Question Description
Passage:Management is a set of processesthat can keep a complicated system of people and technology running smoothly. The most important aspects of management include planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem-solving. Leadership is a set of processes that creates organisations in the first place or adapts them to significantly changing circumstances. Leadership defines what the future should look like, aligns people with that vision, and inspires them to make it happen despite the obstacles. This distinction is absolutely crucial for our purposes here: Successful transformation is 70 to 90 percent leadership and only 10 to 30 percent management. Yet for historical reasons, many organisations today don‘t have much leadership. And almost everyone thinks about the problems here as one of managing change. For most of this century, as we created thousands and thousands of large organizations for the first time in human history, we didn‘t have enough good managers to keep all those bureaucracies functioning. So many companies and universities developed management programs, and hundreds and thousands of people were encouraged to learn management on the job. And they did. But, people were taught little about leadership. To some degree, management was emphasized because it‘s easier to teach than leadership. But even more so, management was the main item on the twentieth-century agenda because that‘s what was needed. For every entrepreneur or business builder who was a leader, we needed hundreds of managers to run their ever growing enterprises. Unfortunately for us today, this emphasis on management has often been institutionalized in corporate cultures that discourage employees from learning how to lead. Ironically, past success is usually the key ingredient in producing this outcome.The syndrome, as I have observed it on many occasions, goes like this: success creates some degree of market dominance, which in turn produces much growth. After a while keeping the ever larger organizations under control becomes the primary challenge. So attention turns inward, and managerial competencies are nurtured. With a strong emphasis on management but not on leadership, bureaucracy and an inward focus take over. But with continued success, the result mostly of market dominance, the problem often goes unaddressed and an unhealthy arrogance begins to evolve. All of these characteristics then make any transformation effort much more difficult. Arrogant managers can over- evaluate their current performance and competitive position, listen poorly, and learn slowly. Inwardly focused employees can have difficulty seeing the very forces that present threats and opportunities.Bureaucratic cultures can smother those who want to respond to shifting conditions. And the lack of leadership leaves no fore inside these organizations to break out of the morass.Q.Why did companies and universities develop programs to prepare managers in such a large number?a)Companies and universities wanted to generate funds through these programs.b)A large number of organizations were created and they needed managers in good numbers.c)Organisations did not want to spend their scarce resources on training managers.d)Organisations wanted to create a communication network through trained managers.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Passage:Management is a set of processesthat can keep a complicated system of people and technology running smoothly. The most important aspects of management include planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem-solving. Leadership is a set of processes that creates organisations in the first place or adapts them to significantly changing circumstances. Leadership defines what the future should look like, aligns people with that vision, and inspires them to make it happen despite the obstacles. This distinction is absolutely crucial for our purposes here: Successful transformation is 70 to 90 percent leadership and only 10 to 30 percent management. Yet for historical reasons, many organisations today don‘t have much leadership. And almost everyone thinks about the problems here as one of managing change. For most of this century, as we created thousands and thousands of large organizations for the first time in human history, we didn‘t have enough good managers to keep all those bureaucracies functioning. So many companies and universities developed management programs, and hundreds and thousands of people were encouraged to learn management on the job. And they did. But, people were taught little about leadership. To some degree, management was emphasized because it‘s easier to teach than leadership. But even more so, management was the main item on the twentieth-century agenda because that‘s what was needed. For every entrepreneur or business builder who was a leader, we needed hundreds of managers to run their ever growing enterprises. Unfortunately for us today, this emphasis on management has often been institutionalized in corporate cultures that discourage employees from learning how to lead. Ironically, past success is usually the key ingredient in producing this outcome.The syndrome, as I have observed it on many occasions, goes like this: success creates some degree of market dominance, which in turn produces much growth. After a while keeping the ever larger organizations under control becomes the primary challenge. So attention turns inward, and managerial competencies are nurtured. With a strong emphasis on management but not on leadership, bureaucracy and an inward focus take over. But with continued success, the result mostly of market dominance, the problem often goes unaddressed and an unhealthy arrogance begins to evolve. All of these characteristics then make any transformation effort much more difficult. Arrogant managers can over- evaluate their current performance and competitive position, listen poorly, and learn slowly. Inwardly focused employees can have difficulty seeing the very forces that present threats and opportunities.Bureaucratic cultures can smother those who want to respond to shifting conditions. And the lack of leadership leaves no fore inside these organizations to break out of the morass.Q.Why did companies and universities develop programs to prepare managers in such a large number?a)Companies and universities wanted to generate funds through these programs.b)A large number of organizations were created and they needed managers in good numbers.c)Organisations did not want to spend their scarce resources on training managers.d)Organisations wanted to create a communication network through trained managers.