You are on page 1of 216

Bureaucracy and Development

Administration

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT

ADMINISTRATION

V A PAI PANANDIKER
S S KSHIRSAGAR

CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH


NEW DELHI

tSZS by

V A Per PeraroxER
S S KsHrnsecan

AND

PRINTED

IN INDIA

BY N S RAY, THE BOOK CENTRE LTD,, rog, srxrH RoAD, sroN (nesr), nourey-4oo o22. PUBLISHED BY THE CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH, c-6, colrurncrAl AREA, pAScHrMr MARG, VASANT VTHAR, NEW DELHr-r ro o57.

Contents

Preface

vlr

IN:rnonucrloN

Mrrnooor,ocv or Rl,srancE

r7
28

Pnorrr,r or Dnvslopl{nNt PrnsoNNrr,

Butreucnetrc CgenAcrnnrsrrcs or
ADlvTNISTRATION

DBvnToPMENT 48
4,1

5
6

\Vonxrnc Cr,rlrerr rN DrvrlopMsxt AourNrsrn,t.rroN


BunBeucnatrc Anep:ra:rroN AourNtstnerroN

ro

DnvslopMsNr
101

R-r,rertoxsHIp BETwEEN Bunr,,cucnA,rrc eNo DrvrtoplrnNtar- CHenecrtnrsncs

r32

Bunneucracv arlo Dnvrropurur AolttNtsrRATIoN

Au Ovrnvrrw

156

Appendices

Besrc T,lnrss oN Runreucnarrc Pnorrrns

r67

II

Qursrrowt.lernn
Ind,ex 203

Preface

social scientists is only matched by their deep-seated fear of the great institution. During recent history of mankind the growth of state, state power, and consequently of bureaucracy' has aroused both the curiosity of scholars as also their apprehensions. Does the expansion of the role of the state inevitably mean the uncontrolled growth of the bureaucratic leviathan? lVill bureaucract' gobble' up democracy? Holv can man manage to rcconcile these fir'o inherently difierent types of institutions? Can democracies survive rvithout bureaucracies? If not, hor,rr are they to be married? The issues are real and will confront human civilization for a long time to come. Some scholars like Robert Michels etc. see the inexorable process of bureaucracies and the consequential oligarchies sr.rallor.ving democratic institutions. Others are not willing to give up the ghost and rvould rather fight out the issues. . The problem is even more complicated in the developing societies rvhcrc the countervailing institutions are weak. and hence bureaucracl' takcs l commanding position. The issues become even .rnore complex given tlre paucity of state instruments and state options for tr:anslating its policies and programmes of development. Everywhere the bureaucracv emerges as thc logical or evcn the inevitable instrument for transforming traditional societ ies into modern ones. If this be so, the vital question is: Is bureaucracy capable of performing the tasks? Principally does it have the essential values and attitudes necessary for performing these tasks? Wrat are the relationships betr.r'een bure:rucratic values and developmental values? It is with these basiC concerns that. 1ve had undertaken the present study for the Administrative Reforms Commission and to rvhom rve had submitted a preliminary Report in the late sixties. We felt. horvever. that the studv had rnany more implications, both theoretical and practical, ancl therefore deserved to be presented in much greater detail and analvsis to students and practitioners and even lay-readers in Government and Public Administration. In presenting this study, our objective is to focus attention of researchers and students of bureaucracy on its fundamental administrative dimensions especially in relation to development. All the more so since developing countries appear to rely increasingly on the bureaucratic apparatus for performing the critical policy and administrative functions in development. The study is presented in eight chapters. Chapter r, the Innoduction, is
r

Tns rascrNeuoN oF bureaucracy to the

vlll

PREFACE

followed by chapter 2 on the research methodology u-sed' f1 -chapter 3 we deal loiitr ttri profile of the developmental personnel studied in terms of their demograpiric characteristics. Chapter 4 presents the frndings relating to the natuie and extent of the bureaucratization obtaining in the Goiernment agencies included in the stud,v. The working climate of these agencies is reported in chapter 5, n'hile chapter 6 describes the extent oi adaptation of the civil servants and the agencies in r'l'hich they serve, to their developmental role. The relationships between the bureaucratic characteristici on the one hand and the requirements of the developmental role on the other are analysed in chapter 7' Lastly, chapter 8 consists of an overview of bureaucracy as a form of organisation and its compatibility r'vith development administration' ' We aiknowledge our deep gratitude to the Administrative Reforms Commission for encouraging ui to undertake this project and the Indian Institute of Public Administration for providing considerable initial support. In particular, we 'lvish to thank Dr J. N. Khosla, former Director, Indian Insiitute of Public Administration, Nerv Delhi, for all his help. We also rvish to acknor,tledge the excellent research support provided by Shri S' N' Slvaroop and Kumari Asha Kothari. specially in conducting the ficlcl rvork. trVe wish to record our special thanks to the four governmental agencies and the respondents of the study whose cooperation rn'as vital to the conrluct of our.research. \ve were indeed pleasantly surprised at their rvillingness to share with us their views, attitudes 'and assessments on matters affecting development administration. Dr A. S. Deshpande, Dr B. L. Mahesh'rvari, Prof D. L. Sheth, Dr Kuldcep \.{athur and Dr Udai C. Desai, amongst several others, were kind enough to send us their detailed comments on the various drafts of the studv. Finally, r'e record our appreciation of the excellent administrative support lent by Shri Y. L. Nangia and the finc tt'ping assistance at various stages of the draft provided bv Sarvashri Trimbak Rao and P. K. Yagneswaran.
Nerv Delhi

V A Per P,qNeNmxnn S S KsHrnsec.ln

March,

1978

Introduction

Dr,rrnropltnNr coNcERNs of emerging nations the world over in the last three decades or more have brought the state aPParatus sharply in focus. The two vital instruments of the state for the completion of any critical devclopment task have been found to be: (a) the political apparatus, and (b) the system of public administration. The focus in developing countries has been on both, rvith the political apparatus receiving first attention. This is but natural. Ultimately it is left to one or two crucial institutions to galvanize the energies of the nation and direct the efforts of the bulk of the pcople lvho in most of the developing countries are generally backrvard, inarticulate and slightly removed from the Process of development. Outside thc socialist 'w'orld, ansrvers to questions on the political apparatus have varied from country to country. Several developing nations appear to find a democratic political system not suitable for- bringing about the required socio-economic transformation which development 'calls for although a few countries like India have preferred the classical democratic political system as the most suitablc. This is a decision which has profound implications not only for the entire governmental system but for the developmental process itself. In its own rvay, unlike many developing countries and even unlike many dcmocratically organised developing polities, India has preferred a far more activist role for the state. 'lhrough the institution of national planning rvhich is essentially an element taken from the socialist countries, and through its policies Lowards a socialist pattern of society, India has given the state a prominent role in the socioeconomic development of the country a matter of deep import to the manner in which the national - of development are to be achieved. objcctives In a country 'n'ith a sharply differentiated ideological party system, and highly devcloped gr:assroots political organisations, this could mean that the burden of socio-economic development is borne by the party apParatus. In the Indian political system (at the Centre as well as in the States), the party apparatus does not .impinge on the administrative system as forcefully and tends to get confined essentially to the highest level, namely, the Cabinet. In other rvords, the political apparatus here affects the administrative system in a more limited measure than it does in a system where the party is essentially in control of the administration. Inherent in such a situation is the shift in power and authority in favour of the civil service. In the context of the Indian political system this has come to mean that the civil service is the principal instrument of state

BUREAUCRACY AND DIiVELOPMENT ADTIINISTRATION

policy, and more imporranrl,v ir is the onlv r.ehicle of administrative policy. ivith th" result that the civil service begins to take upon itself many a task lvhich would, in a differcnt context, be essentially politrcal. not in any partisan sense but in terms of irnplementing it as a policy. The emergence of the administrative systern varies consitlerably in different countries, and some of them have been createcl virtualtv from scratch. In such a context which obtains in miny an African nation todav, the administrativc s,vstem tends to be opportunistic in signilicant respects. In India, hor'r'cver, the administrative systcrn has a strong personalitv of its orvn, going back into British and even pre'British history and influenced irr several wa,vs bV thc Nfacaulavan traditions of the r qth centurv administrati\e lheon'. - The Indian administrative s,vstem has taken great pride in its nonpartisan, neutral, and constitutionally based status and in its role in the governance of the countrv. This is good as far as it goes and mav have been exceedingl,v reler,ant if the functions of thc state which non' devolve upon the administrative system had stayed the same as the r gth century or traditional maintenancc functions of the state. viz. of regulation. t:rx or revenue collection and lar'l' and order. \Vith the Indian administrative system steeped as it is in the various control instruments, cspeciallv those of the enforcement, these functions have become almost its second nature. Thcse traditional functions had a certain logic, viz' l'ith the exercise of force and state ,authoritv over the people and as such crirical fttnctions of a colonial or imperial administration. They are also relativclv simple functions in the sense that they represent a one-rvay traffic from the civil servants to the people. There are felv or no compulsions of responsivencss to the people's needs or feelings; no need to heed to their desires and asoilations. The logic of developmental activities is, horvever, diflerent. DeveloP' mental process does not have only an economic aspect. It is also importantl,v (and perhaps more so in developing countries), a process of social change, of a change in the values, attitudes and behaviour, even in the vocabular,v of the people. Success in developmental activities, unlike in traclitional activities, cannot therefore be achieved rvithout cbncurrence ancl even activc involvement of the people. It hangs critically on the attitudes and responses of the public. If they accept thc directions of change of the clcvelopnrent sought, the hope for effectivc state performance rvould be high. On the other hand if they do not, the state programmes r,vould be only partially successful. In a traditional society like India, attitudinal barriers to development H'ould be at least as important as, if not more important than, the structural barriers. Any realistic del'elopment pro' gramme must therefore havc .plans and strategies for removing them. From all evidence. traditional state activiiies have been least concerned rvith bringing abour social changes in the country. In other words, the fundamental values of a der-elopmentally oriented administrative apparatus have to be different from those of the traditional

Introd'uction one. The question rve are raising here is : Is development administration di{Iercnt fr-orn traditional achninistration ? The ansrver is a clefinitc 'Yes'' Surelv it is not possible to have a static, control-lnindcd state aPPeratus anrl expect it to supervise and bring about something as funclamcntal as social change. Af thc srtmc timc l'e appreciate the importance of traditional administralive fgnctions to provide the necessarv suPPol't to development.al e{forts of the govcrnments of developing countries' But, it is inconceivable that rvhile one part of the aclministrative s,vstern concerns itself rvith development, the other or the more traditional part of the administration continues to function in the old stylc botJr in terms of content and procedures. If the developmdnt Process l's to progress smoothly the latier has perforce to partake of the philosgPll' 9f !h" former. But rvhat u'e fincl it -utty a developing countr)r like India is that tlre ne$- tasks of development are being assigned to the traditional administrative machinery for implementation. By all tiris n-e do not mean to suggest that social change is an easily definablc or even administrable concept. It is indeed not. But to the extent that social change is the crux of development administration, it is strikingly cliffercnt from traditional administration. Despite imPortant strrrctural connotations ancl implications development administration is not'merely a structiral concept. It implies essentiallY an orientation ior'r'ards bringing about changes nhich di{Ierentiates it from the status quo orientation of traditional .administration. This obviously has profound implications for the organisational systems from both the sttuctural and behavioural points of view. The crucial questio.n arising from the foregoing. discussion is rvhether the traclitional 'bureaucratic' structural and behavioural l a.lies and norms are at all compatible n ith the requiremcnts of development administration? \Vhether the tlvo are not basically antagonistic to cach other and in that sense contratlictory? The hypothesis of the study l'as in facr that the present bureaucratic organisation of the civil sen,ice in India is incompatible with its developmental role. Bureaucracy hcre is taken to mean essentially the civil service system because of the key place it holds in the execution of developmental tasks. This Indian circumstance is npt a necessary adjunct of state-craft. N'Iany other devcloping countries lrave follor'ved drastically differ ent patterns. T'he most notable of these is the Chinese experiment rvhere the Communist Party acts as a vital lever of bringing about changes. At the grass-l'oots le'r'el thc commune organisation. with its decentralised porver structure developed out of the local community, plays the crucial role. In.comparison lr.ith China the developmental path being followed in India and several other countries has beeen rather traditional. Nlost of the deve' lopmental practices in these countries get rvelded together in a big adminis' trative exercise as alternatives to the traditional institutions have not been developed or have not been allon'ed to be developed. The rePresentative or democratic system has meant essentially decisional interfacing at the

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMEN.T ADMINISTRATION

Central or State Government levels, lvith little or no p,rlitical involvement at the actual administrative level. As a result the entire developmental process is run b,v the civil sen'ice largely according to its own predilections and sense of priorities witl-r or without political commitment and objectives. There is an oft-repeated criticism that the political decisions and commitments get watered dorvn by the administrative processes, with fer,v political correctives possible at the grass-roots levels; that even the administrative system has no built-in checks as in the French system with its administratir.e larv and organisational safeguards such as the administrative tribunals, to prcvent abuses of power by the bureaucracy. Consequently it is alleged th,at the Indian developmental apparatus continues to operate on traditional lincs 'rvith all its rigid framer'vork and behavioural norms and pattern.s. The present study lvas addressed to the abof/e noted vital dimension of the orientation of the civil servants in India, rvhich is often described as 'bureaucratic'. Obviously the study r'l'ould not have been possible without making an empirical assessment of the 'bureaucratic' nature of the Indian civil service. The study is not horvever merely confined to such assessment. More importantly, it explores the question, ,as mentioned earlier, t'hcther the bureaucratic orientation of the administrative s,vstem is compatiblc rvith its developmental tasks and responsibilities. To recapitulate, the study mainly aims at (a) empiricall,v establishing the bureaucratic character of the civil sen/ice system in India, (b) discovering the extent of development orientation of the civil service system, (c) examining the factors in the personal and organisational life of the civil servants that are associated with their bureaucratic and developmental
_

orientations, and (d) examining the compatibility of the bureaucratic svstem of administration with the developmental functions. Towards the development of an analytical framervork and a reasonable methodology to test the hypotheses of the study, it r'r'as irnportanr to ser forth the characteristics of (a) 'bureaucracy', and (b) 'development administration'.

Tnr

CoNcrpr

or

BunnArrcn,rcy

. The cruciality of'bureaucracy both as a form of organisation and as a social system t'as perceived by sociologists beginning rvith Max \Ve ber and followed by several others. On the presuppositions and causcs of bureaucracy, Weber felt that "The development of the money economy, in so far as pecuniary colnpensation of the officials is concerned is a prcsupposition of bureaucracy. 'foday it not only prevails but is predominant. This fact is of very gr:eat importance for the lvhole bearing of bureaucracy, yet by itself it is by no means decisive for the exisrence of btreaucracy".l Weber proceeded to point out that bureaucracies. historically rather disr, Weber, Max, From Max Weber :, Essays in Sociology, Ed. Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, Iondon, Oxford University nress, 1946, p, :o4.

Introd,ucti,on

tinctly developed and quantitatively large, existed in ancient Egypt, Rome especially during the Dioclatian monarchv and the Byzantine polity and China from the time of Shi Hwangti until the soth century.2 Bureaucratil zation by itself horvever rvas no guarantee of the success of the state. ""Ihe ancient Roman Empire disintegrated internally in spite of increasing bureaucratization and even during its very execution."s Even so, largescaie bureaucratic systems have been the continuing phenomenon of the post-industrial revolution era and remain one of the most important instruments of state Power toda)r. Bureaucracy has been defined as "The type of organization designed to accomplish large-scale administrative tasks by systematically coordinating the work of many individuals."a Bureaucracies are crucial elemeirts of the political system all over the world and have been recognised as such more or less openly' As Bensman and Rosenberg note, "bureaucracy is not intrinsic to communism, socialism or capitalism. It can exist in any type of society, with or lvithout private property, and in a basicalll, dictatorial or a basically democratic climate."5 While horver.er bureaucracy may be a useful single concept to describe the organisational system in societies rvith varied political systems, the context and specific character of the bureaucracy differ a great deal according to the nature of the political system itself. A bureaucracy staffed and controlled by the Communist Party in the Soviet Union or China is a different system from that in the United Kingdom, the United States of America or for that matter, France. The problem of bureaucracy has been somewhat more complex in developing countries rvhere social and political institutions are relatively less developed and where, therefore, the state has had to depend upon. bureaucracy as its major instrument of its activist functions. This has meant that the bureaucraciis in countries like India have had to perform functions which in the non-socialist developed countries are performed by a variety of other institutions. The dilemrna is somewhat less, though perhaps still present, in the socialist countries rvhere the bureaucratic system is more integrally intertwined rvith the political
system.

Rrvrrw or Bun seucnerrc Tnronv Three key contributors to the classical literature on bureaucracy

are

Karl Nlarx, Robcrt Michels and Max Weber. While bureaucracy was not central to Marr<ian thought, Marxist interpretation of bureaucracy and its relationship to the porver structure of z. I bid. p. zo4. g. Ibid,. p. zog. 4. Blau, Peter M. and tr{arshall W.

Nfeyer, Bureau.cracy in a Modern Society, New York, Random House, 1956, p.4. 5. Bensman, Joseph and Bernard Rosenberg. I{ass, Class and Bureau.cracy, Englewood Clifis, New Jeney, Prentice Hall, 19'63, p. 548.

'6

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

society and his ideas on bureaucracy must be understood rvithin the general framework of his theory of class conflict, the crisis of capitalism and the

advent of Communism. According to Marx the formal and legalist notion of bureaucracy (largelv Hegelian) does not represent its true nature; it is simply ttrc falsc imagc that the bureaucracy has of itself, an image rvhich derives from lerv books and administrative regulations. Hegel's bureaucracy takes its mcaning from the opposition between the particular interests of thc corporafions and the common interbst of the state. According to N{arx, this opposition is meaningless as the state cloes not represent the general intcrest but thc particular interests of the dominant class, itself a part of the cil'il society. From this viervpoint, bureaucracv constitutes a very specific and particular social group. It is not a social class, although its existence is linked rvith the division of society into classes. More preciselv, buteaucracl, as thc state itself, is an instrument by r.t'hich the dominant class excrcises its domi' nation over the other social classes.o In other lvords, in Marxian thought bureaucrao' does not occlrpv an organic position in the rsocial structure, since it has no direct links rvith the process of production. In thc Marxian sense its existence ancl clcr.clopment has a transient and parasitic character. 'l'he bureaucracy's main function is to maintain the status quo and the privileges of its masters.? tr\tithin the broader framervork of class struggle in the l{arxian interpretation, bureaucracy is one specific instance of thc general process of alienation, a concept r,vhich is central to Nlarxian thought, It is b,v this process of alienation that the social forces escape from the control of man, attain an independent existence and finall-v turn against man, their creator. According to Marx. bureaucracy becomes an autonomous and opprcssive force which is felt by the majoritv of the people as a mvsterious and distant entity.s According to Marx, incompctence is the other major feature of bureaucracy. Horve'l'er, this incompetence does not intimidatc the bureancrats to think of themselves as capable of doing anything. N{arx notcs that this bureaucratic imperialism acts as a possessive forcc on the bureaucrats, that they have a useful function to perform. N{oreover, this process of selfaggrandisement is accompanied b1' rvhat N{arx calls the 'sordid ntaterialism' of bureaucracy: the internal struggle for promotion, careerism. the in fantile attachment to trivial symbols, status and prestige.s Marx thought that in the ultimate analvsis bureaucracl, as an instrument of class structure will become redundant and rvith the evolution of the Communist State the bureaucracy like the state tvill rvither arvay.

6. Monzeiis, Nicos Company, 1967, p. 8. 7.. Ibid. p.8-s.


8. Ibid,. p. g. g. Ibitl. pp. 9-ro.

P.:

Orgonisation uttd Bureauctttcl, Chicago, Aldine Publishing

[ntroduction
The aclministfative tasks, losing their cxploitative character, of the administration of things and not o[ people'1.

l'ill

consist

Robert l{ichels concentratecl his anal,vsis of bureaucracY on tht: internal politics of large central organisations'. Mic-lrels salv in bureaucrac,v' the most striking ionfi.mutinn of the Machiavellian theses about elite d.mina-

tionandthemeagrechancesofclemocracyoraclasslesssocietyintlre
modern rvorld.

Very briefly, Michels' famous 'iron law of oligarch,v' statcs.,that.modern large-scale organisations' by their vcr.-v structnre., are necessaril,v oligarchic' Fro"m a seriei of his obser-vat.ions of German institutions, ]'{ichels calculated that all big organisations tend to develop a bureaucratic structufe which rules out tire possibilitV of internal 4emocracy. According to N{ichcls theverysizeanrlcomplexity.ofmoclernorganisationsmakedirectparticipation, rvhich is the essence of democracy, increasingly difficult. Rcsides, ihe hierarchical aspect of the bureaucratic structure and the concentration of the means of cbmmunication at the toP, make the porvcr position of
the leader impregnable ." i\,Iax \Veber.o,,uf; p".hop, the only one of the classical thinkers to look at bureaucracy as an administrative institution' According to \vebcr, "the clecisivc reason fot the aclvancc of bureaucratic organisatioi has ah.va,vs been its purcl,v technical superiority ol'er^anY othcr foim of organisation."l'9 The \\ieberian definition of the benefits of the bureaucratii form of organisation are mainly thc follol'ing: "

(r)
(z)

Bureaucracy is efficicnt since

it

is staffecl by pco-ple n-ho have.rleve

lopedamethodlt'hich,be,vondquestion,istechnicallysuperiorto
administration b,v amateurs or dabblers. Bureaucracv is predictable. Since it proceeds from a r'vell-clefined system of iules enforcerl through the hierarchical s,vstem, top offi cials have every rcason to expect that ordcrs rvill be dutifully carricd out. Bureaucracy is impersonal; that it is not influenced by anv primary group sentiment, or by emotional consiclerations; that it subdues all personal vagaries and biases. ilureaucracli is fast. flniformity of rules makes it possible to handle a vast numbcr of cases speeclily r,r'hich rvould otherrvise be impossible.

(3) (4)

As Weber himself expressed it, "Precision' speed, unambiguitl'', kno'rvledge of files, continuity, discretion, unitY, strict subordination, reduction all these are raised to the of iiiction ancl of material and personal costs optimum point in the strictly bureaucratic administration, and especially

n. Ibitl. p. -to. tt. Ibitl. p.27. r s. See Gerth H. H.


r3.

and C. W. IIills (eds.) oP. cit. p. et 4. Bensman, Joseph and Bernard Rosenberg, o1b. cit. p. 267.

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

form."Ia To \\'reber, "Bureaucratization offers, above all, the optimum possibility for carrying through the principle of specializing administrative functions according to purely objective considerations . . . . The 'objective' discharge of business primarily means a discharge of busi ness,according to calculable rules and 'rvithout regard for persons'."ts A government administration so defined must be understood, according to Weber, as a part of a legal order that is sustained by a common belief in its legitimacy. That order is reflected in rvritten regulations, such as enacted larvs, administrative rules, court precedents tc. lvhich govern the employment of officials and guide their administrative behaviour. Weber himself clarified that his 'ideal type' bureaucracy simplifies and exaggerates the empirical evitlence in the interest of conceptual clarity. No actual government is bureaucratic in the strict sense of his definition. Weber pointed out a large number of the characteristics of his 'ideal type' bureaucracy.l6 They were mainly the following:

in its monocratic

(r)
(e) (3) (4)
(5) (6)

(7) (8)

"The principles of office hierarchy and of levels of graded authority mean a firml1, ordered system of super and subordination in r,r'hich there is a supervision of the lower officer by the higher ones.r' Bureaucracies are based on a, systematic division of labour. All bureaucratic operations are governed by a consistent s)'srem of abstract rules. Bureaucratic operations consist in thc application of these rules to particulars cases. Bureaucracies are impersonal in their character, i.e., they function 'without regard for persons'. Bureaucracies are rational in their decision-making; developed burcaucracies "succeed in eliminating from official .business, love, hatred and all purely personal, irrational and emotional elements rvhich escape calculation". Rureaucracies are career-based. Recruitment to bureaucracies is based on merit and technical eualiBureaucracies are hierarchically organized.
ficat ions.

Several of Weber's successor social scientists have taken the Weberian theory in several directions. Robert K. Merton was the first sociologist to point out the other side.of the bureaucratic picture. He rvent inio the v_arious dysfunctional aspects of bureaucracy. other sociologists like Alvin Gouldner, Philip Selznick and others went into various dimensions of Weberian theory from the sociological point of view. Robert K. Merton felt that "adherence ro rule s, originally conceived as

r4. Gerth H. H. and C. W. Mills 4. Ibiil. p. ztg. 16. Ibi'cl. pp. tgii-244.

(eds.), op.

cit. p. zt4.

Introd,uction
a means, becomes transformed into an end in itself;"rt that there occurs the familiar process of displacement of goals rvhereby "an instrumental value becomes a terminal value". He held that "such inadequacies in orientation

rvhich involve traind incapacity clearly derive from structural sources. The process may be briefly recapitulated. (r) An effective bureaucracy demandi reliability of response and strict devotion to regulations. (z) Such clevotion to rules leads to their transformation into absolutes; thcy are no longer conceived as relative to a set of purposes. (3) This interferes with readv adaptation under special conditions not clearlv envisaged bY those rvho drarv up the general rulcs. (4) Thus the very elements which conduce torvards efficiency in general produce inefficiency in specihc instances.... These rules in time become symbolic in case mther than strictly ut ilitarian."B In other words, manv scholars have vierued bureaucracy n'ith considerable suspicion on the grouncls that bureaucracy is essentially a self-seeking insti tution. It displaces goals and tends to place itself and its orvn needs at the centre of things, thus subverting the basic and essential public valucs and aspirations. Except perhaps Peter Blau, holvever, there has been no effort by scholars to examine the extent to r'vhich bureaucracie s can be good
vehicles

for social change. Bureaucracy as a focal point for research in public administration has been the theme of considerablc literature in recent years, especiallv in the field of comparative public administration." The maior problem face<l in such research is whether thc institution of bureaucracy defined in the theory can provide a basis for comParative study. Heady, in his analysis of Berger's research20 suggests that structural characteristics of bureaucracy seem universal enough to encourage further empirical research to test hypotheses concerning behavioural patterns.
BUREAUCRATIC CHARACTERISTICS

Not sufficient focus has however been placed in the existing academic literature on bureaucracy as an administrative institution' To r'r'hat extent are some of the basic \Veberian postulates valid? To r'vhat extent do these
p. e53. ft. Ibid. p. z5g k zg4. rg. See Ferrel Heady, "Comparative Ptrblic Administration: Concerns and Priorities" and Alfred Diamant, "The llureaucratic NIodel: Max Weber Reiected, Rediscovered, Reformed" il Heady, Ferrel and Sybil L. Stokes, Papers in Companttiae Public Administration, Ann Albor (Nlichigan), Institute of Public Administration,
Press, r968,

17. Nlerton, Robert K., Sotial I-lteory and Sociul Str cture, New York, The

Free

r96e, pp. t-18 and 59-96. Also Blau, Peter M., The Dynamics ol Bureaucracy, Chicago tlniversity Press, r963, p.3e:. .?o. See Monoe Berger, "llureaucracy East & West" , A rlministratiae Science Quarterly, Vol. r (N{arch rg57), pp. r,r8-5rg and Ferrel Heady, "Bureaucratic Theory and Comparative Adminisrati ott" , Administratiae Science Qunrterly, Vol' 3 (1959)'

Pp.509-525.

l0
postulates relate

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

to the realities of actual ficld situations. 'fo lvhat extent are bureaucratic systcms the best instruments of administration ? These are some of the basic administrativc issues of bureaucratic theorv and need to be urgently probcd into. It is from that point of viov that 'n'e sought to examine the postulates of the existing bureaucratic theor,v to find out the extent to rvhich the Indian bure.aucratic system conforms or does not conform to them. For purposcs of the stud,v, u'e decicled to leave out the last trvo characteristics, viz., that bureaucr:rcy is carecr-based and that recruitment to it is madc on the basis of technical qualifications and merit. We did so because there are enough stuclies of Indian burcaucracv to shor'y that it is essentiallv career-basecl and that recruitrncnt to it is based on technical quali{ications ancl on rnerit. \Vc. therefore, conccntrated on the first six charactcristics listed carlicr, rvhich arc:
Str'uctural characteristics I (r) Hierarchv, i.e., arrangement of organis.ational pcrsonnel into a chain of superiors and subordinates with corresponding filtration o[ authority and initiat ir t . (z) Division of labour, i.e.. dillerentiation of functions basecl on specialization betlveen o$icials positioned at different organisational levels. (3) System of rules, i.e., prescription of elaborate rulcs and procedures to govern the operations of the office and the rights and cluties of position incumbents.
B eh

aui

oural

charac

te

ri s ti c,;

(4) Impersonality, i.e., discharge of olficial


according to standard norms

business 'r'r'ithout regard for persons' and dealing rvith e-ach just as anv other 'case' to be settled

or

'calculable rules'.

It is nbt

influ-

enced by any primarl' gr',rup scntimcrts r)r emotional considerations. Thus, the tax officers r'r'ould not discriminate bctween two assessees

falling in a comparable tax situation on the ground that one is an ordinary citizen and the other, say, a ministcr or a civil servant or
an industrialist.

(5) Rationality, i.e., choosing betrveen alternatives objectivelv on considerations of efficiency; "rules. means, ends, and matter-of-factness
dominate its bearing".
.

(6) Rule-orientations, i.e., follorvine strictly the official rules, norms of


conduct, and procedrrres.

\Ve have considercd the first fhree. characteristics in thc abol'e list as re. lating essentially to the sructure of bureaucratic organisations since thev set the basic foundations rvhile the latter three are basically the behavioural characteristics of bureaucracy since they involve decisional situations. Having defined the institution of bureaucracy in terms of its key characteristics, r'l'e considered it uscful to clarify certain phrases often usecl in this connection. 'Ihese include the term 'bureaucracv' itself, and the terms

Introilucti.on

ll

'bureaucratization / bureaucratized', and 'bureaucratic'. Of these the use of the term 'bureaucracy' has been perhaps most varying. ambiguous. and confusing. In the Iirst place. tle term is commonly used to refer to thc mode of Govcrnrnent, that is, in the scnse of Governmental bureaucracy. In this sense, the terrn is employed to refer to the body of public servants chargecl r'vith the responsibility of administering public policics anrl progranrmes' The pcjorative use of t:he term bureaucracy rt'as si.arte(l in the last centur,v ivhen it was used to dccry the lenqthv and irksome procedurcs antl rules of thc Government and the narrorv outlook and autocratic bchaviour of Govcrnment officials. Other be havioural traits subsequentl,v associatcd n'ith the term include red-tapism, procrastination, buck-passing. sccretivcness, rule ricldenness, etc. Indeed the frequent use of these tcrms both in thc literature and actual experience of the public has coloured the stercotvpc image'n'hich most of us hold of a bureaucracy. 'fhis common stereotYpe is verv much eviden.t in the formul.ations of the Parkinson's 'larv'. \Vhcn a bureaucrat is thus dubbed as a public servant rvith all or some of the ncgative traits noted above, the phrase 'good burcaucrat', or 'good bureaucracy' bccomes a contradiction in terms. I)espite many attacks on it, the terrn bureaucracv has continucd to survive both in rvritine and specch dorvn to the prcs-ent' thcrcb,v implving that it is more useful to kecp it than to discard it. \Vhat is necessary is to d,istinguish between the popular derogatorv use of the term and its technicel meaning or use. Although there are difhculties in nraintaining- such a distinction, social scientists use 'bureaucracy' to describe a certain phcnomenon associated 'lvith formal, large-scale organisations. Their use signi fies zin attempt to conceptualize this phenome non. At the macro leve l, Weber's dcfinition of bureaucracy provides pcrhaps the best available con' ceptualization of it. Social scicntists thus usc the rvord burcaucracy to rcfer -I'he usage is to a formal organisation displaying certain characteristics intended to be value-neutral: bureaucracy is a particular form of an organrsation t'ithout connotatiolls of approval or disapproval' This is essentially our position in this stud-v. \Ve have also taken the \{cberian modeof bureaucracy for our use because, although manv critics have attackcd it, none has been able to dispensc rvith it. Another term rvhich has been thc tafget of confusetl interprctation is 'bureaucratization'. Historically. the term lvas used as a sYndrome to describe the process of reforms in the pultlic administration svstcnl. Roth in Europe and in the tl.s., this process consisted of separation of .administlative iasks from the royal household or the political overlorcls, its subclivision an<l commitmcnt to thc public sdrvants, carcer appointment of public sefiants to ensure long-term conrinuity in administration, appointment on the basis of merit, enactment of rules and proccdures rclating to administrative actions, etc. Weber also used the r'vord burearlcratization in a similar sense. Considering lturcaucracl' as a, sociological phenomenon. he argued on the basis of his obscrvations of post-Industrial Revolution Europc, tl-rat as a country becbmes more industrialized. its social structure tencls to be-

t2

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

come more bureaucratized implying that industrialisation gives rise to large-scale organisations rvhich are best organised on bureaucratic lines. Again, the sense in which the rvord 'bureaucratization' is used above is

not derogatory. Sometimes the rvord bureaucratization is also used in relation to the public administration system to refer to the situation in rvhich the public servants become autocratic, adopt a rigid and unimaginative approach to
citizens' problems and indeed recognise only one rvay communication which is from them to the citizens. Such a description is analogous to the derG gatory rise of bureaucracy noted above. In keeping with the technical meaning of the term bureaucracy to rvhich rve have confined our use of the word in this study, the term bureaucratization also $rould connote no more than the process of formalization of the organisation. Lastly, the term 'bureaucratic' most often means one of two things. It may be used in place of phrases like 'of Government sen'ants', or 'of the civil service' or 'in the civil service'. Thus when someone talks about bureaucratic ,attitudes and behaviour he is really talking about attitudcs and behaviour of Governmcnt se rvants. Or r,vhen bureaucratic changes are discussed, the discussion is about chanses in the civil service. The term 'bureaucratic' is also used as an acljective to d.escribe a person, an organi sation or a mode of thinking and behaviour. We have noted above that the word bureaucracy stands for certain structural and behavioural properties. So lvhen an organisation, or an inclividual conforms rvith these properties, it or he is called bureaucratic. Similarly, bureaucratic behaviour would imply a behavioural pattern that reflects the properties associated with the model of a burcaucracy. We have offered the above terminological explanations to e nsure that
whenever we use the terms bureaucracy, bureaucr atizatron, and bureaucratic, we are not misunderstood. The context in n'hich rve have used these terms

would generally make the meaning obvious. However, lvhenever a specific meaning is intended or attached to them, this is made clear.

Tnr

Coxctpr or DsvrlopN{nNr

ADurNrsrRATroN

The rediscovery of the role and nature of the administrative system required to support developmental planning in developing nations is one of the most striking features of recent literature on public administration. It is now recognised that the ner,v administrarion is hoth quantitatively and qualitatively different, and hence requires diflerent appioaches and techniques to those available in traditional theory and in the developed countries of the West. Hence the rubric 'development adminisffation' to denote ne w administration that is required for the government of developing
countries.

Although much of it is descriptive and impressionistic, considerable literature is now available on the nature of development administration. Conceptual thinking in this area is notably avaikible in the writings of

Introducti.on

r3

Riggs, Weidner, Diamant, Abueva, Montgomery, Tarlok Singh, Pai Panandiker, etc. It is, however, true that there is as yet no final agreement on the distinguishing characteristics of development administration. Broadly speaking trn'o basic theoretical approaches are available in the studies of (t) u social the ory emphasizing arlminisiration in developing countries the ,un' or ,under, developed state of socio,economic conditions in devetroping couritries as a determinant of .administratil,e concerns and activities' u"? 1t y an organisarion theory emphasizing development of institutional policies ancl practices supportive of development efforts. Both"approaches are interrelated and have great relevance and deductions from them have gone into building the total conccPt of del'elopment administration, however diffused it might be at this point of time. Even though the concept of development administration is a difficult one the term has acquired a commonsense ring. "-Ihe word 'development' is intended to indicate those bodies of thought that centre around growth ancl directional change. Basically therefore the framer,vork.of development gravitates around a planned change r'vhich is derived from a purposeful decision to effect improvements in a social system . . . . The phrase development adminitration is intrinsically intertwinbd lvith this process of change . . . . Essentially, development administration refers to the structure, organisation and behaviour necessary for the implementation of schemes and programmes of socio-economic change undertaken by the governments of developing nations."2r We have accepted the above definition for the purpose of the present study. The characteristics of development administration as \re see are the following. First of all, it is esseniiully change-oriented unlike traditional or general administration which is essencially oriented to maintenance of status quo. Development administration on the other hand actively and consciously attempts to bring about changes both in the substance of a field of activity, and whenever necessary in the values and attitudes of people. In that sense, socio-economic disequilibrium at the initial stage and the restoretion of equilibrium at a higher level or of a difierent nature is one of the inherent consequences of efiective development administration. if hus in seeking to bring about change, development administration dcliberately tries to reorient people in directions which contrast and differ from the existing ones, thereby creating a dynamic disequilibrium. How does the administrative system in India perceive and understand its role as a changeagent? That is a question the present study seeks to ans$'er. Secondly, development administration is result-oriented, i.e., it aims at achieving specific results. The performance of various tasks in development administration entails fairly clearcut identification of what is to be got done and for rvhat purpose. In that sense, development administration is result-specific and expresses in most areas fairly clearcut norms of perg r. Pai Panandiker, V. A., "Development Administration : An Approach", fndian Journal ol Public Administration, Yol. X No. r (January-March t96{ pp. 95-36.

t.l

BURBAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINTSTRAT1ON

formance preferabl,v in quantitatir,e terms as in the economic and industrial spheres. Even in tlte social spheres, in.a vast number of areas such as health, education, etc., the norms are reasonablv clearcut and measurable. 'Ihere rvould no doubt bc certain areas lvhere qualitative asscssnent or measurement may be more critical and therefore mav have to be used. In any event, the orientation of development administration is towards achievement of specific results. In other tvords, der-elopment administration rvould be judged on the basis of the actual results achieved. In developing countries the government initiates many changes although it' is recognised that in the ultimate analysis, government initiative is no substitute for initiative on thc part of the citizens themselves. Development being a proccss of social change as much as of economic change, it cannot be brought about by thc use of force or compulsion but by cnsuring that citizens willingly cooperate ancl participate in the task of development. Indeed rvithout such cooperation the administrative system stands little chance of achieving its basic mission. -I-his implies the ability of the public servants to carry the citizens r,vith them and drar,r. them activelv into the developmental processes. Development administration, therefore. calls for a basic change in the outlook. It means a change from 'giving' to the citizens r,vhich is t,vpical of traditional administration, ro thar of ,receiving, frorn the citizens. If this change does not take place, the chances of succeis of the administrative system are remote. With such implications the attitude of involving the citizen in the process of change ii a criticai characteristic of development administration. Fourthly, development administration req uires a firm commitment not in the partisan but in the administratile sense. For development administration to succeed in its directional change the aclm inistratir-c personnel must have a sense of involr.ement and concern rl'ith the entire rrork effort. unless there is such an involr.ement in the tasks of rle'elopment administration, there is little prospect of any meaningful internilization of the developmental values rvhich is a crucial dcterminant of performance.
.

Srloy

Mr-.rirons

Thc problem of collecting the data for the study r.r,as rather complex. considered the merits of different methodologies and finallr srttled for the survey method using the quesrionnaire as the principal initrument of data collection. The details of research methodologl,' us.d ur" describecl

\ve

in the following chapter.

We do not claim any finality for the method we hal,e emploved. Indeed, n'e recognise the problem of arrir.ing at definite conclusions ' entirelv on the basis of the methodolog,v, we have follor.r,ed. Horvever, har ins taken as much precaution as possible both in the construction ancl rhc irlministration of 'the questionnaire, and having also concluctecl a follorr-up studv of the same questionnaire. rre believe ihat tu rhe exrenl our obseirations and conclusions are based on the questionnaire data they could be consi-

l'ntrod,'uction,

15

derecl fairly reliable. It may be mentioned here that the obse 'ation and discussions lt e hal'e had during the conduct of ti're study in the above Government agencies also lend suPport to the findings reported h"-1": -. Ir shoul<l be borne in mind that the present studv lvas not an all-India study. The finclings and conclusions as they ernerge may not be adequate for generalising on development administration in the country as a n'hole alrh6ugh thcy ivoulcl be quite valid for thc agcncies studied. \\te do believe hori,evJr thai our findings r,r'oulcl be largely supported b,v similar studies

rjf other developmental agencies in the govcrnment to the extent that the 'I'here rvoulcl certainly be agencies stucliecl by us are re presentari\-e of them. viriations as the resulls of tic four agencics t ttr]rcd in the plcsenr studl'
themsclves exemplify.

Depending upon the .zrdministrative environment. it is like\, as found in the present stud-v, that the del'cloPment agencies. at the Central and the Statl levels w'oulcl lic at different points on the dimensions studied by us. For instance that a development agencY at 'the district level under the effective panchayat raj administration. e.g., in Gujarat and X{aharashtra. woulcl be better equipped to perform its dcr,cloprnental role than a sirnilar unit in say Bihar or Assam u'here the panchavat raj administration is weak' r,vould be a hypothesis \{orth testing. Wtnnn PRnspECTIvES oF Tr{E SrtrDY

An important question is: Is there a lr'ider rclevance of the study? There one internal and the other interare two dimensions to this question, the stuclies of bureaucracri and development national. Interrrally speaking, are undoubtedll, of crucial relevance to the studv of In<lian clevelopment and socio-economic change. For rcasons alreadv rvell known, the Indian political system has committed itself beyond retreat on a rvhole set of developmental goals. Having aroused the political exPectations of the people as a result, it is not possible. for the political system nor'' to go back on these commitments. The political s,vstem has also at le ast as of the moment bound itself to the traditional bureaucratic apparatus for bringing about the change. Since the bureaucracy has become its principal tool, or instrument, it is naturally important to sec holv fat the bureaucrac-v is able to perform the development tasks. From a practical or polic,v angle, therefore. the role of the bureaucracy is rnost crucial. Indccd it is a matter of fundamental import vitally related to Indian politl, and the people' Even from an academic point of vierv, there are many other crucial ques' tions. \Vhat are bureaucracies like? Do they by and large approximate to the classical \Veberian model? Does the Indian develoPment bureaucracy differ from.the traditional t,vpe? If so, in r'r'hat respects? Are the structural and behavioural patterns interrelated? If so, how? Does thc structure affect behaviour or vice versa? Is bureaucrac,v a slatic or a dynamic phenomenon? All these are important questions not only to the Practitioners but to scholars in public administration and sociology as well as other disciplines.

16

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPN{ENT ADMINISTRATION

Bure4ucracy will continue to remain an important organisational institution in societies of varied hues. Its differing content rvill, therefore, engage the attention of researchers for a long time to come. The study also has broader relevance to other developing societies and countries which have depended basically upon a tr.aditional bureaucracy as the principal instrument of bringing about change. This is particularly so in a largc number of Afro-Asian developing countries rvith dcmocratically organised polities. The difficulties they face are similar to those India does. Horv does one implement change through an cssentially careerist civil ser-vice? Is the traditional bureaucracv adecuate to such an enormous task of social transformation? To the extent that there are some important findings in the study, they could have a bearing on similar patterns in the other countries. If so, this study would help in the creation of a nerv body of useful knorvledge on bureaucracy and deve lopme nt administration. We rvould like to emphasize that the study is a beginning in an important direction. It points up both theoretical as r,r'ell as practical problems not to mention problems associated with rcsearch mcthodology. \'Ve r'vould like to see more r'l'ork before rvider generalisations can be undcrtaken. This study would, rve hopc, create enough interest among studcnts of public and comparative administration as r,r'ell as the practitioners in the field.

Methodology

of Research

Narunr or

rnt

Sruoy

As arnnarv noted in the introductory chapter, our objectives in the present study were: (a)- to examine the relevance of bureiucratic theory to an understanding of the bureaucracy in India; (b) to find out the extent of developmental orientation among civil seryants involved in development ploqu-T.-r.,- (c) to !1d out the significant facrofs in the personal and org.nisational life of civil servants which can be fruirfullv related to thii, bureaucratic and developmental anitudes; and (d) to examine the compatibility between rhe bureaucracy as it is and development administration. The objectives of the study required that we should make it both theo retical and empirical : theoretical in as much as the study examines the applicability of the theorerical construcr of bureaucracy to ih" civil service in Ind-ia, and empirical in so far as the study seeks to verify the developmental orientation of a sample of the civil servants in terms of certain key characteristics of development administration. These foci of the study are intended to_throw light on the adequacy or otherwise of existing theories/ concepts. M,ore importantly, however, the study purports to examine the behaviour of the civil servants at the empirical ievel. \Me believe that such diagnoses are invaluable, and. necessary pre-requisites for working out practical improvements in the functioning -of the'civil service. The study investigates a relatively little-studied field of bureaucraric behaviour in India. The body of knowledge available in this area is therefore understandably scanty. we need to know much more about it before prescribing definitive solutions. The study rvas, as a result, undertaken in the.spirit._of an exproration of cerrain 'behavioural phenomena retaiinl to the civil servants. Needless. to. emphasize rhar the nnaings J nrr. cannot be regarded as prescriptions; at best they are suggistions. ""Ji, Su,ncrroN

or Acnxcrns auo Seuprn

development bureaucracy is used here to ienoie agencies essentially engaged in carrvdvelopment programmes, The study included four-such agencies. fg "l: these agencie-s (agencies A and r wo ot B in the table below) are e"ngaced rn carryrng our development programmes in the industrial 'rector; infril. rne orner two agencies (agencies c and D in the table) are entrusted with development programmes in the agricultural sector.

civil

- The study was conducted among a sample of members of development bureaucracy- The term
servants- serving

in Government

18

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

As regards the level of government, agencies A and C belong to the Union Governqent.. Both the Union Government agencies are of the headquarters type,' while agency D in the State Government is distinct\ a field agency. Agency B is partially a headquarters type and partially a field type agency: on balance, hor'r'ever, we have considered it as of the latter type. To facilitate interviews and research efforts, all the four agencies selected for the study happen to be operating in and around this Union territory of Delhi. The development process in India has many sectoral dimensions; noneiheless, agriculture and industry represent fivo crucial sectors of development. Also both the Union Government and the State Government are r'ecognised important co-partners to bring out the desirable developments. It was, therefore, appropriate that, short of covering a1l the development sectors in the study. rve should concentrate on agriculture and industry' Besides, by conducting the study among both central. and state agencies, we have broadened the empirical base of it. Lastly, the final test of development efforts is at the field level. The field agencies included in the sample therefore provide us 'lvith the data about the chances of the success of development programmes, irrespective of the policies and plans made
.

therefor.

When planning the sample for the study, n'e assumed that Class IV Government servants do not participate in the development rtork of their agencies. The study was, therefore, confined to Class I, II and III civil servants. At the time of the study, the total number of officials in all the three classes, serving in the four agencies. was grr. The questionnaire, which was the principal instrument for data collection was administered to all of them. Replies to the questionnaire n'ere received from 723, giving a rate of return of 7g.3 per cent. The agency-wise break-dolvn of the civil servant-respondents is given in Table z. r belo'r'r'. It is clear from the table that the sub-sample of the respondents drawn from the four agencies shorvs different class composition. 'Ihis was, however, anticipated by us in viel, of thc fact that the agencies \vere not concerned with the development proglammes in the same manner. Roth the agencies which show a high proportion of higher class civil sen'ants serving iri them belong to the Union Government. In contrast, the agencies belonging to the State Government have a very high proportion of their employees belonging to Class III. The headquarters or secretariat type of rvork handled by the Union Government agencies rvas bound to be reflccted in the considerably higher proportion of Class I and II civil servants serving in them. On the other hand, agency D employing almost 93 per cent of its total staff at Class III level, is responsible for implementing agricultural development programmes at the grass-roots level. It is the same rvith dgency B which handles industrial development programmes. We do not know if the composition of the sample of the present study is typical of the'stiffing pattern gener:ally followed. Overall, hor,vever, our sample does contain a much higher proportion of both Class I and to a certain extent

Methodolo'gy ol Research

19

Tenrp 2.1

RESPONDENTS BY EMPLOYING AGENCIIS AND CLASS


Ageniies

Class

Nurfiy
f$Ponat&g

Pfrcentage

Agency A (Industry/Central/Headquarters) Class I


Class
Class

2t5*
86 80
48

roo
40
38

Il
III

22

Ageucy B (Industryi State/Field)

r09
3

roo
IJ

Class I

lt Clas III
\-tass

14 92

84
IOO

Agency C (Agriculture/Central/Headquarters) Class I


Class
Class

r37
44 26
o,/

II
III

19

49

Agency D (Agriculture/State/Field) Llass I

262

roo
2
6 92

Clas II
Class

'16
242 723

lll

Grand Total

* I rcspondcnt

d.id not report his Class.

even Class II civil servanrs than is found in Government service taken as a whole. We have noted in the first chapter thar the respondents of this study do not constitute a representative sample of the civil service or development bureaucracy in India. In the first place, there is a preponderance of higher class civil servants in the sample. Secondlv, rhe studv was conducted onlv in two development sectors. and in a limited geographical area. Even so, the fact r-emains that the l4 civil servants in the sample ,are engaged ilr the administration of imporrant development progr:lmmes in which the higher level civil servants are often called upon to play an important role. Besides, as noted earlier, the study purports to explore an area,of bureaucratic behaviour in which little empirical rvork is reported so far. In view of these facts, we believe that the study has considerable value even though it is not representative.

Typr, or Dere Corrnctr,o The type of data required in a study depends upon its objectives. Torvards reaching the objectives of the present study, the following data" were required to be. collected :
.

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

l. Data on structural and behavioural dimensions of bureaucracy as a theoretical consftuct in the Indian context. 2. Data on the adaptation of civil servants to their developmental role. Government J. Data on certain aspects of the working climate in offices; and Data on background characteristics of the civil servants. +'

The data noted above were such that the civil servants themselves constituted the main source for it. As regards the first three items in the above list, two courses (or a combination of them) I{ere oPen to us to collect thesc data. In the first place, having determined the dimensions of behaviour/ adaptation for detailed study, the researcher could first decide about the obsirvable acts that are assumed to describe those behaviours' He r'vould then actually observe the subjects performing these acts. A subject found to perform most of the acts describing a Particular behavioural dimension would be rated high on that dim-ension. To illustrate, impersonal beh-aviour can be defined in terms of a civil servant (a) who does not allow extraneous considerations to influence him in decision situations, (b) u'ho applies the same nonns of decisions in all cases, (c) rvho eliminates the play of emotions in official work, etc. A civil sen'ant'w'ho exhibits these characteristics repeatedly in his job tasks 'rvould be described as highly impersonal. This method o,t. data collection is certainly more objective and reliable' \Ve did not, however, adopt it in the present study because of difficulties in mobi lizing necessary resources for it and the operational problems associated with it. As a second alternative, therefore, we collected behavioural data at the cognitive level. An important limitation of all such data is that inferences about behaviour cannot be directly made from them. Nevertheless, in as
much as our behaviour starts at the cognitive level, these data are invaluable for understanding and improving behaviour. We hope that the present study will help in this process. The study was intended to throrv up certain hypotheses for further depth investigations. In this connection lve treated the cognitive data about the respondents as dependent variables. These included behavioural dimensions of bureaucracy, orientatibn to development administration and attitudes in work. In comparison, the background characteristics of the rcspondents were considered as independent variables.

