PGDBA common mistakes
PGDBA · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing the definition of a management concept (e.g., 'span of control', 'unity of command') and stopping there, without applying it to the situation described in the question stem.
Candidates memorise textbook definitions in isolation and treat the paper as a recall test, so they never practise the 'identify the concept in a scenario, then explain its consequence' pattern that most application questions demand.
What to do instead
For every concept you revise, write one sentence linking it to a concrete business situation and one sentence on what goes wrong if it is violated. When answering, structure the response as concept → evidence from the stem → implication. Time yourself on 5 past-style scenario questions per study session.
Preparing only the preparation of the final accounts (P&L and balance sheet) and skipping ratio interpretation, fund flow/cash flow logic, and the treatment of adjustments such as depreciation, outstanding expenses and prepaid items.
Final-account problems feel concrete and are heavily practised, while ratio analysis and adjustment logic feel abstract, so candidates under-rehearse the parts that carry easy interpretive marks.
What to do instead
Build a one-page adjustment checklist (accrual, prepayment, depreciation, bad debts, closing stock, drawings) and drill it against 10 short problems. Separately practise computing and, more importantly, commenting on 6–8 ratios: state the formula, compute, then write two lines on what the number signals about liquidity, solvency or efficiency.
Confusing movements along a demand curve with shifts of the curve, and mixing up elasticity values (e.g., treating a price rise as revenue-increasing regardless of elasticity).
The graphical distinction is taught quickly and candidates memorise 'price up, demand down' without internalising that only a change in the good's own price moves along the curve, while income, prices of related goods and tastes shift it.
What to do instead
Draw both cases side by side and label the cause on every diagram you produce. For elasticity, memorise the revenue rule (elastic → price cut raises revenue; inelastic → price rise raises revenue) and test it on 5 numeric examples with actual elasticity coefficients.
Answering marketing questions with a list of the 4Ps only, without segmentation–targeting–positioning reasoning or any reference to the product life cycle stage implied by the case.
The 4Ps are the first framework learned and become a default answer, crowding out the diagnostic frameworks (STP, PLC, BCG) that distinguish a strong answer.
What to do instead
Before writing, identify the PLC stage and the target segment named or implied in the question, then choose the mix element the question actually asks about. Draft answers using the sequence: segment → positioning claim → mix decision → expected outcome.
Treating HRM questions as descriptive ('functions of HR') rather than evaluative, and ignoring legal/statutory context such as the difference between recruitment and selection, or between training and development, in applied cases.
HRM content is easy to read and feels familiar, so candidates skim it and never build the comparative distinctions or the statutory awareness that applied questions reward.
What to do instead
Make a two-column comparison sheet for the commonly confused pairs (recruitment vs selection, training vs development, job description vs job specification, grievance vs discipline). For each, add one workplace example and one consequence of getting it wrong.
In operations questions, computing a quantity (EOQ, productivity, capacity utilisation, break-even) but not stating the assumption behind the formula or interpreting the result in managerial terms.
Candidates treat operations as pure arithmetic and stop at the number, missing that examiners award marks for assumptions (e.g., constant demand, no quantity discounts in basic EOQ) and for the decision the number supports.
What to do instead
After every calculation, write one line naming the assumptions used and one line stating the managerial action implied. Keep a formula card with assumptions attached to each formula, and practise stating them aloud before computing.
Reporting a statistical result without checking which measure of central tendency and dispersion is appropriate, and without interpreting the probability or correlation value in context.
Candidates default to mean and standard deviation for every dataset, including skewed or categorical data, and stop at the computed figure rather than translating it into a business statement.
What to do instead
Before computing, ask two questions: is the data skewed or are there outliers (→ median, IQR), and is the variable categorical (→ mode)? Then always finish with a sentence of the form 'this means there is a X% chance that…' or 'the correlation of r suggests…, though it does not establish causation'.
Citing legal principles loosely - for example, stating that a company is 'separate' or a contract is 'valid' without naming the element (offer, acceptance, consideration, intention, capacity) or the statutory/doctrinal basis, and mixing up the roles of the board and shareholders.
Law is revised as broad concepts rather than as elements and tests, so answers sound plausible but fail the precision the examiner is checking for.
What to do instead
For contract law, memorise the element checklist and apply it item by item to the facts. For corporate governance, build a table of who does what (board, shareholders in general meeting, auditors, independent directors) and practise classifying 10 decisions into the correct body.
Writing strategy answers that describe the firm's situation (SWOT lists, industry description) but never commit to a recommended course of action or evaluate alternatives against criteria.
Frameworks like SWOT and PESTLE are easy to fill in and create an illusion of completeness, so candidates produce analysis without the judgement that strategy questions are designed to test.
What to do instead
Use a fixed answer skeleton: situation in two lines → two or three viable options → evaluate each against explicit criteria (feasibility, fit with resources, risk) → recommend one with justification and one implementation step. Never end an answer without a recommendation.
In entrepreneurship and project questions, presenting a business idea or project plan without quantified feasibility - no payback period, break-even, NPV or risk assessment - and ignoring the information-systems/communication dimension in questions that ask about decision support.
Candidates focus on the narrative appeal of the idea and treat numbers and controls as optional, so answers remain at the level of a pitch rather than an appraisal.
What to do instead
For every venture or project answer, include at least one quantitative check: a simple break-even or payback calculation, plus a short risk list with mitigations. For IS/communication questions, explicitly name the system or channel, its purpose and one limitation, then link it to the decision it supports.