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Passage:Management is a set of processesthat can keep a complicated system of people and technology running smoothly. The most important aspects of management include planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem-solving. Leadership is a set of processes that creates organisations in the first place or adapts them to significantly changing circumstances. Leadership defines what the future should look like, aligns people with that vision, and inspires them to make it happen despite the obstacles. This distinction is absolutely crucial for our purposes here: Successful transformation is 70 to 90 percent leadership and only 10 to 30 percent management. Yet for historical reasons, many organisations today don‘t have much leadership. And almost everyone thinks about the problems here as one of managing change. For most of this century, as we created thousands and thousands of large organizations for the first time in human history, we didn‘t have enough good managers to keep all those bureaucracies functioning. So many companies and universities developed management programs, and hundreds and thousands of people were encouraged to learn management on the job. And they did. But, people were taught little about leadership. To some degree, management was emphasized because it‘s easier to teach than leadership. But even more so, management was the main item on the twentieth-century agenda because that‘s what was needed. For every entrepreneur or business builder who was a leader, we needed hundreds of managers to run their ever growing enterprises. Unfortunately for us today, this emphasis on management has often been institutionalized in corporate cultures that discourage employees from learning how to lead. Ironically, past success is usually the key ingredient in producing this outcome.The syndrome, as I have observed it on many occasions, goes like this: success creates some degree of market dominance, which in turn produces much growth. After a while keeping the ever larger organizations under control becomes the primary challenge. So attention turns inward, and managerial competencies are nurtured. With a strong emphasis on management but not on leadership, bureaucracy and an inward focus take over. But with continued success, the result mostly of market dominance, the problem often goes unaddressed and an unhealthy arrogance begins to evolve. All of these characteristics then make any transformation effort much more difficult. Arrogant managers can over- evaluate their current performance and competitive position, listen poorly, and learn slowly. Inwardly focused employees can have difficulty seeing the very forces that present threats and opportunities.Bureaucratic cultures can smother those who want to respond to shifting conditions. And the lack of leadership leaves no fore inside these organizations to break out of the morass.Q.Why did companies and universities develop programs to prepare managers in such a large number?a)Companies and universities wanted to generate funds through these programs.b)A large number of organizations were created and they needed managers in good numbers.c)Organisations did not want to spend their scarce resources on training managers.d)Organisations wanted to create a communication network through trained managers.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Passage:Management is a set of processesthat can keep a complicated system of people and technology running smoothly. The most important aspects of management include planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem-solving. Leadership is a set of processes that creates organisations in the first place or adapts them to significantly changing circumstances. Leadership defines what the future should look like, aligns people with that vision, and inspires them to make it happen despite the obstacles. This distinction is absolutely crucial for our purposes here: Successful transformation is 70 to 90 percent leadership and only 10 to 30 percent management. Yet for historical reasons, many organisations today don‘t have much leadership. And almost everyone thinks about the problems here as one of managing change. For most of this century, as we created thousands and thousands of large organizations for the first time in human history, we didn‘t have enough good managers to keep all those bureaucracies functioning. So many companies and universities developed management programs, and hundreds and thousands of people were encouraged to learn management on the job. And they did. But, people were taught little about leadership. To some degree, management was emphasized because it‘s easier to teach than leadership. But even more so, management was the main item on the twentieth-century agenda because that‘s what was needed. For every entrepreneur or business builder who was a leader, we needed hundreds of managers to run their ever growing enterprises. Unfortunately for us today, this emphasis on management has often been institutionalized in corporate cultures that discourage employees from learning how to lead. Ironically, past success is usually the key ingredient in producing this outcome.The syndrome, as I have observed it on many occasions, goes like this: success creates some degree of market dominance, which in turn produces much growth. After a while keeping the ever