All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  Each of the questions below contains a paragr... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Each of the questions below contains a paragraph followed by alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the text.
Strategy is about choice, which affects outcomes. Organizations can often do well for periods of time in conditions of relative stability, low environmental turbulence and little competition for resources. Virtually none of these conditions prevail in the modern world for great lengths of time for any organization or sector, public or private. Hence, the rationale for strategic management. The nature of the strategy adopted and implemented emerges from a combination of the structure of the organization, the type of resources available and the nature of the coupling it has with the environment and the strategic objective being pursued. Strategy is adaptable by nature rather than a rigid set of instructions. In some situations it takes the nature of emergent strategy. The simplest explanation of this is the analogy of a sports scenario. If a football team were to organize a plan in which the ball is passed in a particular sequence between specifically positioned players, their success would be dependent on each of those players both being present at the exact location, and remembering exactly when, from whom and to whom the ball is to be passed; moreover that no interruption to the sequence occurs. By comparison, if the team were to simplify this plan to a strategy where the ball is passed in the pattern alone, between any of the team, and at any area on the field, then their vulnerability to variables is greatly reduced, and the opportunity to operate in that manner occurs far more often. This manner is a strategy.
1. Strategic management is required for organizations to succeed in a rapidly changing world where there are several parameters affecting success. Strategy is adaptable in nature rather than being rigid.
2. Every organization in every sector, whether public or private needs a strategy to overcome situations that arise out of changes in the environment. It is not however easy to identify a common strategy for all organizations.
3. The need for strategic management arises because of the variability of the parameters affecting organizations and sectors. The nature of strategy depends on structure, resources and the environment. Strategy is adaptable rather than a rigid set of instructions.
4. Strategy differs from one organization to another depending upon the structure of the organization, its goals and relation with the environment. Without a strategy it is not possible to survive in an ever-changing world.
    Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer?
    FREE This question is part of
    Download PDF Attempt Test
    		Download PDF Attempt this Test
    Verified Answer
    Each of the questions below contains a paragraph followed by alternati...
    The main points in the paragraph are: 1. The need for strategy
    2. The parameters for defining a strategy and its nature(adaptable).
    Statement 1 covers the main points but is not as comprehensive as option 3.
    Statement 2 does not cover adaptability.
    Statement 4 stresses on how strategies are different for different organizations, which was implied in the passage but is not the main point.
    Hence, the correct answer is statement 3.
    View all questions of this test
    Most Upvoted Answer
    Each of the questions below contains a paragraph followed by alternati...
    Option b and option d can be ecxluded at a glance because they both are suggesting that strategic management is vital for organisation to survive but the paragraph doesn't discusses such extreme survivals instead the paragraph is about why we need strategy or why some organisation need strategic management.
    Also option a mentions that for organisational success we need strategic management but this is not mentioned in paragraph.
    The paragraph is a general talk about strategic management under some adverse circumstances , option c correctly captures it
    Free Test
    FREE
    Start Free Test
    		Start Free Test
    Community Answer
    Each of the questions below contains a paragraph followed by alternati...
    The main points in the paragraph are: 1. The need for strategy
    2. The parameters for defining a strategy and its nature(adaptable).
    Statement 1 covers the main points but is not as comprehensive as option 3.
    Statement 2 does not cover adaptability.
    Statement 4 stresses on how strategies are different for different organizations, which was implied in the passage but is not the main point.
    Hence, the correct answer is statement 3.
    Attention CAT Students!
    To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CAT.
    < Previous Question Next Question >
    Explore Courses for CAT exam