CoNsmucrroN oF THE Qunsr:rotvNernn The structured questionnaire used for collection of data is reproduced at Appendix II. The contents of the questionnaire fell into four broad areas corresponding to. the data needs. The major concern of the study was to measure and compare the civil servants in terms of certain behavioural factors. This called for uniform ffeatment of the data. This in turn meant that respondents anslvered the

Methodology of Research
same questions so that

2l

their replies wgle co?Par.able' The sffuctured questionnaire provided this facility. Besides, the. objectives of the study required that the respondents answer the questions fronr a known frame of
reference.

sought tio examine the extent to which the Indian bureaucratic system conforis with the key postulates of the theory of bureaucracy' For this- purpose, we defined the-concept of bureaucracy- in terms of six characteristics, ir"*.ty, hierarchy of authority, division of labour, system. of rules (which are st;uctural characteristics) and impersonality, rationality, rule-orientation (which are behavioural characteristics). Since these characteristics are basic characteristics of all formal organisations, we assumed them to exist along a continuum rather than either as present or as absent. To measure the f,egree of bureaucratization of the Government agencies/civil sewants .orr.r.i here, we developed Likert type ordinal scales for the six characteristics of buroaucracy noied above. The scales and the items in the quesrionnaire constiruiing the scales are given below (for specific questions, see Appendix II)

Asregardstheformatofquestionsthefollowingpointsarenoted.We

. Hierarchy z. Di.aisi.cm of Labour


t

3. 6.

System.

of Rules

4 Impersonality a. Rati,onali,ty
RuIe-orientation

Items t, 2,9.4 of. Part ll Items b, 6, 7, 8 of Part II Items g, ro, r t of Part II Items rzA, rzB, rrC, rsD of Part II Items r3A, r3B, r3C of Part II Items r4A, t4B, r4C, r4D of Part II

As the questionnaire will show, items r3A to r3C, and r4A to r4D related ro the c;itical incidents pertaining to the dominant theme of a charactristic of bureaucracy. To illustrate the Likert type scales used by us, rve reproduce belowthose items in the questionnaiie that constituted the scale of hierarchy of authority according to the definition of it as per the theory:

r. In your rvork do you have a chance to take decisions


without asking any one higher in your
(Mostly
office?

on your own

can s. "There - be little .


3.

Often

Sometimes

the superior How accurately does this statement deofficer approves a decision." scribe the day-today work of your office?_ Largely Fairly accurate (Most aciurate Largely accurate - inaccurate). Mostly inaccurate - say does your superior have in matters that alfect you How much Considerable say and your work? (A very great deal of say None at all). Little say Some say

action taken in

Seldom

this office until

Never).

22

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVEI-OPMENT

4.

How often do you meet for official purposes the officers above yor( who are not your immediate superiors?. (Very qften Often Somc-

times-Seldom-Never).

It may be noted that questions r and 4 are negatively keved to, thc scale ro that the higher the agreement rvith it, the lorver the degree of hierarch,v of authority among the respondents reporting so; on the other hand, questions 2 and g are positively keyed to the scale so that the higher the respondents' agreement with them, the higher the hierarchy of authority reported to be existing in their offices. Regarding orientation of civil servants to development administration, we adopted a difierent method for ranking respondents on it. In the first place, we developed critical incidents around the four key characteristics of development adminisration chosen for the study. These incidents were adopted from real life situations faced by the civil servants working in developmental areas. Secondly, ne obtained structured responses of the respondents to several questions on different aspects of the incidents. These responses were scored in ordinal scales intended to show the degree to which the respon<ients rvere development oriented. We assessed developmental orientation at two levels, namely, at actuality and idealistic perceptions. Towards this. each quesrion on the critical incidents was replied by the respondents in terms of

their observations of how the civil servants generallv behavc rvhen_ faced with the particul.ar situation presentecl ln the stimuli: (b) how the respondents themselves .n'ould like to behave in that
(u)

situation.

T.he r.eiearch assumption for the two sets of responses was that any significant discrepancy between them would indicate the existence of tension experienced by the respondents in fulfilling their del,elopmental responsi bility in a manner considered most desirable'by them. On the other hand, congruence between 'what is'.and 'what should be'. responses indicated a process of socialization that goes on in the Government sewice. As the critical incidents included in the questionnaire comparecl very closely with the kinds of problems encountered by the respondents in their normal work, the questionnaire rvas not dubbed 'academic, bv most of them. Judging from the observations of researchers durins administration of the questionnaire we feel that the critical incidents m"ethod also helpecl in reducing, if not altogether eliminating, the influence of the ,srxial desirability' factor, which is generally found to bias finclings of studies dealing rvith norrnative behavioural questions. Besides. differentiation between actuality and idealistic perceprions rvas also supposed to conrrol further the social desirabilitv of the responses. The scalis pertaining to development orientation and the items in the questionnairl compriiing them are noted below (for specific questions, see Appendix II)

Methodology of Research

ZJ

r.
z.

Actuality PercePtions : Items rA, zA, gA, 4,{ of Part Idealistic PercePtions : Items rB, zB, 38, 48 of Part I
Items 5A, 6A, 74, 8A of Part I Items 58, 68, 7B, 88 of Part I
partici.pati.on

Change-orientati'on

Result-mi,entation Actuality PercePtions: Idealistic PercePtions : q.. Ori,entartion to ci'tizen Actualrty PercePtlons : Idealistic percePtions : t. Commi,tment to worh:

Items gA, roA, rrA of Part I Items gB, roB, rrB of Part I Items rz, r3, 14, rb of Part I

As noted above, the questionnaire was also used by us to obtain dat-a on the working climate experienced by the Government servants. The following aspectJ of working climate were studied :

Attitudes to responsibility Delegation of authoritY


Superior-subordinate relationship Utilization of skills :). Svstem of promotions u, Citizen-administrator relationship .iobs Some characteristics of Governrnent
]-).
.

As regards certain themes in superior-subordinate relationships, we developed oidinal scales to measure responses of the_ respondents. The other aqpects of the work'-environment were tapped in discreet questions included in parrs III and IV of the questionnaire. The last Part of the questionnaire, ihat is part V, elicited information on personal background of the respondents like age, rural-urban background, levels of educational attain-"nt, p"t"t tal occupation background, economic class origin, in-sewice trainini, progr:ession in service, professional interests, class at Present, and Governmint agencies in which the respondents se.,''ed. These data were utilized by us (i) ro arrive at the profile of the civil servant-respondents, and (b) to explore iu.tot associated lvith particular patterns of behaviour of
respondents,

The draft questionnaire was duly from the offices covered in the study.

Pre-tested over

sub-samPle clrawn

Aovrrvrsrn,l'rroN oF THE FrNer- QursrroNNAIRE As the study design was getting ready, rve approached the heads of the agencies studied, wiih a'letter apprising them of the purpose of the study and requesting their permission to conduct it among their employees' \Ve note gratefully that the permission rvas granted to us most readily' The

BUREAUcRAcy AND DEvELopMENT ADMrNrsrR lyrloN

coverng letter for the final questionnaire alio explained the objectives of the study and the- imp_ortance of frank replies from the respondents. The directions for filling the questionnaire were given to the respondents in the covering letter itself. Mosi of the questions iri the questio,rniir" ,u"r" arso self-explanatory. Yet we arranged for individual administration of the questionnaire to the respondents at their respective work places. This course-of- action was adopted for two principal reasons, viz., to ensurc collec_ tion of the data within minimum time and to establish the credibility of the study with the respondents and enlist the required cooperation from them. The questions were self-explanatory. It was therefore not normally necessary- for the researchers to sit along with each respondent while he replied to the-questionnaire. The presencq of the researchers at research sites, horvever, facilitated on the spot elucidation on the specific items in the questionnaire, with the result that practically none of the schedules were returned incomplete. employees - The in the same of the two headquarrers type of agencies studied rvere housed building. It was, iherefore,'ielativef easier to administer the to this On the contrary, a large proportion -questionnaire -sub-sample. of the personael in the two field type agencies studied. were often -serving found to be in the field. For instance, ttre vittage level workers may have to call at the BDo's office some time during the "day but most of their time would be spent out in the field. We had, therefore, to arranse srouD meetings of these personnel o-n a day convenient to them for adminislerini the,questionnaire. The completed schedules were, of course, collected baci at the conclusion of the day. It is admitted that the personal administration of the _questionnaire was made possible by the restricted geographical area covered by the study sample. _ Of the grr Class I, II and III civil servants working (on rolls) in thc f9u1 agelcfs studied, ?23 returned rhe questionnaire aiq) filled in. Somc of the civil servants were on leave at the time of the study. \ve do nor knorv if these and other non-responding employees are materially diffcrenr from the responding emproyees. It was"mad. .i.r, to the potential rcsDontheir cooperation L.".rr talth rn -in the study was voluntary and depended on rnerr ",1": rt. our own view is that the 7g.4 per cent rate oi retur-n is exceptionally high and afiords a broad empiricaf base for rhe conclusions of the study.
FOLLOW-TIP STUDY

Following the main inquiry, we also administered rhe same questionnaire to a small sub-samplb drawn from the above sample of the developmental personnel after i lapse of little over a monrh. The results of the follow-up study closely corresponded with those of the main inquirv indicating consistency of the data over time.

Methodology of Research ScomNc eNo TnnarlrnNr

25

As alrpady mentioned rve sought of bureaucratization of the public administration system in India in terms of the six characteristics of bureaucratic organisation, and the extent of adaptation of civil servants to their development role in terms of the four distinguishing characteristics of development administration. In addition, the two major aspects of the working climate in which our respondents performed and on which we tried to collect data are employee-orientation of superior officers and the extent of intrinsic job satisfaction experienced by them. We were also interested in discovering the relationship among these variables, and between them and the background characteristics of the civil servants. The format of the ordinal type of Likert scale suited our purpose best. It enabled us to ascertain the degree in which the above twelve dimensions are present in these agencies or among the sample of the civil servants serving in them. The intensity scales which the l-ikert scales provide are indeed useful tor the analysis of associationship betrveen different vari ables. The Likert type scales rvere constructecl by us for the six characteristics of bureaucracy. the four characteristics of developmenr orienlation of civil servants, and for measuring the ernployee-orientation of supervisory ofrcers and the intrinsic job satisfaction reported by the respondents. In terms of internal consistency these scales rvere found moderately reliable or more. For the purpose of rating the civil servants,/agencies studied on the above scales, we adopted a three-fold classification plan consisting of a 'high' group, a 'low' group, and between the two a 'middle' or 'moderate' group. The three-fold classification afforded identification of distinctly high groups and distinctly low groups of the respondents 'lvith referencc to a dimension studied, and an examination of the difierences between the tlvo. Having decided to rate the respondents on the scales into three groups, we faced the problem of the basis for making the groups. The total score of a respondent on any one particular scale varied betrveen a certain minimum and a certain rnaximum. Thus the minimum and the maximunr scores on the 4-item Likert type scale on commirment to work ranged frorn 4 to 2c. It was possible to ule the total sbores of the 7n respondents of the study on a scale and formulate high, moderate and 1ow groups on the basis of Q, r"d Q, values or some such cut-off points. This method of classi fication is generally adopted rvhen the groups so formed arc comparecl in terms of certain other variables. The latter variables rvould then become independent variables with the scale becoming the dependent variable. Studies of the relationship betrveen employee job satisfaction on rhe one hand and the personality of the employees on the other'fall in this category.

or rHr Dare to determine in this study the extent

In the present study, we were interested in the bureaucratic characteristics and those of development administration not only from the point of view of their relationship with the background characteristics of rhe civil

26

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

but also from the point of view of the relationship among themselves. We, therefore, adopted a three-fold classification based on the scales themselves. Depending on the score point between which the actual performance of most of the respondents fell, we divided the range of these score points into approximately three equal groups, with the toP group denoting the 'high' category, middle group denoting the 'moderate' category and the lowest group denoting the 'low' category. To illustrate, rve describe below how the respondents were classified on the scale of impersonality, a dimension of bureaucracy. The possible score on the 4-item scale of impersonality ranged between 4 and 2c. The actual score of most of the respondents (gg.g p.r cent) however ranged between 6 and zo. Therefore, for the pu{pose of classif-ving the respondents into three groups of highly impersonal, moderatelv impersonal and poorly (low) impersonal, we treated this scale as consisting of from 6 to eo score points, with the respondents scoring 16 and over classified as forming a group of highs, those scoring between r5 and rr as a group of moderates and those scoring ro and below as a group reporting low level of impersonality. The actual score range for each scale thus considered by us covered tl:'e 729 respondents ranging from gg.r per cent of them in the case of hierarchy of authority scale to roo per cent in the case of manv other scales like commitment to work, citizen participative orientation and rule orientation. The basic approach in the abol'e method of classification has been that those resservants pondents who score more on a scale are higher than those who score less on

that scale. The questionnaire fetched varied information about the attitudes, behavioural dispositions and background characteristics of the sample. The information was, therefore, coded, computer-processed and analysed to yield the various tables and findings. The general pattern follorved l hile n:porting the findings of the studl' is that the basic tables are presented in the form of frequency distribution. All other data are reported in contingency tables. As regards determining the relationship betr'veen the variables. this'r'r'as done by using the chi-square method. For this purpose the respondents $'ere first divided into high, moderate and lorv groups on the tr'velve dimensions. \\re chose to use the chi-souare method because it is a non-oarametric measure of association between any two variables and hence allor'vs for fewest assumptions about the data. For considering the association between any two variables as signifrcant, we decided that the chisquare value should exceed 5 per cent level of significance. Lastly, a point about the interpretation of the data. The respondents of this study are part of the civil ser\.ice system and of the development administration in India. Apart from the question of their representative character. r'e have follorvcd the methodologv of disccrning. the traits or peculiar features of the development administration through the attitudes and responses of these respondents. We have believed that it is the dis-

ilIethodology

of Research

27

covery and interpretation. of these responses that provide us with statements about the characteristics or attributes of the organisational systems in which the respondents n'ork. Besides, we have already noted earlier thc importance of exploring the perceptual world of the civil servants because of its potent influence on their behaviour. In our vierv the absolute behavioural attributes of an organisation do not exist, or if they do at all exisL. there is probably no suitable methodology available to ascertain thern without any bias or contamination. Or is this a challenge before rejsearchers in organisational behaviour?

Profile of Development
Personnel

THs txrnnsst in bureaucratic behaviour in recent years of both the students and practitioners of public administration has inevitably led to intensive efforts to identify the factors that direct and shape the behaviour of civil servants. One group of factors, which has interested researchers for its influence on bureaucratic behaviour, relates to the background characteristics of the civil servants. Questions such as these are often asked: Who are the aivil servants? What are their educational athinments? What is their family background and origin ? Which occupational groups are they drawn from? What happened to them in their 'work-life'? To find ansurers to these questions, a few research studies have been conducted in India in the last decade or more. Illustrative of such work are studies made by R. K. Trivedi and D. N. Rao,1 V. Subramaniam,s V. A. Pai Panandiker3 and C. P. Bhambhri.l In this chapter, we shall attempt a profile of Indian bureaucracy in the developmental spheres. We shall also attempt to compare it lvith its counterparts in othef countries. Admittedly, such comparisons are difficult to make due to difierences in the sample of the civil servants studied, the characteristics considered in their socioeconomic background, and the time of undertaking the studies. The comparative data presented in the following pages, therefore, need to be interpreted rather broadly to arrive at a degree of commonness among civil sen'ants aeross national frontiers. To the extent that similarities in the profile of civil servants from difierent countries are identifi:lble, they could help in the developmenr of a common body of knowledge useful both for building a theory and in the administration of policies and programmes in many counrries. The profile of the respondents of the present study was examined along the dimensions of marital status, rural/urban background. educational attainments, parental occupation, economic class origin, pre-entry experience, year and mode of entry into go'r'ernment service, uprvard mobilit,v, in-service training received, and professional interests. 'I'he findings arc
presented below.

r. Trivedi, R. K. and D. N. Rao. "Highcr Civil Service in India", Joutnal ol the National Acad.emy of Ad,ministration, Yol. 6, No. g, pp.-33-64.
g.
Poliliral Scienrc Reuiew, \'ol. 6r, No. 4. pp. and Motives of Civil Ser-vants", Incliatt 3. Pai Panandiker, V. A.. "Values, Attitudes'oro-toig. Journal ol Public Administratiort, Yo}. re, No. 3, pp. b44-Sb8. 4. Bhambhri, C. P., Bureattcracy antl Politics in India, Delhi, Vikas. r97o.
Subramaniam,

V.,

"Representative Bureaucracy:

Re-assessment", Ant,erican

Profile of Deaelopment Personnel


FrNorNos
AGE

29

A in the Appendix I5 shows, about 7o Per cent of the total respondents of the study are in the age grouP of zr'4o years and the remaining go per cent are above 4o years. If those between 2r-85
As Table

years are classified as 'young', those between 36-45 years as 'middle-aged' and those above 46 as 'old', it is found that about 52 Per cent of the respondents are 'young', 30 Per cent 'middle-aged' and r 8 per cent

'old'. The age distribution of the respondents according of service is given in Table 3.t'
TABTE 3,1

to their class

AGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY CLASS OF SERVICE


Clas of the Responilents
Age Groups
Class

Cldss

(per cett)

(per

II ent)

Clas

III

(per cent)
65

Young (21-3s) vtiddle-aged (r6+:)

23.3
/10.9
35. 8 100.09/o 137)

34.6 32.3
JJ. I

.9

25.4

old

(46)

8.7
100.0%

Toral Class I
Class II
Class III

(N:

(N:

r0o.o%
136)

(N

44e)

Note.' Mean Age:

Whole group

41 . 8 years ,10.9 years 34. I years, and 36.8 years

of the higher civil servants (GS r5-r8) in the U.S. Government that 8e per cent of them are 4b years old and over. Similarly, the higher civil servants in Britain have been found to include about an equally higher proportion of 'old' people.? For comparativ.c purposes, taking Class I civil servants ih the sample to be the higher tivil'servants, Table 3.r shows that out of r37 Class I respondents of the present studv

studyo

shor'vs

5. All basic tables describing the frequency distribution along background characteristics of the respondents are presented in Appendix I. Bi-variate tables are, however, incorporated in the chapter. [Body of the article] 6. Stanley, David T., The Higher Citil Seraice, Washington (DC), Brookings Institution r964, p. .r5. 7. Kelsall, k. K' Higher Ciail Servants in Britain, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, r955. pp. r98-eoo.

30

BUREAUcRAcY AND DEVELoPMENT ADMINISTRATIoN

only about 36 per cent are 'oldr. The higher civil servants at least in the development bureaucracy in India aie thus found to be much younger than those in the u.s.A. and the u.K. An examination of sonre of the other experiences showed that the higher civil servants in devcThe Bergef study, for instance, showed that ,abbui bo per ceni of thc higher civil servants are less than 45 years old. Similaily,'Ahmed's, stricly of the Pakistan ci'ii service shorvs that about the same proportion of higher civil servants in Pakistan are less than 45 years of age. Are there differences in the age of the respondents employed in the four agencies stLrdied? Analysis of the data indicites that the iwo central agencies (with N * er5 and ,r37) \{rere composed somewhat more of iltl, personnel, r,r'hile the tr,r'o Sr.are agencies (rvith N: rog and z6z) were found to be made up of younger people. The mean ug" o'f th" ,"rporrd.rrt,
loping countries, like Egypt and pakistan, arso displayed a similar patrern.

from the two central agencies was {o.g and 3g.6 yea:rs respectiveiy whiie the, mean age of the respondents employed in the ' two st"i" ,"u, "gen.i", 24.6 and 32.5 years respectively. This difference could. hor,r'e'er, be explained by the fact that the lower ler,el civil servants I'r'ho are- relati.r,ely o-b*rg.r in age tyere employed in . a larger proportion in the State agencies.
nuner,/uneaN BAcKGRouND

A point often debated-abour _representative bureaucracies. especially in develoPing democracies, l;ke India, is the adequate representation of rural and urban sub-cultures in the civir services. The ,igrr-"rrt is that the cultural differences betr,r'een the urban and the rural" backgrounds affect significantlv the performance of bureaucracies and the citizeis' resDonsiveness

to

rhem.

the place of birth indicates rural/urban backgrountl. found (T,able B in the Appen<lix I) that nearry 6o per cenr" of rhe respondents of this study came from a rural backgrounrl'wh e onrv zz per cent came from urban and metropolitan b4ckgrounds. However, the data also show that the weight of an urban background increases when the c'iterion_ is the place li'ed in most by the resp-ondents during naol",.""t years. Thus, in contrast to 60 per cent of the respondents boln in rurar areas, only 50 per cent reported to have .actually iived, in ,,r.ul ur"u, ,rp to the age of-rS years. The migration to urban centres l,as probably for the purp_ose- of_ secondary and higher educarion for which the ficilities lverc not available in the rural areas in the past. Nonetheless, that the larger proportion of civil servants in the present sample had a predomirrurr-tiv rural background was importanr in is much as they rvorke'd in rhe agri S. B;g* M;;.;, Bureaut:racy and Society in .Mod,ern Egypt, pnncetoH (New, Jelsey).. Princeton University prers. rg<7, p. 4i. A'med, Muneer, T he Ciuil Siiait ti pahistan, London, Oxford. University 9. Press, 1964, p. 47.

. it

Assuming- that_
r'vas

Profite of Deuelopment

Personnel

31

cultural and field level agencies of the States' Further analysis of thi rural/urban background of the civil servants, . according to the class of service revealed interesting differences as seen in Table 3.2.
T,csr

.1.2

RURAL/URBAN BACKGROUND BY CLASS


Nunber of Resltonfunts
Place stdyed

in

p to tB Yeirs
Class

Class

II

Class

III

\Pff
Rural Scnri-nrban
24

ccnr l

\Yer centl

\per cent)
60
14

.8

34.5,

.4
.3

30. ?
27

28.0
22.8 12.5

Urban Metropolitan

.0

12.2
12.5

16. 8
o .'7

Not Rcpirtcd

2.2
roo.

0.6
1oo. o?b

Torer

100.

0o,ro

07;
136)

(N:137)

(N:

(N

44e)

The table indicates that ' among the higher civil servants, especiall,v in class I, there is a lotver propoftion of those brought up in rural surfoundings and a higher proportion of those rvho have spent their 'impressionable' years in urban tyPe areas. Again, these differences \ rere found to be associated with differences in the levels of education attained by the respondents in the three classes. As rePorted later; the proPortion of highlv educatecl civil servants is much higher among the higher class than among the lorver class civil sertants. Comparative data relating to the rural/urban background of American and British civil sen'ants could not be obrained' However. Berger's'o study noted that the overwhelmingly large Proportion (g7 per cent) of higher civil servants in Egypt had an urban background' Jhe predominantly urban character of the elite in the civil service of

rleveloping countries is also demonstrated by Bhambhri's studv of the Indian Adrninistrative Ser-vice personnel.ll 'Ihis stud,v reported that 77 Per cent of the LA.S. officers came from urban centres of population. Apart from its importance for the rePresentative character of the Indian bureaucracy, the rural/urban background of civil servants may also bc useful for effective implementation of development Programmes in the

ro. Berger, Nlorroe op. cit., p. 42. r r. Bhambhri, C. P., op. cit,, p. 69.

32

BUREAUcRAcy AND DEvnLopMENT ADMINISTRATToN

industrial and agriculture sectors. The findings of the study are presented in Table 3.3.
TABLE

in this

regard

3.3

RURALiURBAN BACKGROUND AND AGENCIES STUDIED


Nunbet Repo*il 0y Agmcies
Places stayed

in up to 18 years

A
Rural
Scmi-urban

Qnd)

B (kd)
(per ctnt)

(Agrfi

D (Agrfl
(pu
cent)

ll,cr ce t)

(per

cnt)

26.l
27

42.2 23.8
11.9

41.6
24.1

73.7

.9

9.5 7,2 8.0


1.6 1oo.o%

Urban Metropolitar;

27 .4

z),+
10

17.2

22.l

.2

Not Reported
ToTAT,

1.4
1oo. oolo

0,7
100.0%

(N

2r5)

{N

r09)

(N: l3z) (N:262)

100.0%

With the exception of Agency D, Table 3.3 indicates that the employees agriculture and industrial development agencies do not difier much in terms of their rural/urban background. The findings of the study about the civil servants in Agency D are encouraging because this agency handles most of the work relating to the agricultural development programme ar the field level. The predominantly rural background of the employees of this agency could thus be a source of strength in its functioning. Similarlv, Agency A deals with development programmes mostly of organized in-

in

dustry so that the urban background of a large proportion of its employees may be helpful in better appreciation of industrial matters.
PARENTAL OCCUPATION

The background of parental occupation of the civil servants is described the Appendix L The most commonly reported family occupational background tvas: government sewice, agriculture, and busi ness. Almost an equal proportion of the respondents have or had their parent either serving in the government, or engaged in agr:iculture, or in business. I contrast, only little over r 2 per cent of the civil senants in the sample belonged to the families of independent professionals and teachers. It is interesting to compare the above findings about the family background of the respondents of the present study with a similar study conducted by Pai Panandiker among civil servants working in a traditional governmental agency rvhich was'sufficiently bureaucratic in its structure'.1?

in Table C in

Profile of Deuelopment

Persomnel

33 sers

Table 9.4 shows the difterence in the family background of the two of civil servants.
TABLE

3.4

PARENTAL OCCUPATION COMPARED


Number Reporting

Fanily Background Prexnt


lper

Study rcnt)
.9

Panmdiker Sndy
(per

unt)

Goyernment Service Agriculturist


Business

27 28

45.0 18.4 25.6


11

.t

27.4 5.7 6.8

ProGssionals Teachers

.0

Others

Not Reported
ToTAL

0.5 3.6
1oo.o%

(N

723)

(N:10e)

100.0%

The study (Table 3.4) clearly indicares thar the developmenal and. non_ developmental or traditional government agencies are sAfied by civil servants d-raw.n frorn varying family backgrounds. Apparenrly rhe children with a family background of government service are more attracted towards established traditional government agencies than towards developmental agencies. Further 3na,lysis -9f the background of the respondents n..-ding to their class yielded the following results,
TABT"E
3.5

PARXNTAL OCCUPATION BY CLASS


Number Reporting Parcntal Occupatiou L
t4JS

Class

lI

(per cenr)

(per cent) 36.0


11 28
11

Government Service Agriculturist


Business

,(per

Class cent)

III

34.3 13.9
23

',?
28

.0
.7

37.6
.3

.4
1

ProGssional

9.5
16.

.0

2.9
3.6

Ieactung

8.1

Other Occupation Not Reported

0.7 2.1

2.2 3.0
100.0%

4.0
100.0%

Torar

loo.o%

137

:l

449

34

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

It is apparent from the above table that while government service is a pronounced feature of the family background of Class I and II reipondents, Class III respondents are more often the sons ol agriculturists. In other words, the higher the class of respondents, the higher the chances of their coming from civil service family backgrounds. Similarly, the families of independent professionals. like doctors, larvyers and teachers, appear ro conffibute more to higher classes than to Class III of the civil service. These results of the present study about the family background of Class I civil servants are comparable to V. Subramaniam's study of the socio-economic class origin of members of all-India services, like LA.S., I.F.S., LP.S. and the Accounts Service.B He found the following pattern of family back. ground of the members of these elite services: government service 32.7 per cent; professionals (doctors, lawyers and the like) r3.8 per cent; business (businessmen and business employees) r 8.9 per cent; agriculturists (land owners and farmers) 13.6 per cent; and other occupations (workers. artisans etc.) 4.'6 per cent. Thus, Class I civil sen,ants in the Government of India appear to have similar socio-economic class origins as the development bureaucracy cor.ered in the present study. Further analysis of the family background of the respondents according to the agencies studied showed the following results:
TABLI 3.6

PARENTAL OCCUPATION RY OFFICES STUDIED


Number Reporting lry Agencies Parental Occupation

A (Ind)
\?er cnlt)

(yr

B (Ind)
cent)

C (Agri)
\lJet Knt) 32.1
22

D (Agri)
(yer rcft) 18.7
50.
8

Government Service Agriculturists


Business Professional Teachers

35.

29

.4

10. 7
30

14.7 38.5

.6

.7

20.6 8.8 8.8


1.1

8.8 8.8

6.4 6.4 0.9

4.2

Others

1.0 4.2

o.7 4.6

Not Reported

Torar

(N:215)

100.0%

(N:

1oo.o%
10e)

100.0olo 1oo. o7o (N: 137) (N:262)

As expected, the results show that there is a higher representation of agricultural families in the agencies dealing rvith agricultural development plogrammes though in varying proportion between headquarters
r3;
Suttramaniam,

Y,, op. cit., pp, roro-rorg

Profile of Deuelo"pment Personnel

and field agencies. Likewise, the business community contributed more personnel to the agencies concerned rvith indusffial development programmes' Table 3.6 also shows that the central agencies include generaliy h"igher proportion of the sons of government servants than thJ state agenlcies (B and D). The forrner have also employed a higher proporrion oi civil servants from the families of independent professionals and teachers, .on the other hand, except in Agency D, the fim ies of governmenr servants to- be similarly represented in the offices studied. Agency D is pre_ lppe.ar dominantly a field agency at the state level. The brunt of ihe work of ihis agency is carried out by class III civil servants who, as noted earlier. come more often from the families of agriculturists than from those of civiL
servants.

There appears to be a common tendency among d.eveloping countries to draw their higher level civil servanrs more often from ihe *families of government servants than from any other single occupational background. Thus Berger's study in Egypt revealed that ibout 4o p., cent oihigher civil servants were sons of government servants.u sd arly, th" pur.oi, of nearly two-thirds of the civil servants in pakistan were found to be in government employment.b In contrast, in a western counry like the U.K., only_ ro per cent of the senior civil se^,ants have parents in the civil
seryice,16 .ECONOMIC CLASS ORIGIN

A background characteristic which is regarded as important in most countries and sociological srudies is the ecoiomic crass oi origin. A-;;; other things. a proper representation in this respect is berieved'to .r"",.-i better appreciation and understanding of the problems of the common people. In the case of the civil service in India the general belief is thai it.is largely manned by people from upper and midlle economic classes. The present study does noi bear o,rt liri, impression. The respondents were alke$ t1 repo,rt the income of the father/guardian at the time ,h-:y their first Job. The replies, as shown in iabli D ot the Appendix !*-k _up that as many us r, indicate 5z per cent of the respondents come from middle rower or rower crass fattriri"i *ith an income'att"p a" Rs. e5o per month. on the other hand, little over r r per cent of the respondents were drawn from upper class families with a monthly t*"_. of Rs. 75r and above. The^data also reveal (Table 3.7), as was expeCred, that a higher propor_ .the . tion of class I civil servants in sample belonged ro rt? u"ir.r'on families, upper and middle class families (26 p"er cent in Cfus I ls _i.e., against about B per cenr each in Class II and litt.
14. Berger, IUor:ro", op. cit., p. 45. 15. Ahmed, Muneer, bp. cit., p. gg. t6. Kelsall, R. K., op. cit., pp. cit.. pp.
r50_ r5 r.

36

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT


TABLE

3.7

ECONOMIC CLASS ORIGIN BY CLASS OF SERVICE


Number Reporting

Patental Clais Rep orted

Class

Class

II

Clws

lII

(per cmt)

(per ccnt)

(pet cent)

Upper
Upper-middle

8.8 17.6
JJ.O

1.5
46 .3

2.7 5.0
24.9 35.8
25

Middle Middlc-lower Lower

25.5
10. 9

24.3
16

.9

.6

Not

Repr..,rted

3.6

6.0

Torer,

(N:

r.0o.o%
137)

(N:

100.o%
136)

1oo.o%

(N

44e)

LEVELS OF EDUCATION

Of the various background characteristics, the level of education attained is regarded as a crucial variable. In this study, it was found that nearly bo per cent of the respondents dict not have a university degree (Table E of the Appendix I). Even so, the developmental agencies appear to have a somewhat higher proportion of university graduates than the traditional agencies. The Pai Panandiker study referred to earlier reported that 64 per cent of the resPondents did not have anJr university education and that only 86 per cent rvere university educated.u The results of the present study also show that almost 20 per cent of the respondents possessed post-graduate degrees, suggesting a generally higher educational level among the members of the developmental agencies. Where did the respondents receive their university education ? 'I'he data indicates that five per cent of the respondents had studicd in foreign universities. It is also interesting to note that about r3 per cent of the respondents reported to have attained the highest level of their education since joining service. These results suggest that advancement in the civil service depends at least partially on the educational attainments. That it is so is also demonstrated by Table 3.8 about the levels of education of the respondents of this study according to their class. The table shows that the bulk of Class III civil servants have completed high school or have had some college education. In contrast, only about two per cent of Class I respondents have been educated to the level of the intermediate or lower. On the other hand, the proportion of uni versity educated civil $ervants is found to be higher among the higher classes. Thus, among Class I respondents g r per cent had Bachelor's and

Profile of Deaelopment Personnel


Tesle 3.8
LEVELS OF EDUCATION BY CLASS
Number Reporting Lerels of Ed.ucation
Class

37

Class

II

(per cent)

(per cent)

Class Qtet cent)

III

High

Schoc I

1.5

14.7

60.6

Int.-rrnediate arrd equivaletrt

o.7
tr.

6.0
11 .8

Diplorla
Bachelor's degree Master's degrcc

1.5
24.3

42.3
39.3

42.7
30.

7.6

Doctoratc

9.0

0.7

Not reported
1oo.o% 100.0%

loo.o%

higher degrees; in fact over 48 Per cent held post-graduate. degrees' It is, hJwever, significant that about one-rhird of the Class III civil servants in the sample were graduates and ,Post-graduates' How do the Ciass I civil servants in the study comPare with their counterparts in other countries in regard to their educational attainments? In the sample of the U.S. civil sewants studied by Stanley,ts 96 per cent had -or advanced degrees. Similarly, qo Per cent of the higher. civil Bachelor's servants in Egypt are retorted to have attained Bachelor's and higher levels of univeriity education.l'g Ahmed's'z' study also shows that a vast majoriry of the higher civil servanrs in Pakistan similarly possessed higher degrees. In other words, the higher civil servants in developed as well as developing countries, aPpear.to be generally a highly educated grouP' -. -also analysed the edricational levels of the respondents according We to the agencies employing them. The results are described in Table 3'9' The level of edulation attained by the civil servants in Central agencies (A and C) is thus often higher than that of the civil servants working in State agencies (B and D). The data also show that the resPondents concerned r,vitli agricultural developrnent programmes at the freld level have often less formal education than their counterParts in the Secretariat. While 3 t per cent of the respondents drawn from Agency D, which is a block deveiopme.tt office, were universitv educated, the proportion of university edu' cated among the respondents of Agency C, which is the secretariat type, was found to be as high as 79 Per cent. r8. Stanley, David T., op. cit., P. 3rl. r9. Berger, Morroe, op, cit., p. 43. eo. Ahmed, Muneer, op. cit., pp.47'48,

38

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPI,fENT ADMINISTRATION

TA3IE

.9

EDI,-}CATIONAL ATTAINMENTS BY AGENCIES STUDIXD


Number Reporting by Apencie s Leuek of Education ,4tnined

\per

,A$nd). B(Ind) rct ) Qer rut)


39. 4

c(Agri)
(per rcnt1
16. 8

\!er

P (asri) caflt
)

High School
Diploma/some college education

i1.l
60.
5

64.1

Univeniry Degree

Not Reported
Tor,ri-

.0 48.6
12

4.4
78.8

5.0
30.9

0.9
100.0%

--'-7i100.0%

(N :215)

(N

100.0.,/o

100.00_/o

10e)

(N

137)

(N

262)

We also enquired into_.the major academic fields of the respondents. ^. since some klnd 9f specialization is possible at the degree level and above, we. considered only the university educated responde"nts for this prtpor". Table ro presented below shows that over 4 i p"r cent of the gradiuatc -9. respondents studied social sciences for their university degree. bn th" other hand, technical or appried fields, like agriculture ani engineering accounted Jor 3b per cenr of the university etrucated respondeni und zZ per cent of the respondents are found to be graduates in pure sciences.
TA-BIE 3.

l0

SUBJECTS STUDIED
Subjeas Sndied

AT UNIVERSITY LXVEL
Nunber Reporting
\per cent)

Agriculrure and allied subjects Physics, Chemistry, Geology, and Mathematics


Engineering Social Sciencis

21

.8

22.3

t3.l
41

.4

Other Fields of Study

0.9
u.

Not Reported
Torar,

100.0% (N:367)2r

The high percenrage of graduates in scientific and technical subiects in the sample of the civil servants studied is explained by the fact t"hat the nature of the functions of the four agencies st,.t-d i"d was ionsiderably specialized. rn contrast, the Pai Panandik& study of the civil servanrs in'a iradi tional governmental agency found that 68 per cent of the respondents who
d.ents were matriculates, diploma holders

er. Out of

7e3 respondents, 367 had university educarion. RemaininE qa6 re.non_ or had limited collese educaii;;

Profile of Deuelopment Persomnel

39

were university educated .studied humanities and social sciences, while only 3z per cent lvere graduates in science subjec.ts.n
MARITAL STATUS

As shown in Table 3. r r. in spite of the relatively young age of the average respondent of the present study only about g per cent of the civil servants in the sample are unmarried or single and as many as 91 Per cent are married. This does not however mean, unlike the normal observations in a Western country, that the former class of our respondents do not have any dependency responsibilities. Thus, among the 6e unmarried respondents 56.5 per cent are reported to be looking after the livelihood of one or more relatives. As against this, only 2 per cent of the married respondents do

not have responsibility for any dependents which probably means that they are widowers with theit children living life on their own or that their rvives are ehr4ing independently. The manied civil servants in the study are most commonly reported

to have 3 to 4 persons dependent on them. This implies, besides the wife, z to 3 children, assuming that no other relative is dependent on the resas noted above, a doubtful assumption in Indian conditions. pondents Nevertheless, these facts indicate that at least until the present time the message of family planning is 'rvell received among the government
servants.
TABLE

3.ll

MARITAL STATUS OF RESPONDENTS


Marital
Status lDe pendency

Responsibility

Number

per cent

Single No depcndents
1-2 dependents 3-4 depcndents
4

or more depcndents
(8. 5o/o)

27 18 11 6

43.6 29.0
17

.7

Torar single Married

62- @

9.7

No dependents
1-2 dependents

3-4 dependents
4

or mote dcpendents
o/o)

Torar married'(ol

15 97 285 262 6ss

2.2
14.7 43.3 39.8

100,0%-

Not Reported
GnlNo Torar

(0.

5,od)

40
PRIOR EXPERIENCE

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

entered government service, the idea rvas to find out the extent to which civil service is desired as the sole career. This was also mednt to determine the open character of the service. The study found. that 6z per cent of the respondents entered government service without previous work experience. It is noted later that 80 per cent of the respondents of this study joined the government sewice inltially in clasi III with very little or no previous experience. It follows, therefore, that the bulk of thi respondents who had previous experience joined government service at class i and II
levels.

In trying to ascertain the work experience of the respondents before they

we have so far described the social background of the respondents. In the remaining part of this chapter rve shali deal with the profile of thc respondents closer to their life as government emplovees.
LENGTH OF SERVICE

. As suggested in Table F of the Appendix I, the bulk of the respondenrs (72 pet cglt) joined governmnt_service during the plan periods beginning rgbGbr. This indicates that developmenr bureiucra.y io inaiu grerv"mainlo under the aegis of the Five year Plans and did not involve mirch transfer of personnel from other areas. Further analysis showed that the responclents had put in an average of r 3.8 years of service with the govemment. Earlier ii rvas notetr thai the average age of the respondenrs was 36.g years. This implies roughly rhar the average respondent entered government service at th. .g. of-e3. fh. recruitment thus appears to be made largely on the " princiile of 'catch 'em yyoung'. As regards the mode of entry,- it was found (Table G of the Appendix I) that.little over bo per cen_t of the respondenti were recruited trirougtr the employment exchange and an intervilw. Another mode of entry reiortecl by the second largest group of respondents (3o per cent) is direct recruir ment through an open advertisement and lnterview 6y the concerned office. On the other hand. r-i, per cent of rhe responclenis came irrt;;; government service as a result of recruitmenr by open comperitive cxamination of the union Pubric Service commission (upsc) or'the singlc o.ur interview by the Commision. That a small proporrion of the respSrrdenis were puLfic service commision is -recruited by the upsc or the State by the fact that the bulk of them entered government service :"pl"il.4 the lower initially in class of service to which the upsd or the State psc does not recruit. The results arso show that the development ug"rai"-, studied gnjoyed considerable autoriorny in the matter of recruitment of personnel. According to data, as at presenr, little over half of, the respondents of this study are^ permanent employees in government service, 13 p", cent are quasi-permanent and the remaining 27 pr cent enjoy a tempo_ "iorrt

Profile of Deuelopment

Personnel

4l

rary status. This distribution of the respondents according to their employ. ment s(atus gives an idea of the stability of the development programmes handled by the agencies and also of the recruitment policies of the government
CLASS INITIALLY .JOINED

The study showed that nearly 8r per cent of the respondents joined government service initially in Class III and only little over r 3 per cent in Class I and II (Table H of Appendix I). It is also noted that q.z pei cent of the civil sewants in the sample initially joined in Ciass IV service. When the data relating to the present class composition of the respondents rvas juxtaposed with the class initially joined in by them, the follorving distribution pattern emerged (Table 3.re).
TABLE 3.

l2

CLASS INITIALLY IOINED BY THE CLASS

AT ?RESENT
Class at Prasent

Class Initi ally -l oined

Closs

Cla.s,r

llter ctnt)

(pu

II cent)

Class

III

(per cent)

Class I
Class II

28.5 27.7
32 .1

14.7

Clas iII
Class

83.i
2.2

.94 0
5.1

IV
11

Not Reported

.7

0.9

TorAr

t00. olo l oo. ooo 100.0",, (N: 137) (N: 136) (N:44e)

from Table q.12 that the initial intake of personnel in the civil service is predominantly at Class III level. Nearly 69 per cent of the respondents now in Class I and 83 per cnt of respondents nor,v in Class II got there as a result of promotion from lower positions. The respondents have thus reported fairly high inter-class mobility rvhich again is the result of the career staffing system in vogue in the government. 'I'he results also imply that the development agencies studied started rvith traditional class composition and that the bias in favour of higher class has come in as a result of quick movement from the lolver classes.
UPWARD MOBILITY

It is evident

The question arising from the inter-class mobility of .the responclents is how far has each of them advanced in the service in the government. As Table I of the Appendix I shorvs, g4.4 per cent of the respondents havs

A'

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPN{ENT ADMINISTRATION

not had any promotion since joining. About the same proportion of the civil servants in the sample reported to have received two or more pro. motions. Nearly 3o per cent were found to have been promoted once. Among the civil sewants who have been promoted once or more times, it was found that on an average they have advanced r.8 positions in t7.8 years. These respondents have thus received one promotion in about g] years on an average. In comparison, the higher level civil servants in the U.S are reported to have advanced 6.3 grades in zo years or about one grade in every 3 years.s3 The rate of progression in the civil service in India is thus relatil'ely slow. These data must be seen against the fact that in the U.S., the civil service grades are r8 as against only four in India. Further analysis of the upward mobility of the respondents aicording to their class at present revealed, as shown in Table 3.r2, that Class I res.

dents have had least advancement opportunities (r.6o on an aver:age). If it is assumed that the civil servants in the higher class have joined government service earlier than those in the lower class, the results imply that the opportunities for upward mobility in government service have declined over a number of years. Alternatively, if longer service accounts for more promotions, it may be because seniority is given higher premium in promotions in government service.
IABIE 3.13

pondents have enjoyed more promotional opportunities (2.4r on an average) than Class II respondents (2.2r on an average). while Class III respon-

UPWARD MOBILITY BY CLASS AT PRESENT


Nrmber Reportitrg
Numbcr
oJ

Pronotiotts

Class

(per

I cent)

Class

(per

II cent)
.4
1 1

Class

III

(per cent)
43

Nil
Onc

24.8

18

.9

23.4
l/.) 16. I

19.

35.0
14.7

Two
I hree

36.
17

.6

Four Over four

14.6

2.9

1.5

Not Rcportcd

0.7

o,2 0.4
100.

Torar

(N:

100. oo/o 137)

100.0";

As regards the agencies studied, it rvas found that except for the State level Agency D, dealing with agricultural development programmes in the field, the other three ageircies have offered more or less equal number of

:3.

Stanley, David

T., op. cit., p.

81.

Pro,file of Det-telopment

Personnel

43

promotional opportunities to an average civil servant employed by them. Agency D also had the largest percentage of non-Promotees (57 per cent) compared to those in the other three (t6-26 per cent).
IN.SERVICE TRAINING

question of special interest to students and practitioners of public administration is the formal tlaining of the civil servants. The amount of formal training received by the civil servants in the sample of the present study is shown in Table J of the Appendix I. The study found that as many as 68 per cent of the respondents have not been exposed to any formal training during their service in the government. Only 16.5 per cent of the respondents appear to havc received a reasonable amount of formal training, i.e.-, for a period of over three months. The remaining 15.g per cent were trained for periods lasting onlv up to three months. As regards the type of training, the data shorved that nearlv 49 per cent of the e3z trained respondents had received training in agriculture in2Z per cent l\:ere trained cluding training in extension and cooperation and executive skills; r 2.5 per cent in technical l'ork; and in managerial 18.5 per cent in secretarial work. In other rvords, formal training as a deliberate policy and managerial instrument appears to have been more systematically used in agricultural programmcs than in others including the industrial ones. The question r.ttrether the civil servants in the three classes differed in terms of formal training received was also examined. The results are described in Table 3.r4.

Tenu

3. 14

FORMAL TRAINING RECEIVED BY CLASS AT PRESENT Nunb*


Length of Ttaining
Class
Receiu

ing Training
Class (yer cent)

(per

I cent)

Class (per

II rcnt)

III

Nil
Up tc 3 months
6-12

63.5

62 -5

71.2
1,4.2

t4.6
.0

19.8
10.
3

t.l

).t

2.2
3.7

3.3 3.8 0.4

Over 2 vears

(N:137)

loo.09;

(N:

100.09/o 100.07; 136) (N:44e)

44

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

3. 14 shnrvs, the bulk of the civil servanrs in all the three were not exposed to any formal training. Nor does the length of training received appear to vary according to the class of service. Further analysis showed that among the trained Class I respondents, the amounr of formal training received \t'as on an average 5.8 months and that among the trained Class II respondents, it was 5.2 months. The figure for Class III respondents was also about the same months to be precise. These - 5] results suggest that most of . the formal training is imparted to the civil servants in the earlier years of their service in the government. The study also found that the civil servants handling agricultural development programmes are more often formally trained than those handling industrial development programmes. While 4o per cent of the civil servant respondents working in the field of agricultural development were found to be formally trained, the number of trained civil servants in the industrial development programmes was onlv 2l per cent. However, the extent of such training amongst the trained respondents is found to be highly comparable indicating that the training efiorts of both these agencies are thinly spread. It appears that the major focus of such training is to bridge gaps in the knowledge of the trainees for efficient performance of their immediate work assignment than to prepare them for a range of activities.

As Table

classes

I'ROFI'SSIONAL INTERESTS

Lastly, the respondents were asked about their professional interests because such interests indicate their receptivity to new thoughts and norms of behaviour in the profession. The professional examinations passed, their reading habits and membership of professional bodies gave us a rough measure of the respondents' professional interests.and perhaps
developmen t.

It ryas found that go per cent of the civil servants in the sample studied had not taken up anv professional studies and examinations. The remaining ro per cent had passed such cxaminations either before or after joining the sewice; some reporled to bc preparine for them. Almost 68 per cent of the respondents neither read any professional journals nor are they members of any professional associat:ons. The remaining 32 per cent reported to be doing one of the two or both: reading professional journals and holding membership of professional societies (Table K of Appendix I). When, however; the professional interests of the respondents were analysed according to the class of service. :nter-esting differences were noticed as shown in Table 3.r5 belolv. The results in the table are encouraging for they show that higher level civil servants show professional interests more often than lower level civil servants. Again it was found that a highcr prbportion of respondents in the State level agencies (B and D) do not have the professional interests of the type considered in this study as compared r'vith the respondents in Central agencies (A and C). About 8r per cent of rhe respondeuts in the State

Profile of Deuelopment Personnel


TABrE 3.15

n<

PROFESSIONAL INTERXSTS

BY CLASS AT PRXSENT
Numbet Reportitg

Ty1:es Professional Interests Con sidtretl

Class

Class

(pet cent) Read proGssional joumals

(per

II cent)

Class

III

(pu cat) 6.9 6.2


2.2
84.7

only

36.5

25.0

Member of professional societies only Read ptofessional journals and member

).1
34.3
24.

6.6
13

of professional societies
Neither read orofessional iournals nor rnembcr of anv professioial associ:rtion

.2 .2

55

Torar

100.0% 100.0% 100.0o/o (N: 137) (N: 116) (N - 44e)

did not read any professional jourrrals nor were they members of professional associations as against 39 per cent in the Central apiencies. It was noticed that difierence in orofessional interests varied more according to whether they were rvorking in Central or State agencies than according to the development sectors in which the agencies r{ere engaged.
agencies

Suuu.lnv
servants

AND PRoFTLE

oF

DEVELopMENT PERsoNNEL

We have described the demographic characteristics of the 7e3 civil in the sample. These civil servants served in four different Government agencies engaged in carrying out development Programmes in the fields of agriculture and industry. Based on the modal frequencies, the
following profile of developmental personnel emerges from the study. Civil servants in India engaged in developmental activities appear to tle generally younger than those doing traditional functions. In this respect they come closer to the newer bureaucracies, such as those of Egypt and
.

Pakistan.

Unlike the Egyptian bureaucr-acy, howevcr, developmental personnel in Indian Governments are more often 11131 6o per cent on the criterion of the place of birth and 5o per cent on the criterion of the place lil'ed in during adolescent years. The study nevertheless shows that the higher class civil servants have more often ,an urban and metropolitan background than the lor,ver class civil servants. It is also found that the civil servants rvith an urban and metropolitan background preponderate in the industrial development programmes while in the agricultural development programmes the preponderence is of those with rural background. In so far as parental occupational background is concerned, rvhen compared with the traditional sectors of the civil service, the development civil servants seem generally more representative of various national groupings.

