1

Research Method And Techniques
Research Project
Title:
Impact of organizational policies and practices on employee dissent (The Case of AG Office, Lahore) Acknowledgement
We are grateful to Allah almighty, for enabling us to fulfill this tiring but interesting job for the completion of our project. We wouldn’t have done justice in presenting this project without mentioning the people around us who have been immense help for us. We would like to express our heart-felt thanks to our course instructor Miss. Seemab Ara Farooqi for her endless support and guidance, which she rendered throughout the study, and provided us with such thought provoking ideas, to help us with this project. It couldn’t have been simply possible to accomplish this task, without her thoughtful guidance and expertise. In the end, we would like to conclude by saying that all errors, omissions and shortcomings of this project lie on our responsibility and we hope that we are forgiven for this.

2

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................5 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY..............................................................7 PROBLEM STATEMENT.................................................................7 OBJECTIVES................................................................................8 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY.............................................................9
Individual influences:....................................................................................12 Individual influences concern qualities that employees bring to the organization. ...............................................................................................12 Roberto (2005) claims that employees may have a preference for avoiding conflict. Therefore, they find confrontation in a public setting uncomfortable situation. Individual’s sense of powerlessness and senses of right and wrong are contributing factors (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). .......................................12 Following are some factors that defend individual influences:......................12 Verbal aggressiveness & argumentativeness: ..............................................12 Kassing and Avtgis (1999) demonstrated that an individual’s verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness influence the manner in which an individual will approach expressing dissent. Verbal aggressiveness involves attacking another person’s self-concept. This may include character attacks, competence attacks, ridicule, and threats. Argumentativeness, on the other

3 hand, is when an individual argues about controversial issues. Individuals will choose their strategy for expressing dissent based on the strength of their arguments. Kassing & Avtgis (1999) found an individual who was more argumentative and less verbally aggressive was prone to use articulated dissent. On the other hand, an individual who lacks argumentative skills will resort to using a less direct and more aggressive strategy, latent dissent....12 Work locus of control: .................................................................................12 Work locus of control can also be a contributing influence. An individual with an internal locus of control orientation believes that they have control over their destiny. They feel the only way to bring about a desired outcome is to act. Individuals who see their lives as being controlled by outside forces demonstrate an external locus of control (Robbins, 2005). Kassing’s (2001) study demonstrated that employees with an internal locus of control used articulated dissent whereas an employee with an external locus of control preferred to use latent dissent.....................................................................12 Relational influence: ....................................................................................13 This includes the types and qualities of relationships people maintain within their organization. Following are its types:...................................................13 Employee Relationships: Employees develop and maintain various relationships within organizations. These relationships can influence the choices employees make about expressing dissent. Employees may feel uncomfortable voicing their dissenting opinions in the presence of others because they feel the best way to preserve relationships is to keep quiet. Homogenous groups also place pressure on individuals to conform. Since many people fear being embarrassed in front of their peers, they can easily be lulled into consensus (Roberto, 2005)......................................................13 Superior-Subordinate Relationship: The superior-subordinate relationship is an important relational factor. Employees who perceive they had a higherquality relationship with their supervisors are more often to use articulated dissent. They feel their supervisors respect their opinions and that they have mutual influence and persuasion over the outcome of organizational decisions. Conversely, employees that perceive their relationship with their supervisor as low quality will resort to latent dissent. They feel that there is no room to voice their opinions (Kassing, 2000). Management, which models the use of articulated dissent, contributes to the use of articulated dissent among its employees (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). Subordinates who witness their supervisors successfully articulating dissent may be more likely and more willing to adopt similar strategies. However, a supervisor must keep in mind that expressing dissent can be very difficult and uncomfortable for lower-level managers and employees. Therefore, supervisors should not only take actions to encourage dissent, they must be willing to seek out individuals willing to say no to them (Roberto, 2005)...................................13

4 Organizational influences:............................................................................13 This concerns how organizations relate to their employees. Once an employee joins an organization, it is through assimilation that they learn the norms of the organization. Perlow (2003) states that organizations placing “high value on being polite and avoiding confrontation” can cause employees to be uncomfortable expressing their differences. Employees make assessments about motives and restraints when others dissent and use this knowledge to inform their own decisions about when and how to use dissent (Kassing, 2001). Furthermore, some corporate assumptions are accepted without questioning. For example, employees will defer to the expert’s opinion (Roberto, 2005). Organizational identification and workplace freedom of speech has an effect on an individual’s choice of expressing dissent (Kassing, 2000). If an individual highly identifies itself with the organization they are more likely to use the dissent strategy that mirrors the organization’s values. If the organization demonstrates its values dissent and promotes workplace freedom of speech, the highly identified employee will demonstrate articulate dissent. An organization that limits the opportunities for employees to voice their opinion, demonstrates contradictory expectations, and gives the perception that openness is not favored, will lead to employees to select latent dissent strategies (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). . .14 Following are some factors affecting organizational influences:....................14

RESEARCH QUESTIONS..............................................................25 HYPOTHESIS.............................................................................25 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK........................................................25 RESEARCH DESIGN....................................................................28
Table 1.2: Level of whistle blowing among respondents...........................34 Low.................................................................................................34

Range.......................................................................................36 Frequency................................................................................36
Percentage......................................................................................36 Low.................................................................................................36