    Similar CAT Doubts

    Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.While sabbaticals are still rare inside of corporate America, their presence is increasing rapidly. According to a survey from the Society for Human Resource Management, the percentage of companies offering sabbaticals (both paid and unpai d) rose to nearly 17% of employers in 2017. That's a significant gain from 1977, when McDonald's instituted what was arguably the first corporate sabbatical program in the United States.Since the concept of sabbaticals is most popular in the academic arena, the majority of research done on their effect on employees has been conducted by studying professors. One notable study compared 129 university professors who took a sabbatical in a given term with 129 equally qualified colleagues who didn't. Both groups were surveyed before, during, and after the term to assess stress levels, psychological resources, and even overall life satisfaction. It's not surprising that the researchers found that those who took sabbaticals experienced, upon return, a decline in stress and an increase in psychological resources and overall well-being. What is surprising, however, is that those positive changes often remained long after the sabbatical takers returned to work.The bigger benefit to organizations, however, comes in unexpected ways. Providing sabbaticals or extended leave time to leaders can actually be a means to stress test the organizational chart and give aspiring leaders a chance to grow. In one study, researchers surveyed 61 leaders at five different non-profit organizations with sabbatical programs. Each organization had slightly different requirements, but all required at least three months off and discouraged executives from visiting the office during the sabbatical period.The researchers found that the majority of leaders surveyed said the time away allowed them the space to generate new ideas for innovating in the organization and helped them gain greater confidence in themselves as leaders. They also reported a better ability to collaborate with their board of directors, most likely because the planning and execution of the sabbatical provided a learning experience for everyone involved.At the very least, having people rotate out for an extended period of time allows organizations to stress test their organizational chart. Ideally, no team should be so dependent on any one person that productivity grinds to a halt during an extended vacation. And while it may look good on paper, the only way to know for sure is to test it. For instance, there are many unique vacation/sabbatical policies out there: The Motley Fool's approach, called "The Fool's Errand." Each month leadership of The Motley Fool draws a random name from the company roster and awards that person two weeks of paid time off with a catch: It must be taken in the next month.Whether it's a long-term sabbatical or a surprise vacation, the success of extended time off - for the organization - is an encouragement and a warning. The warning is that most organizations are probably not giving employees enough time away.Q. Whether it's a long-term sabbatical or a surprise vacation, the success of extended time off - for the organization - is an encouragement and a warning. The warning is that most organizations are probably not giving employees enough time away.It can be inferred that the author could have extended the last paragraph to include how many of the following statements? The encouragement is that extended time pays off. How seriously companies take this warning, is yet to be seen. Rewarding sabbatical to employees increases the productivity of the company. The pros of rewarding sabbatical to employees far outweigh the cons.

    When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.There is only one term in the left column which matches with the options given in the second column. Identify the correct pair from the following table

    When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.There is only one term in the left column which matches with the options given in the second column. Identify the correct pair from the following table

    When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.The hypothesis mentioned in the passage tests at least one of the following ideas.