46
Comparisons
also suggest that the

BUREAUcRACY AND DEVELoPMENT ADMINIsTRATIoN

service in this respect distribution of Indian development bureaucracy among different occupational backgrounds is more even. The Egyptian and Pakistani bureaucracies are somewhat more inclined to reproduce themselves. The study however shows that the higher the class of the development civil servant in India, the greater the chance of his coming from the civil service family background, and conversely the lor,ver the class the greater the chance of his backqround being that of an agricultural family. The studv found that the rcsponclenrs have largely entered the higher class bv mcans of promotions from the lolvcr class. This implies that the representation of difierent occupational backgrounds in the civil service is a more

with the Egyptian and Pakistani civil

recent phenomenon.

An important finding of the studv is that the development bureaucracy in India is not dominated by the upper and upper-middle economic classes of the soc;ety, rvhich is the general pattern in many bureaucracies in both de'r'eloped and developing countr-ics. To that extent again the 'reprcsentative' character of the de'r'elopment bureaucracy in India seems greater. It is also seen rhrr doelopmcnral personnei have attained hi[her levels of education than their counterparr lvorking in traditional functional areas. As expected, the higher level civil ser\.ants ctrme with a higher educational attainment than the lorvcr level civil servants. In this respect, the higher class civil servants in India are comparable n'ith the higher civil servants in developed as well as developing countries. The study also demonstrated that the Central Government agencies attract better educated personnel than the State Government agencies. As regards the academic disciplines studied at the university level, the social sciences seem to dominate even in the development spheres, albcit to a lesser extent than in traditional spheres of Governmcnr act ivities. The study shows that the Indian civil Service in developmental spheres operates under a closed career system much like the civil service in traditional spheres. This is in spite of the fact that a larger proportion of the respondents in the sample of the study are reported to have been recruited directly by concerned agencies. To the extent that fresh blood is inducted 'into the developmental agencies, it is done most often at the Class I
level, probably because they had specific rvork experience gained elsewhere which was found to have direct relevance for their assignment. The rate of progression in the service is g.5 years on in average among the development personnel which is expected to be shorter than that among the civil servants serving in ffaditional areas of governmental operations. Hbwever, it is difficult to reconcile the poor rate of promotions with the e*.cessive reliance on lower level personnel for manning higher level posi tions, which is implied by the closed career system. Among other things, this implies that the development bureaucracy thinks more or less on traditional lines about filling up the hierarchies in the organization and thar theie are too many civil servants competing for a limited number of promo. tional opportunities. Overstaffing and inadequate filling of hierarchies could be some of the important causes for this phenonenon.

Profile ol Development

Personnel

4'1

From a practical standpoint, an important finding about the develop*"rrt p.rroirnel is that the level of their formal training is highly inadequate. In fact the majority of the respondents are found to have received rio training at all. What is more, the modest amount of formal training a small prJportion of civil servants go through, aPpears to come their way onlv in the initial years of their career. To tt, the above findings were rather unexpected' Many a respondent joined in the service of the agenqies studied at a relatively youn8 age at which they did not have, or had very little previous work experience. Furthermore, the agencies studied are engaged in development Programmes that most probably called for nelv skills and outlook on the Part o{ theit employees. It was expected, therefore, that the formal training of the em' ployees would be a more prominent featur reported by these offices' Howiu.i, io the absence of it, on-the-job training assumes great imPortance in

ttil#:tlTf,

throwing up information about their demographic cornposition, studies of profiles of civil servants as noted at. the beginning of the chapter, do not in themselves lead to any significant conclusions unless their relationship with certain behavioural Pattelns are established. In the later chapterl We shall examine if and in what manner the backgrouno characteristics of development buleaucracy are associated rvith their job
orientations.

Bureaucratic Characteristics of Development Administration

THn rnnonr:,rrcar formulations about bureaucracy as a form of organisation have been revierved in Chapter I. In the present study we have examined the parameters of bureaucratic theory further to find out the extent to rvhich it applies to the civil service system in the development spheres in India. As stated earlier, in this exercise we have concentrated on the six key characteristics of bureaucracy, viz., hierarchy, division of labour, system of rules, impersonality, rationality, and rule-orientation. Our results are discussed in this chapter.

Pnonrtrt ron Stunv


The first three characteristics rve took as relating essentially to the structure of organisations since thev formed the foundation, and the other three as basically the behavioural characteristics of bureaucracy involving decisional and operational situations. In this study, we have assumed thal bureaucracy is an organisational condition that exists along a continuum and that it is not a condition that is cither present or absent.t Our problem here was to ascerrain r he cxrcnr to rrhich development administiation is charactcrized by burcaucratic qualitics. Morc specificallv. l-c examined the following nvo hypotheses leading towards it.

(a) The civil service in India is highly 'bureaucratic' indicating that all the characteristics of bureaucracy are present in it to a high degree and in comparable proportion; (b) Since bureaucratic characteristics are inherently related .ro each other, the civil service in Inclia is uniformly bureaucratic along
structural and behavioural dimensions.

cratic Model', Administratiae Science Quarterly, Vol. VII, No. 3 (i962-63), pp. :g5-3og. e. Merton, Robert K., Social Theory and Social Struitutre, New york, -Th6- free
Press, 1968,

The first hypothesis is based on the r,videly held characterizarion of the Indian civil service as 'bureaucratic'. Most often, 'brreaucratic' means adherence to a plethora of rules and regulations, to formalization and to standardized ffeatment of cases. Robert Merton calls these very features of a formal organisation system as bureaucratic.s Accepting the general characterization, we hypothesized that the Indian civil service is highly r, H{I,- R. H., 'Intraorganizatio)ral Structuml Variations: Application of Bureaupp.
e49-e6o.

Bureaucratic Characteristics of Deaelobment Administration

49

bureaucratic along all the dimensions considered in the study. Writers on the subject are generally more in agreement about the structural characteristics and much less agreed on the behavioural characteristics of bureaucracy. Even so, bureaucratic organisation continues to be often described in terms of the characteristics postulated in the classical theory. The theoretical formulation thus conforms largely with the ideal type of Weber. It includes both structural and behavioural characteristics. Both these characteristics are integral pafts of Weberian bureaucracy. In fact they are components of the very definition of bureaucracy. What is more, at least theoretically, the two are assumed to co-exist in a comparable degree. It follows that as a group the structural characteristics of a particular bureaucracy should compare lvith the behavioural characteristics of it as a group. This is the basis of the second hypothesis. If the,civil service in India is highly bureaucratic on the structural dimension, then, in accordance with the postulates of the theory, it should also be highly bureaucratic on the behal'ioural dimension. Besides examining thc above hypotheses, the study also explored the relationship of certain factors in the personal and organisational life of the civil servants, .lvith the degree of bureaucratization reported by them.
FrNorNcs
OVERALL
NA-I'|

IRE OF

BI IR EAUCRATIZATION

As already mentioned we used l.ikert typc scales for scoring, 'r'r'i th each scale dichotomizcd at thc mean score and respondents marked 'hieh' and 'low' according to the scoring above or belorv the mean. 'I-he results of our examination of the responses of the 723 members to test the overall character of the Indian civil sen'ice in terms of its 'bureaucratic' nature are presented in the following table.
TasrE 4.1
SCORES

ON BUREATJCRATIC CHARACTIRISTICS

(N:723)
.

Ratings of Respondents

Bure au1 atic C h ar a c t e ri s t i r s

High (yer cent) r


59.8

Low

(pet cent)
40.2

Structural:
Hierarchy Division of Labour System of Rules 68.6 52.8 31.4 47 .2 26.7 45.5
34. 8

Behavioural:
Impersonality Rationality Rule-orientation
54.5 65.2

50

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPN{I,NT ADMINISTRATION

Studying the bureaucratic characteristics along the structural and behavioural dimensions we found that on the structural side, the two characteristics of hierarchy and division of labour were substantially supported. However, on the third, i.e., the system of rules, the score of the respondents was not as high as anticipated. A sizeable proportion of the respondents (little over 47 per cent) reported that their jobs were not so highly codified that they could be reduced to a mere application of prescribed rules and procedures. One explanation of this could be that most of the development agencies were new and their internal system of rules had not yet reached the rigid levels that the older and traditional agencies had. The findings on the structural characteristics suggest that there \4'as sharp differentiation betr'veen the levels and in the functions of officers and their subordinates. 'l'hus, the process of bureaucratization in the sense of the various characteristics of the bure.aucratic slructure seems to have generally 'arrived' in the development agencies of the government at the State as rrell as the Central levels. The findings on the behavioural dimensions, horvever, suggest important variations. lVhile the score on 'impersonality' lvas quite high, on both 'rationality' and 'rule-orientation' the scores were perceptibly low. The degree of adaptation of rules suggested by the findings, suggest that the process of bureaucratization in the development agencies with respect to behavioural characteristics is indicative of a different trend; that a pronounced structural feature of a 'r'l'ell-organized system of rules is not necessarily followed by a behavioural pattern of rule-orientation. When classifying the scores into 'high' and 'low' we did recognise that this kind of two-way classification is rather global and that the high and the lolv groups may not contain really high or really low cases respectively. Undoubtcdly further analysis rcquired that we identify more sharply differentiated groups of the respondents in terms of their bureaucratic dispositions or environment. To meet this, rve adopted a three'fold classification plan described later in this chapter. The three-way classification as presented in Table 4.2 gives further details on the performance on the scales. Thus, the first hypothesis that the civil service in India is highly bure aucratic uniformly over all dimensions is not entirely borne out. The proportion of respondents scoring high in a three-way classification varies from about 34 per cent in the case of the rationality dimension to about r3 per cent in the case of the hierarchy of authority dimension. Similarly, one-third of the respondents were found highly impersonal in their dealings with citizen clientelc. On the other hand, it r.vas found that contrary to popular belief, only about rB per cent of the respondents are highly rule-oriented. A little less than a quarter of the respondents are rated low on the hierarchv of authoritv and tule-orientation charactcrist ics. On the other hand, only r8 to rz per cent of the respondents are found to score lolv on the other four dimensions studied. The majority of the respondents ranging from 35 to 7r per cent falling in the moderate group indicates

Bureaucratic Characteristics ol Deaelopment Administration


'l
SCORES
ARLE

51

4.2

ON BUREAUCRATIC CHARACTERISTICS

(N:723)
.

llatings of Re sp o nde nt s

Btr e au cr atic C h ar act er i

t ic

s C onside

re

High (yer cent)

(yer

Moderate Low cent) (yer cent)


63

Structural:
Hierarchy of Authority Division of Labour
Systems of Rules

12.8
16 14

.6

23

.6

.9
.6

OI.L

t5 .9 14.8

.-

70.6

Behavioural:
Impcrsonality
33.3
33 .6

54.7
48

t2.o
18

Ratiolality
Rulc-crientation

.2

.2

17.8

59.3

22.9

bureaucratization to a moderate degree in development administration. The study shorvs important variations in respect of behavioural characteristics of bureaucracy applied to Indian conditions. By rvay of a broad statement, therefol:e, it could be said that so far as the civil service engaged in developmental functions is concerned, it is not 'very' highly bureaucratic; th;t the modal dbgree of its adaPtation to bureaucratic forrn of organisation is moderate, and that rvithin it there are important - differences in its adaptation along individual dimensions r'vhich are further examined in the second hypothesis. In order to test the second hyPothesis regarding the Pattern of bureaucratization. in the Indian civil - serl'ice \'\'e adopted a diflerent procedure. The items in the questionnaire relating to the structural characteristics of bureaucracy were pooled together and considered as a syndrome of bureaucratic structure. In the samc way, the items in the scales of bchavioural char,acteristics of bureaucracy were taken together to form a syndrome of bureaucratic behaviour. The responses of each respondent to the items thus put together in a composite scale were added up to yield a _single rcor. or that scale. The division of the respondents into high, moderate, and. lotv groups along the two scales of bureaucratic structure and behaviour was .nrad; again in the same rvay as in the case of individual dimensions' since we sought to identify the patterns of bureaucratization along structural and behavioural dimensions, the data $'ere tabulated separately in terms of the four agencies studied. The results of this analysis are shorvn in Figure r. Thi figure shows the grouping of the respondents from each agency into high, moderate and low gl-ouPs seParately on both dimensions of bureaucritic structure and behavipur. Since our hypothesis states that the civil

HiCh
Agency A

(N:2r5)

Moderate

Low

High
Agency B

(N= l0e)

Moderate

Low

High
Moderate Agency C

High

(N:r37)
Low

Moderate

Low

High
Agency D

(N=

262)

Moderate

Low

Percent ofrespondents

Percent ofrespondents

100 80 60

40

20

00

00

'

20

t! E,

40

60

80

t00

Bureaucratic Structure

Bureaucratic Behaviour

Fig.

l:

&rrearcrad*iorii;l cr&ilc *ud,idd

Bureaucratic Characteristics of Development


service

Ad,ministrati'on

53

uniformlr burcaucratic along structural and behavioural dimensions if it has a certain level of bureaucratic structure, it should also show a similar level of bureaucratic behaviour. Figure r shorvs the proportion of the emplovees of each aqency scoring high, modcrate, and

in India

is

low on bureaucratic structure on the one hand. and bureaucratic behaviour on the other. For the purposes of comparison, we have considered onlv the high and the lorv groups. The rnoderate grouPs we thought may distort the comparison. Besides the extremes are also likely to bring out the diflerences more sharply. Considering first the 'hiqhs' on thc scale of bureaucratic slructure. r're find that Agency B ranks highest in terms of the proportion of its employees in the sample scoring high on this dimension, follorved by A, D, and C in that order. If our hypothesis holds, Agency B should also have the highest proportion of highly bureatrcratic employres in the behavioural sense, follorved by Agencies A, D and C, again in that order. Actually, holvever, the proportion of respondents scoring highest on the bureaucratic behaviour scale is maximum in Agency A. Agency D reports the next lower proportion of employees performing high on bureaucratic behaviour, followed by Agency C. These discrepancies in the rankings of agencies studied suggest that there is no necessary correspondence befiveen the level of bureaucratic structure attained in the Indian civil service and the level of bureaucratic behaviour it shows. Similat discrcpancies are noticed if rve compare the agencies in terms of the proportion of their employees scoring'Iow'on the two dimensions. These results imply that the same forces may not be operating or even when they do, in operation they mav not affect the levels of bureaucratic structure and behaviour in the same rvay. The second hypothesis, therefore, does not hold, at Ieast as far as the present data goes.
FURTHER ANALYSIS OF BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE

&

SEUET'TOUN

at different 'burcaucratic' levels since the Process of

From the above data

it

appears that different Government agencies are

'bureaucratization'

(in the technical sense) is influenced by a number of factors which may not operate in the same nay in all situations. We, therefore, attempted to analyze these factors. In the first place, rl'e examined the relationship

befiveen certain organizational characteristics of the agencies studied on the one hand and the degree of their bureaucratizatiotr on the other. For this purpose, however, the performance of the respondents on each of the six characteristics of bureaucracy was considered separately
Deuelob
me n

The study included tr'r'o Govcrnmenl offices concerned with development programmes in the field of industry and two offices which handled agri cultural development programmes. When the data was analyzed separately for the tr,r'o development sectors, it yielded the following results. As Table 4.3 indicates, the development sector in which the civil servants

Sector

54

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

function, viz., agriculture and industry in the present study, noticeably account for differences in the degree of bureaucratization of the offices dealing r,vith them. The study shor'vs that the agriculture sector is more hierarchically organizcd than the industry sector, indicating a great degree of stratification. Thus about 8o per cent of the rcsponrlcnts from the two agriculture agencies report high io moderatc clegree of hierarchy of authority in their offices compared to 73 pcr ccnt of the rcspondents frorn the industrial agencies reporting highly and moderately hierarchical organi zation in their offrces. 'I'hese differences ,are also statistically significant (chi-square _ r 8.6; df : zl significant at .or level). In terms of the system of rules, holvever, the study shows agricultural development seitor to be less bureaucratic than the industrial develobment ;ector. Thus about r o per cent of the sub-sample of respondents serving in the forrner have scored high on system of rules scale while rg.3 per cent of them scorc lorv on it.
Tasr s 4.3

BURXAUCRATIZATION PROCESS & DEVELO?MENT SECTORS


Dcgree of Bureaucratization Reported.

chiDinensioxs ofBureaucratization squsre


values

Agriculture Sector

(N:

Industry Sector

3ee)

(N:324)
Low a/
/o

High Moderate 01 /o a/ /o
69.4

High

Moderate Low

%
16.2 19.4

o/ /o

ol

/o'

Hierarc\ of Authority
Division of Labour
Systcrn

of

Rule

Impersonality Rationality Rule-orientation

13.6x* 10. 1 3.8* 14.9 77.3** 9.6 31 .6** 25 .3 2.7* 35.8 0.1* 18. 1

67.6
71.1 59.4

48.8
59.4

20.5 17 .5 19.3 1s. 3 15 .4 22.5

20.6
43

.5

32.0
17.4

56.4 66.6 70.0 49.0 47 .2 58 .9

27.1

14.0

I .4
7

.5

20.8
23

.7

Not Significant.
SignifiJ-ant

at .01 level and above.

In contrast, about 2r per cent of the civil servants serving in industrial programmes are found to score high on the system of rules dimension of bureaucracy while only 9.4 per cent of them score low on it (chi-square 27 8; df : e; significant at .oor level): These results imply that in the agricultural programmes, there are fewer formal rules and procedures governing decisional and operating situations than in industrial programmes. Lastly, the results on the scale of division of labour indicate thar the two sectors are comparable as regards differentiation ..of roles and func-

Bureaucratic ClLaracteristics of Deuelopment

Admi'nistration

55

tions among the personnel emplo,ved by them. overall, the agriculture ,..ro, upp.i.s more bureaucraiically organized in terms of hierarchical relations n-ottg its personnel than the industry sector' At the same time, it is less bure iucratic than the latter in terms of the formal rules and procedures governing the job behaviour of its personnel' 'On the b"ehaviouril side, the agriculture sector, as Table 4'3 shows, is much less impersonal. one fourth of the respondents drawn from the tr,vo agriculture offices stuclied report acloption of a highly impersonal uppr.r*h in the illvork in contrast to 4 3.5 Per cent of the respondents serving.in inclustry offices reporting the same. On the other side, the Proportioi of rcspondcnts from an agriculture office scoring lorv on the scale of impersonality is much higher (r 5.3 Per cent) than the proportion -of ,.rpottd.ttt, from industrial offices scoring lorv on that scale (7'5)' We also found these differences to be significant (chi-square - 3r.6; df : 2; signi ficant at .oo r level). As regards the other two behavioural dimensions of bureaucracy, viz., rationality and rule-orientation, the study failed to notice any significant differences befiveen the two scctors. Nevertheless, the foregoing hnclings shorv that there are differences in the bureaucratic character 6f d.\'"lopt r.nt administration operating in agricultural and industrial
areas._

Size

We then triicl to see if the size of the agencies rnade for differences in the lcvel of their bureaucratization' Size n'as defined by us in terms of the number of personnel employed. As the proportion of respondents to- the total emplolees was more or less similar in all, the number of resp-ondents 'agency inclicated its relative size' We have reported- above f.om euch some differences in bureaucratization in the agricultural and. industrial below sectors. 'fhe relationship of size with bureaucr atizatiom is examincd

of the

rganization

withreferencetoeachsectorseparatelytoensurethatthenatureofthe
sector does not vitiate the findings.

Table 4.4 shorvs that rvirhin the industrial development sector,, there are many differences be tween the degree of bureaucratization attained by small urrd'lutg" organizations. First, the larger of -the two agencies studied.is "more hierarchically organized than the smaller one. If the found ti be lower proportion of our resPondents scoring- lor'v on the scale of hierarchy of uutirority is taken to indicate a higher level of bureaucratization, we find that about r3 per cent of the civil servants servin8 in the largtr agency score low on thalt scale compared with z6 per cent of the civil servants working in the smalle. ug".iy. Similarly, 28- Per cent of the respondents employ"ed in the larger ag:ency have scored -high on hierarchy of authority ig"itttt 23 Per cenl of ihe employees in the smaller agency'-These differ", .rr.J. ho*.rl.i narrowly missed the b per cent level of significance -se t {or the study. Nonetheless, they validate the findings -of many a study .that the size of the organization and its hierarchical character are Positively associated rvith each other.

56

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELopMENT ADIVfINISTRATIoN

TaBLE 4.4

BUREAUCRATIZATION PROCESS & SIZT OF ORGANIZATION IN THN INDUSTRIAL SECTOR


Degree s of Bwcaucratization Re por tu d

chiDinensions ofBureaucratizatiott square


v

Saalkr Agutty

(N:

Larger Agenty

toe) Low

(N:

215)

alues

Hiph
o/

Moderatc
/()

High
o/ io

tr4oderate

io

%
2s

ol

Low

/o

%
13.1 15.4

Hierarchy of Authority Division of labour


Systcm of Rulcs

Impersonality

I{ationality
Rule-oricntation

t* x.1 4.6* 18.3 2.7* 22.0 6. 1** 34.8 I7.6*** 16.6 8.9** 39.4
5.

5l .3 70.0 't2.4
58.7

58.7
56.8

.6 27 .9 59.0 11.7 20.0 64.6 5.6 20.0 68.8 6.5 .9 44 .1 24..7 39.5 41.4 3.8 23.7 70.2
4'1

tt .2
8

.0

19.1 6.1

* ** ***

Not Sicnificant
Sisnificant at .05 lcvei. Significanr ar .001 lcvcl.

and system of rules, the differences bettveen the large and the small agencies operating in the industrial dcvelopment sector i".r" n,,t material. The fivo agencies, hor'vever, differ sharply on the behavioural characteristics. N{embers of the larger agency .are disposed to function much more impersonally than those of the smaller agency. Thus about 4g per cent of the civil servants drarvn from the larger agency are rated highly impersonal in their dealings r,r'ith citizens. In contrast 85 per cenr of ihe respondents from the- smaller agency score high on impersonality dimcnsion (chisquare : 6.r; df : 2; significant ar .o5 level). Similarly, a largcr proportion of respondents from the larger organization (gg.S per cent) are found to be 'highly' rational than those from the smaller organization (16.6. per cent). From the other side also the poorly rational civil servants come in higher proportion from the smaller agency (24.7 per cenr) than from the larger agency (rg.r per cent). These differences are also statistically sienificint (chi+quare : ,?rB; df : q' significant at .oor level). They sugfest thar the larger organisations rend to be more rational in their official bihaviour than the smaller organizations. It may be recalled that as the behavioural dimension of bureaucracy rationality is defined in the present study as the disposition to choose between alternatives obiectively -on the basis of efficiency without allowing any personal considcrarions ro influence it. One of the surprising findings of the study, as described in Table 4.4,

As regards the trvo othcr structural characteristics, viz. division of labour

Bureaucratic Characteristics of DeueXopmental Administration

'5'1

is that smaller organizations evidence greater degree of rule-orientation

than larger organiltions. About 4o per cent of the respondents from the smaller ig"".y stuclied ,are found to be highly iule-oriented, rvhereas the proportio; of such people in the larger agcncy is onlv zl per cent (chi squure :8.g; dl : 2t significant at .o5 le'r'el). One plausible -explanation for this phinomenon, assuming that an elaborate system of .Iormal rules itself induces rule-oriented behaviour on the Part of the cir,il servants. is that the smaller agency in the sample also operates rvith a more elaborale framervork of official rule s and procedures for the guidance of its employees in their rvork (95 per cent of the respondents from the smaller ig".r.y report high to moderate system of rules as against 89 per cent from the larger agcncy). Overall, the smaller and the larger agencies handling industrial clevelopment programmcs aPPear to difter from each othcr less in respect of their organizational structure and more significantly in terms of their behavioural styles. Table 4.5 below examines the problem of the relationship betr'veen size and bureaucr atization further with reference to the agriculture sector.
TABT.E

4.5
SIZE

PROCESS OF BUREAUCRATIZATION

AND ORGANIZATIONAL IN THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR


Degree
o-f Bureaucr

atization Re pofted
Larger Agency

chiD
im en sion s

Snaller Agency

of Bure aucrut i zat i ofi

squafe palues

(N:13?) High
1

(N
Lotu

262)

)f
Hierarchy of Authoriry Division of labour
System

%%
9

Moderate

Hiph o/ /o
1',l

Mod.erate

Low

o/ /o

%
17

4.8*
13.3**
5

11.1
.6
.0
11

62.7

26.2 9.6 72.9


.5
69

.5
1

64.2 26.2
64

.4

13.

of Rules

.0*

.2

Impersonality Rationality Rule-orientation

26.5***

21 .3

50.3
45

3.1* 4.0*

48.8

.2

35.0

59.8

24.8 8. 8 14.8 28.4 27.1 64.1 6.0 32.O 50.7 26.7 69.8 5 .2

16.4

8.8
r7 .3

3.5

* Not significant ** Significant at the .01 level. *** Significant at the .001 lcvel.
The above table shows that the larger and the smaller agencies operating in the agricultural development area have achieved the same level of bureaucratization except in respect of division of labour and impersonality dimensions. The larger agency shows a more elaborate differentiation

58

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

of duties and responsibilities among its personnel. Thus 87 per cenr of


the respondents from the larger agencies report high to moderate degree of division of labour, in juxtaposition with 24 pr cenr of rhe respondents drawn from the smaller agency reporting similar experience. These differences are also statistically significant (chisquare - r3.3: d,f : 2; significant at .or level). Similarly, the larger organi2ation is also found to function with a higher degree of impersonality than the smaller organization. About ,28 per cent of the sample drawn from the smaller agency is rated low on the impersonality scale, lvhile only g per cent of the employees serving in the larger agency scored low on impersonality (chisquare = 26.b; df : 2; significant at .oo r level). These findings are a little intriguing because, as Table 4.5 shor,vs, the larger agency is reported ro operate with a little more elaborate system of rules than the smaller ,agency. \\rhat is observed to happen in the industrial sector is thus partially contradicted by our flndings for the agriculture sector. The data in Table 4.5 also sholv that the small organization in the agriculture sector is somervhat more bureaucratic in terms of the behavioural dimensions of rationality and rule-orientation than the larger organizations, although these differences are not statistically
significa nt .

In the foregoing analysis of the relationship of the process of bureaucratization with the size of the organisation within the agriculture and industrial fields only one structural dimension, viz., division of labour, and two behavioural dimensions, viz., impersonality and rationality, ,are found to make for significant differences. It is, ho.wever, noted that size makes for significant differences in the degree of division of labour only in thc agriculture sector. Similarly, rationali_ty is'significantly associated rvith the variable of size only in the industrial sector. In both the sectors, h.o.wevcr, impersonality is found to be similarly related with the size of the organization. On the n'hole, the size of an organization appears to be more ^b^ureaucratic often associated with bureaucratic behavioui than with structure- It is likely that the small agencies in our sample are not really that small as to bring out all the differences in their bureaucratization. The study included ttvo agencics each of the Central and a State Governments. In the industrial sector, the larger agency (N : 2 r b) is a Centr,al Government age ncy, lvhile the smaller age ncy (N : rog) is a State Governmnt- agency. Similarly, in the agriculture sector, the larger agency (N z6e) is a State Governmenr agency. and the smaller agency (N : r g?) is a central Governmenr agency. T able q.q sholvs that rvithin the industrial sector, the Central agency is organized more on bureaucratic lines in as much as it is the more hierarchical and has a greater degree of division of labour among its personnel, although it has a somewhat less elaborate system of formal rules than the State agency operating in the same development sector. The data also shorv that the Central agency functions with a significantly higher degree of impersonality and rationality but with a somewhat lower degree of rule-orientation than its counterpart at
the State level.

Bureaucratic C_haracteristics o'f Deaelopment

Administration

59

As regards the agricultural sector the Central agency (N : r37) is founc to operite through a less bureaucratic structure' especially -in terms of system of rules, than the State agency (N : z1z). Behaviouralll', however, tire State agency is less bureaucratic (in terms of rationality and rule orientation dimensions) than the Central agency. The State agency in the agriculture devclopment sector is ,also significantly more impersonal in its dealings with the citizens than its counterpart in the Central Government. These differences have many implications rvhich are discussed later'

In this study we assessed the bureaucratization achieved in the Indian civil service in terms of class. Our hypothesis rvas that the higher class civil sewants would report less patterned and hence less bureaucratic
features.
T^BLE 4.6

Clo.ss

ol

Seruice

BUREAUCRATIZATION PROCESS AND CLASS AT PRXSENT


Degree of Bw e auer ati zat i on

Dimetsions of Bureauuatizat;on

I;:,;;,, crdrsr(ry=lll) t!"il(ry116i 9!!'I!I


15.0** 18.1** 5.0*
24.O***
1

aL;-

(itl:_1fl
Lotu

,ilurt Hfuh M. Lotu Hi2h M. Lotu Hi7h M.


6.7
57 73

,1f:4 % % % % % % % %
Hicrarchy of Authority Division of Labour Sptem of Rule Lnpersonality Rationality Rule-orientation
s

%
18.9 13.5 13.7 8.1

.6
.O

35.7 20.4
22.O

14.6 58.5 26.9 15.5 64.7 19.8

14.4

66.7
66.1.
71

6.6
10.9 39.4

20.4

67.1
39

16.1 72.O 11.9 15.l

.2

.4

2l .2
21

33.1

51

.4 ls.5
r5.5

31

.4

60.5

.0*

32-8 46.O
10.3

.Z

39.O 45.5.

32.2 19.3

40.4 27.4
65

35.7***

46.7

43.O

21.4 52.2 26.4

.0

15.7

* ** ***

Not significant. Significant at .01 level Significant at .001 level.

Table 4.6 brings out sharply the fact, so far as the sample is concerned, that the higher the class of the civil servants, the less hierarchical is the organization according to them. Thus only 6.7 per cent of the resPondehts belonging to Class I have reported a high degree of hierarchy oT authority, compired with about r5 per cent of the respondents belonging to Class II and III. Similarly, the proportion of respondents Perceiving a low degree of hierarchy of authority is higher in the case of a higher class than in the

60

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADI{INISTRATION

of a lower class (35.7 per cent of Class I; s6.g per cent of Class II and r8.g per cent of Class III). Lastly, the moderate degree of hierarchy is perceived more often by lor,ver class respondents. \Vhat is more, these differences are found to be significant (chisquare : | !'.oi df : 4: significant at .ol level). T'he higher class civil servants thereforc appcar to be less hierarchically organized than the lower class civil scrvants. That is, the civil senants of the higher class are required to be less dependent upon their superiors in the matter of rvork than those in the lon'er class. The data regarding the divrsion of labour dimension 'lr'hich is presented in Table 4.6 also show a similar relationship betrveen the class of the respondent and the division of labour experienced. The functions of the higher level civil sen'ants are reported to be less difierentiated from those of other positions. C)n the other hand, the lorver level civil servants report their jobs to be more clearly differentiated from other jobs (chisquare t5.o; df - 4; significant at .or level). Lastly, the Class I respondents are reported to be rvorking under a slightly less elaborate system of formal rules and procedures than Class II and III respondents. The differences between the degree of ltureaucratization on account of formal rules and procedures reported by the respondents from the three classes are however not significant. On the behavioural side of the process of bureaucratization, our data, as described in Table 4.6. shor'v that the loryer the class of the civil servant. the more often is he likely to ,adopt impersonal attitudes in his rvork. Thus only 8.r per cent of the Class III respondents have scored lorr on the impersonality scale, compared to r,i,6 per cent of Class II respondents and 2 r.2 per cent of Class I responclents. Similarly, a highcr proportion of lower class respondents hold a moderatelv impersonal vier,v of their work than the higher class respondents (6o.5 per cent of Class III; 5r.4 per cent of Class II and 39.4 per cent of Class I). Hou'ever, a slightly higher percentage of Class I respondents are 'highly' impersonal than Class II and III respondents. Overall, the study results shor,v the lower class civil servants to be more impersonal in their dealings rvith the citizen than the higher class civil servants. The differences are also found to be significant (chi square : 24.o; df : 4; significant at .oor level). We also found (Table 4.6) that the lorver class respondenrs in the sample function with a higher degree of rule-orientation than the higher class respondents. As many as 43 per cent of the Class I respondents have reported low degree of rule-orientation, rvhereas it is reported by 26.4 per cent of Class II respondents and only r5.7 per cent of Class III respondents. Like-wise, only ro.3 per cent of Class I respondents are highly rule-orienetd compared to r g to 2 r per cent of the Class II and III respondents. These differences are highly significant (chisquare : 5o.o; df: 4; significant at .oor level). As regards the rationality aspect of the bureaucratization process, the study found the rhree classes pedorming closely similarly on it. In sum, it can be said that the civil servants serving in the lower classes are more bureaucratized both in terms of structure ind behaviour.
case

Bureaucratic Characteristics of Deaelopment

Administration

6l

RELATIONSHIP WITH BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS

We were also intetional t ariables was examined in the of the civil servants rested in finding our if the background characteristics are associated wlth their bureaucratic disposition; and if so, to what extent. We confined this exercise to thc behavioural dimensions only' viz'' im' personality, rationalitli and rule-orientation' The results are described
foregoing pages.
below.

The relationship of bureaucratic characteristics rvith certain

organiza-

Type of Personnel '\,\'h"r, ,". analyzed the bureaucratic disposition of the respondents according to the type of work they performed, the follor'ving distributional pattern emerged.
'l rl.l-n 4.7 BUREAUCRATIC DISPOSITION AND TYPE OF PERSONNXL

chiD imen sion s of Bure


au cr at

Rankiry oJ Respondents

lc

Disposition

square v alues

df:2
5** 1.8*
9.

,Jvuv4J\:n5LHteh
o)' /o
36.

Moderate

o/ lo

Lotu H|gh
o/ /o o/ /o
l)-)
31

!:!-!YlYY4ry-=1)
Moderate Low

o/ /o

o/ /o

Impersonality

48.4 5t .2 50.5

Rrtionality
Rule-orientation

31.9 32.2

25.8***

.5 56.6 34.7 46.1 t6.9 16.6 64.1 r7 .3

1l .9

r9.2
19

.3

* Not sienificant. ** Sisnifiiant at .01 lcvcl. *** SiEnifi."nt at .001 lcvel.


shorvs that the two grouPs of technical and nontechnical respondents in the sample Perform similarly on the scale .of rationality. Fio-.".t, they are found to differ significantly as regards.the degree of impersonality and rule-orientation rePorted by them' Comparison of the extreme groups of 'highs' and 'lows', indicates that on the whole non-technical civ-il servants uri" *o." often rule-bound than the technical civil servants. A somewhat higher proportion (r9.3 per cent) of non-tcchnical respondents have scored l-o'rv on rule-orientation than that of technical ,"rpoth"nr* (r7.3). Similarly a higher percentage of the former Croop 1t mode.utely rule-fiouncl as compared with the latter group. Therefore, although the technical group has a sizeable proportion of highly tule-oriented respo*ndents, as a gToup they are in an overall v^iew less rule-oriented than the non-technical respondents. (Average score of technical respondents on rule-orientation scale ls 5.4, while that of non-technical resPondents is 6'5).

The above table

62

BUREAUcRAcY AND DEvEI,oPMENT ADMINIsTRATIoN

These difierences are also significant (chi-square : 28.8; df _ 2; significant at .oor level). Similarly the study shows that the technical and ihe nontechnical civil servants hold dissimilar attitudes of impersonalitv in their

work; however, it is difficult to conclude from the data that one of them is distinctly more impersonal than the other.
Educalional Attai n ments - The relationship between the graduate and non-gr,aduate respondents in the sample as regards their bureaucratic disposition is brought out in Table 4.8 below.
TABLB

4.8

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND BUREAUCRATIC DISPOSITION


Ranktug of Responden*
Dinensions of Bureauuat;c Disllosition

chisqudre

g!!!y,ry{y

ualues

,$-1
Impersonality Rationality Rule-orientation

High Moilerate Low High Moderute a/ o/ o/ o/ o/ /o lo /o /o /o


47.7 48.5
52.3

- @_

Not-graduates(N:t56)
Low
o/

/o

19.0** 33.0 0.1* 33.0 48.9** 14.0

* **

r9.3 33.0 60.0 18.5 33.0 4'1 .7 33.7 21.6 66.3

7.0
19.3

rz.t

Not sisnificant.
Signifiiant at .001 level.

The study here shorvs that the graduate civil servants are by narure significantly less rule-bound than their non-graduate colleagucs. (ine-third of the graduate respondents report lolv degree of rule-orieniation and only 14 per cent of them are highly rule-oriented. The comparative proportions for hig-hly and poorly rule'oriented among rhe non-gracluate iesponclents ate zy.6 per cenr and r2.r per cent respectively (chi-square : +B.S; df _ z; significant at .oor level). The proportion of moderatefu rure-orienied is also higher among the latter group. study shows rhe same proporrion of graduate and non-graduate . Th" civil servants to be 'highly' impersonal in their dealings with clientele. Excepting for this fact, however, the non-graduates are found to be often more inlpersonal than the graduates. only 7 per cent of the non-graduate respondents have scored.low on the impersonality scale compr."d to ,q per cent of the graduate respondents. Similarly 6o per ient of the non-graduates- and 48 per cent of the graduates have scored moderately on this scale. These differences are also significant. surprisingly the siudy found close similarity between the graduite and non-giaduat'respondents on the attitude of rationality. we had expected thai the mattei of fact considerations lvould weigh more with the graduates in their attitude to their work.

Bureaucratic Characteri.stics of Deuelopment

Ad,ministration

63

We analyzed above the bureaucratic dispo.sition of graduate.civil strvants in the sample on the one hand with that of'non-graduate civil servants. on ^w. t".t. also interested to examine further and see if higher the other. lelrls of educational attainment are associated with different degrees of -fhis data is presented in Table 4.9. It does show bureaucratic disposition. rhar the higher the cducation of the respondcnt, the less bureaucratic he generally is in terms of impcrsonality and rule-orientation; but not necessarily in terms of rationality.
TABrB 4.9

BUREAUCRATIC DISPOSITION

BY

LEVELS

OF

EDUCATION

Ranking of Responden* Dinensiots of Higher

rcauctatic

(N-

Secondary Graduates
I-op
/o

Disposition

2e4) (N:225) (;':'r;


High M.
ol /o a/ /o
45.0
/o lo /o

Post-gradaates and

Iliph M. Lo'u High M.


u/"OO/oOr /o /o
61

Low
o/

io

Lnpersonality Rationality Rule-orientation

30.9

.9 7.2 36.4 32.8 30.8 28.1


11

,26.9 13.3

34.3 46.9 18.8 32.9 s2.9 14.2 35.2 41.5 22.1 66.6

.3 17.4 54.2 28.4 10.0 49.5 40.5


of

Nore; The table includes clara

educational attainment' viz., higher seconclary, graduate and post-graduate (including doctorate). Respondents diploma holders and who have had some college education (say up to *ho ".. dcgree) are left out. intermcdiate

fcr only

three levels

Eronontic Class Origin As Table 4. r o sh;ws, among the resPondents rvith higher, middle and lower economlc class origin, only the respondents rvith higher economic class origin stand o.rt pto-iir"tttly as more impersonal and lcss rule-oriented, wh"ereas responde;ts .lvith a background of the other trvo economic classes are found to per{or-rn identically on the three dimensions of bureaucratic disposition. H-or,vever, only the differences on account of nrle-orientation ar; found to be statistically significant. As a grouP, the civil servants with the higher economic class origin appear to be significantly less rulebound than their colleagues rvith a middle and lower class background' Further, although the differences in respect of the impersonality dimension are not statisti-al1y significant, the data do show the higher class civil servants to be someu'hat more impersonal, i.e., less inclined to allow per$onal and relational considerations to influence decision-making'

64

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION TABIE

4.l0

ECONOMIC CLASS ORIGIN AND BUREAUCRATIC DISPOSITION


Ranking of Respondents Dimensions Burcaunatic Disposition

of

chisqu4fe

Higher

Oilgix

Class (N:82)
o/ /o

Middle
Origin

Class (N:221)
o/ /o ol /o

Lower Class Origin (N-4zo)

ualues

,1f-

High
o/ /o

M.
o/ /o

Low High
o/ /o

M. Low HiglL I.t.


oi /o o/ /o

Low
o/ /o

Impersonality Rationality Rule-orientation

8.4* 45.1 40.2 14.7 30.7 58.3 11.0 32.3 55.7 t2.0 0.1* 35.3 47 .5 17.2 33.0 48.4 18.6 33.5 48.1 18.4 11.3** 9.9 54.8 35.3 18.6 57.0 24.4 18.9 61.1 20.0

* **

Not significant. Sigrrificarrt at .05 level.

Rural f Urban Backgrrrund For the purpose of this study, we considered a civil servant to have rural or urban background on the basis o{ his having spent a major part of his adolescent years in either rural or urban areas. The study, however, found that there are no material differences in the bureaucratie disposi tion of the civil servants with a rural or urban background.

Parental Occupation The study also examined the relationship between parental occupation of the civil servants and thcir bureaucratic disoosition. As shown in Table 4.r l the differences in the degree of rationality reported by the respondents with differing parental backgrounds are not significant. Horvever, the five groups of respondents are found to score significantly differently on the scale of impersonality. On the one hand, respondents coming from the families of Government servants ind independent professionals like doctors and lawyers are similarly distributed over the scale indicating a similar pattern of disposition in terms of the attitude of impersonality. On the other hand, more or less the same proportion of respondents from the two sub-samples of agriculture background and privare business background are found 'lorv' on impersonality. . Also, they are highly and moderately impersonal in a similar proporrion. Lastly, the civil serv.ants whose parents are/rvere teachers are found to be more or less evenly distributed as 'highly', 'moderately' and 'poorly' impersonal. In the overall perspective, respondents who are sons of agriculturists and private businessmen are found to be more often impersonal in their work, followed by the respondents rvhose parents /guardians ,are Gov. ernment servants and independent professionals. The parental background of the teaching profession appears to provide the civil servants who are less

Bureauctatic Characteristics of l)euelobnt.eut AdminisLration


TABLE 4.11

b)

pinENrar occupATroNAL RACK(;RouND ANn


BUREAUCIIA

IIC I)I5I'O5I TION

Rankiry oJ'Resyondents acco ling to Parc*al Batkgtound


Dimensions
Bure aucr at i c

& Dqrae
Dt
s

o-f

p osit i

ott

Priuate Indel:endent Teaching Ba.rircss Profesion (N: 202) (N: 203) (N: 1e8) (N: 4r) (N: 4e)
Gout.

Agriculture

Supitt

.o/

/o

o/

/o

oi /o

o/

lo

o/

/o

Impersonality*
High
Moderate
Jl .l

22.5 70.0 7.5


100.0

3l .8 48.9

38.7 38.7
zz -6

5t.4
17

Low

.5

5.6
100.0

17.0

---i00.0
Rationality**
High
Moderate,
29

r00.0

100.0

.2
A

35.0
5t .z
13. 8

31

.9

43.8

40. 8

<1

45.4

43.8 't2.4
100.0

36.1 23.1 100.0

low

18.4

22.7
100_o

100.0

100.0

'

Rule-orientation***
High
Moderate 15.5 62.3 20."t
18.

o.+
53.6

18

.4

62.0
t7 .3

56.0
25.9 100.0

49 .O

Lo*'

))i
100.0

40.0
100. o

32.6
100.0

100.0

.* ** ***

Chi-square
Clri-sqLrnrc Chi-sq-uarc

- 22.0; df :8; Significanr ar .01 level. -- 14.6: df . 8; Nit sisnificirnt. : I 6. I ; df : 8; SignifiTant at .05 level.

often impersonal. These rcsuks are sharply brought our by rhe examina_ tion.of the pioportion of respbndents from each group, periorming lorv on t he impcrsonalitl scale. As regards rule-orientation, the studv shows (Table 4. r r ) that the civil servants coming from the families of independent professionals are least rule-orienred. As many as 40 per cenr of this group of respondenm have

66

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

scored low on rule-orientation

to be highly rule-oriented. On the other hand, the resporxlents brought up in the tradition of agricultural families are more rule-oriented than perhaps any other group in the sample. About 17 per cent of them have scored low on rule-orientation scales, while 83 per cent shol,v either high or moderate rule-orientation. The data further shorv that the civil servants whose parents are Government servants and those who hail from families of private businessmen have a comparable pattern of attitude torvards official rules and procedurCs. Lastly, as in the case of the results on impersonality, the sons of teachers joining Government service are found to be only slightly more rule-orie nted than their colleagues whose parents
are independent professionals.

while only 6.4 per cent of them are reported

It is said that advancing age brings in a greater bureaucratic approach in the work of the civil servant. In the present study, only the attitude of rule-orientation 'rvas found to be related to the age of the respondents to
a significant measure. Low rule-orientation is a less common phenomenon among the younger respondents than among the middle-aged and older respondents. Similarly a larger proporrion (65.5 per cent) of the younger civil servants in the sample are moderately rule-oriented than that found among middle-aged and older respondents (5 r .55 per cenr). The study thus does not support the popular view mentioned atrove, not ,at .least in relation to an important characteristic of the bureaucratic mode of working, viz., rule-bound behaviour in a job. As regards the other nvo bureaucratic characteristics, viz., impersonality and r.ationality, the study did not find the three age groups to differ on them significanrly.
Talr.s 4. 12 BUREAUCRATIC DISPOSITION AND AGE OF RESPONDENTS
Ranbing of Resyond.en* according to Age Groups Dinension E Degree of
B urearcrat ic D i sp
o

Ag,

sition

ii' Y; +i ":i! Yi '":; 1f.' Y; *i


Impersonality* 3l

(iv:

Youno

Middle aged

iz:)

(N:

214)

(N:134)

otd

Rationality* Rule-orientation**

.2 9;4 37 .7 50.O 12.3 32.8 50.0 t7 .2 32.5 52.0 r5.5 33.3 46.2 20.5 37.3 40.3 22.4 17.l 65.6 17.3 t8.3 50.9 30.8 r8.5 54.4 27.r
59

.4

* Not sienificant. * Chi+qrire - 17.5; df :4;

sigaificant.at .01 level.

Bureaucratic Characieristics of Deaelopmeni

.Administration

6i

Upwaril Mobi,lity Promotions of career employees are presumed to give rise to positive attitudes and behaviour relevant to their job assignments. We, therefore, examined if those of our respondents who have been upwardly mobilc in Government service showed different bureaucratic dispositions. For this purpose lve divided the respondcnts into fivo bload groups of those rvho have received one or more promotions and those rvho h.ave not received any promotion. The data is presented in Table 4.r3.
TABLE 4.13

BUREAUCRATIC DISPOSITION AND UP'WARD MOBILITY


Rdnhing of Respondehts
D imen
si on s

of Bur e au cr ati c

Chi-square
ualues

Disposition

d;f:2
impersonality Rationality Rule-orientation

!::r!:::(N - High Modeiate Low =


o/ /o ol /o o/ /o

467)

Non-protttotees(N:256)

Hieh
o/ /o

Moilerate Low

o/ /o

o/

/o

2.6** 35.3 52.6 12.1 29 .8 58. 5 tl .7 3.2* 34.0 46.0 20.o 33.2 51 .9 14.9 tl.2** 19.0 54.7 26.3 14.9 67.1 18.0

* ** 'civil

Not significant. Significant at .01 level.

pondents have scored lorv on the rule-orientation scale compared t-o rB per cent of latter group. Like-wise the proporrion of the moderately rule_ -the oriented- among the promoted and non-promoted respondents is 54.7 per cent and 67.r per cenr respectively. These differences are also slgnincint (chi-square : r r.2; df : q. significant at .or level). The data also"suggests that the more rhe promotions received by the civil servant, the less iuleoriented he is.

The only significant finding emerging from the above table is that the servants rvho have received promotions tend to be less rule-bound than those rrho have not. Thus a6.3 per cent of the former group of res-

Formal T ra!n in g - The importance of formal training for matching the person lvith his job in terms of skills, values, attitudes etc. cannot be over-emphasized. unfoitunately as noted in the earlier chapter, a large proportian of the subjects of the present study are found never to have reieived any formal training during their career in Goverrrment. However, even then we tried to fina out if formal tr:aining makes any difierence to the bureaucratic dispositiorr of our respondents. Our dara on this problem is presented in Table 4.r4 in terms of the groups of trained and untrained iespondents.

68

BUREAUCRACY ANI] DT,VIILOP$'IENT ADTTINIS11TATION

'fAtsr[

4. 14

BUREAUCI{ATIC J)ISPOSITION AND FOI{MAI, TI{AINING


Ranl<h.g of Respondcnt s

Di snrcn

sions o-[

Burrcunatic

Disposition

Chi-squart uahes

'Iiaine

,lf:2

(N

d
o/ /o

232)

(N:
High

Un-trained
4e1)

xf"o
Impe rsonality
11
.

'"4;*. 3[
17.0 19.1

Moduate ol io

Low oi
/o

6**

Rationality
Rr.rle-orientation

0.5*

26.6 56.4 30.1 50.8 16.5 59.4

24.r

36.4 s3.9 35.0 46.8 18.4 59.0

9.7
18.2

22.6

* **

Not sieui{icant. Significant at .01 lcvel.

The foregoing table demonstrates that the civil servants who have been exposed to formal in-se rvice training are less impersonal by disposition than those who have not received any such training. Thus the former group has a smaller proportion of highly impersonal and a larger group of poorly impersonal civil servants tl-ran the latter. These differences are also statistically significant (chisquare : rr.6; clt : 2; significant at 'or level). It n'as al.so generally found that the greater the length of formal training received by the respondents, the lesser did thev emPhasize impersonal handling of thcir r,ork. We could not. holvet'er, discriminate betlveen trained and untrained respondents as regarcls the other tlt'o dimensions of bureaucratic disposition, viz., rationality and rule'orientation.
Suultanv
AND CoNcr,usIoNS

I n r his chaptt'r n e havc examined. if it docs so. how far the Indian arlministrative system in the development sphere conforms to the propositions of bureaucratic theory. \Ve have used the lr'ord burcaucracy in a technical sense to refer to a formal organisation which has certain charact crist ics. The six characteristics of bureaucracy considered bv us for the purposes of the present study werc: (r) hierarchy, (z) division of labour, and (3) system of rules (these are structural in character); and (4) impersonality. (5) rationality, and (6) rule-orientation (these are behavioural in character). We confined ourselves to these six characteristics of the bureaucratic form of organization because they have a r,vide support in the literature on the subject. Essentiallv, they have been drawn from the \Veberian concept of the 'ideal type' bureaucracy n'hich, in spite of the I'arious modifrcations, remains to this date perhaps the most rvidely accepted theoretical formulation.