Figure 2.1: Motivational level of respondents.............................37
Table 3.2: Effect of whistle blowing on employee motivation........................38 Motivation....................................................................................................38 Whistle blowing........................................................................................38

5

Figure 3.1: Relation of whistle blowing and employee motivation 39 REFERENCES.............................................................................43 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................47 APPENDIX.................................................................................48

INTRODUCTION
Organizational dissent is the “expression of disagreement or contradictory opinions about organizational practices and policies”. Since dissent involves disagreement it can lead to conflict, which if not resolved, can lead to violence and struggle. Dissent serves as an important monitoring force within organizations. This study is about organizational dissent because it is an important issue today. Dissent can either be positive or can be negative. As sometimes it serves as an important monitoring force and allows the organization to identify problem and issues before they become damaging and sometimes it seems that employees who express dissent are more satisfied with their organization. So we want to check the influence of organizational dissent and its effect on the motivational level of employees. The study in hand aims at exploring how organizational dissent impacts motivational level of employees. So for this purpose, two variables are selected. One of them is whistle blowing and the other one is motivational level. Whistle blowing is a subset of dissent. It involves the expression of dissent to external organizations. The whistle-blowing process begins at the superior-

6

subordinate relationship. Whistleblowers are often high-performing employees who believe they are doing their job. They just want to bring people’s attention to a problem that is potentially harmful. (Kassing, 2002). Organizations need to realize that internal dissent is not itself a crisis, but rather priceless insurance against disaster. Until the ugly headlines appear and the consequences are unavoidable, companies too often forget that they will suffer far more for ignoring their principled dissidents than by giving them a hearing (Bennis, 2004). Motivator or intrinsic factors, such as achievement and recognition, produce job satisfaction. Motivational level of employees can increased with the free environment of the organization.

7

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to find relationship between organizational policies/practices and decision quality/motivation level of employees in the paradigm of organizational dissent.

PROBLEM STATEMENT
To investigate effect of organizational dissent (whistle blowing) on motivational level of employees To find out the impact of organizational dissent we will conduct a co-relational research. The use of this research is to find out the relationship between two variables (1- whistle blowing, 2- Employee motivation); and its influence upon each other.

8

OBJECTIVES
This study would comprehend the following important points in detail: • • • • • • To find out about the perception of morally conduct in organization To determine whether whistle blowing is discouraged by the authority personnel To find out the trend of communication about dissent among outside parties To find out the trend of communication about dissent internally To determine the level of accuracy of employees in work expectations and who take the responsibility of their actions To observe the environment whether there is freedom of decision making

9

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY
It is with this study, we will prove that even though the word disagreement may appear negative to some, it’s this disapproval among members that gives rise to reasonable discussions and debates giving birth to new ideas and concepts. In other words, disapproval is the spark required to ignite the flame of above average performance. Reasonable disapproval is necessary in order to gain insight to different angles of thoughts and develop well-formed strategies and bonding among employees. Disapproval, as opposed to insubordination, comes from the fact that the person has an alternate line of thinking and has the confidence that his line of thinking can produce better results. Furthermore, disagreements provide the employees with an opportunity to present their leadership skills. It will also show that their quality of decision making and motivation level is considerably enhanced by the results of our study.

10

LITERATURE REVIEW
Organizational dissent is the “expression of disagreement or contradictory opinions about organizational practices and policies” (Kassing, 1998). Since dissent involves disagreement it can lead to conflict, which if not resolved, can lead to violence and struggle. As a result, many organizations send the message – verbally or nonverbally – that dissent is discouraged. However, recent studies have shown that dissent serves as an important monitoring force within organizations. Dissent can be a warning sign for employee dissatisfaction or organizational decline. Redding (1985) found that receptiveness to dissent allows for corrective feedback to monitor unethical and immoral behavior, impractical and ineffectual organizational practices and policies, poor and unfavorable decision-making, and insensitivity to employees’ workplace needs and desires. Eilerman (2006) argued that the hidden costs of silencing dissent include: wasted and lost time, reduced decision quality, emotional and relationship costs, and decreased job motivation. Perlow (2003) found that employee resentment could lead to a decrease in productivity and creativity, which can result in the organization losing money, time, and resources. According to Kassing (1997) there are three types of Dissent: 1. 2. 3. Articulated Latent Displaced
1. Articulated dissent:

It involves expressing dissent openly and clearly in a constructive fashion to members of an organization that can effectively influence organization adjustment. This may include supervisors, management, and corporate officers. An individual will use upward articulate dissent in response to functional and other-focused dissenttriggering events. Organizations are more attractive to upward articulate dissenting when it is in regards to functional aspects. This type of dissent gives the perception

11

that dissenters are being constructive and is concerned with issues of “principle rather than personal-advantage”. It allows the employee to signal their commitment to cooperative goals. 2. Latent dissent: Employees resort to expressing dissent to either their coworkers or other ineffectual audiences within the organization. Employees employ this route when they desire to voice their opinions but lack sufficient avenues to effectively express themselves. Individuals may also express latent dissent in response to functional and otherfocused dissent triggering. They determine to use latent instead of articulate when they believe that management is not receptive to employee dissent. This indicates that individuals would use articulate dissent if they feel those channels are not available and accessible. Latent dissent is also used in protective dissent–triggering events.
3. Displaced dissent:

It involves expressing dissent to external audiences, such as family and friends, rather than media or political sources sought out by whistle-blowers. Individuals readily used displaced dissent regardless of the focus or triggering event. External audiences provide individuals with a low risk alternative to express dissent. The downfall for organizations, however, is the loss of employee feedback. If an employee expresses their dissent to outsiders, the organization will not hear about it and will assume that less dissent exists within the organization. When an organization fails to address potential issues, employees may then view the organization as discouraging dissent and will resort to using either latent or displaced dissent in the future. Kassing (1997) states there are three factors that influence which dissent strategy an employee will decide to use: 1. Individual 2. Relational 3. Organizational

12

Individual influences: Individual influences concern qualities that employees bring to the organization. Roberto (2005) claims that employees may have a preference for avoiding conflict. Therefore, they find confrontation in a public setting uncomfortable situation. Individual’s sense of powerlessness and senses of right and wrong are contributing factors (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). Following are some factors that defend individual influences: Verbal aggressiveness & argumentativeness: Kassing and Avtgis (1999) demonstrated that an individual’s verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness influence the manner in which an individual will approach expressing dissent. Verbal aggressiveness involves attacking another person’s self-concept. This may include character attacks, competence attacks, ridicule, and threats. Argumentativeness, on the other hand, is when an individual argues about controversial issues. Individuals will choose their strategy for expressing dissent based on the strength of their arguments. Kassing & Avtgis (1999) found an individual who was more argumentative and less verbally aggressive was prone to use articulated dissent. On the other hand, an individual who lacks argumentative skills will resort to using a less direct and more aggressive strategy, latent dissent. Work locus of control: Work locus of control can also be a contributing influence. An individual with an internal locus of control orientation believes that they have control over their destiny. They feel the only way to bring about a desired outcome is to act. Individuals who see their lives as being controlled by outside forces demonstrate an external locus of control (Robbins, 2005). Kassing’s (2001) study demonstrated that employees with an internal locus of control used articulated dissent whereas an employee with an external locus of control preferred to use latent dissent.

13

Relational influence: This includes the types and qualities of relationships people maintain within their organization. Following are its types: Employee Relationships: Employees develop and maintain various relationships within organizations. These relationships can influence the choices employees make about expressing dissent. Employees may feel uncomfortable voicing their dissenting opinions in the presence of others because they feel the best way to preserve relationships is to keep quiet. Homogenous groups also place pressure on individuals to conform. Since many people fear being embarrassed in front of their peers, they can easily be lulled into consensus (Roberto, 2005). Superior-Subordinate Relationship: The superior-subordinate relationship is an important relational factor. Employees who perceive they had a higherquality relationship with their supervisors are more often to use articulated dissent. They feel their supervisors respect their opinions and that they have mutual influence and persuasion over the outcome of organizational decisions. Conversely, employees that perceive their relationship with their supervisor as low quality will resort to latent dissent. They feel that there is no room to voice their opinions (Kassing, 2000). Management, which models the use of articulated dissent, contributes to the use of articulated dissent among its employees (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). Subordinates who witness their supervisors successfully articulating dissent may be more likely and more willing to adopt similar strategies. However, a supervisor must keep in mind that expressing dissent can be very difficult and uncomfortable for lowerlevel managers and employees. Therefore, supervisors should not only take actions to encourage dissent, they must be willing to seek out individuals willing to say no to them (Roberto, 2005). Organizational influences:

14

This concerns how organizations relate to their employees. Once an employee joins an organization, it is through assimilation that they learn the norms of the organization. Perlow (2003) states that organizations placing “high value on being polite and avoiding confrontation” can cause employees to be uncomfortable expressing their differences. Employees make assessments about motives and restraints when others dissent and use this knowledge to inform their own decisions about when and how to use dissent (Kassing, 2001). Furthermore, some corporate assumptions are accepted without questioning. For example, employees will defer to the expert’s opinion (Roberto, 2005). Organizational identification and workplace freedom of speech has an effect on an individual’s choice of expressing dissent (Kassing, 2000). If an individual highly identifies itself with the organization they are more likely to use the dissent strategy that mirrors the organization’s values. If the organization demonstrates its values dissent and promotes workplace freedom of speech, the highly identified employee will demonstrate articulate dissent. An organization that limits the opportunities for employees to voice their opinion, demonstrates contradictory expectations, and gives the perception that openness is not favored, will lead to employees to select latent dissent strategies (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). Following are some factors affecting organizational influences:

Perceptions of organizational dissenters: The perception of supervisors and co workers can be used to further determine an individual’s choice of dissent strategy. Employees will take notice of other dissenters and the consequences of their actions and will use this information to refine their “sense of organizational tolerance for dissent, to determine what issues merit dissent, and to inform their future dissent strategy choices”. Articulated and latent dissenters were perceived differently. People perceived articulated dissenters to be more satisfied, more committed, possess higher quality relationships with their supervisors, and seen as employees who believed they have influence within their organizations than latent dissenters. Furthermore, articulated dissenters, compared to latent dissenters, were perceived to be less verbally aggressive (Kassing, 2001).

15 •

Triggering events: Organizational dissent begins with a triggering event. This triggering event is what propels individuals to speak out and share their opinions about organizational practices or politics. An individual will consider the issue of dissent and whom it concerns before deciding what dissent strategy to use. The types of issues that cause employees to dissent vary. The majority of employees expressed dissent due to resistance of organizational change. Other factors include employee treatment, decision-making tactics, inefficiency, role/responsibility, resources, ethics, performance evaluations, and preventing harm In addition to the dissent-triggering event, the focus of the issues can be relevant to how one expresses dissent. Individuals may focus on improving matters within the organization that affect themselves (selffocused), they may focus on the welfare of the organization of the whole (other-focused) or they may focus on issues concerning their co-workers (neutral) (Kassing, 2002).

