PETRIFIED BUREAUCRACY SOME ASPECTS OF STRUCTURAL CONTINUITIES AND FUNCTIONAL DISCONTINUITIES* Dr. C.S.RANGARAJAN_________________________________________________________________ Dr.C.S.Rangarajan, Department of Sociology, University of Madras, presents theresults of an empirical study on thirty-two executives drawn from five departments of a Company in Madras. An attempt is made to map out the contours of petrified bureaucracy by analyzing the attitudes and orientations of the executives towards all those who are directly involved in the production process under their care. In the process the pervading low levels of job satisfaction apparent at all levels of the bureaucratic machinery is explained.__________________________________________________________________

Writers have called attention to the compelling need for the organization to expend efforts toward overcoming management problems through manipulation of work group and supervisorial practices (Blauner 1969). The manner in which the decisions and behaviour of the operative employees are influenced within and by the organization becomes the barometer to measure the success or otherwise of the structure ( Simons 1945).Seen in this perspective, first rate managers have to orchestrate through and with their own behaviour the behaviour of aggregations of personnel, some motivated, but many obtuse and recalcitrant. The nimble and complex behaviour patterns of these managers is a delight to behold as they move to motivate, integrate, and modify the structure and personnel that surround them (Sayles 1979). It therefore becomes crystal clear that the complex human relations vis--vis power relations system impose on its executive the need to take initiative constantly and to be creative ( Dalton 1959), keeping in view the primacy of orientation to the attainment of specific goals (Parsons 1969).

The theme of this article is being developed on the premise that adoption of strategies by an organization to help realize the self-actualization needs of the workers at work is heavily skewed toward the ability of the executives in achieving the task of establishing the workers motivation to work. Since the executives are charged with the task of responding to the challenges and in shaping the courses of events themselves, they may be taken to be making the future today. Unrealistic expectations in a scheme of career advancement where the executive themselves have a stake engender demotivation. In such a situation, the executives find that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things (Machiavelli 1955). An earnest attempt is made to map out the contours of a petrified bureaucracy by analyzing the attitudes and orientations of the executives toward all those who are directly involved in the production process under their care.

SETTING AND METHODOLOGY

The subject of the study were 32 executives drawn from five departments of the same Company situated in the heart of the city of Madras. The study attempts to explain the low level of job satisfaction apparent at all levels, pervading the bureaucratic machinery. Data were collected from a sample of executives belonging to the management at the production level, to whom a pre-tested interview schedule was administered, applying a randomized sampling procedure.

FINDINGS

In a sociological investigation, the study of subjective characteristics may be considered as an important element, and keeping this in view, in an effort to know the satisfaction the executives position affords them in relation to other positions within the system of management, the following eight brief questions impinging on satisfaction were addressed to the executives through the interview schedule:

1. The personal influence of managerial staff in the smooth working of the company.2. The encouragement ensured to every employee to use his special abilities and the system of rewards for special achievements.3. Recruitment policy of the Company.4. Long term planning of productivity.5. The extent to which the executives own personal skills and abilities are used.6. The status and power accorded commensurate with the executives position. 7. The encouragement given to employees with leadership qualities or propensities through investing them with greater responsibilities.8. The overall functional organization of the Company.

The responses to these questions are scored 1 to a favourable response and 0 to an unfavourable response. The maximum and minimum scores to all questions put together are 8 and 0 respectively. While adopting a scheme of classification to distinguish two categories of executives satisfaction, namely, high and low, the distribution of high and low shows that a high percentage (71.4) of the executives exhibit low level satisfaction. In an effort to measure the attitudes and orientation of the executives 9i) toward various aspects of the industrial environment and (ii) toward the unions, eighteen questions converging on the respective themes were addressed. The maximum and minimum scores to the responses put together are as follows: Aspect of Industrial Attitude towards Environment Union ------------------------- ---------------------- Maximum 10 8 Minimum 0 0 Based on the frequency of cumulative scores worked out to measure the attitudes of the executives (i) toward various aspects of the industrial environment and (ii) toward the Union, the distribution of high and low under a two-way bclassification shows the following results:

Attitude toward Attitude toward Industrial environment Union ------------------------------ --------------------- Number Percent Number Percent

High 16 50.00 14 43.75Low 16 50.00 18 56.25 --------------------------- ---------------------Total 32 100.00 32 100.00