'

Bureaucratic Characteristi'cs of Dettelopmenb Administration

69

Our first hypothesis rvas that the civil service in India is highly bureaucratic implying thereby that all the characteristics of bureaucracy are prsent i" rii"'"'r.,rsh degreJ ancl in comparable proportion. This h,vpothesis required that the Government agencies studied by us should lie at or near the toP of the ordinal scales thai rve consttllcted along the six bureaucratic dimenentire sions notetl above. Our informants in this excrcise have been the I, II and III serving in these agencies group of the civil servants in Class it th. ti_" of the stucl_v and their cxpericnce of it. The agencies handlc the development programmes in the fields of agticulture and industry' at the Central and at the State levels. The finclings of the stuclv did not fully support the abovr: hypothesis Incleed the study showecl the agencies in the samplc to be-' on the rvhole' moderately bureaucratic rarher than eirher hiehly or poorlr bttreaucratjc. Thus half or more of the total number of 723 responrlents rate these egencies as moclerately bttreaucratic along both structural and behavioural dimensions. Furthermore, the studv shorvs interesting differenccs in the bureaucratization of the agencies studied along individual dimensions' The proportiotr Jf 'highr' ancl 'moderates' on the three structural characteristics ure co-pn.uble, fall;ng in the range from r? per cent on the hierarchv of authority t.t t7 p"t cent on the division of labour' and in the range from 64 per cent on thc hierarchy of authoritv to 7r per -cent on the ;ystcm of iules respecrivelv. This su_ggests that $'c can talk about bureaucratic structufe as bcing of a high or low ordet lvith the dimensions of it present in more or less the sarne order. Hot re\rcr, our stutly has shol'ed differences in the proportion of highs on the stnrctural characteristics and the highs on the behivioural charactcristics, rvith the implication that an organiiation may nor be equalll' bureaucratic _along all the dimensions at a iarticular point in time. We 'are here actually moving on to the seconrl hyiothesis of the stuclv, viz., that the Indian administr:ative system is unifoimlv bureaucratic along structural and behavioural dimensions. As regards the first hypothesis, suffice it to say h.ere that the generallv held hypo ihesis that the developmental Inclian civil service is highly bureaucratic is not borne out by the present study. our seconcl hypothesis that thc civil service is uniforml,v bureaucratic along structural antl be hal'ioural rlimeniions is also no1 supportcd, bv the data of the stucly. The stucly has demonstrated that the level of bureaucratic structure attainecl b1' an organisation may not necessarily correspond .lvith the level of bureaucratic lrehaviour displayed by it. That is, it is possible for an organisation A to be structurally more bureaucratic than organisation B, lr'hile bcing at the same time behaviourally less bureaucritic. These results suggcsi 1o; tnat the bureaucratia structure is not thc only source of bureaucratic behaviour, (b) that forccs determining bureaucratic sffucturc and behaviour alc not the same oI that thc-V clo not oPerate in the same rvay for the trvo climensions. Notlvithstanding the forcqoinq observations. a basic conclusion emerging out of the study is that the general constructs of hureaucratic thcory

70

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

tions are sen'ing. If it is assumed that developmental taiks ancl the bureaucratic model of organization are basically antithctical, then.the lesser the bureaucratization of development.al agcncies, the better the chance for their efficient performance. on the other hand, if rve assume that there is no inherent conflict between the two, the moderate to low bureaucratic nature of the developrnental agencies would reduce the chances of their performing well. This subject is dealt rvith at length later in this book. The study has revealed that the structuxal and the behavioural charac. teristics of bureaucracy do not operate similarly. Hoping to explarn these differences, rve examined cert.ain factors in the personal ind orsanisational Iifc of the civil servants for hints of bureaucrat'ic propensiries. At the organizational level, it was seen that the functional content of bureaucracy, the type of office, and its levcl of contacts to meet the pro. grammatic needs, do make a difference in its structural and behavioural characteristics. Thus the Government agencies functioning in the agricultural development sector rver:e found to be significantly more heiLrchi. cally organized, the roles of their members less differentiated from cach other, and their operation less impersonal than the agencies handling deve lopme nt programmes in industry. Similarly given ihdt the nvo C"rrtrul Government agencies studied are the secre.tariat or policy type anrl thc tr,vo State Government agencies studied are the field or operaiional type, the study showed that the former were organized more on bureaucratic lines than rhe latrer in rcrms of hierarchy of authorirv and division of labour' Howcver. they were Iess bureaucratic in rerms of the svstcm of formal rules' on the other hand, the field agencies rvere founcl to function with significantly lower degree of impersonality and also of rationality. overall, the secretariat agencies appeared to be more bureaucratic than the field agencies. The foregoing findings of the study about the bureaucratic character of developmental agencies and further about the associa. tionship between the nature of development programmes handled by Government agencies and their bureaucratic nature, have rather important theoretical as well as practical implications. .Theoretically this implies that bureaucracy is not a static phenomenrn with an analgam of certain structural and behavioural cLaracteristics present in more or less comparable proportions; that bureaucracy is a far more dynamic phenomgnon with the functional contents and the nature

by weber and others provide a useful basis both for practical for broader theoretical and comparative purposes. 'ro the extent that the study identifies the universality oi the structural characteristics of bureaucracy it_ also srlppelts the thesis of several schorars that for comp.arative purposes buieaucratic strucrure presents a meaningful starting point. \\re may reiterate that the stutry rvas . concructed in the Gove-rnment agencies handling developmental progr,anrmes in the fields of industry and agriculture. The study, therefore, significantlv demonstrates that modifications in the bureaucratic. character have taken place in these agencies. In thc absence of criteria variables, rve do not knor,l' ivhat purpose tirese moclifica
as evolved
as rvell as

Bureaucratic Characteristics of Deaelopment


Of

Ad'ministration

7I

work themselvcs influencing these characteristics. Indeed it is difficult to understand the adaptation reported by the agencies studied if bureaucracy as postulated in theory, is an efficient mode of organisation. Would this mein that there are less chances of their performing efficiently as a result of these adaptations? Or would it indicate the ellorts of these agencies to adapt their structures and behavioural styles to the requirements of developmental responsibilities ? All organisitions are brought inro existence to fulfil certain functions or. p.,rpou"r. The form of organisation shoulcl, therefore, be relevant to the functions it is expected to perform. In fact the functions should take pre-. cedence in any question about the appropriate form of organisatio"' Th-' existing theory oi bureaucracy, based essentiallv on the Weberian model, though exriemely useful as a starting point, is static as it prescribes struc' turai- an<l behaviour4l norms and assumes them to lead to efficient performance. In this sense, Heady's3 suggestion to use the structural postulates of Weberian theory only and explore the various behaviours associated with them appears to be unnecessarilv restrictive' While such an approach would make ctmparative studies in bureaucracy relatively easy it would not- help adequately in fhe development of a rigorous and tralid bureaucratic theory either for academic or policy purPoses. The main limitation of Heady's approach is that it makes structural postulates of bureaucratic theory independent of behavioural postulates. The present study shows that it is ,r.i.rr"ry to examine structural and behavioural postulates togethel and in relation to the functional contents to formulate a more valid and usefubureaucratic theory. Admittedly this would cfeate many research problems. The findings of the study also suggest that rvhat we need is not only a generalizecl bureaucratic model but also a range of sub-models in rvhich its iarious characteristics play different roles, some more powerful, some less powerful, in various combinations, towards the fulfilment of organisational goals and objectives. As noted above the main consideration which appears io necersitate such a range is the functional content of bureaucracy which may differ from agency to agency and the type of the work which may or may not involve so much contact rvith the field or the masses' -iht study also brought out a number of other factors besides the functional contents of organisations that art significantly associated with thbir bureaucratk dispositions. Thus, the size of the organisation in, terrns . of the number of pirsonnel sewing in it is found to be positively__related with the impersonal attitudes of the latter in their rvork. The civil servants in the larger agencies studied are reported to be more impersonal towards _the people-who come to them for rvork than those working in- the -smaller uger.i.r. What is more, this is true in both the- agricultural and industrlal development sectors, and also that both the larger and smaller agencies are found to function significantly not under different systems of rules. The higher class civil servants in the sample are found to be less hierar-

12

BUREAUCR{CV AND DEVELOPMEIfI ADMINISTRATION

chically organized and their tvork less finely demarcated than is the case with the lolyer class civil servants. This is perhaps as it ought to bc. T'he work of the higher class civil servants cspecially in the clevelopmenr spheres 'is morc complex. not vcry amcnable to exact definitions, and requiring a greater degree of autonornv, i.e.. it should be less formalized and rleid. It may however be pointed out that because of its dynamic nature. ihe work of the lorver class civil scrvants in the developrnent adrninistration cannol be bureaucratized ro thc.srme exlenr as in the tradiri,rnal aclrninis tration. We do not know if the lorver class cil,il ser\rants in the sarnple are functioning under just enough or excessive bureaucratic structures. To the extent the agencies studied har.e adoptcd their structures in relation to higher class ci.l'il servants, tve think the,v havc improved the chances of efficient performance. On the behavioural sidc the study iholved the lower class civil servants to be more impersonal and rule-oriented than the higher class civil ser\-ants. In a sense this finding confirms the popular vier,v about the Governnrent bureaucracv beine 'lvooden', rvhich vielv applies more to lorver cla"s. especially Class III civil servants rvith lvhom citizens most ofren come into contact. This attitude is perhaps a legacy from the past rvhen the colonial administration $ras mostly engaged in regulatory functions in the performance of rvhich impersonal and rule-bound behaviour rl'as actuallv expecte(l of rhe civil \ervants. The prr'renr srudv shorrs rhat although thesi' atritudes are nor{ on a dcclinc among the highcr class civil scrlants. thcv are still a significanr part of the behaviour pattern of lorver class civil servants. It sholvs that the Indian administrative system is behaviourallv morc bureaucratic al lhe lorrer lcrcls ancl lcss hurcaucmric at lhe hiehei lerelr. There can thus be clifferences in the burcaucratizarion of not onlv clifferenr agencies but also of different lel'els of personnel sen.ing in thc 'same agencv. The studv shor,r's that although thc changes in the functional gontents of agencies stutlied hal'e lerl to modifications in their oreanisaiion on bureaucratic lines. thesc raoclifications har.e taken place more anronq the higher lcvcl than amonq thc lol'er level personnel. 'Ihe pay off from these moclifications in tcrms of impro'r'ccl pcrfor'mancc of the functions is bound to be lcss than exoected. The strrrh has rliscor.c,l somc h:rckg'orrnd characrerisr ics of the cir,il servants in the sample to be significantlv associated n'ith their bureaucratic dispositions. For instance, gradu.ate ci'il scrvants are founcl to be less irnpersonal and lcss rulc-orientcrl than non-gracluatc cil'il servants. similarlv younger civil serl'ants are rnore rule-bounc{ than oldel ciril servanrs. a finding r,vhich is .in line rvith the observation maclc :rbo'e that lolt er class cir il servanrs ale m()re .rlc-bounrl rhin higher c]ass ci'il scr'anrc. Again, civil servants lvho have received formal training are founcr to havL significaurly lcss artirrrdc ,[ impclsonalirr rhnn thc non.trainecl cir il scrvants. These results suggest that a r,arietv of levers can be userl to ensule the desirable behaviour on the part of the civil ser\:ants. While the present findings could be termed at besr proposing nerv

Bureaucratic Charact eristics of Deuelopment Admi'nistrati'on


hypotheses,

I5

is important to bear in mind that at no time has the government in India attemPtecl to clelibcrately adapt bebavioural patterns of 'fhe-changes lvhich are bureaucracy to suit the organisational objectives.

it

and the aclministrative compulsions, rathcr than by design' The hnclings, therefore, are important boih for the theorcti.cal as r'vell as for practiial purposes. Does the study suggest any specific moclifications in the gene.ul bureiucratic model? 'fhe ansrver scenls to he: Partly ycs' In-the f,"r,.lopme.rtul bureaucracy, at least two modifications seetn to emerge' One structural . i, -n.. of a traditional equilibrium burcaucracy in r.vhich the arc relativelv balanced' Such a bureaucracy ancl behavioural postulatci rvould be .r".r"tuiiut' type rvith relativelv little 'mass contact' for achicve-ihe other be a 'dynamic' condition rvhelc menr of its objectives. 'vould both the struct;ral and behavio'ral charactcristics are changing as a result inter aliatof the interaction betlveen the burcalcracY and the citizen clientele inherent in the achievement of administrative objectives' The study thus suPports to an cxtent some of the findings of Peter Blau' Horvever, Blun rvu, more cotr..tt-ted rvith the asscssnlent of 'functional' and 'dysfunctional' adaptation of the. bureaucracy to changing organisational objectives.' The present stucl,v did not specificallv seek to analvze the functional adaptation or other$Iise of the Indian bureaucracv. - While sorne degree of change in the direction of funcrional adaptation is visible, the mo"re importani concl*sions of the study relate to the basic theoretical framewoik of burcaucracy itself and the performance of the Indian bureaucracv in terms of the framervork. To sum up, the findings'of the studv suggest that the existing bureaucratic theory is somervhat 'static' and that it does not take into account forces r,vhich tend to change significantly both the structural and behavioural postulates. For applied as rvell as academic purPoses, therefore, lve need to build into the theory, factors, such as its functional content, the degree of citizen participation in its operations, etc., rvhich give it a more clvnamic character. From a practical point of vierv, the findings of the stud,v suggest a variety of levers n'hich can help utilizing bureaucracy as il mole eltective instrument for achieving administrative objectives.
processes

noticeableinthelntlians"ettinghar,cclearl,vgro\{norrtofthenatural

4.

Blarr, Peter NI., oP. rir.

Working Climate in Development Administration

Arr rNsrrruuoNA'- arrangements, designed though they are to facilitate attainment of certain goals, are finally mediated through the actions of individuals. This is true as much in relation to the system of puhlic administration as others. The behavio'r of civil scrvants is an important deterininer of the outputs which any public administration sl,stem is expected to yield. In India,.lr'ide gaps betr,r'een the expected and the actual behaviour or performance of the civil service have driven home the .realization that real life bureaucracy cannor be understood solely on the basis of the formal organisational system; that the behaviour of civil servants in their iob roles is determincd by a hosr of factors related to rhe personality of the civil servants themsclves and the conditions in rvhich thev ioin the civil ier-vice and sen'e in it. Horvever. althoueh knorvledge about the conditions in which civil scrvants do rheir *ork ir impor(ant to both academicians and politicians, systematic studies in this area,are few. In the present study rve felt that the study of developmenr bureaucracy .lvould be rather incomplete rvithout a certain amount of attention paid to the rvorking climate experienced by the civil servants.
IuponreNcn

or

SrunyrNc \VonrrNc Crrl.tarn

A formal organisation rvith a certain division of work among its members and a svstem of relationships among them, is essentially a purposeful creation. It is supposed to justify its existence by pedorming predetermined functions. Tor.uards this objective the mcmbers of the organisation are engaged in various activities and tasks. Stuclies in this subjeit have amply demonstrated that the beha.l,iour of employees is governed mainly by the individual's charactcristics and their perceptions of the various factors in the setting or environment in rvhich they discharge their functions from day to day. These factors include practices relating, among others, to superior-subordinate relationships, entrustment of responsibility and authority, utilization of the capabilities of personnel, development of personnel, styles of management and of control, and treatment of citizen clientele. In the literature on organisational behaviour, these kinds of factors are often described as constituting the working climate of an organisation, office or agency. To the extent the working climare is an important determinant of the behaviour of organisational personnel, the importance of it in deve-

orking Clim,ate in Deuelop'ment Administration

75

lopment administration also cannot be or.eremphasized. Any efforts to improve the chances of the developmental civil servants performing their functions efficientll' must also include steps to ensure the existence of the working climate that is most conducive to such a performance. In the present study, we have attempted to diagnose the working climate of developmental agencies in the sample in terms of certain key characteristics. We believe that a systematic diagnosis of the present is the first neces. sary step towards further improvements in it.
FrNnrNcs
ATTITUDE TOWARDS RESPONSIBILITY

one of the key variables in the efficient operations of the administlative machinery is the willingness of the civil scrvants to accept increasing responsibility for handling their rvork. -I- he problems facing public servants working in development programrnes are often complex and demand dynamism of approach. The success in dealing with these problems, therefore, depends in an important lvay on the self-starting ability of the civil .sllalts reflected in such attitudes as the readiness to assume larger responsibilities. In the present study rve ascertained the attitude of civil servants tolvards
responsibility by asking them the following questiort
:

In

of the quality of rvork horv much responsibility would you like to take in your Present Position?
terms

As Table 5. r below shorvs, a large majority of the respondents of the study reported a favourable attitude tot'ards accepting more responsibility in tireir- present work. Thus nearly 73 Per cent of the respondents are clisposed to urr,r-. much more or somcrvhat more responsibility for quality rvork in their present position'
TABLE 5.1

ATTITUDE TOWARDS RESPONSIBII ITY


In terns of the quality of work, how much more rcsponsibility wduld you like to take
Number Repofting
271 Per cent

Very much more


Somewhat more Keep things as they are Somewhat less Very much less Not replied

37 35

256
149
21

.5 .4

20.7

2.9
1.8 1.7 1oo.o%

t2

Torar

76

BUR.EAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

It is notelvorthy that the emphasis in the above question rvas not so much on the volume of work transacted by the respondcnts as on thc qualitative aspects of it like the scope for decision-making permitted in one's job role, the difficulty level that is comparable with the capabilities of job incumbents, etc. The results, thcrefore, suggest relative dorvngrading of jobs at least in the Govcrnmental agencies studied. 'fhese agencies, as reported earlier, deal r'vith .important developmcntal programmes. It rvas expccted that the rvork content of the jobs of civil servants serving in them lvould be more varied and challenging. The study also found similar .attitudes torvards responsibility among Class I, II, and III respondents (Table 5.2). l,ittle over 8o per cent of the responden ts from each class rvould like to have 'verv much more' or 'somcwhat more ' responsibility in terms of the quality of their rvork. On the other hand only about one-quarter of the rcspondents from each of the thrce classcslvould like either to keep things as they are or have somervhat Iess resoonsibilitv than thev oresentlv have.
TABIE 5
2

ATTITUDE TOWARDS RESPONSIBILITY BY

CLASS

Number Reporting I4/illing to haue resporsibility

for 4uality of u'ork

Class

Class

II

Closs

III

\yet.eflt) Very much nore


Somewhat rnorc
29

(yer cent) 35.3


39

\per ceflt) 40. 5

.9

44 .5

.7

32.9
20.
8

Kcep ihings

as

they ate

22.7
2.9

2l .3
J. I

Sorner'vhat less

J.5

Very much

le ss

Torer

10o.0:l
/NT

r 17\

100.0o,/o 100.0o/o (N: 136) (N:44e)

corollary of the ,above finding of the study abour responsible rvork to the respondents was their fceling that they do not gct rnaximal opportunities for utilizing their training and education in their prescnt positions. The ref'erencc here u'as intended to be ro the capabilities of the respondents acquired through formal e<luc:rtion and institutional ancl on the job training during service. .rncl thcir utilization in thcir present positions. The data shor,v that only about 3tl per cent of the respondents feel that their present positions give them opportunities to use their capabilities to the full, r.vhereas a good 4o pcr cent fcicl thcir capabilitics utilizcd only mo(leratcly. 'l'hc balancc of 3o .per ccnt r-cspondcnts llavc reported that the r'vork currentlv assigned to them dral's little upon their
assigned

llorking Climate in Deuelopnent Atltninistration

11

of their caPatalents. 'I'he feelings of thc rcspondents about the utilization in Table 5.r acbilities in their current assignments are broken dolvn cording to the class of service'
TAD!

5.3
CLASS
Number Reporting

UTILIZATION OF CAPAI]ILITIES BY

Extent of IJtilization RePorrcd

Class

Class

Il

Class

III

(per cent)
27 54

(per cent)
19. 8

(pu

cenr)

Fully
Moderately

.7 .7

33.4

40.2

5t.t
28

Little

t1 .6

40.0

.7

Torar

100.0%

(N:137)

(N

1oo.o%

- 136) (N:44e)

loo.o%

\'Ve expected that n'ith longcr service and lPward mobility' the - value of the civil servants rvould'inJrease and that it I'ould be reflected in the employing agencies drar'ving more and more on the pool of experience ancl abiiities ihat* such a civil s6rl,ant represented. The abo'l.e results, hott'ever, but show nor only sub-optimal manpon'ei utilization in the agencies studied to t5e civil servants for gror,vth also rhe lirnited opportunities'.available and development through their day-to-day routine'
DELECATION RY SUPERTORS

ordinates is general-ly acceptecl as one of the most desirable means of training adminisirators. Such clelegation improves , administrative cornPetence of"the civil servanrs and stimulates theii Sro$Ith Potntial. Delegation also expedites clisposal of work. The need for adequate delegation down the hierarchy is even greater in clevelopment administration so tl-rat delays in

Besides enriching

civil service jobs, delegation of authorit,v to the

sub-

clecision-making and achievement of programmatic goals are minimized' Table 5.4 shoris hor,v the respondents of the present study felt about the clelegation of authority by their superior officers' As the results shorv, 35 Per cent of the civil servant respondents have superiors delegating ro them as much authority as they desire to take on and even more, r.vhile for the remaining 6r, per cent there r'vas not enough or there was little or no delegation of authority' To the extent readiiess of the subordinates to assume increasing responsibilities is an important variable of the delegation oI authority by their suPeriors, the

78

BUREAIJCRACY ANb DEVEL;PMENT ADMINISTRATION

TABIE 5.4 PERCEIVED DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY RY SUPERIORS


Extent of .Delegxion

oI

,JUpetrcfs

Nwfier
Reporting 77 l,/)

Per

cent

Greai deal Enough


Some, but not enough

1,0.7

'1, 1

214
tl5 84

?9.6
23

Little
None

.9

ll.6
l o0 . 09/o

Torar

study shows that there is considerably more scope for


Practices seem

to

make.

it

than the present

Do difierences in class of service cause differences in the delegation of authority by superiors? The data in this regard are presented in T"able
5.5.
TATLE

i.5

PTRCEIVED DXLEGATION

BY SUPIRIORS ACCORDING TO THE CLASS OF RESPONI)ENTS


Number Reporting

Extent of Delegation Repofied

Clas

(pu
Gre

Class

II

Clas UI
(per cenr)

cent)

(per rcnt)

at deal

8.8 44.8 28.6

7.6
25 .9

12.4
17

Enough Some, but not enough

.5

30

.2

Little
None

t2.s
5.3

28.8
10. 3

26.2

Torer

loo.o% (N : 137)

(N

.100.0%

100.0%

136)

(N

44e)

The above table shor's that respondents from class I experience greater of authority from their superiors than those from class iI ana IIL Thus about b4 per cent of them reported .good deal, or .enough of ,delegation' compared ro 83 per cent from Class iI ancl go per cent from. ch:r.Jjl: similarly-only r8 per cent of class I respondenis reported 'little, or 'nil' delegation by their superiors, while rhe ,um" e* .rrt of delegation
de_legati,on

Worhing Ctimate in Deuelopment

Ad'mini'stration

79

was reported by about 40 per cent of the Class II and III respondents' 'These results suggesr that the sharing of responsibilities between superiors and their subordinates is pre'l,alent to a greater extent among Class I civil servants than among lower class civil servants. Indeed, the experience of Class II and III civil servants in this regard is highly comparable.
IN{AGES AI]OUT ASSUMING RESPONSIBILITY

The respondents of this study clearly indicated that they rvould like to be entrustcd rvith more responsibility than at present. \\re also sought to find out the organisational climate relating to assumption of responsibility in rvhich the respondents are functioning. In particular, they reported their perceptions about the attitude torvards responsibility among thcir superior and subordinate omcers. As regards the former, the following percePtions rvere reported.
l
ABl E

5.6

IMAGE OF SUPERIORS UNDSRTAKING RXSPONSIBILITY


In your opinion,
do

your superior oftcers

Nuuber Repoiing
99
78

Petrct
13.7 10.8
28.

Like to take great deal ofresponsibility Like to take little more than enough responsibility Like to takejust enough responsibility Like to take vcry little responsibility

203

240
103

33.2 14.2

Do not like to take any responsibility Torar,

100.0%

is notervorthy that as many-as 47 per cent of the respond-ents reported that their superior officers took very little or no responsibility' On the other hand one-fourth of the respondents perccived their superiors willing to assume appreciable amount of responsibility, t'hile z8 per cent of the superiors are rePorted to be taking on themselves just enough responsibility.,4 positive orientation of the superior officers towards responsibi.lity not only indicates their high degree of involvement in the official activities but also. serves as a stimulant for a similar attitude among the subordinates. The foregoing results shorv that at least as their subordinates perceive, the superior officers are not highly involved in their work. When lve further analyzed the respondents' im:ige about the attitude of their superiors towards responsibility, according to the class of service to which they currently belonged, the following distributional Pattern
emerged.

It

80

BUIi.EAUCRACYANI]DEVI]I,OI'ME)J AD}{INISTRA ION


TABr.r 5 .7

IMAGE OF SUPEIIIOI{S UNDERTAKING RESPONSIBILITY ACCORDING.TO CLASS OF I{ESPONDINTS


Nutnber Reportitg

Itt your opirion do your stltariors

Clas

Class

\pct cent)

(yer

II cent)

Class III (per rcnt)

Like to take great deal of responsibility Like to take little rnore than cnough responsibiiity Like to take just enough rcsponsibility

5.9 6.6
45

13.1

16.2
13

5.8
29

.6

.6

.9

22 .O 31

Likc to take very little responsibility Do not like to taLe any responsibility

34.6

38. 7

.3

12.5

16.9
loo.o.o/o

Toul

(N:

100.0%
137)

(N: 136) (N:44e)

loo.o%

As the above table shows, the proportion of the superiors rePorted to be taking 'great deal'or'more than enough' responsibility is on the decline lvith about 40 per cent according to Class III respondents. lq Per cent according to Class II respondents and onl)r r2.5 per cent according to Class I respondents. Florvever. Class II and Class III respondents also rcport 48-gl per cent of their superiors to be taking little or less responsibility in their l'ork, compared to 42 per cent of the superiors 'of Class I respondents reported to be taking responsibilitv to the similar extent. C)n the whole, therefore, there does not appear to be signilicant difierence in the pattern of the superiors' attitude to responsibility reported b,v the respondents in the three classes. Nevertheless, to the extent the decidedl,v positive attitucle to responsibility on the part of a superior has a wholesome influence on the behaviour of the subordinates ne imagine it to be present less and less at the higher echelons of bureauiracy. We also ascertained the pcrceptions of the superior civil ser-vants themselves about the attiiucle of their subordinates ton'ards responsibility, as shown in Table 5.8 belolv. As the Class III respondents in the sample rvere not likelv to have any subordinates lvorking under them we have reported the perceptions of Class I and Class II respondents only (N : z7B). Table rr.B shows that, if the subordinate civil servants generally have a poor opinion about their superiors' readiness ro accept responsibilitr in r.ork, the superiors themselves do not have any better or different image about their subordinates' attitude to rcsponsibilit,v. 'Ihus little over onethird of the respondents in Class I and II together have reported that their subordinates are willing to take very little or no responsibility. In contrast, one in every four of the superior respondents have to say that his subordi nates are willing to take just enough or a great deal of responsibility in

Wmking Climate in Dettelofment Administration


rABLB 5.8

8l

IMAGE OF SUBORDINATXS UNDERTAKING RESPONSIBILITY


In your opinion , are your subordinate offcers
Number Repdrting
5 65 97

Pet cent

Willing to take grcat Willing to


take

deal .,,f tesponsibilitv

1.8
23

just enough responsibility


some, but not en6ugh rcsponsibility
re

.8
O

Willing to take

J).

Willing to takc very little

sponsibility

69

25.3

Not willing to takc any rcsponsibility

8.4
14

Not reported
Tor,a.r

5.1

100.0%

work. Again for nearly 36 per cent of the supervisory respondents, their subordinates do take responsibilitv in work but it is not enough. The foregoing findings show that the superior and thi subordinate officials at least in the agencies studied do not entertain a positive image of each other as far as shouldering the developmental responsibilities is concerned. Overall, it indicates concern for just enough or minimal involvement in the developmental process. Earlier, r'r'e have seen that the respondcnts thcmselves r'r'ould like more responsibility to be entrusted to thern. We have thus the phenomenon of the civil servants whose superiors are not quite enthusiastic about fulfilling organisational rcsponsibilities, and whose subordinates too have a passive attitude towards responsibilities, and finally rvho are themselves experiencing low level of responsibility being assigned to them. The resulting confusion about accounrability for performance is bound to be dysfunctional to the achievement of programmatic goals of development administration.
STYLES IN EIVIPLOYEE SUPERVISION

Research in the field of organisational behaviour has amply demonstrated that the styles of employee supervision have a significant influence upon the morale of employees and in consequence upon their efficiency of job performance. In this study wc have examined certain aspects of the pattern of supervision in the four developmental agencies on the basis of the perceptions reported by the respondents. For the purpose of the present study, we considered overwhelrningly 'task-centred' style of supcrv'ision, and overwhelmingly 'employee'centred' style of supervision to be two extreme polar positions ofl the conti-

auREAUcF"acy AND DEvEr opMENT ADMINTSTRATToN

nuum of employee supervision. Our basic premise was that the complexi'ties of the tasks facing the civil servants today, especially in the development spheres, require (i) that they handle their work with great initiative and enthusiasm, and (ii) that they enjoy opportunities tb grow professionally in the service. As these considerations are tapped in the concept of employee-centered style of supervision, we tried to find out to what extent
this style is being experienced try our respondents. As described in the methodological chapter, we defined employeeorientation of superiors in terms of the efforts they make to adequately explain and teach their subordinates how to perform difficult tasks, their accessibility to all the subordinates without discrimiriation, the friendliness of their relationship with the subordinates, and the openness of interpersonal relations wherein the subordinate feels free to discuss his personal and work problems with his superior. Since the behavioural response of the employees is determined significantly by their own perceptions abour employee-orientedness of their superiors, despite how subjective this can be, we asked the respondents to rate their superiors on thiq. scale of employee-orientedness. The results are reported. below in Table 5.g.
TADLE

5.9

EMPLOYEE-ORIENTATION OF SUPERIORS
Degtee of Employee-oimtation oJ Suleiors Numbet Reportitrg

Per cett

High*
Moderate

1E4

25.5
54.7
19. 8

395 143

Low Torar,

Loo.o"/"

For classification into high, moderate and chapter on methodology.

low &gree

of

employee-orieotati6n,

see

The table shows only 20 per cent of the respondents perceiving their superiors as poorly oriented to them in the sense in which rve have defined such orientation here. On the other hand one-fourth of the respondents have the superiors who are very positively oriented towards them. The modal employee-orientation of the superiors is, however, reported to be of moderate degree. When we further examined this issue in relation to the class, the following distributional pattern emerged (Table 5.ro). It is found in the table that Class II and III respondents experience a similar pattern of supewisory behaviour towards their person. As regards Class I respondents, they have a smaller proportion reporring both highly and poorly employee-oriented superiors; about two-third of this group is however reported to have moderately employee-oriented superiors.

Worhing Qlimate in Deuelopment Ad,ministration


Telr.r
EMPLOYEE-ORIENTATION
5. 10

83

OF SUPERIORS BY CLASS
Nunber Reporting

Degre e of Employe e-ori entati on

Class

Class

II

Class

III

@u cmt)

$ter
27

cer.t)

Qter cent)

High
Moderate

t8 .2

.9

26.3

64.2

50.0
17

5r.1
2t
..8

Low N. R.

r3.8
3.8

.6

4.5

0.5
100.0%

Torer

roo.o%

(N

137)

100.0% (N:136)

(N:44e)

The employee zr. task-orientarion of superiors has attracted the attention of social scientists because of its influence on the motivation of employees and the sharing,of organisational responsibilities. To explore this relationship further in the context of developrnent administrition, we analyzed the employec orientation of their superiors reported by our respondents on rhe oni hand, and the amount of authority delegated ro rhem by their superiors. The results are presented in Table 5.r r bilow.
Tatrn
5.11

EMPLOYEE-ORIENTATION AND DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY


Anount of Delegation of Authority Reporteil
D-egree.

gf Enfloyeearientation

of

Creat

nupefrcrt

aful enough rot enough


per cent

deal per cent


50.2

Some but

Little lnone
Per cefiI

Total

High
Moderate

24.9
34.8 2t .2

24.9 34.0
54.9

(N:
(N

r0o.P/o
184)

3l .2
23

tw.oyo

3e5)

.9

1ffi.e/o

(N

la3)

table shows. that,the respondents in the sample who ^ fh9 {oregoing find their superiors quite positively ('high' in the table) orienred^ rowardn them are more often delegated much authority and less often little authority by these superiors. In contrast, respondents who perceive their superiors to be poorly ('low' in the table) oiiented towardi them are reporied

84

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

'

to be more often enjoying little delegated duthority and less often as much of delegated authority as they would like to have. Implicit in the employeeorientation of the superiors considered in the study is the relationship of trust and interest between the superior and his subordinates r,vhich is reflected in the former sharing his responsibilities r.vith the latter to a large exrent. How do the civil servants who are having emplol'ee-oriented superiors respond when the superiors are prepared to delegate more authoiity to them? Our data in this regard, reported belo,r'1. does not, however, sho\.\' that the respondents with employe e-oriented superiors have a particularly positive attitude to responsibility. It will be recalled that the latter tvas ascertained through the question: In terms of the quality of work, how much more or less responsibility would you like to have than at present? As reported above, a great majority of the respondents havc asked for more responsibility than is presently given to them. Possibly because of this skewness in the replies, the study could not discover the relationship bet' ween employee-orientation of superiors and the subordinates' attitude to resoonsibilitv in work.
TABT.E 5 . 12

XMPLOYIE-ORIENTATION'AND

ATTITTIDE TO RESPONSIBII-ITY
Amomt of Responsibility Desired

Degree of Einployee-orientation

of

Much
morelmore

Status 1uo

Supeiors

(yer cent)

(per

cent)

Much lesslles

otdI

(yer
1.1

cent)

High
Moderate

78.1
72.4 6l .7

20.8 ,
21

(N:184)
loo.o%

100.0%

.5

6.t
16. 3

(N

3e5)

Low

22.O

(N:143)

1oo.o%

ATTITUDES

In this study it was found that as many as 68 per cent of the responclents have not received any formal in-service tr.aining throughout their career so far. Most of the remaining 3z per cent trained respondents appear to have been given formal training to meet the needs of their immediate job assignments. Since formal training.is insufficiently used, it follows that the major development of the civil servants takes place through their dayto-day work. We noticed earlier that by and large the respondents of thi$ study felt that their jobs did not prove to be an adequate challenge to their abilities. Apart from this, development of the civil servants also depends upon the interest taken by their superiors to help them to learn

Worki,ng Climate in. Deuelopment

Administration

85

more to assume higher responsibilities. In the present study the respondents of Class I, II and II.I rcported the following attitudes of their superiors in this regard.
TABIE 5.13

ATTITUDES IN PERSONNEL DEVELOPMINT BY CLASS OF RISPONDENTS


Nunbu Reporting
Does your supvrior hrlp you to lir'orn to ass me higher responsibilities Class

(per

cent)

Class

II

Class

(per cent) 14.0


24 .O 25 .O 27 .O

(per

III cert)

Total
(per cenr)

Always Usually
Sometimes

15.0 33.0
22.O 22.O

22.0
25

19.4
27 .O

.0

26.O
17 .O

24.3
20.2
9..1

Rarely

Ncver

8.0

10.0

10.0

100.0% 1oo.o% 1oo.o% 1oo.o% (N: 13?) (N: 136) (N:44e) (N:723)i
*
One respondent did not report his class ofservice,

Table 5.r3 shotvs that in the view of about 48 Per cent of Class I, 38 per cent of Class II respondents and 47 per cent of Class III respondents, iheir superiors are taking 'high' interest in helping their professional , grorvth and thereby PreParing them for positions of greater responsibility. It is also important to note that one-fourth of Class III respondents and little over one-third of Class I and II resPondents rePort little or no interest taken by their supetiors in.their development. With limited formal training facilities and equally limited interest taken by their superiors, thesc civil servants are bound to require an inordinately long time to acquire higher capabilities.
PERCEPTION OF CRITERIA OF PROIUOTIONS

through confidential reports). At the same time, other considerations are also bilieved to influenie decisions.about promotions. In the final analysis, the trehaviour of the civil servants in their job roles is governed by their

It is the stated policy of the Government to promote civil serr'ants on the basis of seniority and merit (merit being most commonly assessed

own experience and understanding of the factors that go into decisions about promotions in Government service, whatever be the declared policy relating to it. The urgency of civil sewants in the developmental programmes turning out the desired level of output in their work, both in terms of quality

86

.BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

and

seniority, hard work, superior quality of work, being a g*a pof iti.iun "r. in the sense of the ability to minipuiate the things to one,s own benefit, being a friend or relation of highei officials, and letting "fo"g *"ii;ith one's superior. of these, seniority consideration is dJtermined bi the length of service in a particular position or grade. Hard work and superior orr"iiru o.f y*\ represent merir considerations, while the last tt r." t#or, tially in the nature of social considerations. In the questionnaire trr. risi"r"';;; ing of these factors was preceded by the foilowing iristructional set:
"speaking about your own personal impressions, which of the following things do you belive help the person most to advance in Governmen't service? Please put- r against whJt you consider to be the most import"nt factor, z against. the next important and so on until you have put 6 against the least important factor,'.

that of other criteria, according to our respondents. In other words, the res, pondents indicated their understanding oi the weight of several t"a"r, i" prornotional matters in the civil serviie. The factirs ,". .orrria"-J ,

cannot be overe_mphasized. It is widely recognized. that one of -quantity long-term incentives {of high standards of perforiran.. in w*k -the is the system of promotions that is inderstood to be based or, .o*p.,.rr.". rherefore,. we anempred ro ascerrain tt" p!r."iu"a [_t-.T^ry:r:lt me't for promotions in rmpormnce ot fr"9y,. Government service in rilation to

given the secorrd highest average rank (3.3rd). However, the proportion of respondents giving first to sixth rank of importance to this factor is about equal indicating thereby considerable ambivirence with regard to the place of quality work in promotional decisiorrs in Government service. In conffast, the clqar importance of seniority is evident from the fact that there is sharp decline in the per cent of respondents assigning lower rank to -a this factor. The ambivalence rowards being a politicia'n f# getting aheJ in the service is shown by the data; nevertlheless, it cloes notlndicite that the civil servants have discounted this factor as of no consequence in earning promotions (average rank : 4.rst). On the other hand, hard work as an element in decision-making in promotions is found to be at 3.5tt .urrt, suggesting that it is just of average importance. . r. To arrive at average ranking, 1st to 6th ranks were assigned r to 6 numbers so that the lower the average numericar rank of a factor, the gfeater it, p"r""iveJ ior-

_ Tlr" perceptions reported by the respondents are described in Table 5.r4. The table shows that seniority is clearly perceived by the respondentcivil servants as the relatively most important factor responsible.'for promotion in Government service. The average ranking oi this factor 'has been z.6th.1 on the other hand the facror 6f ,up.rioi quality of work is

portance

for

promotion$,

W orking

Ximat

e in

D euelop

ment

d"mi,nistration

87

TaBLE 5. 14

PERCEIVED RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF CRITERIA OF PROMOTIONS


Rank,

er of

Impotane Reported.
Rank.

Criteria of Ptonotions

Rank
per

cent
.9

Rank Rank. per cent per cent

ll

per

cent ler cettt let


I
A1

IV

Rank

Ranle

Total

cmt

Seniority
Flard worlr Superior quality of

31

r7.3 18.5 18.8 13.5 16.7 14.5

21.6
17.4

19.

5.4 17.5 r7.3 34.5 r7.9 r2.9

(N:716)
100.0%

loo.o%

tJ. I

9.3 13.8 13.5


8

23.5
14.8

(N

715)

work

14.1 10.4

20.6 10.4

(N :711)

100.0% l00.O%

Being a good

politician
ofiicials

17.6

(N: (N:

711)

Being a friend/ relation ofhigher Getting along


one's

23.7

6.6
23.1

.4

26.7

100.0%
711)

superior

*.1 *irh
4.8

34.6

10.1

. (N:714

100.0%

Note: (a) Higher rank


Lower rank

: :

more importance
less importance

(b) In the last column 'N'


did not check all criteria.

is different for dilGrent criteria because all the responilents

Similar average ranking is given by the respondents to 'being a friend/ relation of higher ofrcials'. It is noted that as many as 40 per cent of the respondents have assigned the first two rank orders of importance to this factor, while about the same proportion have assigned it the last two ranks. The implication is that friendship and familial considerations are either of crucial importance or not at all. Lastly, nearly 6o per cent of the respondents have indicated 3rd and 4th rank order of importance of 'getting along well with one's superior' in promotional matters. This may mean that although this factor is neither insignificant nor all that important for promotions in the service, it does 'help'. hi as much as the confidential reports of the superior officer are an input for deciding about promotions, the working relationship between the superior and his subordinate is unlikely to be perceived as unimportant. Are there any difterences in the rankings of promotional criteria according to different groups- the respondents may.belong to? As regards the class of the respondents the findings of the study are as in Table g.r5. In the table the average rank order of importance for each criterion of promotion ranged between r and 6 with the lower score denoting higher perceived importance of a criterion, and the higher score indicating lower perceived importance of it. Any score below g.b could, therefore, be regarded as indicative of relatively higher impoitance.

88

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

TesrE 5.

15

IMPORTANCE OF PROMOTIONS CRITERIA BY CLASS


Average Rank Order of Inportante* Crireria of Promotion
Class III Class I Class II (N: 137) (N:136) (N:44e)

Seniority

2.9
4.1 3.9

2.7
J.J

Hard work
Superior quality of work
Be

ing a Politician

4.2 3.0
3.1

Being a friend/relation ofhigher otlicials Getting along well with supcriors

3.0
3.3

3.6
3.9

Lowcr the average score, the higher the rank ordcr of inportance.

The table clearly brings out that according to the respondents from all classes, seniority is still the most important basis of promotion in Government service. None of the other factors of promotion is given lorver than ?rd average rank by the respondents. Next to seniority, being a friend/ relation of the immediate superior, is ranked as an imPortant consideration by the Class I respondenis. \Ve are rather surprised to find the sample of civil servants perceiving quality of r,vork and hard rvork as a relatively less important requirement of promotion, less important than 'being a
politician'.
actir itics arc considercd to bc least by the Class I and III respondents. In fact, Class III respondents have reported hard rvork and superior quality of n'ork as thc important consideration in promotional decisions, next only to seniority. This class of civil servants also belier.e that'superior officers are less useful than Class I and II civil servants think them to be. The study thus brings out trvo features of present practice in the Government for granting promotions as significant in the vier.v of our respondents. First and foremost, the seniority of the civil sen/ant has the maximum weightage in these decisions. Secondly, that the higher the level of the civil servant, the lorver the perceived importance of merit (consisting of hard work and quality work that he is able to put in) for promotions. Admittedly lve have' assessed the relative importance of different criteria of promotions at the level of perceptions of our respondents. It cannot, however, be gainsaid that perceptions of people are one of the important determinants of their behaviour. We also considered the respondents rvho have been promoted ence or more times and rhose u,ho have not so far received iny promotion in terms of their perceptions of promotional fabtors,

On the other hand manoeuvring

necessary

Worhing Climate in Det,elopntent Ad.ministration


TABLE 5.16

89

PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF PROMOTION CRITERIA BY

PROMOTIONS RECEIVED
Auercgt Ranb Order of Importance* Criteria of Promotion
Proffiotees

(N
Seniority Hard work Supcrior quality of work Being a politician
Being a friend/relation of higher ofiicials

Non-protnotees

463)

(N:
2.1

256)

2.6
3.9

3.5 3.5

4.2
3.5 3.5

4.0
J.J

Ccrring:rlong wcll with onc's supcrior

4.0

The lower the average rank importance of it For promotions.

of

factor, the highcr the perceived importance

that both the groups of Promoted and non-promoted respondents perceive seniority as the most important basis of promotions in Governmertt service. The relative importance ascribed by the two groups to other criteria are similar except in the matter of rvorking relationship with the superio r officer, and hard work. Surprisingly. the propoted civil servants consider the place of hard work in promotion less imPortant than do the civil servants rvho have not received any Promotion so far. On the other hand, the formcr perceive good r'vorking relations rvith their superiors to be of greater help. On the whole, the experience of having received promotions does not seem to make for material dilferences in the perceived imoortance of different criteria of Dromotions in civil service. Table 5.16
shor'vs

IN CIVIL
Cir

SERVICE

to perform well. In the present study, therefore, we also tried to find out how much the development agencies studied are providing for the fulfilment of the needs of their employees. The needs considered by us are listed in 'I-able 5. t7 and Figure z that . follow. Admittedly, an important need of the civil servants, namely, their emoluments, is missing in our list. Two major considerations were before us when we decided on this omission. In the first place, there are many

servants hare rarious neerls and they legitimately expect to har"e them fulfilled in their service in Government. In fact, thc match betr'r'een their expectations of several things from the service and the cxtent to which they are able to actually enjot them indicates the level of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The latter is an important stimulant for the civil servants

il

90

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINiSTRATTON

civil servants like the basic pay, dearness allowance, house rent allowance, other allowances, provision- for pension etc' This dimension of the civil servants' need therefore requires an elaborate treatment which was somewhat beyond the nature oi the present study. Secondly, even if we had confined ourselves to the take-ho*" p"y, nothing new would probably have been added to rhe study bv its inclusion since the lack of enthusiasm on this score among civil servants is quite well known. On the other hand, not much empiriCal data were avaiiable on the job factors that we considered. It is true that certain needs of, say, two different civil servants may have been fulfilled to the same extent and yet the levels of satisfaction derived may nor be comparable because the reiative importance of difterent needs may difier among these civil servants. For instance, employees A and B may report thar their jobs provide a 'good amounr of ihailenge' However, if A has pitched his expecration at a higher level he would be relatively less satisfied with his job than B whose expectations are as much as,the job provides. Realizing this we conducted a pilot survey among the sub-sample of the respondents of this study to find out rhe relativJ importance ascribed by them to the job factors studied (ranging from the least important to the mosr important) towards making them saiisfied with their jobs. The analysis of these .responses showed these job facrors ro be of comparable imporrance. Hence. in the final study, we only ascertained the degree to which different needs of the respondents from their presenr jobs are reported to be fulfiIled. In a sense, the reported degrees oi frrlfilment represent the levels of job satisfaction experienced by the respondents.
TABLE 5.17

coruponents of the earnings of the

PERCEIVED NESO TUITU\4ENT BY CLASS


Me dn F ulfihnent Reootteil*

Nuils Consideted
Class

Clras

II

Class

III

Social prestige

ofjob

5. t J.J

Helping relationship among co-wotkers Recognition of good work

3.0
3.8

Growth in one's work


Feeling of accomplishment Interesting work

3.7
3.5

3.2 3.4 2.5 2.8 3.6


3.5 4.1

2.8 3.7
3.8 3.6

Variety in work

3.2
4.1

Working relationship with superiors Work suited to capabilities Opportunities for further promotions
Feeling

ofjob

security

4.3 3.9 2.8 3.6

3.4
3.5

2,| 2.5 3.2

2.2 3.6

The minimum and rhe maximum possible score on each need/iob faaor ranqed from t to 5, so that !'igher mean score denores higher fulfilment of the need and lower i:ean score, the lower firlEiment of the need.

orki.ng Climate i.n Deuelopment Ad,ministration Class

91

respondents

---- Class II respondcnts -'-.-'- Class III respondents


Social prastige

of the job

Helping telationship among co-workers

Recognition of good work

Gro$th in one's work

Fecling

of

accompli$hment

Intrsting work

Variety

in

work

Working relationship with superiors

Work suited to cspabilities

Opportunities

for further promotions

Feeline

of job seurity

.":

ltr

3,
(See Table 5.12)

Fig, l. Perceived Need-Fulfilment by Class

92

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

As Table 5.q and Figure z show, respondents coming from Class I, and III differ appreciably in respect of the 1evel of fulfilment o{ these job factors, namely, recognition of good work done by them, professional growth in their work, variety in n'ork, rvorking relationship with their superiors and opportunities for upward mobility in the service. On the other hand, a somervhat comparable degree of need-fulfilment is reported by all the respondents with reference to the feeling of accomplishing something torvards the succ.ess of the agencies in which they served, the feeling of job security, having to do the work that is suited to their capabilities, interesting character of work, and the social prestige of their job among

II

the outside people. In terms of the level of fulfilment the data shorv that 'opportunities for promotions' is the least fulfilled need of the respondents generally, implying that the chances of rapid promotions in Governmcnt service are perceived to be poor. Similarly, the respondents' need for recognition of even a particularly good piece of rvork done by them is also not being fulfilled at a higher than iust tolerable level. The needs of the respondents as a whole which appear to be particularly fulfilled are: having working relationship with their superiors, getting a feeling of having accomplished something rvorthrvhile in their r'vork, having variety in ivo1k, having interesting u'ork, and the feeling of job security. The expectations of the employees rvorking in organisations are sometimes broadly classified into those that are external or extrinsic to the job or tasks performed by the employees and those that are intrinsic to them. It is noted in many a research that the latter group of expectations often spur the emplovces ro \vork harder on rheir jobs and thus coirtribute directly to organisational performance. For the purpose of the present study rve picked out the follorving task /job'related expectations from the abor.e list- to find out the extent to which they are being fulfilled by the agencies stuclied. We have considered the level of fulfiIment as equivalent to the levcl of satisfaction reported by the respondents.

(b)

(a) Need to accomplish something worthwhile in Interesting nature of work (c) Variety in work (d) Work that is suited to one's caoabilities (e) Opportuniries for learning for higher jobs

one's rvork

Based on the above factors. we consrructed an index of intrinsic joh satisfaction as explained in the methodological chapter. The performance of the respondents on this index is described in Table 5.r8. As the table shows, about one third of Class I and II respondents are reported to erjoy a high degree gf intrinsic job satisfaction in their present work. The proportion of Class II respondents reporting similar experience is, however, less being about 2? per cent. A good proportion of 3o per

Warfung Climate in Deaelopment Administrati'on


TABLE 5.18

93

LEVELS OF INTRINSIC TOB SATISFACTION

BY CLASS OF RESPONDINTS
Nunber Reporting

Levels of Intrittsic Job Satisfaction

Qlass

Class

II

(pu

cent)

(pet cent)

(pu

Class cent)
33 .5 43

III

l)uefaII

(pir

cent)

I{ioh
Moderate

32.9 54.1
13

2t .9 48.0
30.1

3i .1
45

.3

.9

Low

.0

23 .2

23 .O

Torar

(N
class

100.00^ 100.00,., 100.0% 00.0oi * - 137) (N =_ 136) (N - 44s) (N :723)


r

The

ofone respondcnt was not rcported.

cent of these respondents are also getting' lor'v .intrinsic job satisfaction-' -On the other hand only r3 per cent of Class I rcspondents find their job yielding low intrinsic satisfaction. The fact remains that a larger proPortion of the respondents from each class perceive their jobs as giving them a moderate degree of intrinsic satisfaction. Overall, it is interesting that 71 per cent of thi 723 development personnel in the sample studied have repbrted as high or moderate the satisfaction they get from their work itsef'
ATTITUDES IN CITIZEN-ADMTNISTRATOR RELATIONSHIPS

All democracies place considerable emphasis upon cooperation rather than coercion of citizens in the fulfilment of dcvelopment Programmes. The readiness of the citizens to cooperate with public servants in carrying out public policies and Programmes dePcnds significantly uPon the treatment which citizens 'receive at the hands of public servants. In this study, we obtained the perceptions of the civil servants themselves about the kind of treatment meted out to the citizen clientele. These perceptions lvere obtained along three dimensions: (a) attitude towards citizen contacts, (b) image of citizcns, and (c) treatment of citizens.
Attitude towards Citizen Contacts We asked the respondents whether they liked to meet the people who visit their office on business. The replies are tabulated in the following frequency distribrition (Table 5. r 9). The significant proportion of 45 per cent of the respondcnts rvho did not mind meeting the citizens rvas in keeping r'l'ith the high degree of impersonal approach to work rcported by these respondents and discussed in ihe earlier chapter of the book. We do not know if having to meet citizens is necessary for the performance of the job roles of the respondents. Never-

94

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

Tau.d

5.