Benefits of upward dissent: In 2002, Kassing’s research found upward dissent could be beneficial to both the organization and the individuals involved. Following are some of its benefits:

Organizational Benefits: Upward dissent serves as an important monitoring force and allows the organization to identify problems and issues before they become damaging.

Individual Benefits: Employees who express upward dissent seem more satisfied, to have better work relationships, and to identify with their organization.

Upward dissent strategies: Not all organizations are designed to recognize and respond to employee dissent. Furthermore, employees consider expressing upward dissent as a “risky proposition”. In several studies Kassing (1997, 1998) found that employees decided to express dissent by considering whether or not they will be perceived as constructive or adversarial, as well as the risk of retaliation associated with dissenting. In 2002, Kassing found that once an individual decides to strategically express dissent, they use five different categories: direct-factual appeal, repetition, solution presentation, circumvention, and threatening resignation.

16 •

Direct-Factual Appeal: When an employee uses factual information derived from physical evidence, knowledge of organizational policies and practices, and personal work experience, they use the direct-factual appeal strategy. This strategy is considered active and constructive due to the fact that the employees seek evidence and base their assumptions on facts, evidence, and first-hand experience. Employees avoid using verbal attacks and unsupported data.

Repetition: Repetition involves expressing dissent about a topic/issue repeatedly at different points in time. This strategy is often used when an employee feels nothing is being done to correct the original articulated problem/issue and feel that the issue warrants being repeated. The problem with this strategy is that repetition in a short period can be seen as destructive. Especially if the abbreviated time frame does not allow the supervisor enough time to respond. However, if repetition is used over an extended time period it may be considered active-constructive since it may serve as a reminder to the supervisor.

Solution Presentation Strategy: The solution presentation strategy is deemed as active-constructive since an employee will provide solutions, with or without supporting evidence. This allows the supervisor to be receptive to the expressed dissent and indicates that you have put effort into solving the problem/issue.

Circumvention: If an employee feels their immediate supervisors are not responsive to dissent, they may employ the circumvention strategy. This entails the employee choosing to dissent to an audience higher in the organizational hierarchy. If an employee uses this strategy before giving their supervisor they opportunity to handle the situation first, this strategy can be deemed active-destructive. However, when used to express dissent regarding unethical practices it is considered active-constructive since the dissent is issue driven.

Threatening Resignation: Threatening resignation can also be seen as both active-constructive and active-deconstructive. This strategy involves the employee threatening to resign as a “form of leverage for obtaining

17

responsiveness and action from supervisors and management”. When used to express your concerns about unsafe and intolerable work conditions it is deemed constructive. However, this strategy will appear to be deconstructive when the managers view the threat as “antagonistic and unprincipled”.

Encouraging dissent in the workplace: There are some “tricks” that leaders can utilize to develop their employees attitudes, knowledge, and skills that are needed to foster constructive dissent.

Change decision-making focus: Leaders should focus on “How I should make the decision” instead of “What decision should I make”. In the end, if they perform the following steps the decision the leader should make will be obvious.

Encourage constructive conflict: Leaders need to ensure that conflict remains constructive. That is, they must stimulate task-oriented disagreement and debate while trying to minimize interpersonal conflict. Eilerman (2006) claims that the way conflict is handled will determine whether the outcome is constructive or destructive. According to Roberto (2005) leaders can create constructive conflict by taking concrete steps before, during, and after a critical decision process. Following are the steps involved:

Establish ground rules:

Before the process begins, leaders can establish ground rules for how people should interact during the deliberations, clarify the role that each individual will play in the discussions, and build mutual respect. Asking individuals to role-play or to become the devil’s advocate ahead of time can help reduce effective conflict while also stimulating constructive conflict (Roberto, 2005). Macy and Neal (1995) claim that since the role of the devil’s advocate is to present convincing counterarguments and to challenge the main position, its benefit lies in the fact that it automatically builds conflict into the decision-making process.

Intervene when necessary:

During deliberations, leaders can intervene when debates get heated. They might redirect people’s attention and frame the debate in a different light, re-describe

18

the ideas and data in novel ways so as to enhance understanding and spark new branches of discussion or may revisit ideas in hopes of finding common ground (Roberto, 2005). Deutsch and Coleman (2000) explain that reframing allows conflicting parties to see themselves as being in a collaborative, while producing a positive atmosphere that is conductive to creativity and one that increases the potential solutions available.

Reflect on the process:

After a decision process ends, leaders should reflect on the process and try to derive lessons learned regarding how to manage conflict constructively. Since reflections can lead to new insight, individuals must take time to critically assess the experience. They also must address and repair any hurt feelings and damaged relationships that may not have been apparent during the process itself. If these relationships are not repaired, trust could be lost which could negatively affect the effort of the next collaboration. Additionally, leaders should celebrate constructive conflict management and help others to remember the success of the process (Roberto, 2005).