larger organizations under control becomes the primary challenge. So attention turns inward, and managerial competencies are nurtured. With a strong emphasis on management but not on leadership, bureaucracy and an inward focus take over. But with continued success, the result mostly of market dominance, the problem often goes unaddressed and an unhealthy arrogance begins to evolve. All of these characteristics then make any transformation effort much more difficult. Arrogant managers can over- evaluate their current performance and competitive position, listen poorly, and learn slowly. Inwardly focused employees can have difficulty seeing the very forces that present threats and opportunities.Bureaucratic cultures can smother those who want to respond to shifting conditions. And the lack of leadership leaves no fore inside these organizations to break out of the morass.Q.Why did companies and universities develop programs to prepare managers in such a large number?a)Companies and universities wanted to generate funds through these programs.b)A large number of organizations were created and they needed managers in good numbers.c)Organisations did not want to spend their scarce resources on training managers.d)Organisations wanted to create a communication network through trained managers.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Passage:Management is a set of processesthat can keep a complicated system of people and technology running smoothly. The most important aspects of management include planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem-solving. Leadership is a set of processes that creates organisations in the first place or adapts them to significantly changing circumstances. Leadership defines what the future should look like, aligns people with that vision, and inspires them to make it happen despite the obstacles. This distinction is absolutely crucial for our purposes here: Successful transformation is 70 to 90 percent leadership and only 10 to 30 percent management. Yet for historical reasons, many organisations today don‘t have much leadership. And almost everyone thinks about the problems here as one of managing change. For most of this century, as we created thousands and thousands of large organizations for the first time in human history, we didn‘t have enough good managers to keep all those bureaucracies functioning. So many companies and universities developed management programs, and hundreds and thousands of people were encouraged to learn management on the job. And they did. But, people were taught little about leadership. To some degree, management was emphasized because it‘s easier to teach than leadership. But even more so, management was the main item on the twentieth-century agenda because that‘s what was needed. For every entrepreneur or business builder who was a leader, we needed hundreds of managers to run their ever growing enterprises. Unfortunately for us today, this emphasis on management has often been institutionalized in corporate cultures that discourage employees from learning how to lead. Ironically, past success is usually the key ingredient in producing this outcome.The syndrome, as I have observed it on many occasions, goes like this: success creates some degree of market dominance, which in turn produces much growth. After a while keeping the ever larger organizations under control becomes the primary challenge. So attention turns inward, and managerial competencies are nurtured. With a strong emphasis on management but not on leadership, bureaucracy and an inward focus take over. But with continued success, the result mostly of market dominance, the problem often goes unaddressed and an unhealthy arrogance begins to evolve. All of these characteristics then make any transformation effort much more difficult. Arrogant managers can over- evaluate their current performance and competitive position, listen poorly, and learn slowly. Inwardly focused employees can have difficulty seeing the very forces that present threats and opportunities.Bureaucratic cultures can smother those who want to respond to shifting conditions. And the lack of leadership leaves no fore inside these organizations to break out of the morass.Q.Why did companies and universities develop programs to prepare managers in such a large number?a)Companies and universities wanted to generate funds through these programs.b)A large number of organizations were created and they needed managers in good numbers.c)Organisations did not want to spend their scarce resources on training managers.d)Organisations wanted to create a communication network through trained managers.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Passage:Management is a set of processesthat can keep a complicated system of people and technology running smoothly. The most important aspects of management include planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem-solving. Leadership is a set of processes that creates organisations in the first place or adapts them to significantly changing circumstances. Leadership defines what the future should look like, aligns people with that vision, and inspires them to make it happen despite the obstacles. This distinction is absolutely crucial for our purposes here: Successful transformation is 70 to 90 percent leadership and only 10 to 30 percent management. Yet for historical reasons, many organisations today don‘t have much leadership. And almost everyone thinks about the problems here as one of managing change. For most of this century, as we created thousands and thousands of large organizations for the first time in human history, we didn‘t have enough good managers to keep all those bureaucracies functioning. So many companies and universities developed management programs, and hundreds and thousands of people were encouraged to learn management on the job. And they did. But, people were taught little about leadership. To some degree, management was emphasized because it‘s easier to teach than leadership. But