NIACL AO Mains Score Booster test: 04.02.2019

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of these.
When choosing a CEO, boards typically take into account the particular circumstances the company faces: Is it in need of a turnaround, say, or will it be scaling for growth? For a CFO position, they might ask, are we about to do an initial public offering, or are we planning to grow by acquisition? In such cases, boards generally favor candidates with direct experience leading organizations through the situation at hand. But when hiring for and promoting people into lower-level leadership jobs, companies typically don’t pay much attention to the contextual challenges specific to the role. They tend to prefer jack-of-all-trades candidates with varied backgrounds—a tack some in HR dub the “best athlete” approach.
A broad new quantitative study from the Washington-based research and advisory firm CEB (recently acquired by Gartner) suggests that companies will be more successful if they consider the particular leadership context when hiring for every level. Instead of taking on generalists trained to meet any management test, the researchers say, firms should use an assessment system that identifies candidates whose personality attributes and experience are custom-tailored to the contextual challenges of the position.
This conclusion is based on a three-year study of 9,000 leaders at 85 global companies. The researchers assessed leaders’ personality attributes, tracked relevant experience, and solicited opinions about behaviour, performance, and effectiveness from supervisors and direct reports. They also coded 60 variables that inform context, such as whether the job involves a high degree of uncertainty, requires managing a geographically dispersed team, or calls for cost cutting. As they crunched the data and worked to understand why some leaders succeeded while others underperformed, the biggest factor that emerged was how well a leader’s personality, skills, and experience meshed with the specific challenges of the job. From an initial list of 300 contextual challenges, CEB identified the 27 that matter most. Some, such as growing market share and leading M&A, involve the external competitive landscape. Some, such as managing a broad portfolio of products and services, are related to company-wide issues or strategies. Some, such as transforming a high-conflict culture, apply at the team level. And some are confined to the position itself.
“Companies have been hiring and developing these generic workhorse leaders when what they really need is a thoroughbred whose strengths are specifically suited to a particular racetrack,” says Jean Martin, CEB’s talent solutions architect. CEB says that the need for more-tailored leaders results from greater complexity, a wider scope of responsibilities, and faster rates of company change than previously occurred. The study was inspired by input CEB received five years ago. Companies and recruiters were increasingly using assessment tools and analytics to make hiring more data-driven and objective and less reliant on hiring managers’ subjective judgments. But CEB began hearing that when it came time to make a final decision on a candidate, managers were overriding the assessment results and falling back on intuition. When CEB asked why they were ignoring their analytics, some said that the results were too general and didn’t match candidates with the challenges they would actually have to confront. “There was a mismatch between what the planning process was showing as the right answer and what the decision makers felt was right”.
On the basis of that feedback, CEB’s researchers began to look closely at whether context really matters. They found that it is an important and underrated predictor of leaders’ success; in fact, the context-specific approach yields predictions that are three times as accurate, on average, as those from a one-size-fits-all approach. The identification of 27 key contextual challenges helps hiring managers articulate the biggest tests likely to be encountered in a given position. Recruiters can then search for candidates with the right mix of personality attributes (as measured by assessments) and experience.
Source: https://hbr.org