Establish a supportive climate:

Bennis (2004) emphasizes that corporate leaders must promise their followers that they will never be devalued or punished because they express dissent. All too often in the past, organizations would marginalize or terminate any employee who voiced an opposing view. Additionally, leaders should reward dissent and punish conflict avoiders. Anyone who clearly withholds a dissenting view only to obstruct the implementation later should be held responsible. When leaders establish a climate of openness, they make constructive conflict a habit in the organization and develop behaviours, which can be sustained over time. Kassing’s (2000) research found that when leaders emphasize workplace freedom of speech, employees openly and clearly express dissent to audiences that are responsible for “organizational adjustment”. However, for leaders to ensure this type of sustainability, they need to not only change the way they make decisions, but they must develop a pipeline of leaders who approach decision making differently (Roberto, 2005).

19

Kassing (2000) believes that the whistle-blowing process begins at the superiorsubordinate relationship. If a superior response to an employee’s effort to dissent is negative this may cause the employee to seek other avenues of dissent. In fact, evidence indicates that only as a last resort does the dissident finally go public with their tales (Bennis, 2004, Kassing, 2000). Moore (1922) clearly explained that if you want good intelligence then you need independence of dissent and prerogatives to guarantee employees that top management will hear their views. Different types of organizations in various cultures have found it desirable to establish formalized systems for expressing their dissenting views. Private sector whistle blowers need more legal protection. Many research areas contribute to the under-standing of why and how individuals and groups perceive and respond to information input during the process of making decision Stanley (1981) also discussed dissent in broader area. Sometimes dissent does not strike/hit at the decision, but at the reasoning employed in their support. So there are several kinds of dissent that create doubts about whether the majority is capable or incapable, wise or unwise and right or wrong. The habit of dissent has grown and is growing because everyone in the world wants to give his own reason and disagrees with other’s reasons. So that’s why its ratio is increasing gradually. After having people’s opinion about dissent, the writer regrets that he did not then and there protest against the dissent habit as not only useless but undesired. Berry (2005) explained seven dimensions of organizational culture that influence the employee reflection process that ultimately leads to whistle blowing behavior are presented. These include vigilance, engagement, credibility, accountability, empowerment, courage and options. Key considerations within each dimension are discussed and a compliance framework is used to identify strategies for encouraging a culture that supports employee communication, questioning, and reporting of illegal, unethical, and illegitimate practices within organizations. According to Berry, as organizations seek to enhance standards and controls for effective corporate governance the important role of whistle blowing has become increasingly evident. Whistle blowing is an avenue for maintaining integrity by speaking one’s truth about what is right and what is wrong. It is a strategy for asserting rights,

20

protecting interests, influencing justice, and righting wrongs. Whistle blowing is the voice of conscience. Organizational culture’s seven dimensions are quite important as it tells employee’s weather to report or not and it will have greater impact on organizations overall performance. Lianthi Ravishankar (2002) in his famous article for university of Oxford magazine Encouraging internal whistle blowing in organization also explained whistle blowing. He termed it as employees who bring wrongdoing at their own organizations to the attention of superiors. He argued that whistle blowers encounter hostility and alienation from people and in industry faced retaliation from their employers in the form of dismissal or other personal hardships. And are generally defined as snitch or a lowlife who betrays a sacred trust largely for personal gain. There are several ways whereby problems can be solved timely thus encouraging whistle blowing according to writer: 1. Full support and confidence should be provided to employee so that they can bring problems quickly and immediately to internal authorities to be solved as soon as possible. 2. Employees should be made clear about the importance of adherence to codes of conduct. De Dreu, De Vries, Franssen, Altink (2000) have done an in-depth study regarding the concept of Whistle blowing. Based on their research study they have made some hypothesis then tried to prove it. Lastly they also have highlighted the limitations in the article, so a bit of a summary of every part is given below: Minority dissent may consume time and deteriorate interpersonal relations but it also increases organizational effectiveness, the quality of group decision making, and individual problem solving capacity. They have related the organizational dissent to innovation. Minority dissent may be broadly defined as: “Publicly advocating and pursuing beliefs, attitudes, ideas, procedures, and policies that go against and challenge the position or perspective assumed by the majority of the groups or organization’s members”

21

According to Santee and Maslach (1982), personality characteristics proved to be a powerful determinant. Result has shown that extraversion is the key to whether or not individuals in organizations stand up and voice their dissenting positions. When forming teams in organizations, organizational leaders may take into account the proportion of extraverted group members. Too few and too many extraverts in a group are not good. So a positive relation is found that number of team members high in extraversion may lead towards more dissent and innovation. Results for work pressures were in the predicted direction and revealed that a higher workload positively associates with willingness to dissent. Perhaps increased levels of work provide the stress level that is needed to think about the tasks in a constructive way and hence to foster willingness to dissent in a work team. Intergroup competition was not significantly related to willingness to dissent. They say that may be intergroup competition is not a salient factor in their setting in which their respondents were engaged. They say that they have measured this on one base so the reliability is doubtful. They have also found out that past neglect of minority dissent reduced willingness to dissent. The reason they have given is based on the result of another researcher (Graham’s 1986) that an organizational culture that disrespects individual conscience and that fails to foster interpersonal trust may reduce the occurrence of dissent. Their result also supports the hypothesis number 5 and 6 with the extraverted people. They advised the leaders to set the goal in the early phases of teamwork, but in later phases they should focus on communicating about how to achieve the goal. So that positive dissent and space for innovative ideas remain there. Now as we are focusing more on dissent and its impact on individuals, we tried to summarize its impact as whole also. Now we wanted to study organizational dissent as ethical dissent and its impact on organizations overall culture or vice versa. Ethical dissent, which was quiet important for summarizing dissent, impacts on whole organization not on one individual. So Stephen’s study was important in this regard. Thickett (2005) argued ethical dissent that the process of ethical dissent is not merely a single action but is a series of events taking up a significant amount of the employee’s time. Starting with an employee noticing something going wrong in the

