Mr. Abhinav Anita Sharma, Senior Brand Manager, Cipla Mumbai; and alumnus, PGDPM first batch (2009-11), IIHMR University, will reveal the truth behind the ‘The Life of a Brand Manager: Expectations Vs Reality’ at a webinar on May 16, 2020. He will also be taking questions from attendees eager to find out more about brand management. Dr. Shiv Tripathi, Professor & Dean, IIHMR University will also be speaking at the event, which will be moderated by Dr. Saurabh Kumar, Associate Professor & Dean, School of Pharmaceutical Management, IIHMR University. Register for the webinar to be streamed LIVE on Facebook and YouTube at: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_gv4ovf_1SGafy0kl2tcJIA?fbclid=IwAR2eptWomYlfaacUmX2na0LZ49VhoJ6_lYvIiCAKmYxMpEAkqu4wm2UD6E
Due to technical issues faced by the applicants and pending bank reconciliations during the last hour, the deadline has been extended to February 3rd, 2020 23:59 Hrs.
To complete your application, Click https://pingala.iitk.ac.in/MBADM-0/login
Please feel free to reach out to us for any admission related queries through our official admission information channels:
• For Technical/IT help, Contact: email@example.com or 0512-2596803/0512-2596805
• For MBA program/Admission process related queries, Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org or 0512-6796590/0512-6796409
• Official Facebook Group for Admissions 2020-2022: https://www.facebook.com/groups/363348497791271/
• Official Pagalguy Discussion Thread: https://www.pagalguy.com/.../official-iit-kanpur-mba-2019-202...
If translated into English, most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound plausible enough to poets, journalists, businesspeople, and other thoughtful though noneconomical folk. Like serious talk anywhere-among boat designers and baseball fans, say -the talk is hard to follow when one has not made a habit of listening to it for a while. The culture of the conversation makes the words arcane. But the people in the unfamiliar conversation are not Martians. Underneath it all (the economist's favorite phrase) conversational habits are similar. Economics uses mathematical models and statistical tests and market arguments, all of which look alien to the literary eye. But looked at closely they are not so alien. They may be seen as figures of speech- metaphors, analogies, and appeals to authority. Figures of speech are not mere frills. They think for us. Someone who thinks of a market as an “invisible hand” and the organization of work as a “production function” and his coefficients as being “significant,” as an economist does, is giving the language a lot of responsibility. It seems a good idea to look hard at his language. If the economic conversation were found to depend a lot on its verbal forms, this would not mean that economics would be not a science, or just a matter of opinion, or some sort of confidence game. Good poets, though not scientists, are serious thinkers about symbols; good historians, though not scientists, are serious thinkers about data. Good scientists also use language. What is more (though it remains to be shown) they use the cunning of language, without particularly meaning to. The language used is a social object, and using language is a social act. It requires cunning (or, if you prefer, consideration), attention to the other minds present when one speaks. The paying of attention to one's audience is called “rhetoric,” a word that I later exercise hard. One uses rhetoric, of course, to warn of a fire in a theatre or to arouse the xenophobia of the electorate. This sort of yelling is the vulgar meaning of the word, like the president's “heated rhetoric” in a press conference or the “mere rhetoric” to which our enemies stoop. Since the Greek flame was lit, though, the word has been used also in a broader and more amiable sense, to mean the study of all the ways of accomplishing things with language inciting a mob to lynch the accused, to be sure, but also persuading readers of a novel that its characters breathe, or bringing scholars to accept the better argument and reject the worse. The question is whether the scholar- who usually fancies himself an announcer of “results” or a stater of “conclusions” free of rhetoric -speaks rhetorically. Does he try to persuade? It would seem so. Language, I just said, is not a solitary accomplishment. The scholar doesn‟t speak into the void, or to himself. He speaks to a community of voices. He desires to be heeded, praised, published, imitated, honored, en-nobeled. These are the desires. The devices of language are the means. Rhetoric is the proportioning of means to desires in speech. Rhetoric is an economics of language, the study of how scarce means are allocated to the insatiable desires of people to be heard. It seems on the face of it, a reasonable hypothesis that economists are like other people in being talkers, who desire listeners that they go to the library or the laboratory as much as when they go to the office on the polls. The purpose here is to see if this is true, and to see if it is useful to study the rhetoric of economic scholarship. The subject is scholarship. It is not the economy, or the adequacy of economic theory as a description of the economy, or even mainly the economist‟s role in the economy. The subject is the conversation economists have among themselves, for purposes of persuading each other that the interest elasticity of demand for investment is zero or that the money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve. Unfortunately, though, the conclusions are of more than academic interest. The conversations of classicists or of astronomers rarely affect the lives of other people. Those of economists do so on a large scale. A well known joke describes a May Day parade through Red Square with the usual mass of soldiers, guided missiles, rocket launchers. At last come rank upon rank of people in gray business suits. A bystander asks, “Who are those?” “Aha!” comes the reply, “those are economists: you have no idea what damage they can do!” Their conversations, do it.
21. Based on your understanding of the passage, which of the following conclusions would you agree with:
Jon Clark’s study of the effect of the modernization of a telephone exchange on exchange maintenance work and workers is a solid contribution to a debate that encompasses two lively issues in the history and sociology of technology: technological determinism and social constructivism.
Clark makes the point that the characteristics of a technology have a decisive influence on job skills and work organization. Put more strongly, technology can be a primary determinant of social and managerial organization. Clark believes this possibility has been obscured by the recent sociological fashion, exemplified by Braverman’s analysis, that emphasizes the way machinery reflects social choices. For Braverman, the shape of a technological system is subordinate to the manager’s desire to wrest control of the labor process from the workers. Technological change is construed as the outcome of negotiations among interested parties who seek to incorporate their own interests into the design and configuration of the machinery. This position represents the new mainstream called social constructivism.
The constructivists gain acceptance by misrepresenting technological determinism: technological determinists are supposed to believe, for example, that machinery imposes appropriate forms of order on society. The alternative to constructivism, in other words, is to view technology as existing outside society, capable of directly influencing skills and work organization.
Clark refutes the extremes of the constructivists by both theoretical and empirical arguments. Theoretically he defines “technology” in terms of relationships between social and technical variables. Attempts to reduce the meaning of technology to cold, hard metal are bound to fail, for machinery is just scrap unless it is organized functionally and supported by appropriate systems of operation and maintenance. At the empirical level Clark shows how a change at the telephone exchange from maintenance-intensive electromechanical switches to semielectronic switching systems altered work tasks, skills, training opportunities, administration, and organization of workers. Some changes Clark attributes to the particular way management and labor unions negotiated the introduction of the technology, whereas others are seen as arising from (50) the capabilities and nature of the technology itself. Thus Clark helps answer the question: “When is social choice decisive and when are the concrete characteristics of technology more important?”
122. Which of the following most accurately describes Clark’s opinion of Braverman’s position?