even more so, management was the main item on the twentieth-century agenda because that‘s what was needed. For every entrepreneur or business builder who was a leader, we needed hundreds of managers to run their ever growing enterprises. Unfortunately for us today, this emphasis on management has often been institutionalized in corporate cultures that discourage employees from learning how to lead. Ironically, past success is usually the key ingredient in producing this outcome.The syndrome, as I have observed it on many occasions, goes like this: success creates some degree of market dominance, which in turn produces much growth. After a while keeping the ever larger organizations under control becomes the primary challenge. So attention turns inward, and managerial competencies are nurtured. With a strong emphasis on management but not on leadership, bureaucracy and an inward focus take over. But with continued success, the result mostly of market dominance, the problem often goes unaddressed and an unhealthy arrogance begins to evolve. All of these characteristics then make any transformation effort much more difficult. Arrogant managers can over- evaluate their current performance and competitive position, listen poorly, and learn slowly. Inwardly focused employees can have difficulty seeing the very forces that present threats and opportunities.Bureaucratic cultures can smother those who want to respond to shifting conditions. And the lack of leadership leaves no fore inside these organizations to break out of the morass.Q.Why did companies and universities develop programs to prepare managers in such a large number?a)Companies and universities wanted to generate funds through these programs.b)A large number of organizations were created and they needed managers in good numbers.c)Organisations did not want to spend their scarce resources on training managers.d)Organisations wanted to create a communication network through trained managers.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Passage:Management is a set of processesthat can keep a complicated system of people and technology running smoothly. The most important aspects of management include planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem-solving. Leadership is a set of processes that creates organisations in the first place or adapts them to significantly changing circumstances. Leadership defines what the future should look like, aligns people with that vision, and inspires them to make it happen despite the obstacles. This distinction is absolutely crucial for our purposes here: Successful transformation is 70 to 90 percent leadership and only 10 to 30 percent management. Yet for historical reasons, many organisations today don‘t have much leadership. And almost everyone thinks about the problems here as one of managing change. For most of this century, as we created thousands and thousands of large organizations for the first time in human history, we didn‘t have enough good managers to keep all those bureaucracies functioning. So many companies and universities developed management programs, and hundreds and thousands of people were encouraged to learn management on the job. And they did. But, people were taught little about leadership. To some degree, management was emphasized because it‘s easier to teach than leadership. But even more so, management was the main item on the twentieth-century agenda because that‘s what was needed. For every entrepreneur or business builder who was a leader, we needed hundreds of managers to run their ever growing enterprises. Unfortunately for us today, this emphasis on management has often been institutionalized in corporate cultures that discourage employees from learning how to lead. Ironically, past success is usually the key ingredient in producing this outcome.The syndrome, as I have observed it on many occasions, goes like this: success creates some degree of market dominance, which in turn produces much growth. After a while keeping the ever larger organizations under control becomes the primary challenge. So attention turns inward, and managerial competencies are nurtured. With a strong emphasis on management but not on leadership, bureaucracy and an inward focus take over. But with continued success, the result mostly of market dominance, the problem often goes unaddressed and an unhealthy arrogance begins to evolve. All of these characteristics then make any transformation effort much more difficult. Arrogant managers can over- evaluate their current performance and competitive position, listen poorly, and learn slowly. Inwardly focused employees can have difficulty seeing the very forces that present threats and opportunities.Bureaucratic cultures can smother those who want to respond to shifting conditions. And the lack of leadership leaves no fore inside these organizations to break out of the morass.Q.Why did companies and universities develop programs to prepare managers in such a large number?a)Companies and universities wanted to generate funds through these programs.b)A large number of organizations were created and they needed managers in good numbers.c)Organisations did not want to spend their scarce resources on training managers.d)Organisations wanted to create a communication network through trained managers.