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of these.
When choosing a CEO, boards typically take into account the particular circumstances the company faces: Is it in need of a turnaround, say, or will it be scaling for growth? For a CFO position, they might ask, are we about to do an initial public offering, or are we planning to grow by acquisition? In such cases, boards generally favor candidates with direct experience leading organizations through the situation at hand. But when hiring for and promoting people into lower-level leadership jobs, companies typically don’t pay much attention to the contextual challenges specific to the role. They tend to prefer jack-of-all-trades candidates with varied backgrounds—a tack some in HR dub the “best athlete” approach.
A broad new quantitative study from the Washington-based research and advisory firm CEB (recently acquired by Gartner) suggests that companies will be more successful if they consider the particular leadership context when hiring for every level. Instead of taking on generalists trained to meet any management test, the researchers say, firms should use an assessment system that identifies candidates whose personality attributes and experience are custom-tailored to the contextual challenges of the position.
This conclusion is based on a three-year study of 9,000 leaders at 85 global companies. The researchers assessed leaders’ personality attributes, tracked relevant experience, and solicited opinions about behaviour, performance, and effectiveness from supervisors and direct reports. They also coded 60 variables that inform context, such as whether the job involves a high degree of uncertainty, requires managing a geographically dispersed team, or calls for cost cutting. As they crunched the data and worked to understand why some leaders succeeded while others underperformed, the biggest factor that emerged was how well a leader’s personality, skills, and experience meshed with the specific challenges of the job. From an initial list of 300 contextual challenges, CEB identified the 27 that matter most. Some, such as growing market share and leading M&A, involve the external competitive landscape. Some, such as managing a broad portfolio of products and services, are related to company-wide issues or strategies. Some, such as transforming a high-conflict culture, apply at the team level. And some are confined to the position itself.
“Companies have been hiring and developing these generic workhorse leaders when what they really need is a thoroughbred whose strengths are specifically suited to a particular racetrack,” says Jean Martin, CEB’s talent solutions architect. CEB says that the need for more-tailored leaders results from greater complexity, a wider scope of responsibilities, and faster rates of company change than previously occurred. The study was inspired by input CEB received five years ago. Companies and recruiters were increasingly using assessment tools and analytics to make hiring more data-driven and objective and less reliant on hiring managers’ subjective judgments. But CEB began hearing that when it came time to make a final decision on a candidate, managers were overriding the assessment results and falling back on intuition. When CEB asked why they were ignoring their analytics, some said that the results were too general and didn’t match candidates with the challenges they would actually have to confront. “There was a mismatch between what the planning process was showing as the right answer and what the decision makers felt was right”.
On the basis of that feedback, CEB’s researchers began to look closely at whether context really matters. They found that it is an important and underrated predictor of leaders’ success; in fact, the context-specific approach yields predictions that are three times as accurate, on average, as those from a one-size-fits-all approach. The identification of 27 key contextual challenges helps hiring managers articulate the biggest tests likely to be encountered in a given position. Recruiters can then search for candidates with the right mix of personality attributes (as measured by assessments) and experience.
Source: https://hbr.org

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of these.
When choosing a CEO, boards typically take into account the particular circumstances the company faces: Is it in need of a turnaround, say, or will it be scaling for growth? For a CFO position, they might ask, are we about to do an initial public offering, or are we planning to grow by acquisition? In such cases, boards generally favor candidates with direct experience leading organizations through the situation at hand. But when hiring for and promoting people into lower-level leadership jobs, companies typically don’t pay much attention to the contextual challenges specific to the role. They tend to prefer jack-of-all-trades candidates with varied backgrounds—a tack some in HR dub the “best athlete” approach.
A broad new quantitative study from the Washington-based research and advisory firm CEB (recently acquired by Gartner) suggests that companies will be more successful if they consider the particular leadership context when hiring for every level. Instead of taking on generalists trained to meet any management test, the researchers say, firms should use an assessment system that identifies candidates whose personality attributes and experience are custom-tailored to the contextual challenges of the position.
This conclusion is based on a three-year study of 9,000 leaders at 85 global companies. The researchers assessed leaders’ personality attributes, tracked relevant experience, and solicited opinions about behaviour, performance, and effectiveness from supervisors and direct reports. They also coded 60 variables that inform context, such as whether the job involves a high degree of uncertainty, requires managing a geographically dispersed team, or calls for cost cutting. As they crunched the data and worked to understand why some leaders succeeded while others underperformed, the biggest factor that emerged was how well a leader’s personality, skills, and experience meshed with the specific challenges of the job. From an initial list of 300 contextual challenges, CEB identified the 27 that matter most. Some, such as growing market share and leading M&A, involve the external competitive landscape. Some, such as managing a broad portfolio of products and services, are related to company-wide issues or strategies. Some, such as transforming a high-conflict culture, apply at the team level. And some are confined to the position itself.
“Companies have been hiring and developing these generic workhorse leaders when what they really need is a thoroughbred whose strengths are specifically suited to a particular racetrack,” says Jean Martin, CEB’s talent solutions architect. CEB says that the need for more-tailored leaders results from greater complexity, a wider scope of responsibilities, and faster rates of company change than previously occurred. The study was inspired by input CEB received five years ago. Companies and recruiters were increasingly using assessment tools and analytics to make hiring more data-driven and objective and less reliant on hiring managers’ subjective judgments. But CEB began hearing that when it came time to make a final decision on a candidate, managers were overriding the assessment results and falling back on intuition. When CEB asked why they were ignoring their analytics, some said that the results were too general and didn’t match candidates with the challenges they would actually have to confront. “There was a mismatch between what the planning process was showing as the right answer and what the decision makers felt was right”.
On the basis of that feedback, CEB’s researchers began to look closely at whether context really matters. They found that it is an important and underrated predictor of leaders’ success; in fact, the context-specific approach yields predictions that are three times as accurate, on average, as those from a one-size-fits-all approach. The identification of 27 key contextual challenges helps hiring managers articulate the biggest tests likely to be encountered in a given position. Recruiters can then search for candidates with the right mix of personality attributes (as measured by assessments) and experience.
Source: https://hbr.org

