Invest in personal relationships.
7. Persuade with questions. Seek information and understanding.
8. Make no concessions until the end.
9. Use techniques of creativity
10.Continue creativity after negotiations.

Beyond the practices of the Japanese, credit must also be given to the luminaries in field that
have long advocated creativity in negotiations. Howard Raiffa[4] and his colleagues recommend:
…the teams should think and plan together informally and do some joint brainstorming, which
can be thought of as “dialoguing” or “prenegotiating.” The two sides make no tradeoffs,
commitments, or arguments about how to divide the pie at this early stage. Roger Fisher and
William Ury title their Chapter 4 in Getting to Yes,[5] “Invent[ing] Options for Mutual Gain.”
David Lax and James Sebenius, in their important new book, 3D-Negotiations,[6]go past getting
to yes, and talk about “creative agreements” and “great agreements.” Lawrence Susskind[7] and
his associates recommend “parallel informal negotiations” toward building creative negotiation
outcomes. These ideas must be pushed to the forefront in thinking about negotiations. The field
generally is still stuck in the past, talking about “making deals” and “solving problems” as
above. Even the use of terms like “win-win” expose the vestiges of the old competitive thinking.
The point is that a negotiation is not something that can be won or lost, and the competitive
metaphor limits creativity. The problem-solving metaphor does as well. Thus, the first rule of
negotiations is: Accept only creative outcomes! Lynda Lawrence at IdeaWorks, a Newport
Beach consulting firm ([4]) has developed a most useful list of ways to generate more ideas
during negotiations:

Q:-4 Explain Classical Conditioning Theory?

Ans:- Classical conditioning (also Pavlovian or respondent conditioning) is a form of

associative learning that was first demonstrated by Ivan Pavlov.[1] The typical procedure for
inducing classical conditioning involves presentations of a neutral stimulus along with a stimulus
of some significance. The neutral stimulus could be any event that does not result in an overt
behavioral response from the organism under investigation. Pavlov referred to this as a
conditioned stimulus (CS). Conversely, presentation of the significant stimulus necessarily
evokes an innate, often reflexive, response. Pavlov called these the unconditioned stimulus (US)
and unconditioned response (UR), respectively. If the CS and the US are repeatedly paired,
eventually the two stimuli become associated and the organism begins to produce a behavioral
response to the CS. Pavlov called this the conditioned response (CR).

Popular forms of classical conditioning that are used to study neural structures and functions that
underlie learning and memory include fear conditioning, eyeblink conditioning, and the foot
contraction conditioning of Hermissenda crassicornis
[.] History
One of Pavlov’s dogs with a surgically implanted cannula to measure salivation,
Pavlov Museum, 2005

The original and most famous example of classical conditioning involved the salivary
conditioning of Pavlov's dogs. During his research on the physiology of digestion in dogs,
Pavlov noticed that, rather than simply salivating in the presence of meat powder (an innate
response to food that he called the unconditioned response), the dogs began to salivate in the
presence of the lab technician who normally fed them. Pavlov called these psychic secretions.
From this observation he predicted that, if a particular stimulus in the dog’s surroundings were
present when the dog was presented with meat powder, then this stimulus would become
associated with food and cause salivation on its own. In his initial experiment, Pavlov used a
metronome to call the dogs to their food and, after a few repetitions, the dogs started to salivate
in response to the metronome. Thus, a neutral stimulus (metronome) became a conditioned
stimulus (CS) as a result of consistent pairing with the unconditioned stimulus (US - meat
powder in this example). Pavlov referred to this learned relationship as a conditional reflex (now
called conditioned response).

Types
[.] Forward conditioning

Diagram representing forward conditioning. The time interval increases from left to
right.

During forward conditioning the onset of the CS precedes the onset of the US. Two common
forms of forward conditioning are delay and trace conditioning.

[.] Delay Conditioning

In delay conditioning the CS is presented and is overlapped by the presentation of the US

[.] Trace conditioning

During trace conditioning the CS and US do not overlap. Instead, the CS is presented, a period of
time is allowed to elapse during which no stimuli are presented, and then the US is presented.
The stimulus free period is called the trace interval. It may also be called the "conditioning
interval"
[.] Simultaneous conditioning

During simultaneous conditioning, the CS and US are presented and terminate at the same time.

[.] Backward conditioning

Backward conditioning occurs when a conditioned stimulus immediately follows an

unconditioned stimulus. Unlike traditional conditioning models, in which the conditioned
stimulus precedes the unconditioned stimulus, the conditioned response tends to be inhibitory.
This is because the conditioned stimulus serves as a signal that the unconditioned stimulus has
ended, rather than a reliable method of predicting the future occurrence of the unconditioned
stimulus.

[.] Temporal conditioning

The US is presented at regularly timed intervals, and CR acquisition is dependent upon correct
timing of the interval between US presentations. The background, or context, can serve as the CS
in this example.