19
Number Reporting
118

ATTITUDE TOWARDS CITIZEN CONTACTS


Attitude towards Citizett Contacts
Pet cent 16.
3

Like very much to meet citizen3 Like to meet them

r40
328
EO

t9.4
45

Do not mind meeting them Do not like to meet them


Strongly dislike to meet them

.4

11.0

39
18

5.4
7.5 100.0%

Not replied
ToTAL

theless, when we juxtaposed the above results with the frequency of con' tacts of the respondents with citizen clientele, we found as shown in Table 5.2o below that these contacts do have a Positive associationshiP with

civil servants' attitudes to citizen

contacts.

TABLE 5.2o

CITIZEN CONTACTS AND ATTITUDE TOWARDS THEM

Attit
Frequetrcy of

de to

Citizen Contacts
Negative

Citizen Contdcts RePotud


Neutral Total

High
Moderate

fi.8%
36.Oo/o

43j%
54.ffo
45 .3o/o

2.e%
L}.a%

1oo.o%

(N

288)

100.0%

Low

11 <o/ /o

'"'

- 161) 37.2% 100.0% (N : 256)


(N

ment administration, contacts with citizen clients have the support of a positive attitude on the part of the civil servants towards them. The basic neutral attitude of a large proportion of the civil servants in this regard, however, continues to stay. This has also emerged in the following table which examines this problem in relation to the class of the respondents.

generates a positive feeling towards them in the civil servants. Nor can we say that pro-client civil servants tend io welcome contacts more often with the public. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that at least in develop-

We cannot conclude that having to meet the public more frequently

Working Climate in Deuelopment Ailministration


Tetls 5 .2l
ATTITUDE TO CITIZEN CONTACT BY CI,ASS OF RESPONDENTS
Nunbu
Attituile to Citizen Contacts
Class

95

Reporting

.Class

II

(yer cent)

(pu
13

cent)

Class (yter cett)

III

Positive

35.0
58

.2
3E.1
16.
E

Neutral
Negative

.4

55.9
27

4.4 2.2
100.0%

.2

Not reported

3.7

2.4

(N

137)

(N

100.0% 100.0% - 136) (N:44e)

As regards the development agencies we found the following partern of attitude to citizen contacts among their employees.
TLRLE
5

.22

ATTITUDE TO CITIZEN CONTACTS BY AGENCIES STUDIED


Number Reporting

Auit

ile to Citizen Contacts

d.) cnt) Qter


(t
16.0
53.4

Agency

Agenty

(pn

(Ind.) (Acr.)
rent)
<

Agency

Agency

(per

cent)

(tci.) (per cnt)


61.0 26.9

Positive

)1

27 .O

Neutral Negative

61.4 11.1

54. 8

30.6

l8.2

12.l

Torer

(N:2ts) (N:

1m.0o/o

100.0% loe)

100,0% rm.o% (N: 137) (N:262)

The foregoing table strikingly demonsrrares that the civil servants serving in agency D which handles agricultural development programmes and community development schemes are significantly most often posirively oriented to their clientele; that the tradition of neutrality is breaking down fast among them. On the other hand, this tradition conrinues among the meribers of agency B which, in our sample, handles development programmes in industry at the field level. The secretariat/central agencies A and C dealing with industrial and agricultural programmes respecrively of course have the traditional neutral attitude.

96

Br.tREAucRAcy AND DEvELopMENT ADMINISTRATToN

Image of Citizen Attitudes When we tfied to assess the perceptions of the respondents about the behaviour of citizen clientele towards them, we found that. about 7o per cent of the respondents felt that the citizens generally are 'very much' or 'quite respectful' to the civil servants, In reply te another question 78 per cent of the respondents reported that the citizens were not at all or only slightly afraid of the civil servanrs. 'fhese results suggesr that the mental barriers of the citizens tolvards thc civil servants are breaking dor,vn at least in the development administration.
.

Treatnten

t ol Cilizens

There is a rvidespread feeling among the public that the civil servanrs are generally not helpful in their dealings rvith them. What do the civil servants themselves have to say about this matter? The respondents of this study held the following perceptions about the behaviour of officials of their department torvards people who came to them for work.
TaBLE 5.23
.

REPORTED TREATMENT OF CITIZENS


Beltauiour Tou ards Citizen
s

Ntunber Reporting 176 321 164


51

Per rcnt

Very often helpful Often helpful


Sometimes helpful Rarely helpful

24

.3

44.4

22.7
11

Never helpful

1.0

Not reportcd

0.5
100.0%

Torar

The foregoing findings of the stucly are in sharp contrast to the public feeling merltioned above. Obviously, there is a woeful mismatch bent'een the help sought by the public and the concepr of it according ro rhe civil servants. In other words, the role of the civil servants in respect of citizen problems is being vier,r'ed differently by the citizens themselve.s antl the cir.il servants on their part, indicating a gap in the communication between t he two.

SuiltnrARy AND CoucrusroNs

In this chapter, we were concerned with some aspects of the working climate in development administration. \Ve lvere especially interested in

Worhing Climate in Deuelopment Administration

97

finding out the working climate in lthich our respondents performed their functions or tasks because of its importance as one of the determiners of human behaviour in organizations. The aspects r,\'e considered rvere: the attitudes toivards responsibility, attitude to delegation, artitudes in employee supervision and development, perceptions about criteria of prcimotions in Govemment sen/ice. and attitudes in citizen-administritor
relationships. We hypothesized that the l,'orking climate conducive to efficiency of developmental functions should have the following prominent features:

the developmental personnel at all heirar-chical levels should have a high degree of positive attitude towards responsibility ir-r rvork; thev should be prepared to take on more and not less responsibility; 2. there should be a vigolous programlne of clelegat.i.on of authority to the personnel at subordinate levels not onlv to expedite I'ork but also to provide for their individual gror,r'th; q. the style of super.r,ision sl-rould be predominantly employee-centred because such a style is knorvn to enhance the possibilities of better employee pertormance in the long run. Besides. it is the corollary of the pro-citizen attitudc requirecl of developmental personnel rvhich n'e have emphasized in the earlier chapter; 4. as the number of opportunities for- institutional training of developmental personnel are bound to be limited, planned and deliberate efforts should be made to develop these personnel on their jobs or through their rvork-dav experience; promotions should be perceived to be based primarily on merit so i. ,as to provide a rlircct ancl continuing incentive to the civil servants to perform better. Merit-based promotions also enhance the chances of fulfilment of organisational goals rvhich in the contexr of developrnent administration is of crucial significance; t)- the de'r,elopmcntal personnel should cxperience a fairly good level of intrinsic job satisfaction since it is directly related to better per.formance in their assignments; and the developmental personnel should feel positivelv obliged to help the clientele thar come ro them for I'ork" and with their prqllems. On the basis of the findings of the study presented in the foregoing pages, can rve concltrde that thc rvorking climate in development administiation represented by the civil senants in our sample is distinguished bv the above seven features? Our conclusions in this regard are based on modal findings. As regards rhe .attitucle rorvards responsibility, the study founcl a vast majority (o'er 7o pe. cent) of the respondents in all the rhree clesses willing to undertake very much more otr somer,rrhat more respo'sibilih' in rheii r.r.ork in terms of quality. 'Io the extent the positiYe attitude to responsibility on the part of civil servants is a necessary pre-condition for success

r.

98

BUREAUCiAC\' AND DEVEI,OPMENT ADMINISTRATION

of clevelopmental efiorts, the sturly sholvs that such a condition does exist in a substantial measure. At the samc time, thc results could imply that thecivilservicejobsarcnotsufficientlyu'ellstructtrrerltosuitthcCaPabitities of their incumbents. That thcse jobs arc moIC routinizerl than tht: civil servants care for is also indicatecl by the feeling of a largt: ProPortion nf th. ,.rpo.t.lents of this stud,v that thcir training ancl cxperience. arg^tltlll partially use.l up in the rvork of their Presenj positions' It is.significant irrut tnJ higher level positions are found as 'little' or 'poorlv' challenging as
the lower livel positions. The lack of sufficient challengc in the task contents of their jobs is bound to retarcl the personal gro'tl'th of civil serl'ants' Apart from tlris' othcr opportunities available to the civil seNants for personal gfolvth also appcat t;'bc limited. Thus nearl)' tt'o-thirds of the respondents have the srtperiors delegating to them less than enough authorit\'. This is. horvt'r'er, less true of the higher level than of the lou'er civil servants' Both the pircei'ed mismatch be6r,een the capabilities of the ciril servants ancl the .r,vork performed by them and the re stricted dclegation of authority by their superiors inclicate the limited inrinsic \vorth of ciyil service jobs. This is further corroborated bv our data on intrinsic jotr almost half of the responsarisfaction experienced by the rcspondents degr ee of ir. rvhile twenty-three Per cent clents reported to have a moderatr: .*pt"$..I a lot' level of intrinsic job satisfaction. It ma,v llc rccalled that 1"e hu"" defined intrinsic job satisfaction in terrns of certain factors like interesting nature of t'ork, variet-v in the'r\'ork, opportrtnities for gaining experiencE useful for trigher jobs, etc.. rvhich are inhcrcnt in the work neiformccl bv the civil servanrs. That is, the chances of {ulfilrncnt of these iactors are built into the rr.ork itself. On the rvhole. therefore, on the basis of the data of the present studv, it is difficult to conclude that the structure of the jobs in development administration is plesentlv such as tr.r enable civil stivants to feel both psychologically and intellet:tuallv involved in doing them. To the cxtent such a feeling of involvement is an important ingredient of bettcr performancc. \\re are not likelv to sec mttch of the latter in tlre cxisting situation. The study has throlvn up gratifying findings about emplovee-orientation o[ superiors inasmuch .as 8o per cent of the respondents havc lepolttrd their immediate superiors to bc highl,v of at least rloderatclv positivelv oricntecl towards them. The resulting climate of interpersonal tnrst and regard is not lr.ithout a payofl. The stuclr' shor,r's that there is a posi tive nssociation betlt'een employee-orientatioll of superiors on thc trnc hand, :rncl thc attitudc to responsibility arnong the subordinates and tlre delegation of authoritv to the subordinates on the other. 'fhat is. thc morc tlre reqpondents find thcir superiors to be cmploye e-oriented, thc more n illing they are to take responsibilitv for qualitv t'ork and thc morc delegation of authority bv their superiors. (These results are fottnd to be statisticallv
significant.)

It

cannot be gainsaid that institutional rules may be. responsible for'

Worhing Clintate in Deitelopment Administration

99

superiors in the civil service not having a positive attitud.e towards using delegation as an aggressive instrument both to expedite disposal of l,orli and to develop lorver level employecs. These rules may give a feeling to the_ superiors that thcy alone are responsible for anything that happcns under thcir charge, and hence it is better that they themselves do as manl things as possible.. 'l-his notion of accountability is clcarly dr.sfunctional to the complcrities of der'clopmental tasks and rhe nced to invoive differ.ent personncl ir-r performing them. \Vhile. therefore. it would b.e necessary tr, dispel it. thc prcscnt stud' shnrvs thar grearcr delegation does in facr iakc placc informrllr. dcpcnding on rhe cgalitarian rclarionship borr'een rhe superior and his subordinates. The fact however remains thai thc long term solution to this problem has to come from organisation planners in thc
Govern men
L

vants manning them can be tackled either (a) b\, scaling dorvn the man specificatiorrs :tssociated rrirh diffcrcnr positioris. or (lr) hv rrpgratling rhc iobs in terms of qualitl. of rvork cxpected from lob incumbent,s. The needs of clcvelopment administration are likclv to bc met bv the httcl course of action. Besides formal training and challenging job designs, the dircct interesr. taken by the supcrior officers is an important irid to the dcr.elopment of s'bordinates. As regards the ci'il sert u.ris in the samplc. their supiriors are re ported to be making varying cfforrs to help them to assume higher rer_ ponsibilities. Thus thc supcriots do not seem to be. able presently to devote sufficient attention to the de'elopment of their subordinates. Tiris circumstance leads to different civil scn'ants being prepared for higher positions at diflerent paces. In this process those fortunate ci'il seivanti having superiors lvho gil'e high prioritv to personnel development *,oulcl have an edge over their colleagucs whose supcriors are not itle to carry out this responsibilitv as much as expected, for- one reason or the.ther-. The latter gr-oup of cir.il scr-vants are bound to feel frustratcd bv this cxperience. To atrgrd.- gorygarable opp.ortunitics for professional growth. it is necessan. to build this responsibility into the role definition of the superior officers and assess. them periodically for it along n'ith tireir other rciponsihilities. From thc foregoing anah'sis, r,r.c did not get thc impression that the agencics studicd are making clcar, conscio,r* ro rlevelop rhcir per'"ffnrr, sonnel profcssionallv, although rve do not deny that *olnc ,uch efforts are being made. on their orr' initiatir-c also thcj responclents arc n.t likel' to exert rmrclr t' develop themsclves. one of the iong term incentives in this regard is the system of promotions basecl primarilv on merit, by *hich is meant the ability to r.r'ork hard and turn o*r superior quelity *,ork. Hol'ever, thc r"elativc importance of differcnt factors in prom.,tional rlecisiorrs in the ci'il service as percei'ed bv the rcspondent,s is nor likely to spur them to put in their best. Accordi'g to thc iespondents .f all classes. seniority continues to weigh maximally. \\rhile meii t is at be st assigned

Tht: p'olllcnrs arising f'orn rhc poo' rnarriagc lrerrtcen rlrc intlinsit aspects of civil service jobs and the needs and capabilitics of the civil ser.

100

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

'second order of importance, other considerations too ar'e reported to play some part in promotion decisions. It is indeed unfortunate that the irigirer ttre ievel of ihe civil servants. the lolvet: is the importance of merit as a Promotional factor. It is maintained that promotions in Government ser'ice are 6ased at

least as much,

if not mot . on merit as uPoll senioritY. On the basis of the present study, it cannot be said that the civil senrants perceive it to be so.

iyor"ou"r, their behaviour in job roles is likely to be determined more bv their own perceptions rather ihan by the assertions made 5y others. It is thus not .nongh to claim that promotions are based on merit. but thev must also upp.ur to be so determined to the cir.il ser\rants. To this end Governmeni need to lay do.lvn merit criteria for prornotions to differenl positions more explicitly and take acti\re steps to ensule that civil servants irnderstancl these iriteria and the manner of the ir assessment. Civil sen'ants are rhen more likely to make positive efforts to improve their capabilities and consequently their job performance. Lastlv. the relatively cold attitude of the ciyil scrvants torvatrds the public as revealed in the present study poses a serious problem for their changerl. role. It may be recalled thar the Governmenral agencies covercd in the studv are engaged in key devclop ent activities. By its very key premise, deve lopment aclministration iequires a client-oriented approach rvith- public ad^minisffators actil'ely seeking to meet the needs of their clientelc. The problem of the pro-citizen attitude of civil sclvants is indcccl cornplex anc hu. ,ro ,ont* in the civil service traditions of this country' Exhortations

apart, more studies are needed to explore its dimensions and natnre before beginning to make prescriptions in this important it1'ea. We have no comparative data to conclude if the lvorking clintatc in the agencies studied is better or different to that prevailing in other segrnents of the civil service. Nonetheless, it is distinguished, as in man,v other' Government agencies, by a lack of high premium either on perforrnance or on the development of their hurnan resources. In viert' of this rve irnagine that the civil .servauts ser:r'ing in thesc agencies are fulfilling their developmental role rather routinelv. 'fhis observation is borne out bv the lo$l performance of the respondents on development orientation reported in the {ollorr'ing chapter.

Bureaucratic Adaptation to Development Administration

Evm srxce the era of planned economic development, the adaptation of


bureaucracy to the values of development administration has been a major theme of policy concern in all developing countries; more so in India. The theme came up repeatedly in each of the successive five year plans in different forms, and led to policy pronouncements of related hues.

'I'he Administrative Reforms Comrnission was assigned the task of "making public administration a fit instrument for carrying out the social and economic policies of the Govenement and for achieving social and economic goals of development." In brief. to design a system of development administration. To do so, it is necessaly to define the essential characteristics of development administration.
For the purposes of this study. as described in Chapter I, rve have defined the essential characteristics of devclopment administration in terms of four behavioural parameters, v iz..

r. z.
sr

Change-orientation,
Re

sult-orie ntation,

' ,r. Commitment to work.

Citizen participative-orientation, and

These are seen as the ke-r: characteristics rr.hich determine lerms the nature o[ rlerelopment ar]ministration.

in

essential

While ascertaining bureaucratic adaptation to development administration, rve addrcssed oursclves to t\vo questions: (a) the extcnt of this adaptation in the civil serr,ice generally, and (b) the,adaptatiorr of the respondent himself, that is, the respondent's own vier,r' of his developmental role. We made this distincti.on realising that the civil servant may not always be in agreement rvith the beha'r.iour of othcr civil ser"vants and that his own inclinations may be different from it. That the clisciepancy between the two indicates a tension cxperienced by the civil servant in fulfilling his developmental responsibilities in a manner considered appropriate by him. On the other hand, a high degrce of agreement bet'rveen the actuality position and the respondents' orvn vierrs about the behaviour in developmental role denotes the process of socialization tlut goes in Gove rnment
service,

102

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPNIENT ADMINTSTRATION

I'rnnr Ncs

nrspoNDrNts' ADAprArroN To

DEVELoINTENT ADLIINISTRATToN

'fable 6.r below shows the performance of the respondenr on the dimensions of development administration as defined in the study.
TABrI 6.t
RESPONDENTS, ADAPTATION

TO DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
Rnrri?irr g

.y'R, ipoarlerrts Not

Dimensions ol

Adaptation

(per
Change-orientatiotr Result-orieutation

High cent)

hfoderatc

(per
61

tnt)
.4

(ptr

Lot| a'ut)

reported

'lotal

(p'r tutt)

21.5

I5.9
2l .5

l.t

l00.0_o/o

(N

ll

.0

46.5

l.o
1.

723)

(N .(N (N

roo.o%
723)

Citizet participativeorient:rtion
17.5 50.9 58.9
30. s

r r

100.09,;

723)

(lommitment to rvork

27.6

13.4

0.

100.09;

?23)

The basis for ranking. the respondents into high, modcratc, and low adaptation groups is explained in the chapter on mcthodol.ogv. Change' orientation is defined bv us as the concern of the civil ser\rants cngaged in dcr"clopment activities to bring about thc desirable changes both in the sutrstance of the field of their activities like agriculturc irnd industry as rvell.as in the values and attitudes of the pcoplc, l'henever thcr irnpinple on the developrnent process. As Table 6. r shows. about qq per ccrrt of the respondents of this study arc change-oriented to a prorrounced degree if the highs are so described. On the other hand, ncarlv 16 per r;enl of thc civil sen'ants have scorecl lorv on this dimerrsion. that is therc is little evidence of their acceptance of the role of a change-agent in the above sensr: of the term. A vast majority, that is about 6z per <:ent of the respondents who are moderately change oriented indicates partial adoption of the change-agent's role by the developmcntal personnel. Like change-orientation, result-orientation of thc bureaucrircl is an im, portant prerequisite of the success of cleveloprnent rdrninistration. The present study however found that as high a proporrion as 6i} per cent of the respondents are moderately or even less result-oriented. \Vc have cleIined this particular characteristic of development adminisfration in terms of the concern of the civil servants to achieve specific programmatic results in their rvork. For us, therefore, civil servants working in developmental

Burea,,ucratic Adaptatiort,
areas

to Deuelopment Ad,ministration

103

would be adjudged efiective or othelwise according to the extent to which they actually achieve speci{ic results. In view of the critical importance of this factor it is noteworthy that only 3r per cent of the developmental personnel in the sample scored high, that is, showed a high concern fol achier ing results. As emphasize<l earlier, one of the key ingredients of success in devclopment administration is citizen response to and participation in the der,.elopment process. Indeed, without active citizen participation it is difficult to visualize continuing success of diverse developmental activities in the dispersed areas like agriculture. As things stand today, the extent of citizen response and active support to developmental efforts depends significantly on the attitudes of civil servants themselves towards citizens the treatment t he) get and the efforts made to involve them in the-formulation and irnplementation of public policies affecting them. -fhe results of the present study dramatically reveal that citizen-orientation of the vast majority of the civil servants is moderate to poor. Thus nearlv 3r per cent of the civil servants in the sample stuclied have reported lorv level of citizen-orientation, while another br per cent are moderately citizen-orien ted. Only about r8 per cenr of the respondenrs appear to bc rpiite positivelv adapted to their new developmental role in terms of high citizen-centredness displayed by them. Lasdr'. a. large proportion of our respondents are also not distinguished by a high degree of commitment to their work. This we have identified as the fourth important ingredient of the developmental role. For the purposes of the study, commitment to rvork implies the feeling of involvernent experienced b1 ihe civil ser\,anls in respeci of thcir deueiopmenral activities, rvithout which high congruence between organisational objectives and actual results is difficulr to achieve. A high degree of such a feeling is evidenced by about z8 per ccnt of the. respondents, .in contrast to about r3 per cent poorly committed to their work. 'l-he remaining 59 per cent civil servants in the sample show moderate commitment to their work. On the whole, the foregoing results show the modal adaptation of civil servanrs to developmental -rolc to be moderate. 'l-he mean scores of 723 respondents on each of the scales also fall betr,veen the ranges of the scdre for each, scale desclibecl by us as denoting moderate orientation. Within the overall pattern, horver,er, respondents are found to be less often rnoderatelV adapted. and more often poorly adaptcd first in terms of t:itizenorientation and next in terms ()f result-orientation. Nonetheless. it appears that the process o[ developmental personnel internalizing rheir nerv role has already ltegun. granted at a slorv pace.
REI,ATIONSIITP AMONG DIMENSIONS

We have reported above the extent of adaptation of the civil servants to development administration in terms of four characteristics of the role implied in it. Further analysis of this data revealed the followinq relation-

104

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

ships among the above charateristics.


TABL! 6.2

tirerroNsnp
D i men sion s qf Adap
to tion

AMoNG RESPONIxNTS' ADAPTAIIoN To

DEVELO?MENT ADMINISTRATION ALONG FOUR DIMENSIONS


Chi-square Values

S. l\'o.
1.

Descr!ption

Char ge-t ricntation

?1.3x

50.2*
26. 1*

6.5 NS 7.6 NS 2.9 NS

2.

Result-oricntation Citizen-orientation Commitment to work

3.

Significant at .001 level with df

:4.

NS Not significant.

Table 6.e sho'lvs that the three dimensions of the developmental role. namely change-orientation, result-orientation and citizen participation orientation are positively and significantly associated \vith one another. On the other hand, none of them is associa.ted significantly with thc commit" ment to 14/ork dimension. The first threc dimensions can, therefore, Jre considered to hold together to constitutc the s,vstenl of de'r-eloprnental adaptation. As regards rvork commitment. although it is an important input for success in the developmental role. admittedly development administra' tion shares this particular characteristic rvith general aclministration ot'for that matter w'ith any successful organisation.
RELATIONSHIP \{TITH BACKGROUND C}IARACTERISTICS

'l he dcmographic chalacteristics ol the tcspotrdents of the studr hare been described in an earlier chapter. \\rhen these data nere examinecl against the data for the rcspondents' adaptation to the developnrent-al lolc, the follorving results r'vere noted.
rientation Table 6.3 belorv reports change-orientation of the respondents groupeci according to several background characteristics like age, education. parental occupational background, economic class origin, upr,r'ard mobilitv in service, class at present, type of agencies studied, etc. C)ur study includes nvo o{fices dealing r.r'ith industrial c1cr,'clopment.al programmes and two others related to agricultural developmcnt. In order to find out if the personnel serving in the tlvo development sectors are different in terms of their change-orientation, we divided the four offices
Change-O

Buyeaucratic Adaptation

to Deuelopment Administration

105

into two groups as shorvn in Table 6.9. \Ve found that the industry offices have a somewhat higher proportion of both high change-oriented and lor,r,. change-oriented stafi compar:ed to the agricultural offices. 'Ihese difierences, howevef, \'rere not statistically significant.
TABu 6.3
CHANGE-ORIENTA'TION AND BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS

{N '=

723}

Ranking of Respondrnts
B abgroun d

Char acta i stics

"

]\I

High Moderute Lou.,


o/o/oo/ /o /o h

NR
/'o

3.

(I, :

Type of Office Studied


6.e" df =- 3)

Indusrv (trvo)
Agriculturc (tn'o)

324
loo
723

23

.4

56 .

19

..'t

0.

10 _7

4{ t

l) 1

I n

3.2

TypeofPersonnel****
(X2

: t6.3' df : 2) Technical Non-technical

285 438

28.7 16.6

57.l 64.1

)2.6 18.0

1.6
1.3

3.3

Class at Prcseot**** (I,'z 35.5, 4)

df:

Class I
Class
Class

Il

IIi

131 136 449


I

31.6 33.8 14.7

57.0 47.0 67.0

10.9 11 .6 . 16.9

0.5 1.6
1.4

N.

Jl.,

3.4

Age****
('t"2

24.6, dt

2\

Yo ung

old
1.,t.

503 2rE
)

16.5 33.0

65.8 50.9

16.5 14.6

1.2

r.5

R.

106

'

.ADMINISTRATION BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT

/(dfllilrig U Kc-ipo,rdr
B a ckgr
o

ra-{

und

htt d{ter i

t it

Ithrlt
o:

LIodt:rnte l-ou'
ol io o,/ /o

NR
o/

/o

J.f,

Educational Attainment****

(r'2:28.0, df Graduites Non-graduates

2)

28.6
13.8
2 '123

57

.4

t2.0
20. 0

2.o

65.2

L0

N.

11.

':
16.'t 27 .'/
)1 A
20.

Rutal/Urbaa Backgroundt

(r, : tt.l,df :3)


Rural Semi-urban urDau

352
1.44

65 .S

16.

1.3 1.6

55.

15.2

l?3
96
8

qS)
60.4

t4.6 t8,0

).6
0.0

Metropolitirn

tt

N. R.

723

Parental Occupation* (I, - 10.4, df :8)


Governrnent Servicc
Agricultr"rrist 202
203

20.7

Privatc busiress & trading


Independent pr<rfcssional
I cacl').lllg

t98

:0.7
30.6

49 4
26 723

Othcrs

0.0

58,4 14.3 1,1 66.0 1t..1 0.0 61 .6 .- 14.6 I :.-" 3. i 19.5 2.5 53 .6 12.3 0.0 57 .1 50.0 50.0 ) 0. o
_.

N.

R.

3.8

Econornic Class Origin***


(Xz

:14.3,df :

4) 82

Upper

34.1
21

Middlc
Lorver

22t

.0

'

382 38 723

t9.I

5E.5 58.3 64.t

6.1
19.0 I ' 15.9

1.3
1.7

0.9

N,

R,

Bureaucratic Adaptation to Deuelopment Ad,ministration

r07

Rankitg
B ackgr

oJ Re sp ontlents

ound C hu

acte r i s t i t s

High

Moderate

%
3.9 Years of Setvice in
(X2

%ii

Lou

NR
t>/

,o

17.2, d{

Govt.***
203 381 133 6 723

4)

1949 and belbrc

30.5 18.3

49 .1

11 a

Betwecn 1950-61
1962 ancl later

65.3
ob_6

t{ ?
15.

t7.3

O.8-

N.

R.

3.

fo

Upward
(x2

Mobility**l*

14.7, a{

2)

One or more promofions Ncr promotions

463

25.0

s8.l
67 .1

t4.6
18.0

256
4

13.6

N.

R,

3.

11

Fonnal Traiaing* (X, s.4, af 2)

I'rained

230
191

23

.4

63

.4

Untrrir:'d N.
R.

?0.5

60.2

1t.3 18. t

1-.9

1,.2

* t* *** ****

Not significant. Signiii6311 at .05 levej.


Signidcant ar .01 level. Significant at .001 lcvcl.

We also examined [o see whether there was any major difference betrveen technical and non-technical respondents in the mattcr rrf changc. orientation. We found, as reported in 'fable 6-3.2, that as a gl-oup the technical respondents contained a higher proporrion of high change-orientecl

l0E

BUREAUCRACY AND DEIELOPNTENT ADI'TINISTRATION

members and a lolver proportion of poor chan 1e-oriented mernbers than the gToup of non-technical respondcnts. These. tli{Terences are also statlstl-16.3; df : z, significant at 'or lc'r'el)' cailf sgtti6.unt (chisquare : As re-gards the class of se1.\ ice of the r.espon(lcnts. thc stud,v found t-hat civil sei,ants of Class I ancl II perceivcd thcir positive r'le as changeagenrs more sharply than did class III resPonclcnts. Arnong the fo ner it lias revealed thai Class I rcspondenrs 6ave a snraller proportion (to.o pet cent) of pool. change-orientcd respor-rdents than class II ( t 7.fi per cent). These reiults indicite that Class I. II ancl III civil scrvants in development administration differ significantl-v as rc'Ial-ds PcrcePtion of their change-agent role (chi-square : 35.5, df : 4. sip;nificant at 'ot levcl, see Table 6-3.3). "we considerecl the change-orientation of respondents according to when age, we found, as described in Table 6-3.4, that the olcler civil servants (fo + ) are more ofren high change-oriented and less often moderatc and poor -fhese rlifferc-hange-oriente cl than the ,vounger civil servants (belorv 4.o). also significant (chisquare : 24.6. rlf : z. significanl. at or

"rr."r-,,,.r" level). Further, lvhen r,e broke dorvn the

t'es1>ondents.

into threc

age

groups: namely young (belolr' :r5). middle ive found that the above differcnces wel'e sustainccl. Thus, onl,v l.t per cent of the ,voung respondents scored high on changc-orientation. compared to z8 per cent of tle middle-agcd respondents and 32 pcr ccnt o{ the okl respondents scoring high on this climenston of tlevelopmenl. arltninistla tion. Similarly, out of ttre 442 modcratc cl-tangc-oricnted respondents' ;7 per cent are young, e6 per ccnt rniddlc-aged and only r7 per,cent old' These results shorv that hig"hcr age in a civil servant goes 'rl'ith a more mature viet' of his role in developinent aclministt'ation. The study did not point out any sharp differclrces in the changc'orientation of the ofifrceri belonging to rural irnd urban backgrounds ('I able 6 3.6). . One important question is thc irrfluence of educational attainments among civil servants on their orientation to cllirnge' Our h-vpothesis l'as that higher education lvoulcl make for greater- cottsciousness an<l hencc for higher change-orie ntation. Toilards the data tor this h,vpothe si's. n'e grouped tlne 7% respondents into one group of graduatcs, Post-graduates and doctorates, and anothcr group of highr:r seconclatv ccrtificate and diplorna holders and those nho have had sonre collegc cdttcation (-Ia.ble ti-3.5)" It rvas found that the graduate gloup consisted of a. higher proPortion of htgh change-oriented civil servants irnd :r lorver proportion of moderate and poor change-oriented civil servants than the non-graduatc group. \\that is more, these differenccs are significant (chi-square : 28.o; df : z' signi ficalt at .o r level). Further analysis of the gracluate glouP shorvs that thc respondents holcling post-graduate and doctoral degrees are e\ren more change-orienfeci than graduate respondents, inclicating- that highcr education is possibly a consistent influence in sensitizing civil servants to their nelv role in development hdministration. Table 6.4 bclow gives clata on above observations,

aged (36 45,) ancl r.rld (over 'tr5)'

Bure'awcratic Adaptation

to Deuelopment
TABr.r 6.4

Administration

109

UNTVERSTIYEDUCATIONALA]fAINMENTANDCHANGE.O]IIENTATION
Ranleing o.f Res1to enx

Letel of LJnh'ercity Ehration

":,f"''
Gradrrate 225 142

Motlerurt

I.ou,

NR
'1,;

25.8
33.
E

60.0
53.5

t2.4
11.3

1.8

?ost-graduate arrd doctorate

t.4

Similarly, although the non-graduate resPondents scored lower on change-oricntation tiian gr.aduate icsponclents, rvc founrl that the diplomatrolders \{ere more often sharpll' change'orientcd than the matriculates' fhrrr, n5, per cent of the diplorna holders in the sample are l-righ changeorient"d' ancl only tr.5 p.i ccnt are poor change-oriented tornpared to r2.per cent of thc mairiiulates $'ho are high change-oriented and zz per c.ni of thc matriculates tt'ho are Poor change-oriented' These results are consistent rvith the fincling rcported earlier that tcchnical civil servants far u, ih" p"r.ntal occupational background of thc lespondents-is conccrne4 the sturiy shorverl ('lhble 6-3.7) highlv similar -ranking of the respondents on change-oricntation. n'hether their parental background was Government service. agriculture. or private busincss and trading' or PrG fessional like meclicine or lalr" ol- teaching' How far are cit il servants rvith different economic class origins similarlv 'as shor'vn in Table 6-3.8 or rlissimilarly change-orienred? our findings here a civil scrvaut. the Inore are that higher thc'economic class brckgrou tl of often is he'likely to be high changc-orie nterl and less often poor changeorienterl. Th.s, of the reslonclenti rvith an upPer class 5ackgro'n4. 11,1 per cent r,vere high change-orierlted, lvhereas ^ onlv 6 pcr cent \!el'e- POor ihange-o.i.nted. Ll comparison, I q per cent ,of the responclents rvith lorver "background rvere |righ .hur-tg"-,r.ie'ted. rvhile r 6 per cent of th-em class l\,ere poor change-orienteci. Lastly- zr Per cent of thc resPondcnts rvith a rnidclle-class ba&ground rvere high change-oriented compared to r I per cent of them who-were poor change-oriented. These differences were found to be significant (chisquare : r4.3, <lf = 4, significant at or lcvel)' It rvit s"ett above that the older respondcnts rvere found to bc more change-oriented than the younger respondents..In the earlier thapter' it is noied that many of the respondents of the studv appear to have takcn up their first job in the Government at about.the same age. These_ findings further implv that higher changc-orientation should come about rvith more
are more change-oriented.

In

so

time in thi Government service. 'I"hat it is indeed so is indicatcd by Table 6-3.9. 'Those of our respondents n'ho joined Government sen'ice. before .,u".. found to be more of ten high change-oriented although after , gli

110

BIIREAUCRACY AND DE\TTI,OPMtrNT ADI,IINISTRATION

that y,ear recruits to the ci'il service rvere found similarly change-oriented (chi-sqnare - q.2, dl : 4, significant at.o5,, level). The study ihus shorvs that in the absence of deliberate e[Tort], civil ser\:anrs are likelv to take long time perceiving their role of change-agents. . Does. possible promotion accolrnt for the clegree of change-orientation in a ci'il servan I ? The present studv does shorrl that up,"u, ,l progression of the responclcnts is associatecl rvith their positivc orieniation to b-ringing about changes in the society (Table 6-3.ro). Thus, out of thc t"rpntr.l"rri.. tho havc earned one or trore prornotions tluring their .nr..r*, 2b per cent are high change-oriented. l'hereas only r..t.6 per ccnt of the respon. dents whn have not had any promotion so far arc similarlv change-oriented. simila'ly. the proportion of moderate and poor change-oriented icspondents is less among the former group than among the riitcr. These differences arc also- statistically significant (chisquar c * |4.7. df : 2. significant at 'or level)..F,rther analysis of thc data rclating to the rrumbei'rif promotions^ r'eceived by- the resporrdents a'rl thcir change-orientatio' yielded the follor.ving results (Table 6.5). Thcsc rcsults do. shor.v that the number of times thc. civil sen'ant is promotecl has a consisrent relationship with his change-orientation.
']'ABL[ 6.5

IIPWA11D NIORILITY AND CHANGE-ORIENTATION


Rar

king of Rasp anrlents

Number o l' l4omot

ion s R ece

it,

N
256

Higlt
o.,

Modtran'

Lou' oi,

AIR

o'

Nil
One

13.6 20.3 10,0

61 .4

18.3
16

0.7
1.9

it )
139 109

60. 9

,9

Trvo

s4.1
56.8

14.4

Orer lg.o NR

L2

t2.0

0.9 0.0

, [,asth'. rve considerecl the formal raining r.eceivecl b1, our tespon<lents and thc. degree of change-orientation reporterl bv thcm. As lrabie 6-"4. r r shows. the traincd respondents have a somelvhat better appreciati.n of tireir cha'ge-agent's role than thc untraincd .csponcle'ts. Thesc clifierr:nces are, horvevcr-, not material implying that formal tiaining does 'or appear to be a- sou'cc of der.eloping change-.rientation among the ci'il senlnts in devclopmental agencies of the Government.
R

r:tr

II

-( )

f'he rli:rribrrtion of tlrt. 7r3 r'cspondents .l thc stu<l\, on the rcsultorientati.n di'rension of devt l.pment adminisrrari* i, glr.,'-.urit.;.- +;;

ri c n I atiott

Buyeawcratic Adaptation

to Deuelopment

Administration

lf I

follorving Talle 6.6 describes the relationship betlveen result-orientation of the .r'espondents tur,the one.-hand and thcir demographic backgronnd on

in the case of changc-orientation, the industries offices studied rvere fountl to be more rcsult-oriented than the agriculture offices. Thus, as shown in Table 6-6.r, about 37 .per cent of the 324 respondents of the two
As
agencies studied which dealt rvith development programmes

the

other.

in the area of

industries, evidence high result-orientation.


TABrE 6.6

I].ESUT-T-ORIENTATION AND BACK(}I{OUNI) CHA1TACTERIST'ICS

(N

.:

7231

anking of Rcsyondents

Borckyouril

Cltarath'ristirs

i\r ''

High Moderan' I.ou, (k t,. g,;,

NR

1;

6.

Type of Offices Studied***

(x2

13.4, Af

2\

Industr,v

Aqriculture

(two) (trvo)

324 399

36.7 .:6.5

46.7 46.1

16.0 25,S

0.4
1.6

6.1

Type of Personuel**t (x2 12.3, At 2)

Technical Non-rechnical 3
Class at Present****

285 418
723

36.4 27.6

41

.O 46"1

I5

.l 2s.4
.

0.9

6.

(It .

r3.0.

di

1)

I ll Cllass III N.R,


Class
Clasi
(,

l3'7 136 449


I
'12
"l

3'7 .3 44.R 25 .1

46.7 37.5 49.0

t6.0 16.8 24 . S

0.0 0.9
| .4

.4

Ag"*

(/,i 0.:r. .li Yorurg Old t\. R.

1)

-503 : ?18
2

30.6 32.1

,16.

1 46.7

20.

22.O I

I I

3
I

123

1t2

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

Ranlehry of Responden*

Backgromd Char acte r i s

ic s

Iiish
n/

NIoderatt
(r/

Lou,

/o

?i,
1

NR
%

6.

Educational Attai4ment**tr

(x'

qt. o' df

2) JO/

Graduates

40.0
22 .O

44

.7

14.

1.2

Non-graduates

354
2

46.4

29 .1

2.5

N. R.

'1|i
o.o

Rural/Urban Background*
(1,'

11

.0,

df:

6)

l{rlrrl
Semi-urbar

J)l

lt.o
34.0

46.0
43

r44
123
9(r
6

.7

Urban Mcrropoliren

46.3
35

.4

50.0

25.8 20.8 l -5.1. 14.6

0.6
1 . 5.

2-6

0.0

N, R.

723

tt.

./

Parental Occupation*
(x'?

e.8, df

--

8)

Govcrnment Servict
Agricr.rlturisr

202
203 198

26 .2 20 .1

58

.4

66.0 6l .(r
53.6
57.
1

Privatc business & trading


Independent professionrl

20.7

4l
49
4

24.4
30.6

Trading
Others

00

50.0

t4.1 l].3 t4.6 19.5 12.3 50, 0

1.1

0.0
3.1

2.5

0.0 0.0

N.

R.

Itt

6.8

Econondc Clars Origin* (/,s -= e.1, df: 4)


Llpper
Middler
82

35.3
16, 6

42.6
47 .O

20.7 15.3

1.4

221 382
38

Lo*'et
N.
Ir..

2E.5

46.1

24.6

tro

Burea,ticriltic Adaptation to Deuelo'prneitt Atlministration


Ranking of Rcspondents
B a ckgr owd C h ar act
e r i s t i cs

ll3

High
o/

Modercte

'o/

/o

/o

Lotu a/ /o

NR
o/
to

6.9
.

(Xt

Years of Service in Govt.*


| .7,

df

4)
203 381
.

1949 and beforc

32.5

46.8

19.1 2t .7

1.6

Bctween 1950-61
1962 ancl later

30.4
J_t.)

46.9' 42.8

24.8

1.0 0.9

N. R.

6.10 UpwardMobility***
(^/"2

e.5, df

2)

One or more promotions

463 256 4

35.0 24.2

44.4 49.6

19.4

1.2

No proruotions

25.4

0.8

N.

11.

6-11

Formal Training* (xz : o.4, dl : z)


Traincd Untrained
491 2
Jl. /

47

.3

20.2 22.2

0.8
1.1

30.9

45.8

N. R.

* ** *** ****

Not sisnificant.
Sienifiiant Silni{icant
.05 level. .01 level. Significanr ar .001 level.

at at

On the other hancl" a similar degree of result-orientation is shorvn by only- about 26 per cent of 3gg respondents drawn from the agricultural development agencies studied. If the low scores on result-orien-tation are considered, it is observed (Table 6-6.r) that the industries and asriculture
r6 per ccnt and 25.8 per cent of the ir "pcrsonnel showing poor result-orientation. 'llhese differrcnces are significant (chi s(luare : t3.4, df : 2, significant at .or level) and havc many irnplications, especially sincc agriculrural dcvelopment has a high prioriry in ihe country's devclopment schemes. Lack oi sufficient result-ofientation amons the personnel rvorking in this field could lead to many distortions in actual
ofEccs havc rcspeclively
_

performance.

Similarly; the study shorvs that the technical and non-technical dichotomy has an important. bearing on result-orientation. Table 6-6.2 describes

tt4
these relationships.

BUfi.EAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADI{INISTRATION

About 36 per cent of the respondents 'rvho are technical are highly result-oriented and about rb per cent of them are poorly
result-oriented; whereas the proportion of highly and poorly result-oriented respondents who are non-technical stand at lb per cent and e5 per cent respectively (chisquare : !2.8, df : z, significant at .or level). These differences cannot be described as arising basically from the type of offices studied. As a group, the agriculture offices show a higher proportion of technical personnel than the industries offices (63 per cent against 116 per cent). This would implv that result-orien tation t'oulcl be higher in the Iatter bfifrces, whereas as noted above it is found to be lower. As regards the class of service of the reppondents, our data shor'r' (Tablc 6-6.3) that Class II respondents are most often highl)' rcsult-oriented, follor.red bv Class I respondents. and that the Class III respondents are comparatively least result-oriented. The proportion of highl,v result-oriented respondents belonging to Class I, II and III is 37.3 per ccnt,44.8 per cent and e5.r per cent respectively. Similarly, the poorh' result-oriented respon. dents come in highest proportion from Class III. These clifferences are also statistically significant (chisquare : 4, dt : 4, significant at .o r level). These results are disheartening since the crux of development programmes is their proper implementation for which Class III civil servants carry much of the responsibility. The study did not sho'lr. that the aqe of the respondents rnakcs for any significant differences in their result-orientation (Table 6-6.4). The subsample of young and old respondents evidence a closely similar pattern of t hq degrees of result-orientation. As Table 6-6.ri shows, the level of education attained by the respondents is significantly associated with their result-orientation. As many as 40 per cent of the graduate respondents are found to be highly resultoriented, lt'hereas only 14 per cent of them report poor result-orientation. In contrast the proportions of highly result-oriented and poorly resultoriented respondents among the non-graduate group are 22 and 29 per cent respectively (chi-squarc : 4r, df : z, significant at .or level). Further analysis indicates, as in thc case of change-orientation, that the higher the level of education of the respondent, the higher generally his result-orientation. The data also revealed that respondents lvho had received practical tralning leading to professional diplomas \'r'ere more result-oriented than even graduates. In terms of the rural/urban background, the study fountl that the morc urban the background of the respondent, the less often he is likely to be poorly result-oriented (Table 6-6.6). However, as regards high result-oiientation, we did not find a similar patrern emerge except between respondents 'lvith a rural background on the one hand and respondents r,vith a semi-urban. urban ancl metropolitan background on the other. Anywer. these difierences are not statisticallv significant. \\/e also did not find anv significant association between the parental occupational background of the respondents and the degree of their result-

Bureaucratic Adaptation to Deuelopment

Ad,m.inistrati,on

I 15

orientation (Table 6-6.7). similarly, rhe economic class origin of the respondents and the number of years of their survice in the Covernment do not appear to make for rnaterial differences in their result-orientation (Table 6-6.8 and 6-6.9). As regards upward mobility in the service we found as sqen in Table 6-6.ro that those of our respondents who had been promoted once or more times were more often highly result-oriented and less often poorlv result-oriented than the respondents who had not so far received uru oromotion. Thus 35 per cenr of the former group of the responden,r' *"r. highly result-oriented compared ro 24 per ceni of the latter group who were highly resulr-oriented. To presenr it difierenrly, it was fouid that the proportion of the poorly result-oriented respondents among the trvo groups of promoted and noa-promoted respondents was r g.4 uid 25.4 p.i ..rrt respectively,. These differences-are_found to be signifiiant (chisquare _ 9.7, df : 2, significant at .or level). The relationship between pro-ntion. i.ri result-orienration rvas further analysed in the Table 6.7 which. shows a consistent relationship between the two.
TABrE 6.?

UPWARD MOBILITY & RESULT-ORIENTATION


Ranking of Respondents

Number of Promotions Recefued

High

Moilerate

Low

NR
% 0.9 0.0 0.0

%
49

%
25.3 23.2
15. 6

Nil
One

256 215
139 109
31

.6

.6
3

42.8
46.1

Two
Over f,wo

38.
37

.6

45.8

16.6

N. R.

, oddly enough formal training or lack of it did nor emerge as a significant factor associated rvith civil servants' result-orientation ii this siudy. As Table 6-6.r r shows, the trained and untrained members of our sample are seen to be result-oriented in a similar way.
of the key ingredients of success in development administration is the extent to whici the civil servan$ are able io orient themselves towards the citizens in the implementation of these programmes. The extent of citizen response to paiticipation in the deveioprnenr process depends largely upon the attitude of the eivil.rlourr,, tn_ wards the citizens: how they are treatd and the efiorts made to involve
Cilizen-O rientation : As emphasized earlier,.one

116

Bt'REAUCRAqY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

the. citizen .clie ntele in the formulation and implementation of public policies afiecting them,. 1e invite.their cooperation or to order them around lry an assertion of duthoritY.
.

. "
AT

R anleing oJ' ResPondnts

Iligh

%%%%
45.3 55 6

l\[odcrnre Lov

NR

8.

Tlae of Offices Studied* (x,t . s.:: df : z)


Indrxtry

(two) Agriculture (two)


Type of Personnel*t*
(X2

324 399
723

19.5 15 .7

5 27 0
34

o'7
1

'

'7

8.2

1o.2; A{

- 2)

Technical . Non-technical
.

285 438

22.7 13.9

4g.4 52.0

26

7 32' 8

1-z
1'
3

: 8.

Class at Ptese,nt**** (Xz

20.e; df

4)

Class I

lI Class Ill
(-lrss

t37 136 449


1

2!.5 52.5 23.s 44.8. 26.4 Z7 .8 12.4 52.3 33.8

0.5

1'0
1

.5

''

N. R.

1J1

Bureawcratic Adaptation to Deaelopment Adtministration


Ranbing of Re sponilcnt s
B acl<gr

rL7

ound Char acte r i st ic s

High

%%

Moderute

Low o/ /o

NR
o/

lo

8.5

Educational Attainment****
(X2

2a.0; df

2)

Graduates

367 354 2
723

51.7 11.8 50.2

Non-gradfiates

24.2 37.0

1.5

1.0

N. R.

8.6

(x,'z:5.0; df :6)
Rural
Semi-urban

Rural/Urban Bachground*
352 144 123 96
8

15.3 18.7 2t .9
17

50.8 49.3
52.O

o.7
30.5
l.) 1/l

Urban Metropolitan

22.7
29

.7

)J.

.Z

0.0

N. R.

8.7

Parental Occupation* (xe 14.7; df s)

Govemment Service

202
203

18.8
14. 8

Agriculturist
Private Busine
ss

& Trade

198
41

16.

Independent ProGssional Teaching


_

24.4
26 -5

49

54.9 46.8 52.O 46.3 55. 1

25.2 38.4 29.3 27.O 18.4

1.1

0.0 2.6 2.3 0.0

.Others

4
?6

'N.R.
8.8

Economic Classifi cation*


(^X"2

1.6; d{

a)

Upper Middle
LOtnr'er

82
221

19. 5

54.8

20.3 15.7

.382
38

48.9

23.r 26.2 34.8

2.6
1.1

0.6

N. R.

118

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVET,OPT{EN'T ADMINISTRATION

Ranking
B a chgr ound.

o.f Re sp ondent s

C h ar actu

i s ti c s

High

Modera|e o/ /o

Low o/ lo

NR
o/ /o

8.9

Years of Service*

(r(':

r's;

df:

+)

1949 and before

tn1
381

19.7
15

48

.2

Between 1960-61
1962 and later

.2

53.0
50.3

133

2l .0

30.0 30.9 27 .8

2,1

0.9 0.9

N. R.

8.

lo

Upward Mobility*** (x" : e.9i af - 2)


One or more prornotions
463 256
4

t9 .2
i

52.9

26.5
31 .5

1.4

No promotions

4.0

47.6

0.9

N. R.

8.11

Formal Training* (72 : 1.a; df : 2)


Trained 230
491 19.
5

Untrained

16. 8

48.? 52.3

30. 30.

E
1

1.5

0.8

N. R.

* ** *** ****

Not significrnt.
Significant at .05 level. Significant at .ol ievel. Significant at .001 level.