22

organization this issue can be resolved very quickly or may go on, involving lawyers, agencies etc. After this it is in the employee’s hands what he wishes to do keeping in mind that his career is at stake. It is not necessary that an individual goes public to voice himself; it can be resolved within the organization by suggesting that a particular policy be changed. Ethical dissent becomes “whistle blowing” when you make your dissent public by going outside the organization and contacting others to convince them to help you change the policies of your organization. Ethical dissent like establishing a technical background, meaning that you can only make your point if you have done your homework, if not then you should be fully aware of the procedures and the exceptions in detail only then are u in the position to speak. Secondly, you should keep your arguments on a high professional plane, as impersonal and objective as possible, avoiding extraneous issues and emotional outbursts keeping your argument as productive as possible. Try to catch problems early, and keep the argument at the lowest managerial level possible because once the problem gets big bigger is the solution. Finding out the problem late is extremely crucial so its best if we work out problems at a lower managerial level. Thirdly, one should always make sure that the issue is sufficiently important. This basically means whistle blowing going outside your organization to resolve issues. The costs are high as you may even lose your position in the organization so it’s better in your interest to stay within the organization. Whistle blowing may sometimes be the right decision but the cost is high. Use (and help establish) organizational dispute resolution mechanisms; this will help you to a great extent. Check if your organization has such mechanisms, use them if not or help establish some. Lastly, keep records and collect paper, this should be done at the very beginning once you realize that you may have to resolve disputes within the organization or follow the path of whistle blowing. Records that you develop later are not too convincing as they are vague and depend completely on your memory. It is advisable to develop them as you move forward. Your complaint must be clearly laid out, without any personal bias, and argued on the basis of reason and not emotion. All recommendations are for those individuals who want to take action within the organization against the policies they disagree with in terms of ethics. Argyres and Mui (1999) explained that one of the most important dimensions of an organization’s culture is the degree to which internal dissent is valued by the

23

organization. Organizational culture and leadership differences suggest that these differences can help explain differences in organizational performance, and that changing the way dissent is valued in an organization is extremely difficult. This develops a political-economic approach to organizational dissent aimed at better understanding when internal dissent can help or harm organizational performance, why changing an organization’s “dissent regime” is so difficult, and how some organizations nevertheless manage such changes successfully. They argue that organizations face a difficult political-economic trade-off in managing internal dissent. While liberal tolerance of dissent can improve decisions by bringing better information and deeper insight to bear on them, it can also incur costs from excessive politicization of decision-making processes. Inculcating or changing an organization’s approach to dissent is much difficult because it requires commitments by top managers to observe and enforce particular “rules of engagement” and policies towards informal Authority that may not be seen as credible by organization members. If such commitments are not credible, members will refrain from expressing the kind of dissent that can enhance organizational performance. On the other hand, if the commitments are credible, organization members may be able to exploit them in pursuit of their own interests. This is a second important trade-off involved in the management of organizational dissent. Pomsuwan (2007) argued that highly motivated employees are key to organizational success and effectiveness. If employee’s fail to achieve their, day to day objectives then organization have to suffer a lot. Long term and short term interests of organization lies in individual and team based competencies of organization’s employee’s, leaders and managers. In this research author briefly explain and interpret the results. For example he explained first managing self-competency that any manager irrespective of his experience pays good attention to his goals and time management to Asses his own work and follow accordingly. Because employees at all levels of experience are high in managing communication competency, it can be concluded that employees use all the modes of transmitting, understanding and receiving ideas. In same way he explained all competencies optimistically.

24

These studies explained dissent in different aspects and using different kind of dimensions but we read more than 30 articles and we came to conclusion about one variable which is almost discussed in all articles. Organizational dissent or whistle blowing is our first independent variable concluded from our articles discussed above. Now from most of the studies which we read, we have concluded that most important variable usually affected by dissent or discouraging dissent is motivation. If we discourage dissent then motivation will decrease or if we encourage it then it will lead to highly motivated employees but we are still not clear about it until we carry out research in this field ourselves. But one thing is sure highly motivated employee's lead to organization's high performance but does encouraging whistle blowing lead to highly motivated employees is still a question in our reader’s minds.

25

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Q.1: Will organizational policies and practices affect decision making quality and motivation level of employees in a negative way? Q.2: Will organizational policies and practices affect decision making quality and motivation level of employees in a positive way?

HYPOTHESIS
If employees do not agree with policies/practices of organization, then their decision making quality and motivation level will decline or vice versa.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This research is conducted on Organizational dissent and its impact on employee motivation level. It also includes two variables Whistle Blowing and Employee

26

Motivation. Whistle Blowing is independent variable and Employee Motivation is dependent variable.

Conceptual Definition of Variables In our theoretical framework, the first variable is whistle blowing which is our independent variable. It is basically a concept which is concerned with employees to communicate their dissent or disagreement with the upper management and parties outside organization. Our second and dependent variable is employee motivation. It is the extent to which employees are involved in decision making policies and practices. It also involves the level of motivation employees gain by being appreciated for their work and job performance. According to our hypothesis, there exists a positive relationship between the two variables, which states that if whistle blowing is encouraged in an organization, then the employees motivational level will also be enhanced.