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Passage:Management is a set of processesthat can keep a complicated system of people and technology running smoothly. The most important aspects of management include planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem-solving. Leadership is a set of processes that creates organisations in the first place or adapts them to significantly changing circumstances. Leadership defines what the future should look like, aligns people with that vision, and inspires them to make it happen despite the obstacles. This distinction is absolutely crucial for our purposes here: Successful transformation is 70 to 90 percent leadership and only 10 to 30 percent management. Yet for historical reasons, many organisations today don‘t have much leadership. And almost everyone thinks about the problems here as one of managing change. For most of this century, as we created thousands and thousands of large organizations for the first time in human history, we didn‘t have enough good managers to keep all those bureaucracies functioning. So many companies and universities developed management programs, and hundreds and thousands of people were encouraged to learn management on the job. And they did. But, people were taught little about leadership. To some degree, management was emphasized because it‘s easier to teach than leadership. But even more so, management was the main item on the twentieth-century agenda because that‘s what was needed. For every entrepreneur or business builder who was a leader, we needed hundreds of managers to run their ever growing enterprises. Unfortunately for us today, this emphasis on management has often been institutionalized in corporate cultures that discourage employees from learning how to lead. Ironically, past success is usually the key ingredient in producing this outcome.The syndrome, as I have observed it on many occasions, goes like this: success creates some degree of market dominance, which in turn produces much growth. After a while keeping the ever larger organizations under control becomes the primary challenge. So attention turns inward, and managerial competencies are nurtured. With a strong emphasis on management but not on leadership, bureaucracy and an inward focus take over. But with continued success, the result mostly of market dominance, the problem often goes unaddressed and an unhealthy arrogance begins to evolve. All of these characteristics then make any transformation effort much more difficult. Arrogant managers can over- evaluate their current performance and competitive position, listen poorly, and learn slowly. Inwardly focused employees can have difficulty seeing the very forces that present threats and opportunities.Bureaucratic cultures can smother those who want to respond to shifting conditions. And the lack of leadership leaves no fore inside these organizations to break out of the morass.Q.Why did companies and universities develop programs to prepare managers in such a large number?a)Companies and universities wanted to generate funds through these programs.b)A large number of organizations were created and they needed managers in good numbers.c)Organisations did not want to spend their scarce resources on training managers.d)Organisations wanted to create a communication network through trained managers.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Passage:Management is a set of processesthat can keep a complicated system of people and technology running smoothly. The most important aspects of management include planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem-solving. Leadership is a set of processes that creates organisations in the first place or adapts them to significantly changing circumstances. Leadership defines what the future should look like, aligns people with that vision, and inspires them to make it happen despite the obstacles. This distinction is absolutely crucial for our purposes here: Successful transformation is 70 to 90 percent leadership and only 10 to 30 percent management. Yet for historical reasons, many organisations today don‘t have much leadership. And almost everyone thinks about the problems here as one of managing change. For most of this century, as we created thousands and thousands of large organizations for the first time in human history, we didn‘t have enough good managers to keep all those bureaucracies functioning. So many companies and universities developed management programs, and hundreds and thousands of people were encouraged to learn management on the job. And they did. But, people were taught little about leadership. To some degree, management was emphasized because it‘s easier to teach than leadership. But even more so, management was the main item on the twentieth-century agenda because that‘s what was needed. For every entrepreneur or business builder who was a leader, we needed hundreds of managers to run their ever growing enterprises. Unfortunately for us today, this emphasis on management has often been institutionalized in corporate cultures that discourage employees from learning how to lead. Ironically, past success is usually the key ingredient in producing this outcome.The syndrome, as I have observed it on many occasions, goes like this: success creates some degree of market dominance, which in turn produces much growth. After a while keeping the ever larger organizations under control becomes the primary challenge. So attention turns inward, and managerial competencies are nurtured. With a strong emphasis on management but not on leadership, bureaucracy and an inward focus take over. But with continued success, the result mostly of market dominance, the problem often goes unaddressed and an unhealthy arrogance begins to evolve. All of these characteristics then make any transformation effort much more difficult. Arrogant managers can over- evaluate their current performance and competitive position, listen poorly, and learn slowly. Inwardly focused employees can have difficulty seeing the very forces that present threats and opportunities.Bureaucratic cultures can smother those who want to respond to shifting conditions. And the lack of leadership leaves no fore inside these organizations to break out of the morass.Q.Why did companies and universities develop programs to prepare managers in such a large number?a)Companies and universities wanted to generate funds through these programs.b)A large number of organizations were created and they needed managers in good numbers.c)Organisations did not want to spend their scarce resources on training managers.d)Organisations wanted to create a communication network through trained managers.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.