It is evident from the above that the attitudes of the executives toward the industrial environment as well as toward the unions do not seem to be encouraging. Satisfaction derived from the ongoings in work situations motivate the executives to exert greater efforts in their work. If it is a truism to say that an organization itself is the outcome of the interaction of motivated people attempting to resolve their own problems (Silverman 1970), it may be presumed that demotivated people are prone to refrain from making any contribution toward the continued existence of an organizational need being effective and efficient.Collective bargaining represents institutionalization of industrial conflict and it provides drainage channel for workers dissatisfaction. Considered to be a machinery conducive to efficiency ( Donovans Report 1965 -1968), the frozen fruits of industrial conflict are not only thawed (Dahrendorf 1959), but also aids rationality-knowledge ( Kerr 1954) apart from forcing the organization into decision-making (Cottschalk 1973). Since it is collective bargaining rather than participation that holds the key to industrial democracy, it calls for greater attention being bestowed upon in order to reshape the attitudes of the executives toward the unions.

In emphasizing the role of the executives, it is relevant to ask what extent they have freedom to effect alterations in work setting. For instance, in response to the question whether they are empowered to assume more powers than what is associated with their office under extra-ordinary circumstances, a majority of them, constituting 84.38 percent report in the negative. In a situation where the employers ends and employees ends are at loggerheads, the executives have to assume more and more responsibilities with a view to coping with areas of uncertainty. With the weakening of a sense of initiative, of freedom, a loss of purpose envelops the hierarchical grading. It is to be appreciated that management devoid of constraints may be the answer not only to keep conflict at bay, but also to help create social skills (Chester Bowles 1963) among the executives.

In response to another question whether they are satisfied with the autonomy that goes with their position in the fulfilment of their managerial functions, 24 executives accounting for 75 percent of the sample report that they are not satisfied, while the report show indifference. It is evident that the executives are not vested with authority to provide solutions to problems, whose origin and implications remain far beyond their control, but whose solutions have consequences for them.

DISCRETIONARY POWERS

The shape of an organizations structure may be obtained by mapping its decision-making apparatus. Complicated by professionalism, organization engenders abrasive interaction between bureaucrats and professionals, the consequences of which cannot be made opaque. In the response to the question as to which of the items for which discretionary powers are most unsatisfactory, the executives constituting 90.6 percent state that discretionary powers relating to personnel (transfer, promotion etc.) and discretionary powers concerning disciplinary action against the subordinates are the most unsatisfactory ones. Since such powers fall within the domain of the bureaucrats and as a consequence remain out of the reach of the professionals, a petrified authority structure seems to have emerged with very little freedom and discretionary powers vested in the middle and junior management.

The data relating to the conception of attitudes, which the executives seem to have toward the employee in a subordinate position, show the following results. The response is in the agree-disagree form. The question item and the pattern of responses are indicated below:

A worker left to himself is reasonable and cooperative.AGREE DISAGREE15.6 percent 84.3 percent

The responses of a majority of the executives may be the outcome of their orientation toward one of two sets of assumptions, namely Theory X propounded by Douglas McGregor (1960). The executives do not seem to subscribe to Theory Y, considered to be more appropriate by McGregor for growth, learning and improved performance. Nurturing a view contrary to Theory Y will have consequences for the organization.

Another question relates to the quality of work of the workers. In response to the question How would you assess the quality of work that most of the workers in your plant are able to accomplish at the present time?, 50 percent of the executives opine that the workers could do something better than what they are doing now, but still they are doing pretty well. As against 46.9 percent of executives who state that the workers could do quite a lot better, only 3.1 percent of the sample of executives consider that the workers are doing extremely good work and they could do no better. From the above responses of the executives who assess the quality of the work of workers, it is observed that 50 percent of the executives do express some satisfaction about the work performance of the workers. But at the same time, the significance of the response of 46.9 percent of the executives cannot be ignored. It expresses a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the workers performance.

A question item is included in the interview schedule to elicit information about the extent to which the executive visualized the objective of the Company. In response to the question What are the objectives of the Company that you feel you can fully endorse?, only 12.5 percent of the executives endorse the workers welfare as one of the objectives of the Company. The overall objective of the Company needs to center around contributing to improved labour-management relations through the development of knowledge and its dissemination to the community (Dalton 1959). Unless executives realize that managerial techniques are designed to maximize the material and psychological security of the individual workers (Dubin 1960), industrial harmony will continue to be elusive and group conflicts cannot be wished away.