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of these.
When choosing a CEO, boards typically take into account the particular circumstances the company faces: Is it in need of a turnaround, say, or will it be scaling for growth? For a CFO position, they might ask, are we about to do an initial public offering, or are we planning to grow by acquisition? In such cases, boards generally favor candidates with direct experience leading organizations through the situation at hand. But when hiring for and promoting people into lower-level leadership jobs, companies typically don’t pay much attention to the contextual challenges specific to the role. They tend to prefer jack-of-all-trades candidates with varied backgrounds—a tack some in HR dub the “best athlete” approach.
A broad new quantitative study from the Washington-based research and advisory firm CEB (recently acquired by Gartner) suggests that companies will be more successful if they consider the particular leadership context when hiring for every level. Instead of taking on generalists trained to meet any management test, the researchers say, firms should use an assessment system that identifies candidates whose personality attributes and experience are custom-tailored to the contextual challenges of the position.
This conclusion is based on a three-year study of 9,000 leaders at 85 global companies. The researchers assessed leaders’ personality attributes, tracked relevant experience, and solicited opinions about behaviour, performance, and effectiveness from supervisors and direct reports. They also coded 60 variables that inform context, such as whether the job involves a high degree of uncertainty, requires managing a geographically dispersed team, or calls for cost cutting. As they crunched the data and worked to understand why some leaders succeeded while others underperformed, the biggest factor that emerged was how well a leader’s personality, skills, and experience meshed with the specific challenges of the job. From an initial list of 300 contextual challenges, CEB identified the 27 that matter most. Some, such as growing market share and leading M&A, involve the external competitive landscape. Some, such as managing a broad portfolio of products and services, are related to company-wide issues or strategies. Some, such as transforming a high-conflict culture, apply at the team level. And some are confined to the position itself.
“Companies have been hiring and developing these generic workhorse leaders when what they really need is a thoroughbred whose strengths are specifically suited to a particular racetrack,” says Jean Martin, CEB’s talent solutions architect. CEB says that the need for more-tailored leaders results from greater complexity, a wider scope of responsibilities, and faster rates of company change than previously occurred. The study was inspired by input CEB received five years ago. Companies and recruiters were increasingly using assessment tools and analytics to make hiring more data-driven and objective and less reliant on hiring managers’ subjective judgments. But CEB began hearing that when it came time to make a final decision on a candidate, managers were overriding the assessment results and falling back on intuition. When CEB asked why they were ignoring their analytics, some said that the results were too general and didn’t match candidates with the challenges they would actually have to confront. “There was a mismatch between what the planning process was showing as the right answer and what the decision makers felt was right”.
On the basis of that feedback, CEB’s researchers began to look closely at whether context really matters. They found that it is an important and underrated predictor of leaders’ success; in fact, the context-specific approach yields predictions that are three times as accurate, on average, as those from a one-size-fits-all approach. The identification of 27 key contextual challenges helps hiring managers articulate the biggest tests likely to be encountered in a given position. Recruiters can then search for candidates with the right mix of personality attributes (as measured by assessments) and experience.
Source: https://hbr.org

