" Fixing of standard is not necessary for exercising control" True/False? Please substantiate your answer.

Oh, I think standards need to be set - otherwise how will anyone achieve them?  Then again, I'm very biased having spent so many years in Quality Assurance and Control.  Too often we "move the goalposts" by adjusting standards either easier or more stringent.  My take: set the standard, work to achieve it, review it as necessary.

I believe it is FALSE. Standards are needed to control all activities within a company. Without these standards, you won't have any point of reference to evaluate correct performance of activities.

YES SIR,,,,  THERE MUST BE SOME RULES TO FOLLOW BUT EVERY ONE KNOWS THE RULES & HOW TO BREAK THE RULES..................... FOR CONTROLLING YOU HAVE TO BE A BIT DICTATOR ,,, THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRATIC ART TO PERFORM.................. GOOD DAY

Fixing of standard is a planning level.

Exercising it is an execution level.

So, not sufficient to fix standard, we must apply it.

Thanks for the invitation

Yes sir it,s true

and i do agree with Mr.:Zafar,s description

True. Standard Deviation is the Tool used for Control with reference to Quality (QC). Fixing of standard, benchmarking etc may be a part of Quality Assurance/Policy, marketing strategy, internal processes and policies w.r.t. to product, processes or service deliverables. 

Well it totally depends upon the nature of business which you are doing.

FALSE........... There must be some standard rules to follow........... whether you are able or not able to apply them100% but ........ not defining standardized rules .......... means you dont want to exercise the controls.

"Using functional MRI, we examined how the affective experience of choice, the means by which individuals exercise control, is modulated by the valence of potential outcomes (gains, losses). When trials involved potential gains, participants reported liking cues predicting a choice opportunity better than cues predicting no choice opportunity—an effect that corresponded with blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) increases in ventral striatum (VS) activity. Surprisingly, no differences were observed between choice and no-choice cues when participants anticipated potential losses. Individual differences in subjective choice preference in the loss condition, however, corresponded to choice-related BOLD activity in VS. We conducted a second experiment to examine whether monetary losses were perceived differently in the context of simultaneous gains. When losses occurred in the absence of gains, participants showed an increased affective experience of choice—they reported greater liking of choice than no-choice trials, and VS activity was greater for choice than for no-choice cues. Collectively, the findings suggest that the affective experience of choice involves reward-processing circuitry when people anticipate appetitive and aversive outcomes, but the choice experience may be sensitive to context and individual differences."