    When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

    Top Courses for CATView all

    Top Courses for CAT

    Each of the questions below contains a paragraph followed by alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the text.Strategy is about choice, which affects outcomes. Organizationscan often do well for periods of time in conditions of relative stability, low environmental turbulence and little competition for resources. Virtually none of these conditions prevail in the modern world for great lengths of time for any organization or sector, public or private. Hence, the rationale for strategic management. The nature of the strategy adopted and implemented emerges from a combination of the structure of the organization, the type of resources available and the nature of the coupling it has with the environment and the strategic objective being pursued. Strategy is adaptable by nature rather than a rigid set of instructions. In some situations it takes the nature of emergent strategy. The simplest explanation of this is the analogy of a sports scenario. If a football team were to organize a plan in which the ball is passed in a particular sequence between specifically positioned players, their success would be dependent on each of those players both being present at the exact location, and remembering exactly when, from whom and to whom the ball is to be passed; moreover that no interruption to the sequence occurs. By comparison, if the team were to simplify this plan to a strategy where the ball is passed in the pattern alone, between any of the team, and at any area on the field, then their vulnerability to variables is greatly reduced, and the opportunity to operate in that manner occurs far more often. This manner is a strategy.1. Strategic management is required for organizations to succeed in a rapidly changing world where there are several parameters affecting success. Strategy is adaptable in nature rather than being rigid.2. Every organization in every sector, whether public or private needs a strategy to overcome situations that arise out of changes in the environment. It is not however easy to identify a common strategy for all organizations.3. The need for strategic management arises because of the variability of the parameters affecting organizations and sectors. The nature of strategy depends on structure, resources and the environment. Strategy is adaptable rather than a rigid set of instructions.4. Strategy differs from one organization to another depending upon the structure of the organization, its goals and relation with the environment. Without a strategy it is not possible to survive in an ever-changing world.Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer?
    Question Description
    Each of the questions below contains a paragraph followed by alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the text.Strategy is about choice, which affects outcomes. Organizationscan often do well for periods of time in conditions of relative stability, low environmental turbulence and little competition for resources. Virtually none of these conditions prevail in the modern world for great lengths of time for any organization or sector, public or private. Hence, the rationale for strategic management. The nature of the strategy adopted and implemented emerges from a combination of the structure of the organization, the type of resources available and the nature of the coupling it has with the environment and the strategic objective being pursued. Strategy is adaptable by nature rather than a rigid set of instructions. In some situations it takes the nature of emergent strategy. The simplest explanation of this is the analogy of a sports scenario. If a football team were to organize a plan in which the ball is passed in a particular sequence between specifically positioned players, their success would be dependent on each of those players both being present at the exact location, and remembering exactly when, from whom and to whom the ball is to be passed; moreover that no interruption to the sequence occurs. By comparison, if the team were to simplify this plan to a strategy where the ball is passed in the pattern alone, between any of the team, and at any area on the field, then their vulnerability to variables is greatly reduced, and the opportunity to operate in that manner occurs far more often. This manner is a strategy.1. Strategic management is required for organizations to succeed in a rapidly changing world where there are several parameters affecting success. Strategy is adaptable in nature rather than being rigid.2. Every organization in every sector, whether public or private needs a strategy to overcome situations that arise out of changes in the environment. It is not however easy to identify a common strategy for all organizations.3. The need for strategic management arises because of the variability of the parameters affecting organizations and sectors. The nature of strategy depends on structure, resources and the environment. Strategy is adaptable rather than a rigid set of instructions.4. Strategy differs from one organization to another depending upon the structure of the organization, its goals and relation with the environment. Without a strategy it is not possible to survive in an ever-changing world.Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Each of the questions below contains a paragraph followed by alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the text.Strategy is about choice, which affects outcomes. Organizationscan often do well for periods of time in conditions of relative stability, low environmental turbulence and little competition for resources. Virtually none of these conditions prevail in the modern world for great lengths of time for any organization or sector, public or private. Hence, the rationale for strategic management. The nature of the strategy adopted and implemented emerges from a combination of the structure of the organization, the type of resources available and the nature of the coupling it has with the environment and the strategic objective being pursued. Strategy is adaptable by nature rather than a rigid set of instructions. In some situations it takes the nature of emergent strategy. The simplest explanation of this is the analogy of a sports scenario. If a football team were to organize a plan in which the ball is passed in a particular sequence between specifically positioned players, their success would be dependent on each of those players both being present at the exact location, and remembering exactly when, from whom and to whom the ball is to be passed; moreover that no interruption to