LOYOLA COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS), CHENNAI – 600 034
U.G. DEGREE EXAMINATION – GENERAL ENGLISH
|
SECOND SEMESTER – APRIL 2008
EL 2069 – EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION
Date : 16/04/2008 Dept. No. Max. : 50 Marks
Time : 1:00 – 3:00
Invigilators, please note: The Examination is only for TWO HOURS
PART – A
- Answer any EIGHT of the following in 50 words each: (8×2=16)
- What are the different approaches to negotiation?
- Define ‘Kinesics’ and give two examples.
- What is the difference between decision-making and problem-solving?
- What are the objectives of an interview?
- What is meant by positive body language?
- What are the various kinds of official letters?
- Define ‘memo’.
- Why is ‘you-attitude’ very important?
- Differentiate ‘channel’ from ‘direction’.
- What are the qualities of a democratic leader?
PART – B
- Answer any THREE of the following in 200 words each: (3×5=15)
- Write an effective letter in Full Block Format to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City
Circle, inviting him to inaugurate the activities of the Student Union.
- Elaborate with illustrations the structure of a business letter.
- What are the ways and means to remove communication blocks?
- What strategy is usually used in sequencing the interview questions?
- Draw a mind map on the topic, ‘communication – objectives and principles’ and do a random jotting on the same topic, and prioritise it.
PART – C
- Study the following advertisement and write down your comments, applying the parameters of ad analysis. (1×9=9)
PART – D
- Study the case given below and answer the questions that follow: (4X21/2 = 10) .
.
The importance of keeping the lines of executive communication with one’s business partner cannot be overemphasized. Both domestic partnerships and especially foreign partnerships are premised extensively of the degree and quality of the relationship that the parties have assumed. A relationship can only survive if the parties involved maintain a line of communication. This concept becomes even more relevant when the partnership entails an international agreement where the enhanced distance between the partners will exacerbate the need to keep in touch. An executive can only keep on top of things if they are in contact with their partners because otherwise, how are they going to know what’s going on?
Secondly, the line of communication needs to be a two way process and should flow back and forth. It happens that too many international negotiators do not take the time, and dismiss the need to include some frank discussion in how the two parties will maintain contact with each other. They assume wrongly that the communication process will evolve all in its own sweet time. The time to discuss the line of communication is when the venture is being negotiated. They should not consider the issue later, and after the fact, when serious problems suddenly arise and challenge the viability and the stability of the joint venture. The other problem occurs when the two parties neglect to keep in touch with each and simply allow their interest in their agreement to ‘wither on the vine’, while the agreement simply falls apart due to a genuine lack of interest.
Many joint ventures have collapsed apart needlessly due to a lack of communication between the parties involved. International agreements are especially prone to dissolution when the partners fail to maintain a respectable level of contact.
Take the case that occurred between one particular U.S. Company and their Japanese partner for example. The agreement that they signed stipulated that the Japanese company would supply the manufacturing, management, and marketing components of the deal, while the American company would supply the technology.
The American representative, who was based in Hong Kong, met with their Japanese counterparts only once every three months where all aspects of the operation would be discussed.
In between these quarterly visits, the two parties exchanged communications through written correspondence and infrequent phone calls. To the Japanese partner, this periodic though infrequent contact signalled that the American partner was not overly committed to the relationship. Needless to say, the Japanese commitment to the partnership began to dwindle as well. As time progressed, the U.S. Company’s strategy altered as they began to concentrate on a smaller product line. The American company never bothered to advise their Japanese partner of the change in their strategy. Due to this smaller line and change, there was the additional problem. The Japanese company was not going to be receiving the technology it had negotiated with the American firm.
The Japanese took a dim view of what they now perceived as an agreement that was signed in ‘bad faith’. The Japanese became bitter as the relationship soured and ended in arbitration. What was the result of the arbitration? The partnership was dissolved.
Answer the following questions:
- Why is executive communication necessary?
- What was the agreement between the two companies?
- Write down the reasons that indicate why this venture failed.
- How can this problem be resolved? [OR] What lessons do you draw from this case?