Another question in the schedule refers to the grievance activity of the workers. 21.9 percent of the executives, in response to the question Do you think that the workman is almost always right when he represents his grievance? report that the worker is almost always right when he comes up with a grievance. The pattern of responses to the grievance activity of the workers seem to suggest that a majority of the executives are somewhat unfavourably disposed toward such activities.

In response to the question-For a person with your qualification and abilities, do you think this Company is a good place as there is work, or do you think there are other places that are better?-only 4 executives state that the Company is as good a place as any other; while obviously the other 28 executives do not think this Company is as good a place as any other. This indicates that a fairly good majority of the executives are not quite satisfied with the conditions obtaining in the Company. In fact, several of them have given expression to the view that very little promotional chances are there in the Company. One of the junior executives states that he joined the services of the Company as a junior executive, continues as a junior executive even after having put in a service of over 20 years, and may reach the age of superannuation in the same position as a junior executive, though he is being called upon to assume more and more responsibilities. The available line of career advancement for the executives remains foreclosed. With very little turnover in the ranks of the executives, there is reason to believe that the executives disinterested approach resulting in inaction indicates that a kind of bureaucratic sabotage is in the offing. The career plans of the executives bear testimony to the loss of hopes of retrieving the situation to a minimum level of confidence.

PAPER TIGERS

We seldom come across organizations without bureaucratic features. The task of bureaucratic organizations are distributed among various positions. These positions organized hierarchically are built around specialization, formally established rules, and regulations intended to guide decisions and actions. Since pushes and pulls cloud their roles, executives have to perform their tasks with utmost caution and with greater grace and without indecent haste. In the absence of any risk taking proclivities on the part of the organization to underwrite the proposals of the executives, there is likely to be a tendency on the part of the executives to avoid taking decisions. The first decision, it is said, that an executive would take in such a situation, is to avoid taking decisions. Even if decisions are taken and remain without being communicated, such a situation provides the recipe for administrative paralysis. The functions of the executives, as brought out by Barnard (1948) include devising strategies and determining priorities, enforcing compliance by persuasion that would help enlist the workers identification with the organizational objectives, integration through communication, and emotional maintenance. In the absence of communication, coordination, which is the synchronization of group effort to produce unitary action in the pursuit of common objectives, becomes a casualty.

In response to the question -Are there grievances of workmen that are referred to you for resolution?- 77.5 percent of the executives state that the workers grievances are not referred to them for resolution. It shows that decreased flow of communication is associated with increases in the proportion of responses indicating the areas where discretionary power is low. The very fact that the executives take the course of referring the grievances of the workers to the higher authorities in the absence of such powers for resolution residing in them is indicative of the fact that there are constraints in the form of restriction on the freedom of the executives unilateral action. A direct comparison between the cases being referred to higher authorities and the areas where discretionary powers are considered low indicates that the sources of dealing with the workers grievances appear to be anchored in arrangements outside the executives domain. Brain-drain, an aspect of migration, is also applicable in the case of these executives to the extent a check on the free flow of airing views is in existence.