the sequence occurs. By comparison, if the team were to simplify this plan to a strategy where the ball is passed in the pattern alone, between any of the team, and at any area on the field, then their vulnerability to variables is greatly reduced, and the opportunity to operate in that manner occurs far more often. This manner is a strategy.1. Strategic management is required for organizations to succeed in a rapidly changing world where there are several parameters affecting success. Strategy is adaptable in nature rather than being rigid.2. Every organization in every sector, whether public or private needs a strategy to overcome situations that arise out of changes in the environment. It is not however easy to identify a common strategy for all organizations.3. The need for strategic management arises because of the variability of the parameters affecting organizations and sectors. The nature of strategy depends on structure, resources and the environment. Strategy is adaptable rather than a rigid set of instructions.4. Strategy differs from one organization to another depending upon the structure of the organization, its goals and relation with the environment. Without a strategy it is not possible to survive in an ever-changing world.Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Each of the questions below contains a paragraph followed by alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the text.Strategy is about choice, which affects outcomes. Organizationscan often do well for periods of time in conditions of relative stability, low environmental turbulence and little competition for resources. Virtually none of these conditions prevail in the modern world for great lengths of time for any organization or sector, public or private. Hence, the rationale for strategic management. The nature of the strategy adopted and implemented emerges from a combination of the structure of the organization, the type of resources available and the nature of the coupling it has with the environment and the strategic objective being pursued. Strategy is adaptable by nature rather than a rigid set of instructions. In some situations it takes the nature of emergent strategy. The simplest explanation of this is the analogy of a sports scenario. If a football team were to organize a plan in which the ball is passed in a particular sequence between specifically positioned players, their success would be dependent on each of those players both being present at the exact location, and remembering exactly when, from whom and to whom the ball is to be passed; moreover that no interruption to the sequence occurs. By comparison, if the team were to simplify this plan to a strategy where the ball is passed in the pattern alone, between any of the team, and at any area on the field, then their vulnerability to variables is greatly reduced, and the opportunity to operate in that manner occurs far more often. This manner is a strategy.1. Strategic management is required for organizations to succeed in a rapidly changing world where there are several parameters affecting success. Strategy is adaptable in nature rather than being rigid.2. Every organization in every sector, whether public or private needs a strategy to overcome situations that arise out of changes in the environment. It is not however easy to identify a common strategy for all organizations.3. The need for strategic management arises because of the variability of the parameters affecting organizations and sectors. The nature of strategy depends on structure, resources and the environment. Strategy is adaptable rather than a rigid set of instructions.4. Strategy differs from one organization to another depending upon the structure of the organization, its goals and relation with the environment. Without a strategy it is not possible to survive in an ever-changing world.Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer?.
    Solutions for Each of the questions below contains a paragraph followed by alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the text.Strategy is about choice, which affects outcomes. Organizationscan often do well for periods of time in conditions of relative stability, low environmental turbulence and little competition for resources. Virtually none of these conditions prevail in the modern world for great lengths of time for any organization or sector, public or private. Hence, the rationale for strategic management. The nature of the strategy adopted and implemented emerges from a combination of the structure of the organization, the type of resources available and the nature of the coupling it has with the environment and the strategic objective being pursued. Strategy is adaptable by nature rather than a rigid set of instructions. In some situations it takes the nature of emergent strategy. The simplest explanation of this is the analogy of a sports scenario. If a football team were to organize a plan in which the ball is passed in a particular sequence between specifically positioned players, their success would be dependent on each of those players both being present at the exact location, and remembering exactly when, from whom and to whom the ball is to be passed; moreover that no interruption to the sequence occurs. By comparison, if the team were to simplify this plan to a strategy where the ball is passed in the pattern alone, between any of the team, and at any area on the field, then their vulnerability to variables is greatly reduced, and the opportunity to operate in that manner occurs far more often. This manner is a strategy.1. Strategic management is required for organizations to succeed in a rapidly changing world where there are several parameters affecting success. Strategy is adaptable in nature rather than being rigid.2. Every organization in every sector, whether public or private needs a strategy to overcome situations that arise out of changes in the environment. It is not however easy to identify a common strategy for all organizations.3. The need for strategic management arises because of the variability of the parameters affecting organizations and sectors. The nature of strategy depends on structure, resources and the environment. Strategy is adaptable rather than a rigid set of instructions.4. Strategy differs from one organization to another depending upon the structure of the organization, its goals and relation with the environment. Without a strategy it is not possible to survive in an ever-changing world.Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