Operationalization of Variables Following are the dimensions and elements associated with the variable “Whistle Blowing”:
1. Perception of morally incorrect conduct in organization. This means

disagreement in the minds of employees. It includes elements that Disagreement with upper management, Disagreement with practices and Disagreement with written policies. (This dimension and elements is referring to Q.1 to Q.4 in our Questionnaire). 2. Communication of this perception to outside parties. It includes elements that Tell about your organization dissent to your family, Share with your informal group of friends and Share with people of other organizations (This dimension and elements is referring to Q.5, 6, 11, 12, 13 in our Questionnaire).
3.

Perception by authority that this communication should not have taken place.

This means the upper management discourages dissent. It includes elements that Dissent is something negative, Communication outside is discouraged, Stop informal communication and maintain strict hierarchy for flow of information.

27

(This dimension and elements is referring to Q.7 to Q.8 in our Questionnaire). 4. Communication within organization about disagreement. This means people expressed their feelings with upper management, which is also known as “Grapevine”. It includes elements that Tell your juniors about disagreement and Complain to your seniors about your dissent (This dimension and elements is referring to Q.9 to Q.10 in our Questionnaire). Following are the dimensions associated with the variable “Employee Motivation”:
1. Level of accuracy in work expectations. This means that employees should be

efficient in achieving accuracy. It includes elements achieving possible accuracy in each task and should be efficient enough. (This dimension and elements refer to Q.14 and Q.15 in the Questionnaire).
2. Early arrival at office. This means that employees should be punctual about

their timetables and work hours. It includes element must be punctual. (This dimension and elements refer to Q.16 in the Questionnaire). 3. Taking responsibility. This means that employees should be able to take responsibility of their own actions and not be dependent on anyone else. It includes element should take responsibility of their actions (This dimension and elements refer to Q.17 in the Questionnaire).
4. Taking subordinates in confidence. This means that upper management should

involve employees in all activities of the organization. It includes elements they should communicate about their actions to their sub-ordinates and should informally take them in confidence. (This dimension and elements refer to Q.18 and Q.19 in the Questionnaire). 5. Participation in training programs. This means that upper management should motivate employees to participate in training programs. It includes single element that they Should participate in occasional training programs (This dimension and elements refer to Q.20 in the Questionnaire).

28

6. Good employee’s communication. This means that strong communication between employees of different departments should be encouraged. It includes single element that Horizontal communication should be there (This dimension and elements refer to Q.21 in the Questionnaire). 7. Use freedom to make decisions and allow it to subordinates. This means that employees should be encouraged to openly discuss their views and ideas with upper management. It includes single element that Take decisions without fear independently (This dimension and element refer to Q.22 in the Questionnaire). 8. No fear of mistakes. This means that employees are not afraid of committing mistakes in fear of being fired. In this way, they learn new things. It includes elements that Learn from mistakes and having no fear of mistakes (This dimension and elements refer to Q.23 and Q.24 in the Questionnaire).
9. Having someone to coach. This means that employees should have strong

coaching figures in their work place. This is to encourage and support them in their work. It includes element that they should have someone to take advise from (This dimension and element refer to Q.25 in the Questionnaire).
10. Do not teach but lead. This means that upper management should not only

show employees the means of achieving their targets but also lead them to it. It includes element that they should Guide and lead them to right direction. (This dimension and element refer to Q.26 in the Questionnaire).

RESEARCH DESIGN
• Purpose of the study:

The purpose of this study is to find relationship between organizational policies/practices and decision quality/motivation level of employees in the paradigm of organizational dissent. It is a correlational research as it intends to find out the relationship between the two variables.

29 •

Unit of Analysis: The unit of analysis is at the Individual level. Because data was collected individually from every employee related to our sample. • Time Dimension:

The time dimension used here is cross-sectional studies, as data was collected at a single point in time.

• Researcher control of variables:

This study is non-contrived based on natural environment due to extensive field work and correlational studies.

• Mode of Observation:

Due to the non-contrived technique employed here, the mode of observation used in this study was Survey, which was conducted efficiently with the use of a Questionnaire.

• Sampling Design:

Target Population:

The population of this research is AG Office (Office of DG Accountants works) Lahore. There are almost 40 Bureaucrats working for this particular organization.

Sampling Terminology:

30

This research was engaged in “Non probability sampling” under which the technique of “Purposive Sampling” was employed. The sample size was 22. And the grades of employees were between 18 and 22.
• Tools for data collection:

The data collection tool that was utilized under survey technique was “Self Administered” Questionnaire. In the questionnaire there are twenty six questions, in which thirteen questions are of the Whistle blowing variable and thirteen questions are of Employee Motivation variable. The wording of the questions is very easy to understand for any literate respondent. Throughout the five point Likert scale is used in the Questionnaire. The study is correlational in nature, because it will find relationship between the variable Whistle blowing and the variable Employee Motivation level.

• Editing and Coding Strategies:
As the five point Likert scale is used for the questionnaire so each option is assigned a particular number i.e. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree 5

As the hypothesis suggests, there should be positive relationship between the two variables, so the statements were placed in such a way that if someone agrees or strongly agrees then he has been encouraged by whistle blowing from his upper management and vice versa. And same with second variable if someone strongly agrees or agrees then his motivational level will be enhanced and vice versa.