There are activities in the work place for which the executives are directly responsible. Decision making within the complex of constraints include various other organizations and it becomes evident that an organization has a triple personality (Drucker 1951). The formal accountability to customers, shareholders, and a host of others not only serve as a safeguard, but is also intended to ensure delegation of powers. Accountability in that way can be seen as a friend as well as a foe to delegation. Industrial enterprises in all public sector undertakings suffer from constraints in the way of delegation. In such undertakings, the Government exercises its prerogative to appoint the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and the board of directors. But the Government does not seem to leave them to perform their functions, since the authority is centralized and the Government is accountable to Parliament. There appears to be constant interferences or pressures on the board. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director finds himself under the control of the directors appointed by the Government. Since the locus of power is far away from the scene where the organization functions, frequent checks portray the Government as being depraved, and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director is deprived of the chances to put across his viewpoints. The presence of the bureaucrats representing the Government serves as a constraint on the Chairman-cum-Managing Director to act in an atmosphere of freedom to take strategic decisions, particularly on matters concerning new technology. The role of technology in shaping the industrial relations of the work place in increasingly being recognized. When technology becomes obsolete, modernization becomes a luxury, on account of the product life-cycle (Wells 1972) affecting the organization, the skills of the personnel and also the industrial relations. As product go through the life cycle of introduction, maturity and decline, consumer preferences to new product technology becomes crucial to the success. When technology is seen as essential to the success of the organization, key decisions concerning new technology are admittedly strategic decisions, and may have important consequences for the workers as well as the organization.The executives feel that the management is not authority-oriented, and what is expected of them is accountability. The three Es, namely, Economy, Efficiency, and Effectiveness are the hallmark of an organization. While the first two relate to accountability, the third one, namely, effectiveness remain far beyond the reaches of the executives. Though the executives do not resist accountability, accountability and authority are wedded to one another and one divorced from the other would have the organizational adaptation precarious (Clark 1956). The functionaries authority is not fully legitimized whereas accountability is insisted upon. What ensues is a dilemma of ends (Gouldner 1955). Dilemma ends is occasioned by what is rational and expedient for one is not considered so by the other at the helm of affairs. While the executives are aware of their accountability-they become increasingly uncertain about their responsibilities in the face of erosion of authority. The anxiety about accountability increases with the concentration of authority lying at a point other than the one where the drama is enacted. Since the situation does not offer pragmatic care for the recognition of professional autonomy that would lead to effective operation, the executives exhibit an apathetic attitude towards the ongoings in the organization. True efficiency and effectiveness of administration can hardly be achieved without appropriate delegation and control. This is to be seen in juxtaposition that true integrity of power is impossible without accountability.

CONCLUSION

Since a majority of the executives is kept at an immature level, these disgruntled prefer to adapt a strategy of disjointed incrementalism (Brooke et al 1963). Though it cannot be said that these executives plead calculated incompetence (Watson et al 1965), they are not able to play even the boundary role ( Watson et al 1965) in view of the fact that they are not vested with any powers. So long as organizations do not conceive their responsibilities in social terms, more administrative training for the men at the top with an eye on improving the output will prove to be an exercise in futility.

___________________________________________________________________ * Courtesy : The Loyola Journal of Social Sciences, Thiruvananthapuram Kerala State, India.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REFERENCES

1. Blauner, R. (1969). Work Satisfaction and Industrial Trends in Etzioni, A (Ed) A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.2. Simons, H.A (1945). Administrative Behaviour, New York, Macmillan.

3. Sayles, L.R (1979). Preface to his book Leadership: What Effective Managers do.And How they do it, New York, McGraw Hill.

4. Dalton, H.(1959). Men Who Manage, New York, Wiley.

5. Parsons,T. (1969). Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to Theory of Organizations in Etzioni, A. (Ed) A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

6. Machiavelli (1955). Quoted in Gouldner, A.W. Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.

7. Silverman,D. (1970). The Theory of Organizations, London, Heinemann.

8. Donovans Report. Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employees Associations, Her Majestys Stationery Press, 1965-1968.

9. Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

10. Kerr, C. (1954). Industrial Conflict and Its Mediation, American Journal of Sociology, Volume 55, pp 230 245.

11. Cottschalk,A.W. (1973). A Behavioural Analysis of Bargaining, in Warner,M.(Ed) The Sociology of Workplace, London,Geroge Allen and Unwin, pp 36 -81.

12. Chester Bowles, (1963). The Making of a Just Society, The University of Delhi.

13. McGregor,D. (1960).The Human side of Enterprise, New York, McGraw Hill.

14. Dalton, H.(1959). Men Who Manage, New York, Wiley.

15. Dubin, R. (1960), Society and Union Management Relations, in Etzioni, A. (Ed) Complex Organizations, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

16. Barnard, C.I. (1948), Functions of the Executive., Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

17. Drucker, P. (1951), The New Society, London, Heinemann.

18. Wells, L.T.Jr. (1972). The Product Life Cycle and International Trade,Harvard Business School.

19. Clark,B.R.(1956). Organizational Adaptation and Precarious Values, American Sociological Review, Volume 21, pp 327 336.

20. Gouldner, A.W.,(1955), Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

21. Brooke, B.D and Lindblom, C.E. (1963). A Strategy on Decisions, New York, The Free Press.

22. Walton, R.E. and McKersie, R.B. (1956). A Behavioural Theory of Labour Negotiations, Maidenhead: McGraw Hill.

23. Walton, R.E and McKersie, R.B. (1965).ibid. ****************

6