[.] Unpaired conditioning

The CS and US are not presented together. Usually they are presented as independent trials that
are separated by a variable, or pseudo-random, interval. This procedure is used to study non-
associative behavioral responses, such as sensitization.

[.] CS-alone extinction

Main article: Extinction (psychology)

The CS is presented in the absence of the US. This procedure is usually done after the CR has
been acquired through Forward conditioning training. Eventually, the CR frequency is reduced to
pre-training levels

[.] Procedure variations

In addition to the simple procedures described above, some classical conditioning studies are
designed to tap into more complex learning processes. Some common variations are discussed
below.

[.] Classical discrimination/reversal conditioning

In this procedure, two CSs and one US are typically used. The CSs may be the same modality
(such as lights of different intensity), or they may be different modalities (such as auditory CS
and visual CS). In this procedure, one of the CSs is designated CS+ and its presentation is always
followed by the US. The other CS is designated CS- and its presentation is never followed by the
US. After a number of trials, the organism learns to discriminate CS+ trials and CS- trials such
that CRs are only observed on CS+ trials.

During Reversal Training, the CS+ and CS- are reversed and subjects learn to suppress
responding to the previous CS+ and show CRs to the previous CS-.

[.] Classical ISI discrimination conditioning

This is a discrimination procedure in which two different CSs are used to signal two different
interstimulus intervals. For example, a dim light may be presented 30 seconds before a US, while
a very bright light is presented 2 minutes before the US. Using this technique, organisms can
learn to perform CRs that are appropriately timed for the two distinct CSs.

[.] Latent inhibition conditioning

In this procedure, a CS is presented several times before paired CS-US training commences. The
pre-exposure of the subject to the CS before paired training slows the rate of CR acquisition
relative to organisms that are not CS pre-exposed. Also see Latent inhibition for applications.

[.] Conditioned inhibition conditioning

Three phases of conditioning are typically used:

Phase 1:

A CS (CS+) is not paired with a US until asymptotic CR levels are reached.

Phase 2:

CS+/US trials are continued, but interspersed with trials on which the CS+ in
compound with a second CS, but not with the US (i.e., CS+/CS- trials).
Typically, organisms show CRs on CS+/US trials, but suppress responding on
CS+/CS- trials.

Phase 3:

In this retention test, the previous CS- is paired with the US. If conditioned
inhibition has occurred, the rate of acquisition to the previous CS- should be
impaired relative to organisms that did not experience Phase 2.

Q.5 How are culture and society responsible to built value system?
Ans:- A value system is a set of consistent ethic values (more specifically the personal and
cultural values) and measures[clarification needed] used for the purpose of ethical or ideological integrity.
A well defined value system is a moral code.

Cultural values
The Inglehart-Welzel Cultural Map of the World, created by political scientists Ronald Inglehart
and Christian Welzel based on the World Values Survey.

Groups, societies, or cultures have values that are largely shared by their members. The values
identify those objects, conditions or characteristics that members of the society consider
important; that is, valuable. In the United States, for example, values might include material
comfort, wealth, competition, individualism or religiosity . The values of a society can often be
identified by noting which people receive honor or respect. In the US, for example, professional
athletes are honored (in the form of monetary payment) more than college professors, in part
because the society respects personal values such as physical activity, fitness, and
competitiveness more than mental activity and education. This may also be the case because the
society takes its education for granted and repays its teachers with non-tangible honors of
relatively equal value with that of the athlete. Surveys show that voters in the United States
would be reluctant to elect an atheist as a president, suggesting that belief in God is a value.
There is a difference between values clarification and cognitive moral education. Values
clarification is, "helping people clarify what their lives are for and what is worth working for.
Students are encouraged to define their own values and understand others' values."[1] Cognitive
moral education is based on the belief that students should learn to value things like democracy
and justice as their moral reasoning develops."[1]

Values are related to the norms of a culture, but they are more general and abstract than norms.
Norms are rules for behavior in specific situations, while values identify what should be judged
as good or evil. Flying the national flag on a holiday is a norm, but it reflects the value of
patriotism. Wearing dark clothing and appearing solemn are normative behaviors at a funeral.
They reflect the values of respect and support of friends and family. Different cultures reflect
different values. "Over the last three decades, traditional-age college students have shown an
increased interest in personal well-being and a decreased interest in the welfare of others."[1]
Values seemed to have changed, affecting the beliefs, and attitudes of college students.

Members take part in a culture even if each member's personal values do not entirely agree with
some of the normative values sanctioned in the culture. This reflects an individual's ability to
synthesize and extract aspects valuable to them from the multiple subcultures they belong to.