When we placed the respondents in concrete situations familiar to them, we found that a large majodty of them would not adopt the course of action indicating a proclientele attitude. Juxtaposition of this attitude lvith demographic background of the respondents yielded the follorving results (Table 6.8). It should be noted that this analysis is done keeping in vier'r' the overall position of a small percentage of the respondents evidencing high citizen-orientation. It is evident from Table 6-8.r that the respondents from the industries offices on the oni hand and those from the agriculture offices on the other are dissimilarly oriented ton'ards their citizen clientele. These differences are however not sharp enough to suggest any definite conclusion about either of the type of offices being more positively oriented. Thus, lr'hile rg.b per cent of the industries offices personnel are highly citizen-oriented

Burewcratic Ad,aptation to Deuelopment

Ad,rninistration

119

compared to r5.7 per cent of the agriculture offices personnel rn,ho arc similarly oriented, data also shorv that only zl per cent of the latter group are poorly citizen-oriented as against Z4.b per cent of the former group. So far as the type of personnel is concerned, the study shows a definite relationship between it and the degree of citizen-orientation. Thus about 22 per cent of the technical respondents of the study are highly citizenoriented rvhile about 27 per cent of them have scored lorv on citizenorientation. In contrast, about r4 per cent of the non-technical respondents are highly citizen-oriented and about BB per cent of them are poorly citizen-oriented (Table 6-8.e). The technical civil servants also include a slightly lower proportion of moderately citizen-oriented than the nontechnical civil servants. These difierences are found to be statistically significant (chisquare : ro.2, df : z, significant at .or ler.el). We hypothesized in this study that the higher the class of the civil servant, the greater rvill be his citizen-orientation. Public servants in India have followed a sfong tradition of authoritarianism. Therefore, a breakthrough in their behaviour towards citizens which is required by their new role in development adrninistration, is nccessary. Exhortation apart, such a breakthrough must be initiated by the higher level civil servants who are probably most influential in moulding the behaviour styles of subordinate civil servants. Our hypothesis lvas borne out by the data rvhich is presented in Table ti-8.3. It shor'ys that a higher proportion of higher level respondents of the study (Class I. II) is highly citizen-oriented than the Class III respondents. Surprisingly, Class II respondents have the highest proportion of highly citizen-oriented members. The data also shorvs that the lorver the class of the civil servants, the higher the proportion of the poorly citizen-oriented among them. These differences are significant (chi-square : eo.8, df : 4, significant at.or level). The educational background of the civil servants too is found to be signi{icantly related to their positive or negative citizen-orientation. As Table 6-8.5 shows, about 2Z per cent of thc graduate respondents and about z4 per cent.of them are highly and poorly citizen-oriented respectively. The proportions of highly and poorly citizen-oriented among the nongraduate respondents are rz and Zj per cent respectively (chisquare : 24, df : z, significant at.or level). We also found that the post-graduates and doctorates among university educated respondents are more often highly citizen-oriented and less often poorly citizen-oriented than the graduate respondents. Thus. it could be said generally that the higher levels of education make for more positive attitude torvards citizen clientele. l,astly, the upward mobility of the respondents rvas found to make for their citizen-orientat ion. Respondents rrho halc got onc or nrorc promotions are more often highly citizen-oriented (r9.2 per cent) and less often poorly citizen-oriented (e6.5 per cent) than the respondents who have not so far received,any promotion (14 per cent and Z7.b per cent respectively). These differences are also signifrcant (chisquare : 9.8, df : e, significant at

.or level).

120

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

As regards the age of the respondents, their rural/urban background, parental occupation, economic class origin, years of service in the Government, and formal training received by them, lve found as sholvn in Table 6.8 that these factors are not materially related with the degree of procitizen fdeling of the respondents.
Commilment to Worh The degree of commitment to work reported by the respondents is compared along with their background characteristics in Table 6.q. It was heartening for us to note as seen in Table 6-9. r that the civil servants working in agricultural development programmes are more committed to their work than those rvorking in industrial development programmes. q4 per cent of the former group are highly committed to their work compared to only r g per cent of the latter group, rvho are similarly committed to their work. Iirom another angle of low commitment to work, it is noted that about rg per cent of the respondents from industries offices are poorly committed to work as against g per cent of the respondents from agricultural offices. These differences are also statistically significant (chisquare : 28.b, dl : z, significant at .or level). Apart from the type of offices in which they served, none of the other background characteristics of the respondents was significantly related to the degree of work commitment reported by them. The data presented in Table 6.9, however, roughly points out to the follou'ing hypotheses, although in this particular studv, we are unable to advance statistical support for them:

(a) Upward progression of the civil servants tends to enhance their


commitment to work; servant has joined Government service, the lower is likely to be his commitment to work; (c) Following from the above, the older the civil ser-vant, the higher is likely to be his commitment to work; (d) Civil servants exposed to formal in-service training tend to be more committed to their work; (e) Technical personnel in Government ser-vice tend to be morb work committed than non-technical personnel; (f) The level of educational attainment of the civil servants does not make for differences in the deqree of their r,r'ork commitment.

(b) The later a civil

A CONTRAST IN PERCEPTION Tn-the foregoing pages we rated rhe respondenrs o[ this study in terms of the extent to which they have adapted to the developmenral role, and examined the factors in their personal and work life associated r.r'ith it. For reasons explained earlier, we made a di$tinction between the responADAPTATION TO DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

Ad"aptation to Deaelo'pment .Bureawcrati.c


TABIL 6.9

Ad,ministration
.WORK

l2I

BACKGROUND CHARACTIRISTICS AND COMMITMENT TO

Ratfting of Respondents
B ackgr

ound C har acter

i st

ics

'

.1

Type of Ofrces Studied****


(X2

28 '5;

df --

2)

Iudustrics (two)

Agriculture (two)

324 399
723

.4 34.3
19

.3 56.8
6l

18.

8 8.9

0.5

0.0

9.2

Type ofPersonnel*

(1,'z: a.8; df
lechnlcal Non-tcchnical

:2)

285 438

26.6 28.3

62.8 56.4

10.1 15.3

0.5

0.0

9.3

Class at Ptesent* (X2 : e.otdf :4)

Class I

Lnss N. R.

1l

Clas III

723
g

.4

Educational Attainment*

(,(,

: l.r, df:

2)

Graduate Non-graduate N,R.

367 354
2

27

.2 27.6

60.7 57.3

11

.7 15.1

o.4 0.0

9.5

Upward Mobility*
(X2

3.2,

dl - 2)

promotions No prolnotions N.R.


One or more

463 256
4

28

.7 25.0

3 58.9
59.

6 16. 1
11
.

.4

0.0

r22

BUREAUCRACY AND DE\"ELOPMENT ADMiNISTRATION

Rank ry of Respondin*
B ackg

ound C har

ac

tei

sti cs

High oin

Moderatt

Lotu
al 10

N-lt
oi

l.;

io

9.6

Economic Class Originr (x, : 5.4, df : 4)


Upper Middle
82 30. 5
59

.6

z2l
382
38

22.6 29.4

62.4

Lower

57.0

8.5 I 5.0 13.6

r.4
0.0 0.o

N, R.

9 .',|

Years of Service*

(Ir:7.8,df:4)
1949

& Before Lrter

203
381
I JJ

34.4

53.2
61

Between 1950-61
1962 &.

25.4
24 .O

.6

13

58.6

11.3 .0 l7 .4

1.1

0.0 0.0

N. R.

723

9.8

PatentalOccupaiion*
(x'z

e.4'

df:

8)

Govemmetrt Service Agriculturist Privatc Business and trading


Independent ProGssicnal Teacher
C)thers

202
203 198
41

26

.'t
.7
I

56.9 64.4 5?.0 5t .2


(rl
.1

16.4

?6.'l
28

8.9

t4.3
t7

Jt.

.l

49 4

30.6 25.0

6.

75.0

0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.o 2.2 0.0

N.

R.

26

9.9

Rural /Urban Background*

(r: -:
Il.ural

e.5, df

6)

Semi-urblr
utDalt Metropclitan

35: t44
123

28.4
26.4 29.2

5E.

13.3
1,1. 13
-5

58.3 56.9 53.1

.9

96
8

25.0

2t.9

o.0 0,8 0.0 0.0

N.

R.

Bureaucrati.c Adaptation

to Deuelopment Ad,ministration
Raxking of Respondents

123

ackground C harccter

i st

ic s

High

%
9.

iuloacfatc o/
lo

Lotu
o,'

NIT
o,,

to

,o

l0

(x2:r.o,A{:2)
Young
503 218
26

Ag"*

.6

59.4
51 .',l

14.0

old
N. R.

29.8

I1.9

0.0 o.6

,ll

Formal Training* (r,'? : 3.0' df : 2)


I farnec 230 491
2
29

.l

60.0 58.2

Untrained

25.8

10.5 15.0

0.4 0.0

N. R.

* ****

Not sisnificant. Signifiiant at .001 level.

dents' own adaptation to de\ elopment adminisration and their perceptions of the adaptation to developlnent administrati()n generally accomplished in the civil sen,ice. Data relating to the latter are discussed belo'trr. Our informants in respect of the adaptation to development administration that has taken place in the civil service so far, hal.e been the respondents themselves. The methodology we adopted for collecting this infornra tion has been explained in the chapter on methodolog,v. \Ve believe that these facts reported by the rqspondents are perceived by thcm from thcir' obsen'ations of the overt behaviour of their superiors, colleagues. and other cir il sen'ants in soecific situations. Wc obtained thi picture of perceptions from our respondents rclating to adaptation to developmcnt administration in terrns of its {irst three characteristics, namely, change-orientation, result-orientation, and citizenorientation. As regards the fourth characteristic. viz., commitment to work, it indicated, so far as this studv is concemed, the feelings of involvement expericnced by the civil s(rvants in rcspect of rheir dertlopnrcntal rcsponsibilities. .Since 'r,r'e thus assessed commitment to rvork at the feeling level, we have not included it in the picture of perceptions presented belo'lv. As noted previously, the perceptions as portrayed bv thc rcspondents are important to us for their impact on the respondents' or,r'n. attitudcs antl behaviour. A comparison of the data presented in Table 6.ro belor,v and in Table 6.r at the beginning of this chapter shows t[at the pattern of the

t24

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTR,ATION

TABIE 6. l0

PERCEPTUAL ADAPTATION TO DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION


Degree oJ Adaptations Accomplkhcd

D'inren sion of Ad ap t at io n s

ITigh Nloderate Lou


(per

Nof
Repofted

Total

cent) (per cent) (per cent) (per cett)


60. 9

Change-orientation: Result-orientation:
'

28.5
18

9.6
25.4 22.1

1.0 1.0
1.1

100.0o7i

(N
.2 .2
55

: :

723) 723)

.4

100.0%

(N
Citizen-orientation :
13

63.6

1oo. oo/o (N 723)

respondents' own adaptation to development administration resembles very

closely their portrayal of the perception. No doubt, as a group the respondents have presented a better image about themselves on the dimension of result-orientation. Howevcr, they also show themselves rvorse than the perception in regard to change-orien tation and to some extent even in regard tb citizen-orientation. These differences are, of course, not material, for the study found.the respondents' own adaptation to development administration and that evidenced in perception to be fairly interrelated.as shown in the following table.
TABiE 6. 11

CORRELATION BETWEXN ADAPTATION TO DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION IN ACTUALITY PERCXPTION AND RESPONDENTS'OWN ADAPTATION
D imen si ons
o-f

Ad ap tati on

Correlation
CoeJficient

Change-orientation:
In actuality and of the respondents' themselves

Result-orientation :
In actuality and ofthe respondents' themselves

Citizen-orientation:
In actuality and ofthe respondents' themselves -!
sn

The moderate to fair correlations reported above indicate the perceptible influence of the environment in which the civil servants rvork, on their own attitudes and behaviour. It appears that the notions about their

Bureawcratic Adaptation

to Development Administration

125

role in development administration are formed by the respondents largely from their observation in rvork life situations; that the manner in which the respondent sees the civil servants generally behaving in thbse situations influences importantly the respondents' ideas about legitimate expectations or norms that he should follow in his or,yn behaviour. If he sees the civil servants to be generally highly change-oriented or alternatively poorly change-oriented, he also tends to be comparably change-oriented in his own r,r,ork. Similarly, in the matter of result- and citizcn-oricntation. These results rea$irm the findings of many a study of organisational behaviour that people in the organisation get the cues for behav_ioural expectations importantly from their observations of whar is happening around. Earlier, wc h4ve reported significant positive association among the respondents' changc-oricntation, result-orientation, and citizen-orientation. As regards the adaptation to deve lopment administration rve found the follor,r' ing relationship among the above dimensions of it.
TABLE 6.12

RELATIONSI{IP AMONG DIMENSIONS OF ADAPTATION TO DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION IN PERCEPTUALITY


Dimensions of Adaptat ion

Chi-square Values

S.

No,

Desniption
17

Change-orientation

.9*

23

.2

'

Result-orientation Citizen-orientation

t4 .7*

* **

Significant at .01 level with

Significant at .001 level with

df: {f:

4. 4.

As Table 6. r z shows, all the three climensions of adaptation to development aclministration in perccptuality are positively associated rvith one another to a significant degrce. That is, if the civil servants arc scen behaviourally high in respcct of change-orientation, they are also seen behaviourally high in respect of result- and citizen-orientation. These results also suggcst, as already observed, that adaptation to a developmental role can be described as a system of related orientations.
Suruuany eNn Coxcr,usroxs

In this chapter our e{fort' trvas to assess the adaptation to development administration of the 723 civil servants. \Ve defined the developmental adaptation in terms of four important parameters, viz., change-orientation, result-orientation, citizen participative orientation and commitment to wrok.

126

ITUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMANT ADN{INISTRATION

Our results show that the majority of the civil servants are moderatell' atlapted to their developmental role irt terms of the dimensions of changeorientation, result-orien tation and citizen participative-orientation - 55 to 64 per cent of the civil sen'ants are rated to be so oriented. These results
imply that the concern for bringing about people-related changes along r'vith economic changes, for achieving programmed results in rvork, and for ensuring the participation of citizen groups in the developmental prcrcess,. is neither particularly high. nor quite lor,r'. among the developmental
personnel.

Given the generally accepted vielr- that the performance of development bureaucracy is not in tune with the requiremefts, we had hypothesized that a large proportion of our respondents rvould shor.r' a low degree of adaptation to development role. The finding of moderate adaptation modifiecl our hypothesis. Even so, lve do not consider the pattern reported in the study to be a r.ery. positive finding. Any administration is a purposeful activity intended to demonstrate certain rcsults. This is true er,ren of traditional public administration. It is, horve't er, crucial for a nation trving to bring about planned cler.elopment. For this ver-v reason, rve considered result-orientation an important char:acteristic of der.eloprneut administration. Since it is a traditional value of administration, rl'e expectecl the respondents of the present study to perform reasonably lvell on result-orientation. Little over one in cverv five respondents showing a lorv dcgree of result-orientation ancl a large proportion of them showing moclerate rlcgree of result-orientation $/as the main finding in this respect. Again, the level of the results achievecl by thc civil re.vunrc in practice rvould not be congruent rvith, and in all probability n'ould be lou'er than the level of resultorientation reported by them. This would be so because a number of variables intervene between thc motivation or desires of the civil servants and their actual job performance. The above findr'ngs. therefore. point to the relatively poor prospects of developmental personnel being able to show particularly satisfactorf'' results in their rvork. The moderatc to poor r:esult oricntation of a vast maioritv of the developmcnral personnel that is revealecl in thc prcsent stuclv. ancl still lorvt'r prospects of achieving them in practice havc important implications. C)bviously. the developmental personnel arc not sufficiently orientcd, motivated or prepared for achieving programuratic goals in their areas of operation. The nvo important stimuli for high deglee of concern for results in one's work are the climate in which the person is rvorking ancl his o.rvn innel commitmcnl. As regar<ls the formcr. ivc lrave nored abovc rlrar tlrc climate of concern for performing a developmental role in the agencies studied is not sufficiently favourable to inspire high concern for achieving results among the respondents. In fact, thcy find the cir.il ser\ianrs around them to be less result-oriented than themseh,es. Thc study also shorvs, as noted later, that as many as 70 per cent of the respondents are moderatelv or poorly committed to their rvork. The lack of urgency for achieving programmatic results ultimately results in upsetting the priorities in develop-

Bureaucratic Adaptation to Deuelopment

Administration

127

rnental plans and prolonging their realisation. Compared to result-orientation, the other two characteristics of development administration, viz., change-orientation and citizen participativeorientation, have involved reletiveh nerv demands on the civil servants. These characteristics are alien to traditional administration rvhich is concerned primarily with maintcneucc of the status q uo and law and order. and collection of revenue. Nevertheless, the two characteristics constitute the key ingredient of development administration and are the .sine qua non for its success in the long run. The results of the present study in this regard at'e important. C)n the one hand, the vast majority of develoPmental personnel are moderately or poorly clange and citizen participative oriented. This implies that they perceive themselves to be functioning in a weak climate in terms of the necessity of involving the citizens directly in the developmental process and trying to bring about necessary attrtudinal changes among them along with economic de'r'elopment. On the other hand, the idealistic Berceptions of the respondents on these trvo dimensions indicate that they themselves are less prone to take on the role implied by the dimensions. In other words. tl-rey do not consider it to be very much their job to bring about changes in the values and attitudes of the citizen clientele. Similarly, thev believe a shade less than other civil servants in the.need to ensure direct participation of the clients in the development pr(xess. These results suggest that the respondents do not subscribe to these ideas even to the extent they are being practised b1' other personnel serving in the same agencies. To us the change and citizen participation dimensions of development aclministration implied that the process of development is essentially to bc carried out by the people themselvei if it is to be endudng, and that the public administrators have to play an important enabling role tor,vards it. Also. that thc latter canrot be a substitute for the citizens wanting a change and act ively rrorking torvards bringing it about. The present study. horvever. does not indicate that the developmental personnel have a full appreciation of the above dimension of their role. To put it differently, there is a pronounced tendencv towards the traditional paternalistic attitude in the qdministration towards the citizen clientele. Besidcs, ,as in the olden days, civil servants continue to concern themselves primarily rvith the economic and technological aspects of development. The results of the study about the commitment to work among the respondents arc no doubt somewhat more encollraging than those about nther dimensions of development administration. These results sholr' that civil servants are not as indifferent to their responsibilities as is generally made out. If their work does not yield the desired results, they do feel distressed and unhappy. On the other hand, if they achieve the expected results thev are happy about it. Similarlv, the unresolved problems of their lvork conti nue to bother them even after office hours. These are indicators of em<r tional involvement in work. The study shows, horvever. that the 'commitment to work' variable is not correlated with other dimensions of deve-

128

BIJREATJCRACY AND DEVELdPMENT ADMINISTRATIOT(

Iopment administration we have considered. The stud,v showed the first three dimensions of the developmental role, viz., change-orientation, result-orientation, and citizen participative orientation, to be closely interrelated. That the civil scrvants rvho evidence a higher degree of change-orientation than an another group of their col. leagues r,vould often be more result and citizen participation oriel)ted. These findings of the study bring out the systemic character of the development administration. .It implies that any deterioration in respect of any one of these dimensions of the role r,vould not onlv r,r'eaken that oarticular dimension hut rrould also hare a negative influencc on the othcr two climensions. On the olhcl hand, the rrLak relationship o[ these dimcnsions with the commitmcnt to n ork among civil servants ihat is revealecl in the studv suggests thar alrhough rhe lartei is imporrant in itselt. rhe manipula. tion of it may not hclp much in improving the performance of the civil ser\rants in their developmental role. On the whole, the siudysholvs the civil servants in the offices studied to be just moderately prepared to fulfil their developmental role. Whatever the levels of the respondents' own orientation to the developmental role, tve attempted to find out the facts in thcir personal and organisational life that are significanrlv associated wirh those Ievels. As regards change-orientation, lve found it to be significantly higher among

(a) technical civil servants than among non-technical civil servants, (b) higher class civil servants than among lorr.er class civil seivants, (c) older civil servanrs than among young"r civil servants. (d) graduate civil servants than among non-graduate cir il sen.ants. in fact_ it is also higher among post-graduate civil servants than among graduate civil servants, (e) civil servants with a higher economic class background than among those with a lower economic class-background, and
.

(f)

civil servants who have rcceivcd promorion/s rhan among have not rcceived anv Dromotion.

rhose who

On the othcr hand, the diflerences in the degrees of change-orientarion lvere not as material as among the respondents serving in industrial and agricultural developmcnt prograrnmes. among thosc wiih rural ancl urban background, among diffcrcnt parcntal occufational groups, and pcrhaps importantly among the formally trained ancl untrainecl icsponclents. ' In asking the respondents about their change-orientation, wc emphasized changes in the valucs and arrirudcs of rhe pcoplc. It was. therciore. an important finding that the technical civil servints in the samplc were significanrll more awarc o[ thc ahore aspects of the change proccss than their non-technical counterparts. As rve emphasized in the carlier chapter. development in the Indian contexr is not merelv technical in content; it is.equally imporrantly a process of social change. Hence, ro rhe exrenr rhe

Bureaucratic Adaptation to Deaelopntent

Ad,ministration

l}g

technical civil servants bear in mind both the aspects of their develop ment tasks, the fuller are likely to be the benefits from them. It is, however, worth noting that the non-technical civil servants are less change-oriented. Am.ong them there is a large number of village level rvorkers ivorking in ag:ricultural development programmes and - field ofrcers rvorking" in industrial development programmes. In both these programmes," the planned _economic change is inextricably linked up with social change among the concerned citizen clientele. It may be noted that the distinction between technical and non-technical respondent civil sewants in the sample ii based on the technical or non-technical nature of work handled by thcm. We had hypothesized that the higher level civil servants would be more highlv change-oriented than.the lorver level civil servants. This was borne out bv the findings. As the higher civil servants are often older than the lorvcr ones, the study does shorr that age .has a positive relationship to change-orientation. Perhaps, rvith advancing age ind greater experience, ci'il sen'ants come to ha.r,e bettei a\\rareness of the intricicies of the change prclcess especially in the Indian context. An important finding of ihe study is that education does make the deve_ lopmental personnel see rhe proccss of change in its entirety, that is in its various aspects. The higher change.orientation exhibited by better educaied respondents indicates their readiness to try bringing about changes in both lhe economic life and thc pre'ailing values and attitudes of ihe masses. Education is thus likely to prepare the civil servanr ro accept a fuller developmen tal role. Lastly, the upward mobility of rhe civil servants in the service is found to be significanrly associated with higher change-orientation. Notwith_ standing the fact that promotions in government service in Ind.ia are slow, they do enhance motivation, and this is reflected in their identifying them_ selves with the employing agencies and the greater sense of involvement in the expccted roles. The significant frndings of the study about associationship between result-orien tation of the respondents and their backgrpund chiracteristics are summarized belor.r' :

(a) civil servan$ serving in industrial development prqgrarnmes are rnore result-oriented than those serwing in agricultural development
Programmes,

(b;-

(c)

in the case of change-orientation, technical civil servants are more result-oriented than non-technical civil seryants, class II civil servanrs are more result-oriented than class I and III civil servants, but Class I civil servants are more result-oriented than Class III civil sen'anrs,
as

(d) the higher the leyel of education of the civil serl,anr. the higher
generally is his result'orientation,

r30

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

(e) the more the Promotions received by the civil servant' the higher
generally is his result-orientation'
may be recalled that a large majority of the sample of developmental civil servants studied have moderate io low result-odentation in their work. It is obvious that in this distribution there is a larger contribution from the respondents working in agricultural development Programmes than those *ott ittg in industri-al devilopment Programmes' As a group, the .former are- sign-ificantly less concerned with ichieving specific results in their rvork than ihe latter. There cannor be two opinions about the critical importance of agricultural development plans and programmes and the results sought in tf,em. What is moie, indultrial de'elopment itself is heavily dependent on : the success of the above programmes. The civil servants working in agricultural development programmes shorving a rveaker disposition to piodo.. specific results in their work are therefore a matter of some concern. ' shortcomings in the achievements of these programmes could also be due to the Class fff ci rit servants having low result-orient'ation, since they constitute such a vital link between bureaucracy and the public. Citizens too form their opinions about the intentions of the bureaucracy in implementing development schemes on the basis of their experience- of the attitudes and peiformance of Class III civil servants. We have already. noted rhar, the highir class civil servants are significantly more result-oriented. Many of theie officials, we believe, occuPy supervisory positions so that their higher result-orientation would be reflected in their Putting Pressul'e on thiir subordinates to achieve better results. As regards promotions in the civil service, the study does shot' that promotions are associated with greater arvareness on the Part of the promoted civil servants. to achieve concrete results. What is more, the study shows consistantly Positive relationship between the number of pl-omotions received by the respondents and their degree of result-orientation. Like change-orientation, we also found result-orientation of the graduate respondents to be significantly higher than that of non-graduatc resPon dents. The study, however, failed to discover any significant relationship between the respondents' result-orientation on the one hand and their irge, rural/urban background, parental occuPational background and their economic class origin. Surprisingly, formal training received by the respondents too lvas not found to make anv diflerence in their urge to achieve specific results in work. The only variables which rve found signilicantly associated rvith difier ences in the citizen participation orientation of the respondents are the type of rvork (technical or non-technical) they clo. their present class (Class I,-II or III), their educational attainment (graduate /non-graduate), and their upward mobility in government servicc (promotions reccived/not received). More or less the same variables have been noted above to btr significantly related to the respondents' change and result-orientation ' \Me lvere particularly struck by the relatively poor citizen-orientation

It

Bureaucratic Ad,aptation to Deuektpment Administration


i

l3l

reported by Class III civil servants in the sample, among whom are included village level workers engaged in implementing agricultural development programmes at the grassroots level. The perfognance of these officials depends to a greater degree on their capacity to motivate the citizen clientele. The study shows that the citizen participation orientation of the developmental civil servants in the sample as a whole is already pdor. Hence the Class III civil servants reporting a still lower level of this orientation could very rvell signify serious handicaps in getting proper cooperation from the citizen in the key developmental areas. The pattern of commitment to work reported by the respondents doei not bear significant relationship with any of their. background 'characteris. tics except the fact that the respondents sewing in agricultural develop. ment programmes are found significantly committed to rvork to a greater extent than their counterparts rvorking in indusffial devblopment pro grammes. This is a very positive finding. The foregoing summary shows that only the variables of the 'type of personnel', 'class ,at present', 'educational attainment', and 'upward mobility' are consistently associated rvith the developmental orientation..of the respondent civil sewants, considered in the present study in terms of four dimensions, but the fourth dimension of 'commitmEnt to worlC::is.nst. on1\l not closely related to many background characteristics of the respondents but is also not correlated with the other three dimensions as noted earlier. In effect, therefore, the study has found the first three dimensions, namely, change-orientation, result-orientatiqn, and citizen participative-orientation to be the system of development orientation. Except education, the factors that are found to be making for differences in the development orientation of the respondents are a parr of their organisational life. The actuality conditions about the civil sen,ants' adoption of a de'r'elopmental role that our respondents have reported are also a part of their organisational life. These rbsults indicare thar the forces lhat influence the civil sewants to develop a proper orientation to theii deve. lopmental role are within their work environment and traditions and not so much in their pre-employment life. While this is a happy situation, the study does not give us the impression that it has been deliberately exploited to prepare the civil servants for their developmental roles. In-service training is obviously an important insrnrment for developing any organi.sational personnel. The present study however shorvs that the training receir,'. ed by our respondents has no impact on their development orientliion, that they are only a shade better than their untrained colleagues in this rcgard. Based on thc foregoing findings, we hazard a generalization that to the extent civil sel'vants are adapted to their de'elopmental .role, it has: happened so by coincidence, without any deliberate or conscious efiort qn the part of the government. In other r,rrcrds, we feel that a far greater degree. of adaptation lvould have taken place had there been a deliberate, planned programme towards it.

Relationship between Bureaucratic and DeveloPmental Characteristics


IN CHeprnn 4 wn examined the structural and behavioural characteristics of Indian Bureaucracy in the developmental setting. In the last chapter rve presented the data relating to the extent to which the agencies/civil servants itudied have accepted their developmental roles. The crucial questions before us in the present study rvas the nature of relationship benteen bureauctatic Characteristics on the one hand and the charzcteristics of thcr developmental role on the other. If this relationship is positive, it rt'ould imply one set of conclusions. If, on the other hand, the relationship is nefative, then the relevance of bureaucracy as an institution at lcast for developmental work would be seriously questioned. With a vier'v to make this asiessment we have attempted to analvse in this chaptel: the r-elationship between the two phenomena.
FrNottttcs
RUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE AND DEVF.I.OPMENTAL ROI,E

We first examined if the bureaucratic structure of the offices in rvhrch the respondents worketi has any relationship n'ith the performance of their developmental role. As regards hierarchy of authority, ,a structural dimension of bureaucracy considered in the study, 'lve found it to bc significantly related to the result-orientation anl citizen-orientation of thc respondents, but not so related with their change-orientation and commitment to work. Figure 3 shows that the.respondents rvho are reportecl to be rvorking under low degree of hierarchical structure are more often highlv resultoriented, while those working under a highly hierarchical structure are less often highly result-oriented. Thus about 43 Per cent of thc forrner' group are found to be highly result-oriented compared rvith 3o per cent of the latter group being similarly result-oriented. Horvever. this negativc relationship rvas not corroborated further when lve compared the proportion of the poorly result-oriented among the high and thc lorv grotrps 'on hierarchy. Nonetheless, on balance it appehrs that for the developmcntal personnel to be positively result-oriented, it is useful if their jobs are oiganised in a less hierarchical pattern (chi-square betrt'een hierarcht' and result-orientation : r5.r; significant at .oo4. level rvith df : 4). When we considered hierarchy in relation to the citizen-orientation of the respondents, it revealed interesting results as presented in Figure 4.

Bureaucratic and Deaelopmental Characteristics


Percent

133

Rcsult<riantation
100

l-:l
80

High
Moderate

ll
60

40

N
High

Low

20

00

(N:e3)

Moderete (N:460)
Hiererchy

Low

(N-l7o)

Fig.
Percent
100

Hierarchy in relation to result-orientation'

Citizen-orientation

80

High

60

Moderate

40

N
High
Moderate

Low

2A

00

Low

(N-e3)

(N=460)

(N=l?0)

Fig.

4: Hierarchy in rclation to citizen-orientation.

t34

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOFI\IENT ADMINISTRATION

It

on the hierarc:hy scale are reported to have low level citizen-orientation compared with only a quarter of the respondents scoring low on the hierarchy scale, reporting a similar level of citizen-orientation. On the other
hand, the proportion of highly citizen-oriented among the respondents rated high and low on hierarchy is *3 and 27 per cenr respectively. That means .again thal the civil servants operating in a highly hierarchical strucrure are likely to be less often highly citizen-oriented than their colleagues working under a lorv degree of hierachical sffucture. Finally, the proportion of poorly citizen-oriented (go per cenr) among the respondents re. ported to be working under a moderately hierarchical strucrure is less than that of the respondents (4o per cent) working under a highly hierarchical structure but more than ttrrat of respondents (25 per cent) working under. a low level of hierarchical structure. We found the above negative associa. tion between hierarchy and citizen-orientation to be statistically significant (chi-square : 22.7, significant ar .oor level rvith df : 4). When we worked out the correlation coefficient betrveen hierarchy on the one hand and result-orientation and citizen-orientation on the other. it was not found to be significant. However the-direction r,vas distinctly negative, confirming the reliability of chi-square analysis given above. We next examined the bureaucratic dimension of the division of labour or rvork in relation tq development orientation. In the first place. rve found it to be negatively associated with the citizen-orientation of our respondents. Thus, as shown in Figure 5, the proportion of poorly citizen-oriented civil servants is higher among the respondents reportcd to be .r,r'orking under the: condition of a high degree of division of labour than .among the rcspondents working under a lolv degree of division of rvork. What is morc, resporrdents reporting moderate division of .labour lie benveen the above two exffeme groups so far as high citizen-orientation among them is concerned. The correlation betrveen division of labour and citizen-orientation 'a,lso shows negative direction. The study thus suggests negatil'e influcnce of this dimension on citizen-centredness of the civil servants. Further analysis also showed the relationship betlveen division of labour and citizen-orientation repoited above to be significant (chisquare : ro.4; significant at .o5 level with df : 4). As regards the relationship of division of labour rvith change ancl resukorientation of the respondents rve found it to be onlv partially negativc. Figure 6 belorv shows that those respondcnts who per-ceive a high order. of division of work under which they function contain .a smaller. proportion of highly rcsult-orienred colleagues among rhem rhan rhat founr. among the respondents reported operating under conditions of a lorv degree of division of work. However, the latter group of respondents has also a higher proportion of poorly result-oriented than that found in the former group. As the correlation coefficient between division of labour and resultorientation also did not carry a negative sign. rve are not in a position to conclude that rhe rwo are entirely antithetical to each other. Similar

is seen here that as many as 40 per cent of the respondents scoring high

ureawcrati.c and

D euelop

mental

Ch arac t eri.s tic s

Pcrcent

Citizen-orientation t00

High
80

Moderate
60

40

N
High (N:r22) Moderate Low (N:486) (N:ils)
Division

Low

20

00

of

labour

Result-orientation
10(I

80

60

tl

40

N
High (N:122) Moderate Low (N-4E6) (N:lls)
Division
Fig. 6: Division

20

00

of

labour

of labour in relation to result-orientation'

136

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPNIENT ADMINISTRATION

rsults are available to us'about the division of labour in relation to changeorientation, as sholvn in Figure 7. -fhe high and the lor,v groups on division of labour difier in respecr of the proportion of the highly change-oricntcd among them but if we take into account the proportion of thcm scoring high 'on change-orientation, the two groupi are exactly alike.
Pcrcent

Changc-orientatron
100

r;-:-=i '.1
t'.'.

High

tl

"

Moderatc

LO11'

Hrgh

Modcratc

Low

(N:r22)

(N:486)
Division

(N:lls)

of

labour

Fig. ?: Division

of labour in relation

to change-oricutetion.

I .astly, the study did not reveal any dominant pattern of relat ionship . either positivc or negative betweerr -division of labour a'd comnrirrnenr to n'ork. Also 'n'e could not cliscover any significant relationship be*vecn a systenr of rules (the third structural characteristic of bureaucricy) ancl anv of thc four characleristics of the devel6pnrcntal r"olt'.
BUREAUCRATIC BIIHAVIOTIR AND DL,VELOPNIEN'TAL I{(JLI,

\Ve have noted abovc that the bureaucratic siruct.re is negatir.el_r. asso *ith the assumption of a developme't r'le in s.mc urpectr. Ir, ^ development situation. however, it is the behaviour rvhich holds ir kev to the understanding of bureaucracy and to its pcrfor-mancc. \\'c har.c thcr.cfore examined below in detail the relationship bet*een the bchar-ioural characteristics of bureaucracy and those of development administration conciato.d

sidercd

in this

studv.

Bureaucratic &n(J Deaelo'bmcntal Characteristics


I

137

ntpersonalitl' our general hypothesis hcre rvas that inrpersonality rvould conflict- rvith change-6rientation required of developmental personnel. This implied that highly impersonal in the ir -,r,ve eipected to find the respondents r,vho are ,uork io be less change-oriemed rhan their collcagues rvho arc impersonal frorn a moderate to a lor,t' extent. Figule 8 belor,v bears out this distribution largely. Little over one-fourth of the respondents scoring high on imperionality have also indicatbd their high change-orientation, horvever 3r p.t ."trt of the respondents rvho have scored lon' on impersonality, are iound to be highly change-oriented. Additional evidence of this relatio'ship is providecl by the fact that the proportion of poorly changeoriented um-o.rg ih" t\{o groups scoring high ancl lorv on impersonality is r 9. r ancl 7.4 p& cent respectively. What is more, the proportion of poorly changeoriented is .found to decline consistently from the highly impersonal group of respondents (rg.r per ccnt); moderately impersonal group (16.r per cent); to the last group consisting of respondents rvho scored lo'w on impersonality (7.4 pcr cent).

Change-orientation

High
Moderate

Low

High

Moderate
(1.{

Low

(N-24r)

:3e6

(N:86)

Inrpersonality

Frg.8: lmpcrsonaliry in rclatiou to

chair

ge-orientation.

'f he conclusion thereforc is that inrpcisonality :rs a gcneral feature of has ncgative implicatioir for the kel clcveloprnental characteristic, viz.. change-crientation. We also found thc negative asso.ciation between impersonality and change-orientation to be statistically significant (chisquare : 17.l; significant at.oor level u,ith clf : 4).

civil scrvice attitude

138

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

Did the high degree of impersonality of the civil service have a negative bearing upon their result-orientation ? The question is especially important because the achievement of planned developmett goals is left considerably in the hands of the civil servants.
Percent
100

Resuli-orientation

t'.'.'.'.1

High

tl

Moderate

N
High
Moderate

Low

(N:241)

(N:3e6)
Impersonaliry

tow (N:86)

Fig.

9:

Impersonality in relation to result-orientation.

Figure 9 above does shorv that the proportion of the highly resulr-orienred is slightly higher (gg per cenr) among the respondents rio.itrg high on impersonality than the proportion (gz per cent) among those scoring lor.r, on impersonality. Also that low impersonality is somervhat more often accqmpanied with low result-orientation than high impersonality. These relationships are however weak (chi-square : 3.oi not significant) ancl hence \{ are - unable to suggest a definite impact of impersonality on resukorientation of the civil srvants. On the other hand, the study has suggested, as expectetl by us, a definite negative :usociation between impersonality and citizen-orientation as shown in Figure ro. It may be noted that the proportiou of poorlv citizen-oriented is higher lmlng the respondents scoring high on impersonality (83.b per cent) ihan their proportion among the respondents who scored low on' impersonality (24.7 per cent). Likewise, the latter group of responderirs is founrl to havc a m.ucl.r higher- proportion of highlv citizen-oriented members (3g.b per cent) than we found among the former group of respondents (oniy r7 S per cent of them are highly citizen-oriented). These distributions ur. itighly

Bureaucrati,c and' Deuelop mental Characteristi'cs


Percent

r39

t00

Citizen-orientation

|'_:I
80

t.''.'.'.1

H'Ch

60

n
High
Moderate

Moderate

40

Iow

20

00

Low

(N:24r)

(N:3e6)
Impersonaliry

(N:86)

Fig. 10: Impersolality in relation to citizen-orientation.

significant (chi-square : 23.1): significant at .oor level rvith df : .1)' Sufiice it to conclude here that the impersonal attitucle of the development civil seryants has a negative impact on their attitude towards bringing the cil.izelr clientele into the vortex of administrative decision-making and irnplementat ion. Lastly, we examined the rclationship betrveen impelsonality anrl cotnntitment to work. Figure r r clearly shows some relationship bettveen the tw()

Thus the proportion of the poorly committed among the responclents scoring high, moderate, and low on impersonality is found to be r 7 per ce t, r2.7 per cent,, and 6.2 per cent respectively. 'Ihis shorvs the negative impact of the impersonality attitude on comriritment to rvork in the sense that we have defined this term for the purposes of the prescnt stud.v. Seen from the other end, it is found that the respondents scoring lorv on impersonality are more often highly committed to their lvork than the respondents with moderate score on impersonality (34.6 per cetrt against

2jg

per cent) and again that the latter group scoring high on irnpersonality (25.8 per cent). These patterns suggest that impersonality as a behavioural trait of the civil servants tends to reduce their commitment to n ork. We rvould not, hon'evcr, like to stress this obsen ation as a significant conclusion arrived at by our analysis because it does not pass the statistical test of significance adopted by us (chi-square of association between impersonality and commitment to work : 2.6; not .significant).

AA
Prrcent t00

EUREAUCRACY

_AND

DEVgLOPMENT ADI{INISTRT|IION

Commitment to work

High
Moderatc

Low

High

Moderrte

Lot"r (N="86)

(N:241)

(N:3e6)
Impersonaliry

Fig, I I Rat ional

Impersonaliry in relation to commirrnnr ro work.

ity When lve examined the scores of the respollclents ou rationality (thc second behavioural characterist:c of bureaucracl ) in rdlation to their developmental orientation, lve coukl not lind the t$.<l to be significantly relatcd to each other. The details bf this analysis are prcsented in Iiigurc rz.

As Figure r2 sho$rs, the scores on rationality and change-orientation appear to be positively associatecl. The ploportion of highly change-

oriented is higher among the responclents who have scored high. on rationality (26.3 per cent) than thc proportion among the respondents lorv on rationality (rB per cent). From the other sidc too it is found that thc highly rational civil servants in the sample contain a lower proportion of poorly change-oriented (rr, per cent) than the cir.il scrvants scoring low on rationality (zo.z per cent). The study thus suggcsts a l'eak but positir,c relationship betrveen the bure:rucratic characteristic of rationality and the developmental characteristic of change-orientation (chisquare : r-,.7; not

\Vc found a similar pattern of relationship. betrvecn rationalit,v ancl result-orientation as shor.vn in Figure r 3. It is clear that the highly rational civil servants are more often highl,v result-oriente cl and less often poorl,v result-oriented than the proportions found among the respondents performing lon on rationality. Again, hor,vever, these relationships were not found to be significant (chi-square : 6.7;

significant).

Bureaucratic and Deuelopnrcntal Characteristics


Percent
100

t4l
Change-orientation

80

l' .. .. ..lI

t.

High

60

Moderate

40

N
High
1t

tow

20

00

t:z+:1

Moderate (N:348)
Rationaliry

Low (N-132)

Fig. 12: Rationality in relation to cliauqe-orientetioll.

t00

Result-orientation

EO

High

60

Moderatc

40

tow

20

00

High
(hr

Modcrate

Lovr

-243)

(N.'348)
Retionaliry

(N:

r32)

Fiq.

l3: Rationrlity in relation to result-orientation.

t42

BUREAUCRACY AN-D DEVET.OPMENT ADIVTINISTRATION

not significant). We also {ound a somervhat positive relationship to exist hetween rationality and citizen-orientation' on iationality are poorly citizen-oriented, rvhereas the proportion of
Figure r4 below indicates that 34 Per cent of the respondents scorin-g_lol'
lorc-

citizen orienta'tion among the respondents high on rationality is z8 per cent. On the other hand, the former group of respondents has a lort'er ProPortion
Percent

Citizen-orientation t00

EO

High
Moderatc

60

40

Liw

20

00

High

Moderate

Low

(N:243)

(N+348)
Rationality

(N:

r32)

Fig.

14

: Rationaliry.in relation to citizen-orientation.

of highly change-oriented (r3 per cent) than the latter group (zz per cent). It appears, therefore, that the higher the rationality among the civil servants, the higher the citizen-orientation among them also. These relationships, however, did not pass our standard of significance (chi-squarc 5.6; not significant). Contrary to the foregoing trends. lve found thc respondcnts' r"ltionalitv in the course of work to be inversely related to the degree of commitment they brought to bear on their rvork. As seen from Figure r 5 the proportion of the highly rvork-comrnitted among the respondents scoring high on rationality on the one hand, and their proportion among the respondents scoring lorv on rationality on the other are ?9.5 per cent and 34,r per cent respecti\.ely. Likelvise, high rationality is found to be somel'hat more associated n ith a lolr' levcl of commitment to lvork than rvith a high level of it. Thus r7.4 per cent o{ the respondents scoring high on rationality have scored low on commit-

Bur eawcrati
Percent
100

c and

Dea elo'b

mental

Charac t eristi c s

143

Commitment to work Hioh

Moderatc

N
High
Modererc

Low

Low

(N-243)

(N:348)
Rationaliry

(N-

132)

Fig,

15

: Rationaliry in relation to commitment to work.

of the respondents scoring lorv on rationality. These relationships are also significant (chi-square - r2.4; significant at .or level n'ith df : 4). Overall, the study shorvs the rational approach of the civil servants in their lvork to be somewhat positively associated with their change-orientation, result-orientation and citizen-orientation, but negatively associated rvith their feeling of commitment to a significant degree.
Ru,lr-orienf ation

ment to rvork, whereas the lattel' phenomenon is reported bv tz.4 per cent

Lastly, wc turned to rule-crientation as a feature of bureaucrafic behavi rrul of the civil servants. We first examined the rule-orientation reported by the respondents, in its relationship with change-orientation. As shown in Figure rG we found significant contracliction befiveen the two. Considering the extreme groups of highly and poorly ru-le-oriented respondents, rve found that the proportion of poorly change-oriented among the r\ro groups is z8 and lr.g per cent respectivelv. In other rvords, the highly rule-oriented civil servants are less change-oriented than their colleagues scoring lorv on rule-orientation. Similarly, ncarly one-third of the respondents pcrforming lol. on nrle-orientation are reported highly change-oriented. As.against this about 14 per cent of the respondents who are highly rule-oriented, are also found to be highly change-oriented. What is more, the proportion of highly

r44

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVEI,OPMENT,AD]\{INISTRA'fION

changc-oriented increases successivelv among the groups of responclents scoring high, moderate, and low on rule-orientation. Similarl,v, the poorlv change"oriented come in smaller proportion from the lor'r'er level of rulcorientation than from the higher level of rulc-orientation anong the rcspondents. The negative relationship betrn'een rule-orientation and changcoricntation is thus indicated rather sharpll' bv Ihe studv (chisquare : z8'9; significant at ovei .oor level rvith df : 4).
Pcrccnt
100

Change-orientation

80

High

60

Moderate

Lorv

Hrgn

Mode rate

Low

(N:128)

(N:428)
Rule-orientation

(N:167)

Fig.

l6:

(uls-6;;e ntation in relation to chanee-orientation.

We also found the rule-orientation to be significantlv inversclv rclatcd rr.'ith result-orientation as seen from Figure r 7. It is ob'r,ious from Figure r 7 that highel rule-orieutatiou is morc often associated rvith lorver. result-orientation and r.icc vcrsa. 'Ihe 5o per cent of the respondcnts showing a lou' level of rule-orientation arc founcl to be highl,v result-oriented. On the other: hand, tlrc pr-oportion of highlv result-oriented among the highly rule-orientecl rcspondcnts drops to q'..i pcr cert. Again the proportion of poorlv rcsult-oriented is higher alnong the highly rule-oriented respondents than among thc responclents reporting lor\: lule-orientation (24 per cent against ri pcr ccnt respcctively). 'Ihc application of the chi-square test shows that the inverse relationship betrveen i ule-oricntation and result-orientation is highlv signi{icant (chisquare .: 35.g; significant above ,oor level l,ith df : 4).

Bureaucrattc and Developmental Characteristics


Percent
100

145

Result-orieltation

.''6"

ll

Moderate

N
High
Moderate

Low

I-ow

(N:128)

(N:428)
Rule-orientation

(N-

r67)

Fig. 17: Rule-orientation irr re.lrtion to resulr-orienrarion

The also shows rule-orientation of the civil servants to have nega. _study tive influence on their citizen-orientation as may be seen from Figil ;g. .. Of_ the- respondents scoring high on rule_orientation, 4r per E r,, found to ha'r'e a lorv level of citizen-orientation and orly i5 p'". ..rri t,[r, ".. level of it. Il comparison, u5 per cent of the respondents"s;ring lorv in rule-orientation have also scored lo''v on citizen-orientation and rT per- cent of this group ha'e scored high on citizen-orientation."rritt "r Thus the nrghly rule-oriented civil senants are found morc often poorly citizen_ oriented and less often highly citizen-orientecl than the civil servants with a low degree of rule-orientation. These patterns of inverse ."ruti."rt ip l.ir'r'een rule-orientation and citizen-orientation are also highly significani (chi-square : 2o.Z; significant at over .oor level with df : a). As regards the last characteristic of developmental role,'namely commitment to work, the findings about its relationship with rule_orie;;;;; of the civil servants are not in keeping rvith the above partern. As_shown in,Figure r9,-the study did not establish any significant relarion_ . ship between th_ese two phenomena. We found the respondents scoring hish. moderare, and lorv on r're-orientation to be similariy co-mittJ ; *rA; work (chi-square l'alue of relationship be*veen rule-orientatio' urra .o*mitment to work : g. I ; not significint). To sum up, rule-orientation of the civil servanrs is found in this study to have negative influence on their change-orientation, result-o.ie;r;",;;

146
Percent

EUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMBNT ADMINISTRATION

Citizen-orientation
100

80

1....1

High

60

ll

Moderate

40

N
High
Moderate

Low

2A

00

Low

(N:128)

(N:428)
Rule-orientation

(N:r67)

Fig. 18: Rule-orientation in relation to citizen-orientation.


Percent
100

Commitment to worlc

80

High

60

tl
High (N:r28)
R

Moderate

fi
20

N
Moderate (N:42s)
ule-orientation

Low

(X)

Low (N:167)

Fig. 19: Rule-orientation in relation to commirment to work.