    Here you can find the meaning of Each of the questions below contains a paragraph followed by alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the text.Strategy is about choice, which affects outcomes. Organizationscan often do well for periods of time in conditions of relative stability, low environmental turbulence and little competition for resources. Virtually none of these conditions prevail in the modern world for great lengths of time for any organization or sector, public or private. Hence, the rationale for strategic management. The nature of the strategy adopted and implemented emerges from a combination of the structure of the organization, the type of resources available and the nature of the coupling it has with the environment and the strategic objective being pursued. Strategy is adaptable by nature rather than a rigid set of instructions. In some situations it takes the nature of emergent strategy. The simplest explanation of this is the analogy of a sports scenario. If a football team were to organize a plan in which the ball is passed in a particular sequence between specifically positioned players, their success would be dependent on each of those players both being present at the exact location, and remembering exactly when, from whom and to whom the ball is to be passed; moreover that no interruption to the sequence occurs. By comparison, if the team were to simplify this plan to a strategy where the ball is passed in the pattern alone, between any of the team, and at any area on the field, then their vulnerability to variables is greatly reduced, and the opportunity to operate in that manner occurs far more often. This manner is a strategy.1. Strategic management is required for organizations to succeed in a rapidly changing world where there are several parameters affecting success. Strategy is adaptable in nature rather than being rigid.2. Every organization in every sector, whether public or private needs a strategy to overcome situations that arise out of changes in the environment. It is not however easy to identify a common strategy for all organizations.3. The need for strategic management arises because of the variability of the parameters affecting organizations and sectors. The nature of strategy depends on structure, resources and the environment. Strategy is adaptable rather than a rigid set of instructions.4. Strategy differs from one organization to another depending upon the structure of the organization, its goals and relation with the environment. Without a strategy it is not possible to survive in an ever-changing world.Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Each of the questions below contains a paragraph followed by alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the text.Strategy is about choice, which affects outcomes. Organizationscan often do well for periods of time in conditions of relative stability, low environmental turbulence and little competition for resources. Virtually none of these conditions prevail in the modern world for great lengths of time for any organization or sector, public or private. Hence, the rationale for strategic management. The nature of the strategy adopted and implemented emerges from a combination of the structure of the organization, the type of resources available and the nature of the coupling it has with the environment and the strategic objective being pursued. Strategy is adaptable by nature rather than a rigid set of instructions. In some situations it takes the nature of emergent strategy. The simplest explanation of this is the analogy of a sports scenario. If a football team were to organize a plan in which the ball is passed in a particular sequence between specifically positioned players, their success would be dependent on each of those players both being present at the exact location, and remembering exactly when, from whom and to whom the ball is to be passed; moreover that no interruption to the sequence occurs. By comparison, if the team were to simplify this plan to a strategy where the ball is passed in the pattern alone, between any of the team, and at any area on the field, then their vulnerability to variables is greatly reduced, and the opportunity to operate in that manner occurs far more often. This manner is a strategy.1. Strategic management is required for organizations to succeed in a rapidly changing world where there are several parameters affecting success. Strategy is adaptable in nature rather than being rigid.2. Every organization in every sector, whether public or private needs a strategy to overcome situations that arise out of changes in the environment. It is not however easy to identify a common strategy for all organizations.3. The need for strategic management arises because of the variability of the parameters affecting organizations and sectors. The nature of strategy depends on structure, resources and the environment. Strategy is adaptable rather than a rigid set of instructions.4. Strategy differs from one organization to another depending upon the structure of the organization, its goals and relation with the environment. Without a strategy it is not possible to survive in an ever-changing world.Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Each of the questions below contains a paragraph followed by alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the text.Strategy is about choice, which affects outcomes. Organizationscan often do well for periods of time in conditions of relative stability, low environmental turbulence and little competition for resources. Virtually none of these conditions prevail in the modern world for great lengths of time for any organization or sector, public or private. Hence, the rationale for strategic management. The nature of the strategy adopted and implemented emerges from a combination of the structure of the organization, the type of resources available and the nature of the coupling it has with the environment and the strategic objective being pursued. Strategy is adaptable by nature rather than a rigid set of instructions. In some situations it takes the nature of emergent strategy. The simplest explanation of this is the analogy of a sports scenario. If a football team were to organize a plan in which the ball is passed in a particular sequence between specifically positioned players, their success would be dependent on each of those players both being present at the exact location, and remembering exactly when, from whom and to whom the ball is to be passed; moreover that no interruption to the sequence occurs. By comparison, if the team were to simplify this plan to a strategy where the ball is passed in the pattern alone, between any of the team, and at any area on the field, then their vulnerability to variables is greatly reduced, and the opportunity to operate in that manner occurs far more often. This manner is a strategy.1. Strategic management is required for organizations to succeed in a rapidly changing world where there are several parameters affecting success. Strategy is adaptable in nature rather than being rigid.2. Every organization in every sector, whether public or private needs a strategy to overcome situations that arise out of changes in the environment. It is not however easy to identify a common strategy for all organizations.3. The need for strategic management arises because of the variability of the parameters affecting organizations and sectors. The nature of strategy depends on structure, resources and the environment. Strategy is adaptable rather than a rigid set of instructions.4. Strategy differs from one organization to another depending upon the structure of the organization, its goals and relation with the environment. Without a strategy it is not possible to survive in an ever-changing world.Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Each of the questions below contains a paragraph followed by alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the text.Strategy is about choice, which affects outcomes. Organizationscan often do well for periods of time in conditions of relative stability, low environmental turbulence and little competition for resources. Virtually none of these conditions prevail in the modern world for great lengths of time for any organization or sector, public or private. Hence, the rationale for strategic management. The nature of the strategy adopted and implemented emerges from a combination of the structure of the organization, the type of resources available and the nature of the coupling it has with the environment and the strategic objective being pursued. Strategy is adaptable by nature rather than a rigid set of instructions. In some situations it takes the nature of emergent strategy. The simplest explanation of this is the analogy of a sports scenario. If a football team were to organize a plan in which the ball is passed in a particular sequence between specifically positioned players, their success would be dependent on each of those players both being present at the exact location, and remembering exactly when, from whom and to whom the ball is to be passed; moreover that no interruption to the sequence occurs. By comparison, if the team were to simplify this plan to a strategy where the ball is passed in the pattern alone, between any of the team, and at any area on the field, then their vulnerability to variables is greatly reduced, and the opportunity to operate in that manner occurs far more often. This manner is a strategy.1. Strategic management is required for organizations to succeed in a rapidly changing world where there are several parameters affecting success. Strategy is adaptable in nature rather than being rigid.2. Every organization in every sector, whether public or private needs a strategy to overcome situations that arise out of changes in the environment. It is not however easy to identify a common strategy for all organizations.3. The need for strategic management arises because of the variability of the parameters affecting organizations and sectors. The nature of strategy depends on structure, resources and the environment. Strategy is adaptable rather than a rigid set of instructions.4. Strategy differs from one organization to another depending upon the structure of the organization, its goals and relation with the environment. Without a strategy it is not possible to survive in an ever-changing world.Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Each of the questions below contains a paragraph followed by alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the text.Strategy is about choice, which affects outcomes. Organizationscan often do well for periods of time in conditions of relative stability, low environmental turbulence and little competition for resources. Virtually none of these conditions prevail in the modern world for great lengths of time for any organization or sector, public or private. Hence, the rationale for strategic management. The nature of the strategy adopted and implemented emerges from a combination of the structure of the organization, the type of resources available and the nature of the coupling it has with the environment and the strategic objective being pursued. Strategy is adaptable by nature rather than a rigid set of instructions. In some situations it takes the nature of emergent strategy. The simplest explanation of this is the analogy of a sports scenario. If a football team were to organize a plan in which the ball is passed in a particular sequence between specifically positioned players, their success would be dependent on each of those players both being present at the exact location, and remembering exactly when, from whom and to whom the ball is to be passed; moreover that no interruption to the sequence occurs. By comparison, if the team were to simplify this plan to a strategy where the ball is passed in the pattern alone, between any of the team, and at any area on the field, then their vulnerability to variables is greatly reduced, and the opportunity to operate in that manner occurs far more often. This manner is a strategy.1. Strategic management is required for organizations to succeed in a rapidly changing world where there are several parameters affecting success. Strategy is adaptable in nature rather than being rigid.2. Every organization in every sector, whether public or private needs a strategy to overcome situations that arise out of changes in the environment. It is not however easy to identify a common strategy for all organizations.3. The need for strategic management arises because of the variability of the parameters affecting organizations and sectors. The nature of strategy depends on structure, resources and the environment. Strategy is adaptable rather than a rigid set of instructions.4. Strategy differs from one organization to another depending upon the structure of the organization, its goals and relation with the environment. Without a strategy it is not possible to survive in an ever-changing world.Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
    Explore Courses for CAT exam

    Top Courses for CAT

    Explore Courses

    Suggested Free Tests

    Signup for Free!
    Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
    10M+ students study on EduRev
    Get App
    © EduRev
    Education Revolution
    Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
    Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
    Takes less than 10 seconds to signup