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of these.
When choosing a CEO, boards typically take into account the particular circumstances the company faces: Is it in need of a turnaround, say, or will it be scaling for growth? For a CFO position, they might ask, are we about to do an initial public offering, or are we planning to grow by acquisition? In such cases, boards generally favor candidates with direct experience leading organizations through the situation at hand. But when hiring for and promoting people into lower-level leadership jobs, companies typically don’t pay much attention to the contextual challenges specific to the role. They tend to prefer jack-of-all-trades candidates with varied backgrounds—a tack some in HR dub the “best athlete” approach.
A broad new quantitative study from the Washington-based research and advisory firm CEB (recently acquired by Gartner) suggests that companies will be more successful if they consider the particular leadership context when hiring for every level. Instead of taking on generalists trained to meet any management test, the researchers say, firms should use an assessment system that identifies candidates whose personality attributes and experience are custom-tailored to the contextual challenges of the position.
This conclusion is based on a three-year study of 9,000 leaders at 85 global companies. The researchers assessed leaders’ personality attributes, tracked relevant experience, and solicited opinions about behaviour, performance, and effectiveness from supervisors and direct reports. They also coded 60 variables that inform context, such as whether the job involves a high degree of uncertainty, requires managing a geographically dispersed team, or calls for cost cutting. As they crunched the data and worked to understand why some leaders succeeded while others underperformed, the biggest factor that emerged was how well a leader’s personality, skills, and experience meshed with the specific challenges of the job. From an initial list of 300 contextual challenges, CEB identified the 27 that matter most. Some, such as growing market share and leading M&A, involve the external competitive landscape. Some, such as managing a broad portfolio of products and services, are related to company-wide issues or strategies. Some, such as transforming a high-conflict culture, apply at the team level. And some are confined to the position itself.
“Companies have been hiring and developing these generic workhorse leaders when what they really need is a thoroughbred whose strengths are specifically suited to a particular racetrack,” says Jean Martin, CEB’s talent solutions architect. CEB says that the need for more-tailored leaders results from greater complexity, a wider scope of responsibilities, and faster rates of company change than previously occurred. The study was inspired by input CEB received five years ago. Companies and recruiters were increasingly using assessment tools and analytics to make hiring more data-driven and objective and less reliant on hiring managers’ subjective judgments. But CEB began hearing that when it came time to make a final decision on a candidate, managers were overriding the assessment results and falling back on intuition. When CEB asked why they were ignoring their analytics, some said that the results were too general and didn’t match candidates with the challenges they would actually have to confront. “There was a mismatch between what the planning process was showing as the right answer and what the decision makers felt was right”.
On the basis of that feedback, CEB’s researchers began to look closely at whether context really matters. They found that it is an important and underrated predictor of leaders’ success; in fact, the context-specific approach yields predictions that are three times as accurate, on average, as those from a one-size-fits-all approach. The identification of 27 key contextual challenges helps hiring managers articulate the biggest tests likely to be encountered in a given position. Recruiters can then search for candidates with the right mix of personality attributes (as measured by assessments) and experience.
Source: https://hbr.org

Direction: Read the line graph and answer the given questions.