Bureaucratic and Deuelopmental

haracteristics

147

and citizen-orientation; it is apparently not meaningfully related with their feeling of commitment to work.
SUMMARy aNo Coxcr.usroNs

study, namely the exploration of the relationship between the bureiucratic mode of_functioning on the one hand, and the requirements of the developmental role on the other. The specific findings of the study in this regard are summarised in the table belor,r',
I

'fhis chapter dealt with probably the mosr vital part of the present

ABIE 7. I

RELArroNSHrp

"rt*.BTuxsifoyR+1il?gr-AcrBRrsrrcs
Relationship with Developmental Role

AND

Rure au crati c C h a r ac t e ri sties

Chnnge

oienhtio

Resslt otIentatiotl

Citizen Com,nitftreflt orientation uork


Negative Negative
(S) (S)

to

Structural
11te

rarcny

Division ofLabour Systen ofRules

Negative (S)

Negative (S) Negative (P)

Behavioural
Impersonality ' Ratiiorrality Rule-orientadon
(s) Negative(S) Positive(NS) Positive(NS) Positive(NS) Negative(S)

Negative(S)

Negative(NS)

Positive(NS) Negative(NS)

Negative

(S)

Negative(S) No clear pattern

(Ns)
(P)

Significant I I Not significant )


:

Based on chi-square valLres

N-egativc ro rhc cxtcnr that respondents

of labour arc found lcs often highly.result-orie'nted under conditions of low division oflibour.

working under corrditions ofhiqh division


than the

responderits;..[ir;

As regards the structural characteristics of bureaucracy, and their. relationship lvirh development orientation, we have .epo.t.d only those relationships lvhich rve founcl to,be significant. It so happens thar ;ll the signi{icant relationships are negarive. 'rhus hierarchy of iuthority is fo.nd nega-' tivelv related with result-orientation and citizen-orientation. It mav be iecalled that rve have defined hierarchy as the arrangement of organisational personnel into a chain of superiors and subordinates n'ith coiresponding filteration of authority and initiative. we ascertained. the extent of hiernrchical srrucrrrc rvithin which the respondents performed their rvork b1. asking them about (a) the freedom they have to tate decisions on thei4 own r"elating to problems connected with their n'ork rvithout asking their superiors' (b) the necessary approval of the superiors for raking u.ii,orrc in thiir

148

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

office, (c) the extent

ihe officials above his immediate superior. Hierarchy thus implies dependence of the civil servant on his superior anrl a sort of a monolithic arrangement of positions and Persons. We asslmed that one of the serious consequences of hierarchical structure and of the dependence it generates lvould be the loss of initiative among the civil servants working under these conditions. we also assumed that iire loss of initiative would be reflected in the ci'il servants getting less concerned with achieving concrete results in their work, and becoming less prone to adopt the new ityle of citizen-centred administration. Indeed the study amply bears this out. The hierarchical conditions in rvhich the ^ civil servants worked did make for difierences in their result-orientation and citizen-orientation. The active efiorts of the civil servants to achieve specific results in their respective job assignments constitute one of the key requirements of - suc..*i in d"ullopment administration. Such efiorts start at the cognitive level with the civil servants $ranting or agreeing to achieve the results expected of them. The study sholvs that the culture of dependence of the civil servant on his superior reduccs the intensity of his concern for achieving specific results iL wbrk. It is possible that thc civil servant in this casc regards the achievement of rerults to be more a concern of his superior thin of himself. The fact, horvever, appears to bc that a hierarchical relationship dilutes the subordinate's sense of responsibilitr, cven in his own
lvork.

oI say the superiors have in matters afiecting the restheir work, and (d) the acrc_ssibility of the respondent to pondents and

Civil servants may be more or less concerned r'vith achieving specific in their work either on their orvn or under external pressures. We do not know the determiner of the level of concern for results reported by our resPondents. It, however, apPears that the external pressures in this regard- are weak. Perhaps the important element of such extcrnal p."rrnrir is the attitude of thc superior officers. In any formal organisalion and perhaps much more in government, the superior officer I'ields
results

great influence over his subordinates. Therefore if he puts Pressure otl ihe suborclinate to perform rvell it is bound to be reflected in the latter concerning himself more with it. It follows from this that a hierarchical structure yields to the employees concerning themselves more rvith performance because it affords more opPortunities to the superiors to exert pressure on subordinates. The findings of the present study are holevcr io the contrary. The respondents functioning under more hierarchical structure are found to be less result-oriented than those working under less hierarchical structure. We are led to concludc from these results that thc 'be having a high level of concern for superior officers themselves may not reiults. At least it is not reflected in their dealing with the subordinates. \A/e ascertained citizen-orientation of the civil servants in terms bf their attitude towards involving their clientele in the formulation and implementation of developmental policies and programmes. It would have been,

ur eaucrati

c anil

D ea elob

mental

Charac t eri,sti,cs

149

we felt, difficult to find respondents working under a highly hierarchical structure to be also highly citizeh-oriented. A hierarchical structure accords a superior status to the superior and an inferior status to the subordinates. It is based essentially on a power relationship between the two. Unless he holds strong convictions which take him above it, the civil servant is not likely to extend the kind of egalitarian treatment to the citi zens which he himself is denied. in his office. Many a research has demonstrated that the treatment that the employees themselves receive within the organisation in which they rvork has a great imPact on the treatment of the clientele at the hands of these employees. This suggests that a higher citizen-orientation among civil servants would come forth in a climate of supervisory style r.l'hich is civil servant-centred. a structural dimension of bureaucracy - As regards division of work - study to connote differentiation in the we considered it in the Present functions performed by difierent personnel in thc organi$ation. Thus the more different or dissimilar the activities performed by the difierent employees, the higher the division of labour among them. In accordance rvith bureaucratic theory, we also assumed the division of labour to. be based . on specialization implying thereby that there is a planned relationship between a job and the qualifications of the persons considered for doirlg it. Lastly, it is noted that a high degree of division of horizontal as in the case of assembly lines or vertical as in the work case of a tall organisation consisting of many levels of superwision and makes the rvork performed by individual job'holders repernanagement titive to some extent. The study found that the bureaucratic condition of high division of labour is negatively related to the civil servant's change-orientation, resultorientation and citizen-orientation. That the civil servants who work under a system of high division of work are more often less development-oriented than those working under a low degree of division of labour. To divide the work among employees means programming their concerns and activities, telling them what is formally expected of them and how it is different from expectations from others. High order division of work would thus crystallize, or even sometimes freeze, the duties and responsibilities lvhich go to make a role. Employees working under these conditions tend to develop stercotype notions about legitimate and nonlegitimate activities associated with their respective jobs. To us the change-orientation of development personnel implied their acceptance of the role of a change-agent in the full sense of the term. As stated earlier the change lvhich developing nations like India are trying to bring about is a change in the values and life'style of their people, rvhich includes not only change in their economic status but also in their attitudes and behaviour. It is this social aspect of change which because of its crucial importance, rve have emphasized in ascertaining development orientation of the civil servants. The results, however, shor,v respondents whose jobs are highly diflerentiated to be less concerned with the social

150

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINIS RATION

aspects of

the change process. These aspects are difficult to programme for of stipulation of rvhat to do and how ro do.it. Ilasically therefore they lend a certain dogree of ambiguity to the role of development personnel in terms of specific tasks. A civil servant used to function l'ithin a system of finely defined jobs rvhich emerge from a high degree of clivision of labour, is not likely to be highly change-oriented because of ambiguitics associated with the ' role. Tolerance for ambiguity is usually less among the persons r'vho are used to deal with highly structured situations / tasks. It trains them to think and accept things on conventional lincs. We feel that citizen-orientation is less among the respondents reporting a high divi sion of work for essentially similar reasons for r,r,hich they are less change-

in the

sense

oriented. We were holvever somewhat intrigued by the relationship betr,veen divi sion of work and result-orientation reported bv the resoondents. According to us. the resultoriented civil servant working in a developmcntal area is one who works actively to bring abour tarrgible resulrs Loth for rhc benefit of the citizens and the country, if necessary even by n.aiving some of the official requirements. In essence, lve have tapped the managerial orientation of the respondents in the above description, where management is defined as the process of getting results in one's area of rvork. Division of labour should enable civil servants to see their role morc clearly in relation to other roles. To the extent that expectations frorrr the civil seryant are spelled out as a pal't of his role, clivision of labour should be associated with greater awareness of outputs or results from one's role. It may be recalled that in Chapter 4 $'e pooled together the scalc items on the three dimensions of bureaucratic structure (viz. hierarchy, division of labour, system of rules) to arrive at a composite scale of bureaucratic structure. Similarly, the scale items on the three dimensions of bureaucratic behaviour (viz. impersonality, rationality, rule-orieuration) rvere pooled together to constitute a composite scale of bureaucratic behavi. our. To examine the overall relationship of bureauciatic structure and behaviour, we have also formed a scale of orientation to developmental role by combining under it the items constituting the scale of changeorientation, result-orientation. citizen-orientation, and commitment to work. When rve analysed bureaucratic structure in relation to the devt:lopment orientation of the respondents, the follorving results were indicated. As Figure zo below shows, th study did not find the bureaucratic stnrcture as a whole in conflict rn'ith bureaucratic behaviour. Thus the proportion of the respondents rvho are highly and poorly oriented to their developmental role is about the same among the sub-sample reported to be rvorking under a highly bureaucratic structure as that among the subsample reported to be working under a lorv bureaucratic structure. From these results, it appears that the bureaucratic structure of the Government agencies in which civil servants sen'e, and their orientation to developmental role are not necessarilv incompatible, except for certain relation-

Buremtcratic and Deaelo'bmental Characteristics


Pcrccnt
100

151

Orientation io developmental role

l.r:i

High
Moderate

Low

High

(N:103)

Moderatc (N-482)
Bureaueratic structure

Lorry

(N:138)

ships noted above. The study has, however, brought out the generally adverse influence of the bureaucratic behaviour of thb civil servants on their develop-ment. orienta tion. As a characteristic of bureaucrztic behaviour, impersonality implies discharge of official business rvithout regard for 'persons', that is, dealing with each case according to calculable r-ules, rvithout emotional and other considerations. According to Weber, the bureaucratic official approaches the public in a spirit of formalistic impersonality without any feelings whatsoever. His decision-making is impersonal in the sense that decisions are taken strictly according to formal criteria and the scope for any other considerations to influence the decisions is eliminated. On the other hand, change-orientation lvith its emphasis upon bringitrg about changes in the values and attitudes of the citizens, requires the developmental personnel to identify themselves with their clientele . and actively help them in the process of change in their values, attitudes, and behaviour. The process'of change itself is complex and cannot possibly be managed through a set of formal rules or criteria rvithin which civil servants havc to function. In other rvords, this function of the development administration cannot be standar:dised or structured, and reduced to handling it according to certain calculable r^ules. The whole process of change rvith which development administration is concerned is dynamic and

152

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPN{ENT ADMINISTRATION

civil sewants to be sensitive to variations in the environment in which it is to be brought about. The change-orientation required of the civil servants working in development administration is thus incombehoves the

patible with their impersonal, stereorype, standardised approach to work. From the above. it is also obvious that impersonality would be negatively related to the respondent's commitment to rvork. As regards the present study, the commitment to rvork among the development personnel implied their intellectual as r,vell as. emotional invoh-ement in their lvork. It is sometimes even argued that the emotional involvement of these personnel in their work is of higher value (although it is necessary to have both emotional and intellectual involvement) for it represents an inner directing force motivating the civil servants to perform rvell. The impersonal approach to work, on the other hand. has no place for emotions in it. A highly impersonal civil servant does his rvork rvithout hatred or passion. 'lvithout affection or enthusiasm. and r,r'ith a sense of detachment. This negative associationship betr.t een i,mpersonality an<l commitment to rvork is demonstrated by the present study although not very significantly inasmuch as the respondents per{orming high on impersonality. are often found less committed to their work, while those performing low on impersonalitv are found more committed to their work. Both change-orientation and commitment ro work among the developmental personnel imply their readiness to reach oui to the 'person' behind their clientele. It is our conviction that the development process has essentially to be people-centred; that people are the focus of development ancl even if the Government initiates the development process, it is no substitute for the movemen t on the part of pebple rhemselves. The citizencenffedness of the civil servant leads him to adopt a less impersonal. more direct, and friendly approach in his dealings with thc citizens ancl to br.clk away from the social isolation of himself such as lvas t_vpical of his e arlier colonial incarnation. Both these behaviours are taboo to a civil servant performing his work in an impersonal manner. We offer this interpretation of the adverse relationship found by us between bureaucratic characteristic of impersonality and citizen-orientation rvhich is an important characteristic of the developmental role. The study did not find impersonality of the respondents to be negativelv related to their result-orientation. On the other hand, the trvo characteristics are positively related, though not significantly. That is. the highly impersonal civil servants are likely to be more concerned with rchier.inq specific results in their work than their colleagues who are less impersonal. As regards the second behavioural characteristic of bureaucracy, viz., rationality, we found it to be somewhat positively related to developmental role in terms of the respondents' change-orientation, result-oricn tation. ancl citizen-orientation, while at the same time somel'hat negativelv related to their commitment to work. These relationships, however, are r,r'eak according to the tests adopted by us. We have defined rational behaviour of the civil sewant as the behaviour

Bureaucratic and Deuelopmental Characteristics


efficiency. Matter-of-factness dominates

153

involving choosing objectivcly between ahern.atives on considerations of in the work of such a civil servant. He takes his various decisions as objectively as possible; and his norms. therefore, are universalistic rather than particularistic. For example. promotions based on merit and seniority are illusffations of universalism, *'hile nepotism is an illustration .of particularism. The study dicl not sholv anr conffadiction befiveen the rrtional behaviour of the civil servants unclerstood in the above sense and their adoption of the developmental role. As regards commitmenr ro wor k. it will be recallcd that it implied, for tht. purpose of this study. emor ional involvemenr of rhe civil slrvant in his work. The matter-of-factness of the rational civil servant precludes the emotions to influence his l,ork. Hence the mildly negative relationship between rationalitv and commitment to work found by us. On the rvholc, the bureaucratic characteristic of rationality appears to be functional to the performance of the development role by the civil servants. Lastly, the negative relationship of rule-orientation rvith developmentorientation of the civil servants is consistent r,vith the influence of impersonality discussed above. As a behavioural characteristic of bureaucracy. rule-orientation means strictly following the officially prescribed rules, norms of conduct, and procedures. Merton has noted that a rule-bound civil sen ant sees his role as consisting of a mechanical application of offi-value, cial rules. To him these rules do noi have instrumental thev have a terminal value.' It is this approach of the civil servants rvhich is more
pathological.

The terminal value ascribed by the civil servants ro the rules and procedures governing their work would logicallv make them indiffereni to the specific results expected of them. There is no quesrion of their rvanting to achieve certain results and actit.ely rvorking for them. The results just happen to come about from the strict application of the official rules in specific cases. The concern. to follorv stipuhted rules and the concern to achieve desired results thus seem to conflict rvith each other. As noted earlier, both change-orientation and citizen-orientation require the civil servant to be citizen-centrcd, to consider his clientele and their development as the real touchstone of his efficiencv. The official rules and procedures are intended merely to help him in this task. The studr,. however, has shon'n that excessivelv rule-bound civil servants often stoo their concern rvith the applicarion of formal rules and fail to sec beyonj. In other words, their serr,:iceorientation which is implied in the above tu'o kev characteristics of the developmental role, is less. On the other hand, it is higher among the civil servants.n'ho are less rule-oriented. Henct, thesc civil scrvants are also signi{icantlv more changc-oricnted and citizenoriented. r. Merton Robert K., p. z5g.
Social Theory and Social Stiucture, Nerv york, -fhe Free

Press, r968.

Bureaucracy and DeveloPment An Overview Administration

Srxcr sunneucRAcY as a system of government has come to stay in almost all countries and certainiy in Inclia. it is onl ' to be exPected that the bureaucratic phenomenon will grol' in the conring years' More and more state activitiei which are on the anvil, lvill iner-itably see the burgeoning of the bureaucracy in fields which have traditionally been outside the. purvier'r, of the governmental system. From all evidence of the recent historv of India every new state activity seems inexorablr, to lead to gTeater bureaucratic growth and consequently bureaucratization. Is this process as inevitible as it seems? The c1[estion could take different forms in different countries. In the Third \Arorld non-Socialist countries. the question gets linked lvith fundamental problems of development' Is develbpment i process of social evolution through environmental in-teraction in which icope for human intet-vention is limited? Or can development be engineered to suit the needs and tastes of man and the societ,v in which he lives. The experience of the post-planning period in India clearly, demonstrates thai the developmental process can be greatly accelerated through state action. Compared to the first t1,vo quarters of the zoth century' the pace of development in the third quarter has decidedly been superior and iaster. In othei words, development is not mercly an outgro$'th of historv but can be engineered and compresscd in time. The problem of development seems ultimatelv to hinge uPon management, eipecially holv the process of developnent is conceived, handled' and administered. In other lvords, this means management in the broader sense. Evidence suggests that developmental activities are broadly of tlvo types. Discrete activities such as building of roads, bridges, communications, trinspo.t, dams, etc., and diffused activities like education, health, family welfare, etc. The former are amenable to cliscrete organisational treatment. The latter a-re not. The diffused sector needs <lifferent forms of organisation. Evidence also suggests that rvhere the Process is more people-based, it is qualitatively different; that rvith all their limitations, in the peoplebased programme, to the extent that they succeed in involving the people closely into the programme, the success level in the diffusecl sector seems to be much greater. This poses basic problems to development management. On the onc' hand development in countries like India sees the almost inevitable grorvth of bureaucracy as the sole instrument of state policy. On the other hand, bureaucracy also develops a stranglehold on the developmental process

An Oueraieu
and

r57

to suit its own pace and liking whether it meets like India which is primarily interested in accelethe needs of a country rating development or not. Evin more^fundamental, as studies by Robert Michels, Peter Blau ancl others have pointed out (referred earlier in the text), are certain inherent contradictio;s between bureaucracy and democracy. The essential values of bureaucracy are hierarchy, status, secrecy, sPecialisation, rules and an unflinching obedience to authority. In contrast, democracy is built around

it

adjuSts this process

almost diairetrically opposite values of 'egalitarianism, non-hierarchism, oPen discussion, and above all dissent. The guiding principle of bureaucrzcy

is rationality which, in essence, means efficiency' The guiding principle of democracy is popular will. At the ,"-. iitn. there are almost no examples to shorv democratic

institutions as insnuments of implbmentation or actual day-to'day management. A11 democracies have, therefore, had to fall back upon bureaucracies as their principal instruments for getting things done. This is what Peter Blau calls a piradox, that is, the necessary co-existence of democratic and bureaucratic institutions. The question, therefore, is not rvhether or not we need bureaucracy but what kind of bureaucracy or bureaucracies. can we afford the classical weberian type of bureaucracy which is essentially static in its values and orientations? Or do we need the types of modifications rvhich many scholars, and also practitioners, have seen the need for. To an extent changes have indeed been made from time to time in the bureaucratic aPparatus even in India. But these changes have been rvithin the existing framcwork, and at least Indian bureaucracy basically wears the looks of the classical Weberian model both structurally and behaviourally, rvith excessive emphasis on hierarchy, status, secrecv and authoritv, not to speak of rule-orientation and impersonality. From these perspectives the findings of the present study are important. While we did find a significant level of incompatibility betwecn bureaucratic values and developmental values, the results were far more complex. especially As bureaucracy came face to face with dcvelopmental tasks -bureaucratic tasks requiring people's ParticiPation and. involvement no.m, and values began to undergo a metamorphosis. There was a marked and percentible trend towards lessening the rigours of the structural and behavioural patterns of bureaucracy. The structure of bureiucracy began to get adapted. The hierarchies becam lcss rigid, the system of rulcs'lost their deadly stranglehold, they began to be more responsive albeit ir"t limited terms. More importantly, behavioural values began to get radicallv affected. Impersonality became less rigorous and the needs of the citizen became a little more important. This was more so in respect of the field agencies, especially in the agricultural scctor rtherc people's invoh'emcnt and participation are essential for the successful implementation of the programme of development. In other lvords the bureaucracv showed signs of dvnamic institution.

r58

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT

It was perhaps a crucial finding that developmenral bureaucracies rvhich are more at the 'receiving end' i.e.. those requirlng citizen cooperation for' bureaucratic performance rather than at thc 'giving end' i.e., the civil service dishing out favorus, permits, etc., tend to get structurally less rigid and behaviourally more responsive. The whole 'gestalt' of the bureaucracl gets altered and the concerns begin to shift, undoubtedly through necessity to meet the needs of the people rather than of the bureaucracy itself. This holds out the prospect that even the traditional bureaucratic organisations such as the ones in India are not bevond hopc. More so since the kind of transformation that has taken place thus fai in different bureau cratic organisations is entirelv accidental and not by design accidental in the sense that the occurrence is a consequence of something- not planned in a systematic manner. A rvell-planned adaptation could, therefore, yiekl far gteater results, an issue that rvill be dealt in some more detail later. The incompatibility which rve found between the traditional, bureaucratic, structurzl, and behavioural values and the values of developrnent therefore is not entirely a negati\re conclusion. It only means that while the classical model may be irrelevant for India. bureaucracy ,lter se is nor necessarily so. As an organisational instrurnent it can be moclificcl, altererl and adapted to meet, at least to so'rne extent, the needs of development.
Por,rcY Il,rprtcerroxs

In

other words, the findings of the stucly l-rave profound policv inrpli-

cations. As noted earlier, during the entire era of planned developments the administrative policy of the srare in India barring a few exceptions has been based on the assumption that the state rrould use the bureaucracy as its key instrument of development management. In other rvords, the arlminis.

trative policy of the country has been essentially predicated upon

the

ceedingly resistant to reform and the political system lacks either the lvill or the capability to force a change. If this be so the findings of thc stuclr, pose some fundamental problems. Abovc.all, if there are sone inhercnt contradictions betr.veen bureaucratic values and developmental r.alues. hot, far rvould bureaucracy be able to deliver the goods ? To what cxrcnt \\.oul(t it be able to meet the challenges of the future especially in the compli cated area of rural development? If the study has io be believed, hureaucracv r'vould not be able to deliver the goods so long as it continues to retain its present character. What then are the options? One important but perhaps a rarher clifficult rvay would be to transform the existing bureaucratic system, at least at the

It is not conceivable thar in rhe near future the administrativc policv of the state in India rvill undergo any basic change. Bureaucracv is ex-

bureaucracy. There have, of course, been several attempts at reforming thc administrative system. But all these attempts have been rvithin the existing framework. And rvhat is more. they have been unsuccessful in brinuing about any significant change in the workings of Indian bureaucracv.

An

Oaentiew

159

higher levels, by integrating it with the political system. That is to say, that the higher bureaucracy 'lvould be politicized and key bureaucratic positions would be manned by the cadres of the nrling party so that there is an active and direct involvement of the political system in the actual implementation of development programmci. To some exrent thcre is a parallel to this in some \\restern countries not to speak of the socialist countries. This is by no means an easy solution and goes against the grain of the 'neutral' bureaucratic system rvhich has been built in India since Independence. There is also no guarantee that such a system l,ill necessarily be able to perform better. But to the extent that the ruling partl. at any given point of time is interested in its political future in a free and democratic system, it is likely that the party I'ill seek to ensur-e better performance at the grassroots. This alternative therefore deserves to be experimented upon in a limited rvay and in selective fields. A variant of this approach lvould be to design a bureaucraric svsrem rvhich seeks a greater involvement of the people in its work programme. In other n'ords, to design the system in such a nay that people's institutions ,are given more and more say in developmental functions. One rvay to do this would be to develop the Panchayat institutions especially at the grassrogts level and help them to develop as instruments of administration rather than as merely local political institutions. lVe have at least two States which have extensive experience in this field. namely Gujarat and Maharashtra. In Guiarar the T;luka Panchayat is a pivotal institution rvith an elected President lvho directs the entire Taluka development office tvith a sen ior officer called the Taluka Development Officer to assist him in his function. In Maharashtrz the principal institution is the Zilla Parishad with an elected President and a Chief Executie officer as the administrative head. Er,en here rhe experiment has stopped short ol giving full po\4'ers in local developmental matters to rhe panchayar
institutions.

The irrstitutional base, holvever, already exists and it would not be difficult to build these people's representative institutions iirto full scale instruments both of development and local self-government. Despite many limitations in terms of availability of necessary levels of skills and caoabilities. it would be possible to give these representative insritutions a much greater say and role in matters of local importance and those having :r direct bearing on the life of the immediate community. Admittedlv not the entire country rvould be ready for such an experiment in decentrali zation and devolution of development administration. At Icasr an immediatc beginni"g g1 ,be made where the base already exists rvhile preparatory work could be started in other cases. A third alternative rvould be to identify whatever people's organisations exist at various le.r'els and strengthen and support them rvith a view to cnabling.them to play a greater and expanded role in development ad_ ministration. Sercral voluntary organisations. sometimes affiliared to poli. rical parr.ies. but quite often independent of parrisan involvemenr exist

160

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

with excellent record o{ development services to the local community. These exist extensively in fields like education, health. agriculture and sometimes even in the small-scale industrial fields. These are precisely the areas where people's institutions are ideal vehicles of development effon. However limited it may be, voluntary efiort has repeatedly been found to be more efficacious than bureaucratic effort imposed from the top. This type of effort from within needs to be encouraged. nurtured and supporte<l as a matter of deliberate administrative policy. While on this alternative special mention should be made of the co_ operative system. Amul, the milk cooperative in Gujarat, has amply demons_ trated in most efiective terms, what a well organised cooperalive system can do for the development of a rvhole and ciucial sector even against natural odds. Many parts of India, especially Gujarat. Maharashtra. iamil Nadu, etc', have long traditions of effective and sound cooperatives. rn recent years political factors have eroded their strength. Even so a conscious policy to utilise the cooperatives, along rvith voluntary organisations, as instruments of development administratio', rvilr not only iifuse new life into this. sector, but provide the srate rvith a less expensive and more efiicacious instrument of implementation and cle.r,elopment. A fourth alternarive could be the direct associatlon of the citizen clientele the official agencies at the key performance levels so that the -with people have a say in programmes directry affecting them. This may involve setting up of people's commitrees either functio.t"lly or in aggregat. areas. This would ensure a greatcr dovetailing of the people's exfictations and aspirations into . the administrati.l,e apparatus and enable an iasier and speedier adaptation of both the citizen ind thc .administration to the needs o.f the de'r'elopment programme. Admitterlly there are not many successful ilhrstrations of. this approach *'ith possibre exceptions in tire socialist co'ntries. But it is a method that could bc selectively usecl in programmes of a developmental character, such as. in agriculture. Experiment r'vith these altcrnati.r.e"s should ancl neecl to be tested 'arious and micd out. From a theoretical standpoinr if the people's direct involvernent is a greater guarantee of per.formance, then the developmental pay-off of these policies rvould be much greater and, therefor", d.."r"." i"rinu, administrati'e- policy consideration. There arc thus crucial macro-policv implications of the study. These alternatil'es do not, however, impry that burcaucracr. rvill har.e no role in development administration. Many discrete sectors such as transport, roads. medium and large irrigation. public sector enterprises. etc. r'vill continue to be and need to be Jrganisei on bureaucratic rines. These sectors will be large and important enough for thc b'reaucracv to be fur\, occupied and perhaps rr'ith benefit to the nation. \Vhat, holl'e'er, if s'ch alternativ,es do not get the support they desene? Is it possible .to conceive more rimited opiion, rvittrin the -of ministrarive frame'w'ork? That is to-say, if bureaucracy remains "irr,i"f "Jtrrc oniy or at least the principal insrrument of development administration, can Jurl*."

An

Oaeruiezu

l6t

and modification be made within the existing organisational parameters ro adapt it more efiectively for performance of these tasks? Even from such a narrower or intra-bureaucratic perspective, the studv has' indicated several policy suggestions. Not all of these deserve to be repeated here and sumce'it to highlight the mosr crucial ones, especiallv those relevant to development administration. First of all, since the study reveals a certain degree of dysfunctionality between hierarchy and development orientation, it is necessary that the steeply hierarchical propensities and taditions of Indian bureaucracy bc curbed or modified. These propensities and traditions have posed every conceivable barrier within the bureaucracy and have'been inimical to the development of effective lrorking relationship between the civil service and the citizen especially in the developmental context. The task of de-hierarchization will be undoutedly difficult since it is a deeply ingrained value in the Indian governmental system. Even so, it will be beneficial to the sysrem to organise somewhat more flat organisations, insist less on superiorsubordinate status relationship, and generally encourage a greater degree of informality and florv rvithin the bureaucratic system and with the people at large, especially rvith the citizen clientele. The negative relationship of division of labour with change, resultorientation and citizen-orientation is also suggestive of necessarv prescriptive action. Excessive division of labour tends to diffuse creative response of the bureaucracy in essential terms. Here too some modification should be designed to give the people more .integrated service. High differentiation appears to lessen bureaucratic conrn with social aspects of thc change process and responsiveness ro the people's needs. This implies that the government needs to take greater care in designing jobs and in organising the departmental systems than has been done so far. Considerable literature already exists on job enrichment and rvork design rvhich need not be elaborated lrere. The behavioural characteristic of impersonality 'lvhich is so strongly in. grained in the Indian bureaucracy generally, though not so strongly in the developmental one, also poses problems. Impersonality and change-orientation are negatively related. Similar relationship extends to commitmen t, though no such conflict is demonstrated befit'een impersonalitv and resultorien tation. Modifications rvould, therefore, be necessary to make the Indian bureaucratic system less impersonal. This poses problems because a personalized bureaucratic system could also create several difficulties in programme implementation. As the study indicates the nature of the tasks itself in certain developntental areas like agriculturc, ensures to an extent that the bureaucracy would be less impersonal. Ideally, therefore, n'hat needs to be done is to design administrative tasks and functions in rvhich the citizen is at the 'giving end' and the bureaucracy at the 'receiving end'. This will compel the latter to be more understanding and accomrhodating of the peopie's needs than in a system where the civil servant is at the giving end. Design-

162

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

ing administrative systems of this type is no easy task and 'rvill take some ingenuity. Fortunately, in the developmental sector, thc effort 'rvould be relatively easy and meaningful. Tools like training r,vhich have an effect ol reducing 'impersonality' could be more effectively used. Lastly, on rule-orientation, similar corrective action is necessary. Ruleorientation is the norrnal and oft-decried propensity of bureacracies all ovcr no less in India. Its negative relationship lvith key developmental l,ari ables has similar policy consequences. Horv to develop a culture in which rule-orientation gets diluted and bureaucracy becomes more responsive to the tasks to be performcd is the basic problem of administrative policy. As the findings of the study shorv, higher education can help in reducing thc rigid rule-orientation of the bureaucrats. The too could be used to a greater degree so that end-goals and not the rules can once again become the central foci in bureaucratic oDeration. In broader perspecti\c. rheretirc. hierarchy. impersonalitj and rulc orientation are the three critical characteristics of bureaucratic organi sation and behaviour which appear to run counter to the administrative policy needs of development administration. There is almost a certaiu level of contradiction betlveen these three characteristics and de'l,elopment orientation. Each of them, therefore, suggests policy measures to obviate
avoiddble adverse impact. Such measures are obviously available to a lisscr or greater extent and they need to be adopted. Without such a conscious effort, there would be many hurdles in the pcrformancb of der.elopmenial functions in the countrv. More detailed conclusions are available in the

individual chapters. Issur.s rN Trlronv Rurr.lrNc The study has thrown up issues irr theorl building both on hurcaucracr' and development aclministration. Bureaucratic thcory is, of coursc. of zr much older vintage, and despite several recent criticisms, still remains useful especially in developing countries like India rvhere the burcaucratic organisation is the principal instrument of public administration. Holvever, as the study shorts. thc structural and behlr ioulal chalacteristics arc nol neccs sarily related and that the actual bchavioural propensities begin to altel the structural characteristics to .an inrnortant extent. A static theorv of bureaucracv. therefore. tloes not adcquaielv leflcct the actual rnoclifications that come in or the true character of buleaucracy which etnerges. Hence, a single bureaucratic model appcars to be difficult to sustain. though e broadly generalisable framework perhaps can still be built. From the practical point of view it rvould be far better to develop a l'ange of models in which many factors rvhich have been listed in chapter 4 could be provided for. The various constructs presented in the study perhaps. need to he examined in greater detail both in relation to traditional bureaucracv as rrell as the developmental one. This. rvill thror,v up more data on the hypo-

An Oteruiew
theses suggested

163

by the present study and help us build better theoretical

frameworks.

The building of further bureaucraric theory is indeed very crucial especially to the developing counffies where bureaucracy of one hue or another rvill remain important for quite some time to come. Even in the developed world this lvould be no less important. Experience has shown thar bureaucracics tend to proliferate in both the capitalist and socialist counr"rics of the west. In the developing countries, even if some of the alternatives suggested above are tried, there rvill still be a large and important bureaucratic sector. Hence appropriate theory building witl be an important challenge rvhich the academia and the professional bureaucracy rvill have to face. On the other hand, the theory of development administration used here is more beset with problems. Neither national nor international literature covers adequatcly these theoretical issues. To the extent that changeorientation, result-orientation and citizen participative-orientation are sigiificantly relatecl to each other, they do suggest a theoretically useful model fo' building further framer,r'orks as rvell as testing them in other. situations. Perhaps other attempts at conceptualization will bring out othel. constructs which will help build the theory of development administration further. Special efiorts need to be promoted in this direction. These issues are stressed here because they are important to both academic and policy purposes. To an extent the first step has been taken to relate bureaucratic theory directly to development adhinistration ancl to test their neutral congruity or otherwise. That there is a theoretical incongruity which is borne out by the present study is an important milestone for theor,y building and for policy purprxes. This should ipur future rvork in new directions. Finally the study of bureaucracy as an administrative institution needs to be further examincd in relationship to bureaucracy as a political institution. \,vhat _is its political role especially in d.eveloping countries like -India rvith a bureaucracy of imperial traditions? Is it- poisible ordinarily to have democracy at the central or state levels and bureiucracv elsewherei Both theoretically and in policy terms this does not look like a feasible proposition. The present study does not warrant ,ny conclusion on this topic. It only urges attention to this crucial issue.

APPENDICES

I
Age Gtou.p

Basic Tables on Bureaucratic


Profiles

Tanu A
AGE
Number

ofRespondents Per cent


49 144
182 128

2l-25 years
26-30 vears

6.8
L9 25

.9 .2

3l-35

,veats

36-40 years 41-45 vears


46-50 -vcars Over 50 years

t7 .7

86
65 67

11.9

9.0
9.3 0.2 1oo.o%

Not rePorted
Torar-

723

Tesra B

RURAL/URBAN BACKGROUND
Number Reponing Number Reporting
R ur al I Urb an
B

rtchground

By Place

oJ

Btuth
cent 59.8 16.'1 14.9 7 .2 1.4

By Place Liuetlup to Age 18

llural Semi-urban Urban Metropolitan Not feported Nore: Rural : Up to population of 10,000. Semi-Urbar.r : rffith population of 10,000-1,00,000. Urbau. : With population of i to l0lakhs. -With Metropolilan : population over 10lakhs.

Numbs 432 171 10ti 52 10

Pcr

Nunber 352 144 123 96 8

Per

cent

48
19

"7

.9

17 .O

13 .3

1.1

168

BUREAUCRACY AND DBVBLOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

Tanrs C PARENTAL OCCUPA1IONS


Patental Otupations

Nunfier Repotting
202
:

Per rcflt

Govemment sefvice Agriculturist


Business: self+mployed or employed In<lependent professional

27.9 .28.1

203

by others

198
41

n.4
J. /

reacrung

49 4

6.8 0.5 3.6

Otler occupations
Not reporfed

tzt

100.0%

TABLE

ECONOMIC CLASS ORIGIN


Parental Class Reported

Nunber Reporting

Per rcnt

Upper Upper-middle Middle

26 56
221

3.6
7.1
30.6 31.7

Middle-lower
Lower

229
153 38

2l

.l

Not reported

5.3 10o.07;

Torar
Nole

Upper : Income of over Rs. 1,500 per month; Uppcr-rniddle Middle : Rs. 251-750 p. rn.; Middle-lower : Rs. 151-250 p.
than Rs, I50 p. m,

.- Rs. 751-1,500 p. m. : m.; and Lower : Less

Basic Tables
Term
E

t69

LEVELS OF EDUCATION
Leuels of Eilucation Attdincd

Numbu Reporting
294
2tt

Per cefit
4A.7

High School
Intermediate and equivalent

3.9

Diploma
Bachelor's Degrec Master's Degree
225 129

4.4
31 .1

17.

Doctdrate

t3
2

1.8

Not Reported
ToTAL

0.3
1oo.o%

723

Tenn

LENGTH OF SERVICE
Yeat of Joining

Number Reporting

Pet

cent

Before

1938
81

2.9 lt')
14.0
18.7

Between 193M3 Between 194-49 Between 1950-55 Between 1956-61 Between 1962-67

101

135

246 120

34.0
16.6

h{ter

1967

l3
o

1.8

Not Reported Torar,

0,8
100.07;

170

BUREAUCRACY AND DE\ ELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIO]\


TABIE ,G

'

.MODE OF ENTRY
Mode
o;f

Extry

Nrntber

Reporthtg,

Per cent

Through Employment Exchange plus Intervicrv Direct by Ollice through Advcrtisemcnt and Interview Through a Single Interview by thc
UPSC/State PSC
89

50.6

221

30.6

12.3

Through Conrpetitive Examination


UPSC/State PSC

of
3.?
20 4

Otller Methods Not Reported

v.8 0.5
100.0%

Toral

Tasrs H
C]LASS ]NITIALLY JOINED
Class

Initially Joined

Nuufter Reportlng

Pet tutt

Class

39 58

5.4 8.0
80.1

Class II
Class Class

III

579

I\.
Rdported
24

s:i
1oo.o%

"':'

Not

ToTAI,

Basic Tables
Tasrr
tr

t7r

UP.WARD MOBILITY
Numbet of Pronrctions Received

Nunber Rep-orthrg

Per ccnt

Nil
\ rnc

256
215 139 67
35

35.4
29
19

.8 .2

Two
t nree

9.3

Four Over Four

. 4.8
1

.0.

Not Reported

0.5 100.0%

'Iorar

723

Teln

FORA4AL TRAINING RECEIVSD

Length.

Tr aniry

Rece i u e d

Nwrber Report[ttg

Pet eflt

Nil
Upto
3 months

491
111

67

.9

15.4

3-6 months 6-12 months


12-24 months

6t
z5 29 4 2

,8.4
3.5
4.O

Over 24 months

0.5
0.3

Not Reported

Torar

723

l oo. o?b

172

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

Talr's K
PROFSSSIONAL INTERESTS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Type of Professional Interest Number Reponing Pet

&xt

Read professional j ournals

only

115 75

16.0
t0. 4

Member of professional society only


Read profcsionaljournals and member protessronal socrety

of
44

6.0
.5

Neither tead profersionnljournals nor nrember of any professional society

.188

67

Not Repotted Torar,

0.1

loo.o%

il
fioN-srDER

Questionnaire

PART
tllc
t

I:

INDUSTRY

ol,r-owtltci

STTIIATION:

To mect the increasing export demand for Indian made shoes and other foot-wcar lrom foreign counfies, the Govetrrment is offering various facilities to thc makerr of foot-wear especially in the cottage indusry to increase their prodrction, In f)istrict A of U.P. foot-$'ear. manufacrure is the traditional occupatioD of ir large nunrtrel of pcoplc. While preparing l)istrict's development plans, the potel tiaiof the Districi is estimated at l,6tr,00tr pairs of shoes and otler foot.wear in thc District. For the attainment of this target the resporlsibility is placed on the Districr Industlies Oflicer, Shri Shyamlal. In organising his programme, Shyamlal finds that to attain the target more people have t,r he per:iuaded to ioin rhe industry. sincc lhe existing units, cven afte' expan .ion, crnnot ploduce l.6o,ooo pairs. Holi,ever, while persuading- people he soon tliscovers that thorrgh lltcLc arc.marrr' people in difierer.ri communities who have the fin:rn< ial aud otlx'r crprtrilities to itoti 1"* gnits, they iue general lV unwilliug to take to busilre^rs t-areeis in loot'welt intiustrv. becanse of ttaditional taboo against lcafher connerted industlies'
.

r. A. lrr

rhe existirrg set-up do you tllink it is exoected of Indusrrier Officels like Shyamlal to be concerne<l lvith changing thi attitudes of the unwillinE brrt

potentially good cntrepleneur-s?

(a) To a vely great extent 1b) To a considerable extent (c) To some extent (d) Little 1e) Not at all

r. B. If

you were the Inclustries Oflicer in place of Shyamlal, wotrld vou ir io be yorrr rnnin iolt to change the attitudes of these people?

consider

(a) 'Io a very great extent (lr) To a considerable extent (c) To some extent (d) Linle (e) Not at all
Now suppose that Sh'amlal concentrates his efforts on the PeoPle hlr,eady in thir occupation'and provides them with all the possible assistance to mo{ernise their

174

BUREAUCRACY AND DNVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

units. He also helps people from other communities who are willing to set up {ootwear making industrial units. This enables the Dismict to produce Zb,ooo pairs of slroes arrd other foot-wear against the gqtimated target of l,5ro,ooo pairs. Follouing this. Shyrmla.l .rirggesr.! lo the superior olfirers thot the foot-uear production progrnmme lor the Disl.t'i.ct should, he reducetl to Ji.ooo for the next year ns tlrc attitudes of the Iocal enlrefrcneures ata c tnt .lttuournble and, the old progrnmme u:as sorneuhnt otternmltiliort.t.

:. A. In the present set-up do you think the


(a) Very much (b) Somewhat more (c) Iust right

superiors

very much more done than what Shvamlal did

of officers would in the above case?

expect

(d) ,Someu'hat less (c) No, not at all

:. B. If yol

'r!'ere thc superior of Shyamlal would you also agrcc with him that the progmmme was over-ambitiorts?

' (a) Entirely agree (b) Somewhat agr"ec (t) Do riot knou'(d) Somewhat disagrec (c) Entire\ disagree
'Now suppose for a while that another Disffict 1l]' of U.P. has similar programmr' of foot-weai manufacturing with similar targct as itr the case of Distdct A' abovc. I{owever', the Industries OfficeI of District B. Shri Ram Dayal, finds that practicalll' norie of the potential cutreptetreurs are willing to take to thiis industry. Nevertheless Le was about thc plogramme and thc target set for the districl. Ra,? anthusiastic ^, I)alal (tppronches man\t ol rhe prospectiae entrcPreneurs persona-lly nnd" tl i?\ ,t.o rcmote ii"ir traditional bias rLga.inst shoe-ntakirtg as n.l,so crt:ate in them. rL fntouraltle 'desire fol' mnking.a. career in this indrtstry by intlic ing its profitability, etc. ; u{timatl}-., .hor'ever, n ith the help . of.: ner.v entrants into the foot.wear industrr nnd the people l{ho u'ere already in this occ pation, Ram Dayal is ablc to achieve nrore or jess^ the same srlccess as Shyamlal in achieving about 60% of the target'

. A,

tllrclcr- thc exisring set-up do YoLr think tliat b,oth shyamlal and Ram l)aval will be considerei as equalf capablc officers on the basis of the above
facts?

(a) Certainll/ (c) Not sure (d) Perhaps not (e) Certainlv not 3. rl. If ,vou wele
ttrre superior officer

1b)

Perhaps

of

Shyamlal

corisider thern both as equally capable officers

ald Ram Dayal would Yorr on the basis of above facts?

' r
:

(a) Yes, verY much so (b) Yes, more or less equal

-:..

(.)
.:

.Not .sure (d). Somewhat.,unequal

(e) Very much unequal

Queslionnaire

r75

4. A. If Indusrdes

o{ficers personally approach the people and persuade them to undertake manufactnre of foot-wear do vou think in the present set-up thcir

Irighel officerr

will

aplrrcr iarc such

rn.orlk

(a) Always (b) Gcnerallv (c) Sometimes (d) Rarely (e) Nevei'

-)

) ) )

I3. If yorr were the superior of thc

Inclustr-ies Officers would 1'ou appreciate thcir: personally approachilg the people and persuading them to undertake the manufacture of foot-wear?

(a) Always

rb\

Generallr

(c) Sometimes (d) Rarelv (e) Never, it is


(JONSIDI]R

( (

unnecessary

( ( (

NO\{ ANOTHIIR SIfUATION

'I'he Govcrnment of a siare has established an industrial estate for manufactrrring automobile components with the main purposs of encouraging growth of :r cluster. of related small scale tnits which will supply adequate spares and replacemctrts trr tlrc antomobile operators. The main units ate: antomobile bodl, Intililet,;, l,lntL sntithy, sheet metal uorker, pholstery, light engineering uorhthofts, slnal piint(t..t, unlom.ohile mecha.nics rnd tlectricnl ztire hnrne.ss oberal.or.r.

The decision of the Government was based upon the recommendation oI thc Director <.rf Industries who felt thar rhe location of all these indusrries in the propbsed industrial estate will make possible production of these components in an integrate{l faslrion.so that finished goods could'.be rnade available through this, single estarc.
'fhe entrepiene rs in each of these fields apply to rhe State Financial Corporatirur to give them loans to sbt up their factoties in the new industrial area. Accordilg to the rules of the Corporation, loans are not generally available for service type of
irldustries. IThile scrtfiittizing the. applirations, the ofNicer.s i.n the Corltoration feel that there is consideruble dor.Lbt zthether lhe.last three type.t of industries, uiz., electrical u,ire harness itu.nrifo:tturo's, automobile mechanics and, spray painters, &re not more setaice type rither than manulacttoing type ol industries.

5. A. I{ow clo yorr think these olficers coulcl rleal with thc three types of industries?
(a) Certainly reject (b) Probably reject (c) Don't know (d) Probably grant (e) Certainly grant
(
(

app.lications

of

these

(
(

176

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMTNISTRATION

b. B. If you were in the atrove situation, what do you think the policy of your office ought to be in lespect of the applications of the above three tvpes of
industries?

(a) Certainly reject them (b) Probably reiect them (c) Uncertain (d) Probably grant them (e) Certainly grant them
Noa) suppose these t,hree applieations are reiected. Follouing the rejaction, the rematning entrepreneurs to uhom loans rcu,ld, be granted deciile not lo set up Lheir inilnstries because they feel that unless all the categorics ol ind.ustries are lotated in the indu.irinl estate nrea, it tuortld, not be possible to ?nanufacture the finisheil gootls.

ti. A. Do yon think that in the existing set-up


(a) CertainlY
1b) Probably

the officers dealing with the applicatinns would leconsider their interpretation?

(c) Don't know (d) Probablv not (e) Certainly not

6. B. If you wele lhc


(a) Certainlv (b) ProbablY (c) Undecided (d) Probably not (e) Ciertainlv not

conccrned offieer ina situation like this would you reconsider your interpretation of the rules applicable to these cases?

Nous sttpftrt.st: thftl. the olficers

applicatioiti

ol the nltote

in the altoue use arc diaided ahou.t dealing with the th.re( lypes ol intluslries.

(i) The first group ol officen feel that since such cases ale unique in manv lespectri, it is impossible to pl'esffibe elaborate nrles to deal witlr all the cases. That the officers should have maximum scope for iudging the applications on their own rnerit arrd in view of their peculiar feature:i
piovided they have a mirrimum number of broadly prescrihed rules and
norms

(ii) On the other hand, thc second group of ollicers feel thet handling o[ the applications in this manner would lead to confusion and also opert
endleiJ possibilities of Govetnmental assistance to industries. Tlrev, therc-

it necessary to have clearly prescribed criteria and rules to distinguish between persons who are and are not eligible for Goverrr' mental assistance so that there is a minimum ueed for valiation or adaptation'to deal with individual cases
fore, feel
versions dir you

r. A, Which of the above two


crurent poliw of your

think

comes closest

to describing thc

Office?

1a; lnterpretation of the first gr:ouP of officers

(b) lnterpretation of the of officers

( (

second group

)
)

Que.rtionnaire
7. R, Which of thern best office ought to be?
describes

n7
your own idea of what the policy of
your.

(a) Interpleration of the first group

(b) I'ltetpretttion of the seconti gToup

of of

officers olficers

() ()

"oll#:f:, !l,x'ii:"?i'Ji'::,0:l,,lil"H:"";,;"Ji'J:irinlT'i#t:il:"11.":'d:ffi "ffi

:I,o*fl;'f .i:in:',.:,T,illj;"J:'::#'+.#l"i:iff ;,o be or,"'.ui.",vp., itil:*ilnlf" #i,:t:"' "o the industriar *'^'"' )'r'i,t iloii::ri:;:i:;::"*
8. A, Do lorr rlrirrk that irr tlrc cxisting ret-rrn Govclnr
so much

{:;:r,i!":iji"it,,"lii,i"xil",T"!:o;:oi:L,,:i,,,1,!:#,f ;o1,?,!:;'i;:::#{";
r"r"r"u i.rl,flif,;;t:H*.,:;j;lt,9"x',""":ment
scrvanb seneraliv rake

(a) \/ery much (b) Quite a bit (c) Somewhat (d) Linle (e) Not at all

8. B. If you were in

the above.s-irrratiorr rvoukl 1ou corrsider it vour. responsilrilirv ro go so much out to gurdc lhe people wirh whom you deal?

(a) Very much (b) l.argelv (c) Somewhat (d) Little (e) Not at alL it is
(]ONSIDER

unnecessaLy

NOI{ ANOTHI:R SII'UATION:


rh.c rccu'ren

r prolrlems facirrg lhc agricrrltrr'al indrrstry is lhe acute short _ sed in,the ma'ufa-cr.ring ,p.ocess. As a reiult the agricurtural implements, prod.ction has been serio.slv retairle<t. The Government feel."that iron scraps u'lrich are available in ah.nda'ce can be used by the above incl,strialists as a

-ol" ot supply "t" prg

iror

for pig ir.on for manufacturing agriculturrl 'implementi. Tlre District rnd'stlies officer sh'i r,lanohar LaI of Distr-ict ,A', r,hich is faced r,t'ith. the- short_ _suppl1. of pig iron is perturbcd about the situation orld **rrt,
substiture

Goaern.ment utould lte able to he.lp. thent in solahtg their pro|lerns il thy g}l)i ; operatiort b), tahirtg to tha use of iron srrnps as rliired bi the Got,ernmeitj When he mates a review six mon x larer Shri ilIanohar Lal finds that only a small percentage of the industrialists in the District have switcherl on to the use of iron scraps in the manufacturing process.

to solve the problem. He fincls, horrever. drat the concerned indusrialisrs or" e"rr"rnlli, Lrnwillirrg to iron scraps as they fear drat this will increase ,h"it -use -u",.Fu.i.,.iri costs arrd reduce profits and also cause other difficulties. To tesolue the Oroiiei. he arranges a lormal meeti,g ui z rha industria.rist.r in uthich rr" tuHt tir*iio;1;; t:: Goa:rnm.c!.t already k.nous their prohlems bttt it is not possible to d,o aer"9 iuci. I tte utdu.\trtult.tl.t tntrsl. lh"relorr, ttsc irort srrups itt the et islitrp circumstntttis. tThe

178

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELoPMENT ADMINISTRATIoN

g. A. Do you think in the existing set-up the District Indusffies as much as is expected of him?
(a) Entirely so (b) Largely so (c) Somewhat so
not

Officer has done

(d) Largely

(e)'Entirely not

9. B. If you were the District Industries Officer,. would you considcr it adequate to ' do all that Manohar Lal did to secure the cooperation of industrialists in
the above matter?

(a) Very much adequate (b) Quite adequate (c) Somewhat adecluate (d) Quite inadequate (e) Very much inadequate
There is another District 'B' which also faces with the similar problem. The Dis. trict Industries Officer of that District Shri Sagar Chand finds that practically rone of the industrialists are prepai'ed to use iron scraps for the manufactule of agricrrltural implemen ts. He, therifore, approaches the ind,ustrialists personally and.spends consider;ble arnount of time witi- them, explaining hou iron scraps can. !.9 usld' a,ithout aduersely afleciing the production of finisheil .gooils or their_ profitability' He also tries to un'deriiand, t-heir dil|iculties and solve them. On behalf of the Gotterrt' ient, he assures the inilustrialists that all possible help would.-be accord,ed to them to oiercome the uarious d,ifficulties. This process, however, takes enormous amou't of shri sugu, chanil,s time as a r',esult of which much 0f his routine work at the District Ofrce sufiers. -ii" he also finds that a small -o"tfrr later when Shri Sagar Chand makes a review of scraps for manttfacof the iodost.ialists iave switched on to the .se o;;;;; iuring agricultural implements'

ro.

A.

Do you think in the existing. set-up the Distrirt Industries Officers go so much

out for the Programme as in the above

case?

(a) AlwaYs (b) GenerallY (c) Sometimes (d) Seldom (e) Never

rc. B. If you were the Distlict lttdu:tlies Officer' would triilists personallv in the above manner?
(a) Always

1'ou also approach rhe indus'

(b) Generally (c) Sometimes (d) Seldom


.

) )

(e) Npver of Industries of the State

) ) ) Proposes

to. rhe allotment of difierent caregorjes of iron for rnanu,"i;;';;t;;;ruiL", implements. The proposed changes would automatically ensrtt'c i;;ti; "gti?"ltural

Now

suoDose the Drrector

to change the existing

Questionnaire
resrricted use

r79

of pig iron hy the industrialists. The Director of Indu,stries asks .the District lltdustries ollicn uhether such a step uoultl, enable them to tackle the sfiuation. nos.t eff ectixel! u.ell a.s_ sate their tlme by mahing it unnecessary ti t-ali -as mnch uith the industriali.;ts in ord,er to persuad,e thim,

rr' A. In the existing set-up what do you think would be the attitude of
of the officers to a
suggestion

like the

mosr

above?