If a group member expresses a value that is in serious conflict with the group's norms, the
group's authority may carry out various ways of encouraging conformity or stigmatizing the non-
conforming behavior of its members. For example, imprisonment can result from conflict with
social norms that have been established as law.
Q 6:- Write short notes on
Ans:-

Locus of control - Locus of control is a term in psychology which refers to a

person's belief about what causes the good or bad results in his or her life, either in general or in
a specific area such as health or academics. Understanding of the concept was developed by
Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and has since become an important aspect of personality studies.

Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that
affect them. Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that events result primarily
from their own behavior and actions. Those with a high external locus of control believe that
powerful others, fate, or chance primarily determine events. Those with a high internal locus of
control have better control of their behavior, tend to exhibit more political behaviors, and are
more likely to attempt to influence other people than those with a high external locus of control;
they are more likely to assume that their efforts will be successful. They are more active in
seeking information and knowledge concerning their situation.

One's "locus" (Latin for "place" or "location") can either be internal (meaning the person
believes that they control their life) or external (meaning they believe that their environment,
some higher power, or other people control their decisions and their life).

History of concept
Locus of control is the framework of Rotter's (1954) social learning theory of personality.
Lefcourt (1976) defined perceived locus of control as follows: "Perceived control is defined as a
generalised expectancy for internal as opposed to external control of reinforcements" (Lefcourt
1976, p27). Early work on the topic of expectancies about control of reinforcement had, as
Lefcourt explains, been performed in the 1950s by James and Phares prepared for unpublished
doctoral dissertations supervised by Rotter at The Ohio State University.[1] Attempts have been
made to trace the genesis of the concept to the work of Alfred Adler, but its immediate
background lies in the work of Rotter students, such as William H. James (not to be confused
with William James), who studied two types of expectancy shifts:

• typical expectancy shifts, believing that a success or failure would be followed by a

similar outcome; and
• atypical expectancy shifts, believing that a success or failure would be followed by a
dissimilar outcome.

Work in this field led psychologists to suppose that people who were more likely to display
typical expectancy shifts were those who more likely to attribute their outcomes to ability,
whereas those who displayed atypical expectancy would be more likely to attribute their
outcomes to chance. This was interpreted as saying that people could be divided into those who
attribute to ability (an internal cause) versus those who attribute to luck (an external cause).
However, after 1970, Bernard Weiner pointed out that attributions to ability versus luck also
differ in that the former are an attribution to a stable cause, the latter an attribution to an unstable
cause.

A revolutionary paper in this field was published in 1966, in the journal Psychological
Monographs, by Rotter. In it, Rotter summarized over ten years of research by himself and his
students, much of it previously unpublished. Early history of the concept can be found in
Lefcourt (1976), who, early in his treatise on the topic, relates the concept to learned
helplessness. Rotter (1975, 1989) has discussed problems and misconceptions in others' use of
the internal versus external control of reinforcement construct.

Machiavellianism - Machiavellianism is, according to the OED, "the

employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct", deriving from the
Italian Renaissance diplomat and writer Niccolò Machiavelli, who wrote Il Principe (The Prince)
and other works. Machiavellian and variants became very popular in the late 16th century in
English, though "Machiavellianism" itself is first cited by the OED from 1626. The word has a
similar use in modern psychology.

Machiavelli, according to the popular view, although this is disputed at least in part by most
Machiavelli scholars, held that people were by nature untrustworthy, malevolent and self-
serving, and thus those in power could only maintain their position through exploitative and
deceitful actions.[1]

In political thought
Machiavellianism was seen as a foreign virus infecting English politics, originating in Italy, and
having already infected France. It was in this context that the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of
1572 in Paris came to be seen as a product of Machiavellianism, a view greatly influenced by the
Huguenot Innocent Gentillet, who published his Discours contre Machievel in 1576, which was
printed in ten .ions in three languages over the next four years.[2] Gentillet held, quite wrongly
according to Sydney Anglo, that Machiavelli's "books [were] held most dear and precious by our
Italian and Italionized [sic] courtiers" in France (in the words of his first English translation), and
so (in Anglo's paraphrase) "at the root of France's present degradation, which has culminated not
only in the St Bartholemew massacre but the glee of its perverted admirers".[3] In fact there is
little trace of Machiavelli in French writings before the massacre, and not very much after, until
Gentillet's own book, but this concept was seized upon by many contemporaries, and played a
crucial part in setting the long-lasting popular concept of Machiavellianism that so infuriates
scholars of his actual thought, who assert it is inaccurate and distorted.[4]

The English playwright Christopher Marlowe was an enthusiastic proponent of this view. In the
Jew of Malta (1589-90) "Machievel" in person speaks the Prologue, claiming to not be dead, but
to have possessed the soul of (the Duke of) Guise, "And, now the Guise is dead, is come from
France/ To view this land, and frolic with his friends" (Prologue, lines 3-4)[5] His last play, The
Massacre at Paris (1593) takes the massacre, and the following years, as its subject, with the
Duke of Guise and Catherine de' Medici both depicted as Machiavellian plotters, bent on evil
from the start.