Initial investment of three business partners over the years:

Direction: Read the line graph and answer the given questions.
Initial investment of three business partners over the years:

Direction: Read the line graph and answer the given questions.
Initial investment of three business partners over the years:

Direction: Read the line graph and answer the given questions.
Initial investment of three business partners over the years:

Direction: Read the line graph and answer the given questions.
Initial investment of three business partners over the years:

Direction: Study the information carefully and answer the questions given below.

Six friends A, B, C, D, E and F decides to watch different movies from Monday to Saturday of different actors Ranveer Singh, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, Saif, Hrithik Roshan and Sohail Khan but not necessarily in the same order. They schedule is as per the following conditions.

B schedules to watch movie neither on the first day of the week nor on the last day. He plans to watch movie of Salman Khan. A plans to watch movie on Wednesday but not of Saif. The movie of Shahrukh Khan is run on Tuesday but it is not to be watched by C . E doesn’t watch movie before D. Movie of Ranveer Singh is scheduled to run on the next day of Hrithik Roshan’s movie but these movies are not to be watched by E . C schedules to watch movie on the next day of F .

Direction: Study the information carefully and answer the questions given below.

Six friends A, B, C, D, E and F decides to watch different movies from Monday to Saturday of different actors Ranveer Singh, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, Saif, Hrithik Roshan and Sohail Khan but not necessarily in the same order. They schedule is as per the following conditions.

B schedules to watch movie neither on the first day of the week nor on the last day. He plans to watch movie of Salman Khan. A plans to watch movie on Wednesday but not of Saif. The movie of Shahrukh Khan is run on Tuesday but it is not to be watched by C . E doesn’t watch movie before D. Movie of Ranveer Singh is scheduled to run on the next day of Hrithik Roshan’s movie but these movies are not to be watched by E . C schedules to watch movie on the next day of F .

Direction: Study the information carefully and answer the questions given below.

Six friends A, B, C, D, E and F decides to watch different movies from Monday to Saturday of different actors Ranveer Singh, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, Saif, Hrithik Roshan and Sohail Khan but not necessarily in the same order. They schedule is as per the following conditions.

B schedules to watch movie neither on the first day of the week nor on the last day. He plans to watch movie of Salman Khan. A plans to watch movie on Wednesday but not of Saif. The movie of Shahrukh Khan is run on Tuesday but it is not to be watched by C . E doesn’t watch movie before D. Movie of Ranveer Singh is scheduled to run on the next day of Hrithik Roshan’s movie but these movies are not to be watched by E . C schedules to watch movie on the next day of F .

Direction: Study the information carefully and answer the questions given below.

Six friends A, B, C, D, E and F decides to watch different movies from Monday to Saturday of different actors Ranveer Singh, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, Saif, Hrithik Roshan and Sohail Khan but not necessarily in the same order. They schedule is as per the following conditions.

B schedules to watch movie neither on the first day of the week nor on the last day. He plans to watch movie of Salman Khan. A plans to watch movie on Wednesday but not of Saif. The movie of Shahrukh Khan is run on Tuesday but it is not to be watched by C . E doesn’t watch movie before D. Movie of Ranveer Singh is scheduled to run on the next day of Hrithik Roshan’s movie but these movies are not to be watched by E . C schedules to watch movie on the next day of F .

Direction: Study the information carefully and answer the questions given below.

Six friends A, B, C, D, E and F decides to watch different movies from Monday to Saturday of different actors Ranveer Singh, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, Saif, Hrithik Roshan and Sohail Khan but not necessarily in the same order. They schedule is as per the following conditions.

B schedules to watch movie neither on the first day of the week nor on the last day. He plans to watch movie of Salman Khan. A plans to watch movie on Wednesday but not of Saif. The movie of Shahrukh Khan is run on Tuesday but it is not to be watched by C . E doesn’t watch movie before D. Movie of Ranveer Singh is scheduled to run on the next day of Hrithik Roshan’s movie but these movies are not to be watched by E . C schedules to watch movie on the next day of F .