(a) Very much favourable (b) Largely favourable (c) Sonewhat favourablc (d) Largely unfavourable G) Very much unfayourable
r

r. B. If

you are the Districr Industries officer. what would

suggestion?

yo. think of the above

(a) Entirely agree (b) Largely agree (c) Somewhat agree

(d) Largely

(e) Entirely

disagree disagree

If

the work you do does not yield the desired results, how do you feel?
( (

(a) Extrernely distressed and unhappv (c) Somewhat unhappy (d) Feel little unhappy (e) Do not feel unhappy
r3.

1b) Quite distressed and rrnhappr


because

( (

you have done your job

How do you feel when your colleagues criticize your

rvork

(a) Very much lesent (b) Resent quite a bit (c) Resent somewhat (d) Resent a little (e) Not bothered at all
t4.

there are any problems in the work remaining upsolved at the end of the day how do you feel about them especially after office hours? Do they lrcther and worrv vou?

lf

(a) Very much (b) Quite a bit (c) Somewhat (d) Little (e) Not at all

If

the work you do achieves expected results how do you feel?


)

(d) Generally indifierent (e) Do not care

(a) Extemely happy (b) Quite a bit happv (c) Somewhat happy

) )
) )

PART
IMAGINE THE FOLI.OWINC

II:

AGRICULTURE

STTTJATION :

The high yielding varieties programme of Block of a Disrrict envisaged coverage of about lboo acres with I.R.8 variety paddy. The job of ensuring this coverage 1s placed on Agricultural Extension Olficer, Ram Singh, a graduate in agricrrlture. In trying to fulfil his responsibility Ram Singh discovers that although itleal conditlons for growing I.R. 8 exist in the Bloct, out of roo farmers involved onlv about ro ere willing to sow their fields u'ith I.R.S. covering about r5o ecres. For this purpose Ram Singh calls a nreeting of all the farmers and impresses upon
them the advantages of the new I.R. 8 seed. He also tells them that the Government is fully prepared to, give them all the neccssarv assistance. With that Ram Singh insffucts the concemed V.L.Ws. and ret lns to the Rlock Headquarters.

In checking with the actual coverage after the sowing is completed Ram Singh is ciisappointed to find that onlv r,-, cultivators with a total o[ 2oo acres actuallv sowetl
the LR. 8
seed.

r. A. In the present set-up do lou rliink it is expected of officers like - to be concerned with changing the attitudes of the people)
(a) To a very great extent (b) To a considerable extent (c) To some extent (d) Litte (e) Not at all

Ram Singh

r. B. If

you werc the Agricultural Extension Ofiicer in piace of Ram Siugh, wouitl vou consider it to be your m.ain iob to change the attitudes of the cultivators to son' the rew seeds?

(a) To a very great exteDr (b) To a considsrable extent (c) To some extent (d) Little (e) Not at all &llel tr:lurning to his hcadquat ters Ram Singh narrates his experienre .Tzrgg?rt.t to him to reduce the coaerage, of acres und'er the pTograrnme to about 2oo ocrcs Ior the next season as the attitud,es of tlrc ntltil&tors it,eri not faaottrable lor it und th.e progrnmme ua.s ouerambitiorts
Suppose nouJ

Lo ttii superior and rlso

?. A. In the
(u) (b). (c)
(e)

present set-up, do you think the supel'iors o[ officers woultl expect very muih more done than what Ram Singh did in the above case?

Very much
Somewhat more

(d) Somewhat less

Just right

) ) )

No, not at all

) )

Questionnai,re

l8l
the

g. B. If you were the superiol of.Ram Singh worrld you agree with him that
programme was overambidous?

(a) Entirely agree (b) Somewhat agrec (c). Do not know (d) Somewhat disagree (e) Entirely disagree

Norv suppose for a while that another Block B of the same District has similar prog"amme with similar target. However, the Agrimlt.ral extension Oflicer of the Block, one Gopal Singh, finds that pracrically none of rhe farmers in the Block is willirrg to sow his field with improved seecls. Neuerthele.ss, enthusiastit tts he uas about lhe _programme, Gopal Singh stays in the village, approaches the far.mers personall"p t rd.. trie:; to cleate in them a luaouahle desire for adoptirtg the im prbuert seed

With that he returls to his headquarters after giving necesiary instruc_ to V.L.Ws. Ultimate\, however, Gopal Singh is disappointed to find ihat only a few cultivators covering a total of 9oo acres actuallv sowed the improved varietv
pt

ogramme.

tio-ns

of seeds. A little latet-a

promorional vacancy arises

in the Department.

1. A. Under the existing ser-up, do you tldnk Gopal Singh will be rated highet than Ram Singh on the basis of above facts? (a) Certainly (b) Perhaps (c) Not sure (d) Perhaps not (e) Certainly not

3. B. If you were the superior

officer of Ram Singh consider them both as equally capahle officers

rnd Gopal Singh worrld 1ou on the basis of above facts?

(a) Yes,very much so (tr) Yes,more or Iess eqnal (c) Not sure (d) Somewhat unequal (e) Very much r.rnequal

4. A. If thc Extcnsiorr Officep personally approach l l)( culti\irturs arrd persuade fheni to sow the seeds, do you think in the pre\ent :\cl-up their higher officers will appreciate such work?
(a) Always (b) Generallv (c) Sometimes (d) Rarely (e) Never

4. Ii. If vou were the superior of the Extcrrsion Officers would you appreciate their personally approaching the cultivators and persuading them to sow
imoroved
seeds?

(a) Always

(b) Generally (c) Sometimes

(d)
(e)

Rare\

Never,

it is unnecessary

182

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

CONSIDER AGAI^' ANOTHER SITUATION

necessary for cultivators to purchase seeds, pesticides, implemen$, etc.

In the agricultural

development programme, one

of dre key Iacrors is rhc cetri. all the requiretl inp.ts, especialll, fertilizers.

In Block A there are two groups of cultivators. cultivators yad singh, Laxmarr singh and five others who are other-wise progressive farmers, do not hi,e sufficie'r means of their own, whereas curtivators Tejpal, Jiwan ancl fo'r others, rvho are not as progressive, are well to do farmers. Because of the anticipated benefits, all these farmers are inter-ested to Dar.riciDare in the high yielding varieries programme started in the Block. The Extetnsion ofrcer(Agriculture) is fully satisfied that most of them are potentially good participants in the programme. since these cultivators have known of the various credit facilities ofiered to ourchase the required inputs, they approach the Extension Oficer (Cooperation) 'a'd the appropriate a-gency for a shorl term loan. In verifying the applicatioJ. the concemed officers find that while the second lroup of cultivators consiiting of reipal and others meet all the secur-ity a'd other i-equirementr .nder the rulJs, the iirst group consisting of Yad singh and others are not r.ble to meet all of the requirements adequately.

b. A. Eoy do ,yon think Governmenr Yad


(a) Invariably reject (b) Often reject (c) Sometimes reject (d) Often grant (e) Invariably gr-ant

officers

Singh. Laxrnan Singh and others

will deal with the. applications in their group?

of

r B. What 1,ou would

have done in the above case? Wouid you also reiect the applications of Yad Sirrgh, Laxman Singh aud others'ir-r their gtoup?

(a) Certainly (b) Probably (c) Do not know (d) Probably not (e) Certainly not

6. A. Do you think that in the existing set-up the snperior officers the rejection of the applicatior-rs of Yad Singh and others?
(a) Yes indeed (b) Yes perhaps (c) Not sure (d) Perhaps not (e) Certainly not

r.r'ill approve of

6. B. If you were the superiol of thc officers niid hud thc ,discretion, woultl consider waiving some of the secnrity and other requirements in thc of Yad Sinqh and others?
(a) Certainly (b) Perhaps so (c) Undecided (d) Perhaps not (e) Certainly not
)
) ) )

you
casc

Questionnaire
ditid,ed,

183

Nou suppose that the ollicers d,ealing with the application in the aboae f,ase are in their opinion about the nature ol their uork. (r) One group of officers feel that Yad Singh's and Laxman Singh's applications should be granted because one's ideas and potential are what really count. Hence if in the judgement of the ofrcer a cultivator is good potential participant in the programme he should be glanted loan even by relaxing some of the rules, (*) On the other hand, the second group of officers feel that such handling of the cases would only lead to confusion. It is necessary to have regular procedures and clearly prescribed criteria for distinguishing good cases from bad cases. Only those fulfilling these conditions should be consideted.
that

7.'A. Which one of the above two opinions do you think comes closest to held by most of the Government servants in the existing set-up?
(a) Opinion of the first group of oficers ( (b) Opinion of the second group of officers (
) )

7. B. Which one of the two opinions things should be done?

comes closest

to your
) )

ideas about how


.)

(a) Opinion of the first group of officers (b) Opinion of the second grolrp of officer s

( (

Norv suppo.e the ruler relating ro the grant of credit to the r^rrltivators are suitablr changed and il ri pos.sible to grant loan on the consideration of sectLritl, ns tr,ell ar
progressiaeness

of the farmers.

In the meantime the District faces with the acute problem of drought bur necessary steps have beerr initiated by the Government to overcome the same. Considering that Yad Singh and others are highly progressive as compared to Tejpal Singh and
others and anticipatini that the problem of drought would be solved, the officers grant loan to Yad Singh and others rather than Tejpal Singh and others. However" due to uiravoidable circumstances the drought condition could r.rot be prevented anrl Yad Singh and others could not repay the loan.

8. A. Do you think that in the existing set-up the superiors of these officers will blame them for taking unnecessary risk by not having the Government loan adequately covered by secrrrity from farmers like Tejpal Singh?
(a) Certainly (b) Probably (c) Not sure (d) Probably not (e) Certainly not

ll. l]. lf yorr were I lre


(a) Certainly (b) Probably (c) Not sure (d) Probably not (e) Certainly not

buperiol
this?

taking the risk like

of the

officers would vou also blame tbem for

1A
(]ONSII}ER

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPT{ENT ADI{INISTRATION

THE FOI-LOWING

SITUANON

excessive

pr-o8Tamme.

Blocks has been severelv handicapped. In Block A. the Block Developmint orliccr Krisha. Vcrma. crurine his field rourr draws the atte'tion of the cultivato's in the affected areas to tlr. .,rg.'rr.y of;Jop;ir; the soil conservatiol programme for the Brock. [rr: nr.to atturtges a- nrcitirtg h"i."ri htm (along with his Block staff) a'd some of trre crltivators i'volved, in"whirfi h" appeals to the cultivators to cooperate rvith the officials i' implementing th;;;o;;

one of thr recurrent problems of ag'ic.lture in -Bloc!. A & B of a Dis*ict soil erosion as a r-csult of thich the agric.lt'r.al .l"*lop;"", ;;-;;"; -

is

. six months later. honrever, Krisrren verma fi,ds thar the Block strrf $,ere ;rble ro bring only about 4oli of thc land ill the affected arcas under tlr" .,u;t ,,unr.luoiini
llr(,gramme.

9. A. Po yo' think that in the existing set-up Krishan Yerma a'd hir stafl done as much as is expectcd of Block -offi.iolrl
(a) Entirely so (b) Quite so (c) Somewhat so (d) Not quite (e) Not at all
)

lrrve

)
) ) )

q. R. U you are thc Bkrck Development officer, r"ould yon consitier it adequat to do all that Krishan verma rritl to secure the cooper:rl.io' of cuitir.aiors?
(a) Very much adequ:rrc (b) Quite adequate (c) Somewhat adequatc (d) quite inadequate (e) Verl much inadequare
As against Block A, in ]llock B, t],.'e Block f)eaeloftment officer Birender sharma tries to.achieae implementntiott of the soil conse,tation progi.anmte in his Block by -areis. ft_erso.n-olly approaching tht c;ul.tiaators i n t he ullntecl rf e spend; a consit.ltruble omount of his tintr: ttit"h them e.xpl.aining the purpose and' desirability ol the programme ancl tries to und,er,stantl thiir tliffiultie' - anil solae them. on behalr of the Government he irlso assures all the neccssarv help to tlre c.ltivators who may suffer irrconvenience ol be :rdversely al{ected by thei pro{ramme. lrr rhis proccss whilc sccurirrg meny promises of cooperatio', Birender ,sha'ma finds that inuch of his routine rvork at the Block lras sufiered. six morrths lat.r. however. likg Krishan Verma. Ilircndei. sharma also lirrtls that he was not able to bring morc than 4o,"i, of the land irr thesc rrTccted ar.ear un<ler" the programme.

ro. A. Do. you think that in the cxistiDg ser-up Block Developmcnt Officers go so much or.rt for the pr.ogramme as Birendcr. Sharma did iir the above casic? (a) Always (b) Generally (c) Sometimes (d) Seldom (e) Never
)

) )

) )

Questionnaire
r

185

o. ll. If ,yorr werc thc Block l)evelopment


cultivators personally?

Ofllcer rvould

,von

also approach the

(a) Alwa yr (b) Generallv (c) Sometimcs (d) Seldom


1e) Ncver

Nou tupp,se thar the heatl of the Di.strict itt u:rtich Btoch.; A ;;1" B are lrcated l't oposes -to rhange rhe existing.rurcs and regu.rariorts to rnnke it compulsory yor i the inaol,trcd_ r ttl,tittulrtr.t to .paiticipate in thi' srtil K)n.\eruatron .pt.ogrutnntt. FIe asks :T*l1Ti I)c\cto?mcnt Ofticer.s .if frrture.rvould pr.cler this to enrrir_e ldequate implemenlattoll ol tlle ptogt.ammc irr -thel
t

r' B If

yorr

the

-were officers?

the Block Development oflice' rvhat would you prefer?

wo'ld

1d) Few would lyslq6rnp i1 (e) No one rvould rrelcome it

il) Ilosr Iould welconte it (b) L[any rr,ould rvelcorne it (c) Some n,ould welcome it

rr. l]. If you were the Block l)evelopment OfEcer lvhat would _r'ou prefer? \\.'oulrl .vou prefer to see that the existing lnles and r-egulationi arJ changetl thc.oil cor:servation pr ogrunrmc is made compulsoly irr tlrc Blockil arr<l
(a) Would delinitely Pr''irer (b) Would probably pr efer (c) Not sure (d) \Vould probably not prefer' (e) \{ould definitely not preler'
I :1.

l{ tic rv.rk

yotr do docr

rr't

-vickr t.lre desired results, horr. <lo

rrrr

fr:cri

(a) .hxtremely disrresse(l arxt unhappv (lr) Quite disllessed arrd rnrhappv (c) Somewhat unhappv

td)

Feel litrlc rtrr happr (e) Ilc! not feel unhappr bctarrrc lorr

vour job

have done (

13.

Holv do you feel n'hen your colleaaucs criticize your work?

(a) Very much resenr (b) Resent quite a bit (c) Resent somernfiat (d) Resent a little (c) Not bothered at all

186

BUREAUCRACY AND DEI'ELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

14.

If

there are any problems in the work remaining unsolved at the end ol the day how do you feel about these even aftet ofice hours? Do they bother
you

and worry

(a) \iery much (b) quite a bit (c) Somewhat (d) Little (e) Not at all

lb.

If the n'ork you do achieves


(a) Extrernely happy

expected resultr how

do you feel:

(b) quite a bit happy (c) Somewhat happy (d) Generally indiffereut
(e) Do not care'

PART

II

In your work do you have a chance to take decisions on yoru own rvithout asking anyone higher in your office?
(a) Nlostly (b) Often (c) Sometimes (d) Seldom (e) Never
"There can be little action taken in this ofiice until a suoelior officer approves a decision". How accumtely does this statement describe rhe da\.to-day work of yorrr office?

(a) Ilostly accurate (b) Largely accurate (c) Fairly accumte (d) Largely inaccurare (e) Mostly inaccurate
and your work?

How much say do you think your superior has in matters thai afiect you (a)

(b) Considerable (c) Some say (d) Little say (e) None at all

A very great deal of


say

sav

lfow often do you meet for official


vorrr immediate sunetior?
(a)

reasons ofrcers above you who are not

Very often

(b) Often (c) Sometimes (d) Rarely G) Never

Does your. position require you to do the similar things which are performed by yorif immediate superior?

(a) Almost all the things (b) Many things (c) Some things . (d) Few things (e) Practically none

I)o you find yourself doing the type of wolk similar to that done by other people in your office at your level?
(a) At all times (b) Most of the time (c) Sometimes (d) Rarely
(e)

most

(
(

. Never

( ( (

) )

r88
7'

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADI,TINISTRATION

Horv

will you

describe rhe .work rhar you do

in your present position? Is ir

(a) All repetitive (b) Largely repeiitive (c) Somewhat reperitive


1d) Mostly non-repetirive

(e) -Entirely non-repetitivc


vorr arc hiring a prson to do the rvork of voui pi'esent position, do vtxr thirrk lre rhorrld hlve the edrrcarirn rnd expr.r.ience that ynu possess?

If

(a) Practically all of it (b) A large part of it (c) Some of it (d) ' Little of it (e) Really none of it

( ( (
(

In

work

handling your official duties do you feel that there are enouEh luler and regulations whicl.r give you a fairly clcar direction for handliirg vour
?

(a)"Rather

excessive

1b) More than enough

(c) About enough. (d) Little (e) Too little

I)oes your work require vorr to devise new wa).s and means o{ doing things?

(a) To a Yery great extent (h) To a considerable extent (c) To some extent (d) Little (e) None at all
\Vould you aglee that most of your da,v-to-dav work consists o{ the application of prescribed rules and procedures with little need for variation or adaptation in their application to the cases that you deal with?

(a) Entirely agree (b) Largely agrec (c) Somewhat ap;ree (d) Largely disagree (c) Entirely disagree
Herc irre certain staternenti about the people who come to vour ofrice fol work. Speaking about yoursel{, please check whether vou agree or disaglee

with

each . statement.

rg. A. 'To me one person is just more or


(a) Entirely agree (b) Largely agree (c) Somewhat agree (d) Largely disagree (e) Entirely disagree

Iess the same as every other person'.

Questionnaire

189 r,r,ell,

rq. B. 'Even when I come to know certain people same way as

I feat

any one else,.

I find that I
) ) ) ) )

treat rhem the

(a) Entirely agree (b) Largeli a#ee (c) Somewhat agree (d) Largely disigree (e) Entirely disagree

te.

C.

'I

often become quite personallv

close

to rhe people'.

(a) Entirely agree (b) Largely agr-ee (c) Somewhat agree (d) Largely disalree (e) Entirely disagree

rq. I).

;li}::,l:T;l"l"i.L'x'i'11#""::x.11,ff;,nilolL:.1;#'#,::ix";
(a) Entirely agree (b) Largely agee (c) Somewhat agree (d) Largely disagree (e) Entirely rlisagree
f

]\IAGINE

THI FOLLO\A'ING SITUAI'ION

An oflicer is in neerl of r Stenotypist.-He has called for appl;carions for this post. r\1nopg the. applicants is the relation of his colleague roho t"tt, ,rr" om.", relation is in great difficultv, and.Ie'cc needs thc"job r.tadry. The ,ffir", liut"-rri, i)ir- tir,t lhe relation can do his uorh:L,eH. He, therefore, uses his'dkcretionary oppoints the relation of his collea.gue. on ad-hoc barir.

piirr'i'")

rq. .,\. IJow often does such a rhing happen in Gnvernment offices]

(b) Usually (c) Sometimes (d) Rarely (e) Never


rq. ll. If were the officer, would you.also have appointed the relation oI -you colleague ? 'our (a) Certainly (c) Probably (d) Probably not
(e) Certainly not
1b) Quite likelv

(a) Always

190
r q. c. -' -'

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

suppose now

for a while the stenotypist in the_ above instarce tulns out to b"'6r'" of the best the officer has had. Looking back do you think the officer did the right thing in agreeing .ll ith the request of his colleague?
(a) Yes, indegd (b) Yes, PethaPs

(c) Doubtful (d) PerhaPs not

(e) CertainlY not


I\|ACINE h-OW ANOTHnR SITUATION

his scheduled ,i^; ;i ; lurn .*p6rt drder. About a fortnight before an appropliate departure he in all iespects .to .Government i,'i-lt. r,r.liUica'tion au5 completed expenditure i["t.r."* .r f6reign' exchange to.meet histo iollect his du-ring his'visit' .elease orde' of "-"".t"i.t- *hen the businds.un go"i ro the office T;;ak';;,;; -he is informed thit .they have to check from within their own ;;t;d ;;;""g;, 'and .prima-facie of the purpose of his i"r".:rarr"i .e-ctio,]. ubo.,t the bonalitle a ,;r;; ;;;.1 and that the completion of he,! for m:rlities would take more than
I

businessman is going abroad

to attend an important

meeting- r-egarding finalisa-

fortnight urtdel the normal rules and procedttrer' 9xch1Lee The businessman requests the ofrcer ionce"ted to release the foreign the off ice intental f i#.';;;-;; iu..rr,"d i" his application and theinstead o-formalities ol routine ", follo^uittg.lhe cottld be expeclited pr,,onott;-'-tr)' itt telephone^ i"-"it. .l,prt"'it"i the importance of timelv release of foreign exchange n'lriarrr".r. ls rhe schedtrled meeting rtas o{ great importancc'

Officer rvill teke r.r. A. Do you thiDk that irt the existing set-ttp rhe Government '" " ;;J;;l initiative in a case iitt thi' and release foreign exchange
immediatelY?

(a) Very often (b) GenerallY

(c) Somettmes (d) Rare\


(e) Never

rr. R. If vott wel'e '' .'

the omcel' toncetnctl rtottld tort rake personal ,i,nteresr irr cxpeai,ittu the case and releatittg tlte foreigrr cxchange immedialehl

(a) CertainlY (b) Quite likelY (c) Perhaps (d) Perhaps not (e) CertainlY not

(
( ( (

plocedures rigidlv in harrdling the r+. C. If the civil servants do not follow thesJt-up theil superiors will reprimand do vou think ttt^i i"- tf," cases,
them?

""fting

(a) CertainlY 1b) Quite likelv (c) PerhaPs (d) PerhaPs not (e) Certainly not

Questionnaire

l9l

r4. D. In the above situation do you think the superior should reprimand thc officer for not going by rhe prescribed procedures? (a) Certainly (b) Perhaps (c) Not sure (d) Perhaps not (e) Certainly not

PART
Do your superior
responsibilities?
officers

III
learn

help you to

more to assume higher

(a)

Always

(b) Usually (c) Sometimes


(d). Rarely

(e) Never
opinion alnut vour superior

Which ol the following statements would vou say is the cltlsest 111 y911y
officers?

(a) They
t

delegate a great deal


su l-rordina tes

heir

of authoritv to
(

(b) They delegate enough authority to their


subordinates

(c) They delegate some but nor enouglr authodry to their subordinates (d) They delegate very little aurhor:iry ro their subordinates (e) They do not delegate any aurhorirv ro their subord inates
Which of the following staremen$ would you say is the closest to yorrr opinion about 1'our superior officers? (a) They like to take a great deal of
responsibility

(b) They like to take a little more than

(.) I!.y like to take (d).They do


Do you feel free to

enough responsibility enough responsibility not like to take anv responsibiiity


discuss

with your

superiors?

important things abou t yourself and

yourlork

(b) Quite

(a) Very free


free

(c) .Just srrfEciently free (d) Not sufficiently free (e) Nor free at all

192

BUREAUCRACY AND DI]VELOPMBNT ADMINTSTRATTON

l-r

'

I-Iolr lrould you \av yorrr .rrpcriors rttiltt(le i\ toward,. you ?


(a) \rery friendly (b) Somewhat friendlv (c) Indifierent
Somewhat unfriendly

(d)
(i.

(e) Quite unfriendl-r'


I)o you think
to

tlo diffinrlt

youl

srrperiors speucl enorrgh time

to cxplain to you

horu

things?

(a) I\lole th;rn enouglr (b) Quite enough (c) some, l)ut not enough (d) Hardly any
(

e)

None at

rll

7.

In general do you think lolrf ilrperiors like to meet their subordinatcs?

ail tlrc subordinatc: As marrv oI them as possible (.) Onlv some of them (d) Just a few of them of them .(e) No. none
(a)

Yes,

(b)

If

ro vorrr feelings abott vour


rr:spousibility

yorr huve :rny srrbordinates, wlrich

of

tlrc followinq statements is closcst

suhordinates?

(r) Thev are not r,villilg 1o take anl


(b) 'Ihc1' are rvilling lo takc vet'r' lillc
lesponsibility are lvilling to take some brrt not enough rcsponsibilitv (rl) 'I'hey :rre willing to take enouglr resElnsitrility (c) 'Ihey arc r,illing 1o takc :r gle:rt tlc'ul o[

k) Thev

() () () ()
of. work, rvould you

resp,onsibility
v.

ln

your'1.rr:esent post

in telms of the qullitv

like to

have

(a) N{uch more rcsponsibility (b) Somewhat more responsibilitv (c) Keep things as they are (d) Somr:rvhat less responsibiliry (c) Much less responsibility Do you {eel that in vour present job your tlaining and your universitl'
education are:

(a) Fuilv utilised 1b) Moderately utilised

(c) Little utilised

Questionnaire

193

11.

Do you think that a person in your position is expected to:

(a) Make his own decisions regarding work


Droblems

(b) Make only minor decisions and refer major ones to the superior officer (c) Get guidance from his superior at all times

re.

Speaking about your own personal impressions, which of the following things do you believe help the person most to advance in Government service? Please put r against what do you consi{er to be ths most important factor; I against the next important and so on until you have put 6 against

the least important factor.

(a) Seniority (b) Energy and willingness to work hard (c) Superior quality of your work (d) How good a politician you are (e) Whether yolr are a friend or relation of

) ) ) ) ) )

(f) How well you get along with your


immediate superior

higher

ofr-cials

!8.

If you are not very happy about any aspect of the work of your oftce, do you feel free to talk about it to higher officials?
(b) Quite free
(a) Very

free

(d) Not sufficiently free (e) Not free at all


14,

(c) Just sufficiently

free

(
(

A.

Generally how often do you meet businessmen and citizens who come for

their work in your (a) Very often


often
Sometimes

office?

(b) Quite (d)


(c) (e) Never

Rarely

r4, B. Do you feel that these meetings could be avoided without afiecting the performance of your job?
(a) Yes, all of them can be avoided (b) Yes, most of them can be avoided (c) Yes, about half of them can be avoided (d) No, most of them are necessary (e) No, all of them are necessary

rb.

Do you like to meet these people? (a) Yes, very much (b) Yes, like to meet them (c) Do not mind meeting them (d) Do not like to meet .them (e) Strongly dislike having to meet them

I94
16.

BIJREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

A, How ri'ould you describe the attitude of the pmple who come to ofiice for their work?
(a) ExceedinglY resPectful (b) Quite resPectful (c) Somewhat respectful (d) Slightly resPecttul (e) Not at all resPectful

your

,
16.
r

B. How do " behave?

these people who come to your office


( ( (
(

for their work

generally

(a) Very much afraid (b) Quite afraid (c) Somewhat afraid (d) Slightly afraid (e) Not at all afraid

17,

general how would you say the Government servants behave with the pedple who come to Government omces for their work? Are Government

In

servants

:
18.

(a) Very polite (b) Quite polite . (c) - Genenlly indifterent

(d) Somewhat impolite (e) Mostly impolite

How do you feel officials of your Department behave with people who

come

to your o{fice for

work?

(a) Very often helpful (b) Of ten helpful (c) Sometimes helpful (d) Rare\ he$tui (e) Never helptul

PART IV
Do you think you are having a job which is considered by people outside your ofrce as an important job? (a) Vety much (b) Quite a bit

(c) Somewhat (d) Little (e) Not at all

If

you had a chance to do the same kind of work for the same pay but in another Office or Department would you like to leave your present wolkgroup?

(a) Most definite\ (b) Quite like\ (c) Probably (d) Probably not (e) Certainly not

Questionnaire

195

3.

How do you think people in your office get along with one another?

(b) Quite well (c) Somewhat well (d) Not well enough (e) Not at all well

(a) Extremely well

4.

Hoy_ often do, the people in yout office help one another problems of their work?

in solving difrcult

(a) Very often

(b) Generally (c) Sometimes (d) Rarely


(e) Never

Do you feel that you are really a part of the group of people who work in your office?

(a) Very much (b) To a large extent (c) To some extent (d) Rarely feel so (e) Never feel so

() () () ()

(-)
,.,

When you have done a piece of particularly good work, how often is il appreciated by the people in your office?

(a) Most of the (b) Generally (c) Sometimes (d) Rarely


(e) Never

time

How often do you think you are learning things on your present job that will be of use to you later for handling higher jobs?
(a)

(b)

Very often Many times

(c) Sometimes

(d) Rarely (e) Never


8.

something worthwhile towards the success of yeur office?

In doing your work, how often do you enjoy the feeling of


(a) Most often (b) Quite often (c) Sometimes (d) Seldom (e) Nevr

accomplishing

196

SUREA'CRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

9.

you say that The work that you do in your present position' would

it

is

/a) Vefl interesting most of the time it) Itrtit"tting moit of the time but is '' occasionallv dull {c) Onlv sometimes interesting. otherr^ ise ,' -o.i of it is dull and monotonous (d) quite uninreresting and frequently
(e) Completely dull and monotonous
involves

dull

routine

In your work, would you

say

that there

is

(a) A great deal of varietY a bit il') qu-i." vartety of varietY (c) Some id) Little variety iej No varietY, it is all rePetitive
How well do you gct along with your superior
officer?

(a) Very weII (b) Fairlv well

i.j 1".t iatisfactorilY


(d) Poorly (ej very poorly
to your How well is the work that you do in your present position suited
capabilities?

(a) To a very great extent


(U)

(c) To some extent i.[ ro " little extent (ej Not suited at all

f" a considerable

extent

rg.

How good are your

chances

of promotions in the Government

service?

(b) Good (c) Fair (d) Poor


IIow
(b)

(a) Very good

(e) Very poor


secure do you feel atrout your

r4.

job in the Government?

(.) Most

secure secure (c) Somewhat securc (d) Little secure (e) Not at all securc

Quite

PART V
What is your age in complete
years?

(b) (c) (d) (e) (q

(a) Between

(g) Over
(a) Single

,, ,, ,, . ,,

- e5 years z6 - 30 years gr - 35 years 36 - 40 years 4r - 45 years 46 - 50 years 50 years


Po

What is iour marital

status?

(b) Married (c) Others (divorced or


(a) Nil

widowed)
you?

How many persons are dependent on

(c) 3to4 (d) 5 or more


are

(b) rtos

If you are married and if your children in the Government service?


(a) Nil (b) One (c) Two (d) Three (e) Four or More

are employed, how many

of

them

5.

The place where yorr were born, would you call it (a) A village of up to 5,ooo population (b) A town of between 5,ooo and ro,ooo

(c) A town of between (d) A city of between


population

population

ro,ooo

and

r,oo,ooo

r.oo,ooo and ro,oo,ooo

population (e) A city of more than ro,oo.ooo population Where did you live maximum amount of time up to the age

of

r8?

(a) A villdge or small town up to

6,000

(b) A town of between

population

population (c) A town between ro,ooo and r,oo,ooo population (d) A city between r,ooooo and ro,oo,ooo population (e) A city with more rhan ro,oo,ooo
population

b,ooo and ro,ooo

198

ADMINISTRATION BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT

7.

A.

Up to what level are You educated? (a) Mauiculation

ib)

Bachelor's Degree

icj Master's Degree (d) Doctorate i"j otrt.tt (please sPecifY)

7.

B.

foreign, that You have What are the various universities, both Indian and
attended?

A.

Have you passed examination? (a) Yes (b) No

or are you

currently

preparing for any professional

() ()

B. If

yes, please indicate the details.

Ndme of the Professiohal Examination

What is or was the main profession of your father?

Quest ionnaire

199

ro.

What would you say your parents./guardians, total income was at the time you took your firsr job?

(a) Over Rs. r,5oo per month 1b) Ber ween Rs. 75 i - r 5oo per month (c) Itetween Rs. z5l _ Z5o per month (d) lJetween Rs. lor - :5o per month (e) L6s than Rs. roo per month
r

r. A. Did

Government service?

yorr have any previous work

exper.ience

when you first entered the

(a) Yes (b) No

If

yes, please give below details

of your previous employmenr.

re.

A. B.

Which year did you first join the Government

service?

re.

What service and what class was it?

(a) Service (if any)

(b) Clas

rZ.

Through what method did you join the Government service first? (a) Through Employment Exchange
ptus tntervtew

ib) Through a single oral

,',

by

interview examination held

U.P.S.C.

(d) Orher

ill?FS.S.competitive

methods (please specify)

200

r4. A.

() () () ()
('
)

14. B.

lb. A. In what class are you at preseit?


(a) Clas I (b) Class II (c) Clas III
15.

() () ()

'8. If you belong to dny service what is the name of it?


.........:............

16.

A,

What is your present employment status

in the Government
( ( (

service?

(a) Permanent

(b) quasi-permanent (c) Temporary


16.

B.

Are you working in the Present agency on transfer by deputation from any other Government agency?

(a)

Yes

(b) No
r7. A. IJave you ever received any formal
Government service?
in-service

) )

training after joining the


) )

(a) Yes (b) No

Questionnaire

201 please indicate.

r7. B. If you have received any such training

Field of Training

r8.

A.

Do you find time to read professional journals?

,
r8..

(a) Ycs (b) No

() ()

B. If yes, which ones do you read more often?

r9. A. Are you a member of any organisations (professional or social clubs, etc.)?
(a) Yes (b) No

societies, recreational

() ()
please give

rg. B. If you are a member of any organisations,

their

names.

lndex

actuality perceprion, 22, 23, 124 adaptation of civil servants to developmental role, 25, l0l-24

Administrative Reforms Commission.

Berger, Morroe, 9, 9n, 30, 30n, 31, 35

scores of respondents on, 48-49,50-52 Bensman, Joseph, 5, 5n., 7n

l0l

35n,37,371].

agencies studied, 69, 70, 71, 76, 95 and age of respondents, 30

Bhambhri, C. P., 28, 28n, 3ln Blau, Peter M. 5n., 9, 9n., 73, 73n., lS7

and bureaucratic strudture,

53

and economic class origin, 35-36 and family background of respondents, t5

Britain, 29, 30, 35 bureaucracy, 3, 4, 12, 15, L6, 17, 20, Zl, 25, 48, 70, 7r, 73
adaptation t56-63

and formal training, 43-44 and levels of education, 37-39 and parental occupation, 34

ration, 101-31 and Development Administration,


hrrreaucratic theory, 5-9 characteristics, 8, 9-12, 48-73 concept of, 4-5 definition, l0- 11 Marxist concept of, 5-7

to

Development Adminis-

4nd professional interests, 45 and rural/urban background, and size of organisation, 55-59 and upward mobility, 42
age

32

of

respondents,

and bureaucratic disposition, ff, and change-orientation, 105, 108 and citizen orientation, 116, 120' and class of service, 29-30 and commitment to work, 123, 129
and result orientation,
95, 129, 130,

agricultural development programmes,


and agencies, 32, 34 and commitment to u'ork of resoon-

lll,

114

l3l

and formal training of respondents,


43. 44 agriculture sector, 17, 18. 157, l6l and bureaucratization, 54-59, 69, O7

dents, 120

Merton's ideas on, 8-9 Michels' idea oI, 7 Weberian concept of, /-! working climate for, 74-100 bureaucratic adaptation to Development Administration, l0l-31 bureaucratic attitudes, l7 bureaucratic behaviour, 17, 19, 20, 29, 49, 50, 5r, 52, s8, 60, 69, 136, r43, 150. r51. 154, t55 bureaucratic characteristics, 9-12, 25 of development administration, 48-73 relationship with developmental
characteristics, 132-55

bureaucratic disposition, 7l

and change-orientation,

and citizen-orientation, 116, ll8 and commitment to $'ork,.120, l2l and result-orientation, 11l, ll3 and respondents working in, l!

105

background characteristics of civil servants, 20, 25, 28,72. 729-30 relationship with bureaucratic characteristics,6l-68 behavioural characteristics
bureaucracy, 10, 21, 68, 70, 140, 148, 152, r53, 154

and age, 66 and economic class origin, f zt and educational attainment. 62 and formal training 68 and levels of education, 63 and parental occupation, f,J and type of personnel, 61 and upward mobility, 67
bnreaucratic organisation, 48, 49

of

bureaucratic structure, 48, 49,, 50, 51, 52, 58, 59, 60, 69, 70, 72, t32, t36, r50, 151, t54
bureaucratic system,

4,

10

204

BUREAUCR,ACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

bureaucratic theory, 5-9, 10, 17, 68,71,


162-63

bureaucratization,

50,

59, 60, 69,70,72, 156 change-agent, 13, 102, 149 change-orienntion, 23, 707, 132, 143 I48. r49. 151. t52, t53. I6t, 163 and background characteristics, 10410

4, 8, L1-12, 25, 49, 5t, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,

and class of, 18, 19, 3L,33, 35, 59, 60 and class initially joined, 4I and delegation, 77.78, 84

and division of labour, 136 and impersonal ity, 137 and perceptual adaptation, 124, 125, and rationality, f40, l4l and relationship with other dimen-

t26

sions, 128" lil and respondents' adaptation to, 102 and rule-orientation. I44 and technical civil servants, 129 ' China, 3, 5 Chi-sqrrare method, 26, 134

and development orientation, 22 and in-service training, 43-44 and levels of education, 36, 37, 38 and marital status, 39 and need-fulfilment, 89 and parental occupation, 33 and professional interests, 44-45 and promotions, 85 and rationality, 140, 142 and responsibility, 75, 76 and rule-orientatron, 143 and rural/urban background, 31", 32 and size of organisation, 50-57 and upward mobility, 42

in U.S. & U.K., 29-30 civil service, L7, L9, 42, 46, +9, 50, 51 69, 74, 99, l0I, I10, 123, 130, 158 and 'bureaucratic' character, 12, 48
and class of ser-vice, 59 and developmental tole, 3, 22 and development process, 4

inflrrence of environment on, 124, 125

citizen-administrator relationship,

23,

93-96, 97 citizen attitudes. 96. 100, 115 citizen clientele. 5A, 74, 93, 94, 9i, 97, r16, r18, 719. t27, l3r, 149, 151, r50

and economic class origin,

35

citizen contacts, 93-96 citizen orientation, 104, I15,120

citizen participative-orientation, 23, l0l, 123, 727, 728, 130, t31, t+7,
148, 149. t52, t53, 157, 161, 163 and division of labour, 135 and hierarchy, 133, 134 and impersonality, 138, 139 and perceptual adaptation, 124, 125 and rationality. 142 and respondents' adaptation to, 102, 103, 104 and rule-orientation, 145, 146 citizen ffeatment, 96, ll5

and educatronal attainment, 35 and experience. 40 and need fulfilment, 89 and upward mobilitT, 42 shift of power in favour of. l-2 class of service of respondents, 18, 19, 69, 82, 104, r05, 108, lll, 114, n6, ll9, 121, 130; 131 and age distribution, 29 and attitudes in personnel develop'

'

ment, 85

civil

and adaptation to

servants

and bureaucratization, 59-60 and capabilities, 77 and citizen-contact, 95 and class initiallv ioined, 4l and delegation, 78, 79 and economic class origin, 36

development

rnd

employee-orient

ation.

83
93

administration, 102, f03 and bureaucratic disposition, 61, 62. 63, 64, 65, 66 and bureaucratization, 54, 55 and caoabilities. 77 and chinge'orientation by age, 108 and change-orientation by economic

and formal training. 43, 44 and intrinsic job satisfaction, and levels of educatidn. 37 and need fulfilment, 90, 91,

92

and parental occupation, 3], 34, 35 and oromotions criteria, 88

and

class, 109

change-orientation

by

upward

mobility, 110 and citizen contact. 94 and citizn-orientation, 115. 119,

l3l

and professional interests, 45 and prior experience, P0 and rural/urban background, 31 and responsibility, 76, 80 and upward mobility. 42 commitment to work.23, f01, 102,

103,

Index

205 152,
120.

t04. 126. 127, t3t, 147, t48, and background characteristics,


121.23
161

development process,

to3, t26, t56

l,

2,

j,4, lg,

lOZ,

.cooperative system, 160

and impersonality, 139, 140 and rationality, 142, I43 and rule-orientation, 143

development programmes, 32, 45, 53, 76, 85, 93

lg, 19, 31,

development sector, 53-5j, 5g Diamanr. Alfred. 9n., l3

critical incidents, 22
data collection, 18, l9-20 decision making, 8, 76, 77, l5l delegation of authority, 23, 77-79, 83, 84, 97,98, 99
democtacy, 157 dependency responsibility, 39 developed countries, 5, 12, 46 developing counrries, l,2, t, i, 12,

division of labour, 10, Zl, 49, 50, 51, 58, 60, 69, 70, 748, 149, 150, 16l and bureaucratization, 54 and change-orientation, 134, 136 and class of respondents, 59
and citizen-orientadon, 134, 135 and result-orientarion, 134, 135 and size of organisation, 56, 57

14, 16,30,35, 46, t0t, 162, 163 developmental activities, 156, 160 developmental attitudes, 17 developmental characteristics, relationt32-55
developmental tole, 132, 136,
26

li,

_ and citizeniorientadon, ll7

economic class origin of respondents, and bureaucratic disposition. 63-64 and change orientation, f06, f09

ship with bureaucratic characteristics

and class of service, 35-36 and commitment to $,ork, 122 and result-orientation, 106, 109 educational attainment, 106, l2g, l3O,

150, 151, t52, r53, 154, 155

l4i,

r3t

147,

development administration, 17, 22" 25,

and bureaucratic disposition, 62-63 and change-orientation, 106, l0g,


109

and bureaucracy, 156-63 bureaucratic adaptation to, l0l -31


bureaucratic characteristics of, 48-73

and citizen-orientation,

comDarison with ministration,3 concept of, 12-14

traditional

ad-

and class of service, 3d-39 and commitment to work, l2O, lzL and result-oricntation, ll2, ll4 efficienry, 10, 8l
emoluments, 90-91 'employee-centred' supewision,

ll7, Il9

working climate in, 74-100


development bureaucracy, 77, 19, 30, 46,

essential characteristics, 101

gl,

gl,

83, 97 employee orienration, 25, 82, 83, 84,


98

73, 74, 126 development management, 156,


158

lJ

/,

Egypt, 30, 31,

development orientation,

4, 17, 20, 22, 25, r00, r3r, 140, r47, t49, 150, 151. 153, 154, 16l initiallv ioined, 4l

employee supervision, 8l-94, 97 experience of respondents, 40, 47

3r, 37,

15, 46

development persorrnel, 2E-47, 126, 127


age, 29-30

class

economic cliss origin, 35-36 levels of education, 36-39 in-service training, 43-44 marital status, 39

Five Year Plans, ,i0, 101 formal training 84, A5, 99, IZO and bureaucratic disposition, 67-6g and change-orierrtation 107, 110 and citizen-orientation, ll8

and commitment to work, and result-orientation, 113

123

see also in-service training

parental occupation, 32-35

prior experience.
profiIe of,
45-47.

40-41

Gerth, Hans H., 4n, 7n, 8n

professional interests, 44-45

rural / urban background, 30-32

upward mobilitv, 41-43

r2l, t28, t30 cujarat, f59, 150

Gouldner, Alvin, 8 graduates and non-graduatcs, 62, 63, 106, 108, t09, ttz, l1/t, 117, tt9.

206

BUREAUCRACY AND DTVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

Hall, R. H., 48n Heady, Ferrel, 9, 9n., 71, 7Ln hierarchy, 10, 21, 22, 26, 49, 50, 91, 60, 68, 69. 70, L47, 148, 149, r57, 16r, 162 and bureaucratization, 54 and citizen-orientation, 133, 134 and class of respondents, J! and result-orientation, 132, 133 and size of organization, 55-58
idealistic perception, 22, 23, 127 impersonality, I0, 20, 21, 26, 67, 70,

intrinsic job satisfaction, 25,89, 90, 92,

93,97,98 job security, 90,


92

Kelsall, R. K., 29n., 35n


lengrh of service. 40-41. 77.86. 107,lO9,

ll3,

levels

of education, 36-39, 46, 62-6t

118, 120, r22

72, 148. 150, 151, r52, 154, r57, 16l, 162


52

I\{aharashtra, 15, 159, I60

and age, 66 and bureaucratic charactedstics, 49-

\{alx, Karl, 5-7 merit in promotion, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89,
of

Marxist concepf of. bnreaucracy, 5-7

and and and and

bureaucratization, 54 change-orientation, 137

97, 99, rO0, l5t Merton, Robert K, 8-9, 9n, 48, 48n, r53, l53n
research, 17-27

methodology

citizen-orientation, 139
class

administration of questionnaire, 23-24


construction of questionnaire, 20-23

of resbondents, 59-60

and commitment to work, 140

industrial development

and economic class origin, 63-64 and educational attainment, 62, 63 and formal training, 68 and parental occupation, 64,65, 66 and result-orientatiol, 138 and size of organization,55-59 and type of personnel, 61 and upward mobility. 57

follow up study, 24
nature

tvDe of data collected, 19, 20 Miihels' concept of bureauaacY, 7 Michels, Robert, 5, 7, 157 Mouzelis, Nicos P. 6n need-fulfilment, 89-93

scoring and treatment of dara, 25-27 selection of agencies, 17-19

of study,

17

programmes, 95, r29, 130, l3l -and asencies studied, 32, 35

and commitment to work of


dents, 120
104

resPon-

organisation size, 55-59, 7l organisation theory of development,

13

'

and formal raining of


industry sector, 17, 18, 45,

respondents,

and bureaucratization, 54-59, 69, and chanEe-orientation, 105


and commitment to work, l2O' and result-orientation, 1l l, l13
and citizen-orientation, 116,

70

ll8

pai panandiker V A 13, l3n, 29, 32. 32n, 36, 36n, 38, 39n Pakistan, 30, 35, 37, 45, 46 Panchayat institutions, 159

2gn,

l2l

. respondents working in, 19 India, l, 2,3, 4,5, 17, 18, 19' 25' 26' 30,35, 45, 46, 48, 49' 50' 69' 73' 74. 101, 149, 156, 157, 158, 150' 16l, 162, 163 Indian administrative system, 2, 13' 68'
69,72 Indian bureaucracl, 17, 28,3l' 48' 73' r32, 158, I61 Indian bureaucratic system, 10, 21, 48 in-service training, 43-44, 47, 67'68' 84' r31

narental occuDation, 32-35, 45-46, 130 ' and bureaucratic disposition, 64-66 and change-orientation, 106, 109

and citizen orientation, ll7 and commitment to work, 122 and result-orientation, 112, l14 by class, 33 by offices, 34 personnel development, 84-85' 97'
"

99

planned change,

13

policy implications of the study. 158-62 political apparatus, 1, 159 politicization of bureaucracy, 159
professional interests, 44-'15

plannins, 1. 12, 156

Index
oromotions, 23, 42, 67, 85-89, 90' 92' ' and result-orientation, 112, 114

207

public administration, l, Il, 12, 15' 25' 28, 74, l0l, 162 Questionnaire, 14, 18, 20-23, 23'27, 5l
Rao,

97, 99, 100, 110, 113, 1r9, 128, 129. r]0, r53

ll5, ll8,

by agencies, 32 by class. 3I
sample, selection of, Selznick, Philip, 8
17

-I9

D. N. 28,
66

rationality,
and age,

t5t

lo, 21, 70, 140, 148,

28n

150,

seniority in promotions, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 97, r00 Singh, Tarlok, 13 size of organisation, 55-59, 7l' skills. utilization of, 23
social change. 2, 3.

and bureaucratic characteristics, 49-5I and bureaucratization, 54-55 and change-orientation, l4l and citizerr-orientation, 142

9,

14

and class of service, 39, 60 and commitment to work, 143 and economic. class origin, f{

social desirability, 22 socialist pattern of society, I social theory of development, 13 Stanley, David T., 29n, 37, 37n., 42n
State Public Service Commission, 40

and educational attainment, 62, and formal training, 68 and parental occupation, 65 and result orientation, l4l and size of organisation, 56'58 and type of personnel, .51 and upward mobility. 57

63

structural bariers to development, 2 structural characteristics of bureaucracy, study methods, 14-15


subordinates,

10, 21, 48, 49, 50, 5t, 52, 68, 69, 70, 132, 136, t47, t48, t62 84, 98, 99, 147, t48, r49

10,50,77,79, 80, 81, 82,

recruitment,
99

l0

Subramanian V, 28, 28n, 34, 34n srrperior-subordinate relationship, 23, 74, system

iesearch metl:'odology, 17-27

responsibility, 23,75-81,84, 85, 97, 98,

82, 83, 84 of rrrles, 10, 21, 68, 136, 147,

resrrlt-orientation, 23,

l0l, 123, 125,

142, r43, 144. 147, 148, 150, t52, t60 and adaptation to development
administration, 102, 103, f04,
and backgt'6und characteristics. 110- 15

726, 127. 128, 129, 130, 131, 140.

and bureaucratic characteristics, 49-51 and bureaucratization, 54, 56, 57,58,


59

t)t

'task-cenffed' supervision, 81, 83

technical and non-technical personnel,

61, 62, 105, 107, r08,

and division of labour. I35 and hierarchy, 133, 134 and impersonality, I35 and rationality, l4l

ll4,
130

116,

tl9,

120,

l2l,

rl1, ll3,
128, 129,
14,

and rule-orientation, 145

t, 5rl, 7n rule-orientation, 10, 21, 68, 143, 150, 153, 154, 157,162
Rosenberg. Bernard,

and perceptual adaptation, 124, 125


148,

theory building, 162-63 traditional administration, 72, 127, 162 Trivedi R K, 28, 28n
type of agency, 104, 105,

3, 13,

tvpe of personnel, 6l-62, 105, 11l, 115,

u8,

tll,

114, 115,

121

and backEround characteristics, 5 5-68 and bureiucratic characteristics, 49-51 and bureaucratiz tior., 54, 55

il9. r2l. l3l


(UPSC), 40

Union Public Service

Commission

and change-orientation, 144 and citizen-orientation, 146 and commitment to work, 146 and result-orientation, 145 rural/urban background, 45, 64, 130 and change-orientation, 106, 108 and citizen-orientation, 117, 120 and commitment to work, 122

United Kingdom, sea Britain United States, 29, 30, 37, 42

upward mobiliry, 4l-43,.46, 77, 104, 129, t3l


and bureaucratic disposition, 67 and change-orientation, 107, 110 and citizen-orientation, ll8, ll9

20E

BURE.AUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

and commirmenr ro work, 120, l2l and result orientation, 113, ll5

citizen-administrator relationship, 93-

village level workers,


Weberian concept

criteria of promotions, 85-89

96

24
159- 160

voluntary organisations,

delegation by superiors, 77-79

Weber, Max, 4, 4n., J,7,8, 11, 151 working climate, 20, 23, Zj, 74-100 assumption of responsibility, 79-81 attitude to responsibiliry, 75-77

9, tt, 49, 68,70,

of

irs importance,
bureaucracy, /-g,
157

employee-supervision, 8l-84
74-75

need-fulfilment, 89-93 promotions, E5-E9 work, commitment to,


personnel development, 84-85
s?e

to work Wright Mills C, 4n,

commitment

7n, 8n