E.g. If the Question is: Q.1: There is morally incorrect conduct in organization.

31

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Uncertain

Agree

Strongly Agree

1

2

3

4

5

And suppose respondent go for the option for Strongly Disagree, then its coding would be: Question number 1 Respondent answer 1 Code number 1

So in this way for the five options Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Uncertain, Agree and Strongly Agree, then the code numbers are assigned 1,2,3,4,5 respectively. If the questionnaire is not filled more than 50% then that questionnaire will be discarded. If the respondent does not give answer of any particular question then for coding and analysis the answer would be considered uncertain. The reason for using a sample of 22 was due to the fact that an approximate of almost 75% respondents for this questionnaire was needed and if the respondents would be less than 50% then the questionnaire would not have been used.

32

• Data Processing and Analysis:

On the basis of this research, some conclusion is drawn with the help of calculations, tables and graphs. The study was bi-variate in nature because it involves two variables. So for this purpose, first uni-variate analysis is done. Table 1.1: Data on Whistle Blowing
X No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Whistle Blowing 39 37 31 39 65 38 42 41 41 49 42 40 41 43 33 39 29 43 32 38 45 33 Gender M M M M M F M M M M M F M M M M M M M M M M

33

34

First table for X variable was created, which is Whistle blowing. On the basis of this table, the graph and frequency table were made, which are: Table 1.2: Level of whistle blowing among respondents

Whistle blowing Low

Range 0-15 16-30 31-45

Frequency 0 1 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 22

Percentage 0 4.55 86.36 9.09 0 0 0 0 0 100

Medium

46-60 61-75 76-90

Hi

91-105 106-120 121-135

Total

35
Whistle Blowing

Og n aio a d s n r a iz t n l is e t
8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0 1 3 5 7 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 7 9 2 1 R s o d ns ep n e t Sr s eie 1

Figure 1.1: Trend of whistle blowing among respondents So the above frequency table and graph clearly shows the trend that data mostly lies between 31 and 45 which is approximately medium. Now, tables and graphs for second variable, that is Employee Motivation are as follows: Table 2.1: Data on Employee Motivation
Y No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Employee Motivation 52 54 59 52 45 52 60 48 43 52 54 50 52 52 Gender M M M M M F M M M M M F M M

36
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 52 53 52 51 56 42 48 58 M M M M M M M M

With the help of table for second variable, the graph and frequency distribution table were created as follows: Table 2.2: Motivational level of respondents

Employee motivation

Range

Frequency Percentage 0 0 13.64 86.36 0 0 0 0 0 100

Low

0-15 16-30 31-45

0 0 3 19 0 0 0 0 0 22

Medium

46-60 61-75 76-90

Hi

91-105 106-120 121-135

Total

37

Organizational dissent
80 60 40 20 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 Respondents

Employee Motivation

Series1

Figure 2.1: Motivational level of respondents So the graph and frequency table of second variable Employee Motivation shows that most of the employee’s scored between 46 and 60 which is medium. Bi-variate tables and graphs would be created by relating the both variables. Table 3.1: Data on Whistle Blowing and Employee Motivation
X No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Whistle Blowing 39 37 31 39 65 38 42 41 41 49 42 40 41 Y Employee Motivation 52 54 59 52 45 52 60 48 43 52 54 50 52 Gender M M M M M F M M M M M F M

38
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 43 33 39 29 43 32 38 45 33 52 52 53 52 51 56 42 48 58 M M M M M M M M M

Now with the help of this bi-variate table, frequency distribution table was created which will relate both variables and also graph was drawn that showed both variables combining for relative trend of both variables. Table 3.2: Effect of whistle blowing on employee motivation

Employee
Motivation
16-30 F. Low (0-45) Medium (46-90) High (91-135) 1 0 0 % 4.55 0 0 F. 0 19 0

Whistle blowing
31-45 % 0 86.36 0 F. 2 0 0 46-60 % 9.09 0 0 F. 3 19 0 Total % 13.64 86.36 0

39

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 whistle blowing emplyee motivation

Figure 3.1: Relation of whistle blowing and employee motivation

Interpretation of Table 3.2 and Figure 3.1:

It clearly has been proved or shown in the relative frequency table and graph that both variables approximately have correlation. Because when Whistle Blowing remains medium or between 40 to 60 then Employee Motivation of most of the employee’s also remains at medium level or between 40 and 60. But still it is unclear, so for that purpose statistical calculations were done for the more quantitative analysis of this research. Statistical calculations start with value of mean because it is where most of the employee’s or average employee’s lies on the questionnaire. • Mean:

The mean of independent variable that is Whistle blowing turned out to be 3.07, which indicates that Whistle blowing is slightly being encouraged in the said organization. Moreover, mean of dependent variable is 3.98, which also indicates that motivational level of employees is enhanced. • Standard Deviation:

40

The standard deviation of independent variable “Whistle blowing” is 0.55 which shows a little spread of real values from mean. The standard deviation of dependent variable “Employee Motivation” is 0.352 which also shows a little deviation from mean. • Coefficient of Correlation:

The coefficient of correlation turned out to be 0.44 which means that there is linear positive relationship between both variables. • Regression Equation: The to be: Y = 62.7 + 0.28 X This shows that if independent variable or Whistle blowing is increased by one unit then Employee Motivation will be enhanced by 0.28 units. In the absence of dependent variable change in independent variable will be 62.7 units.

70
EnenEn

30

100

regression 30 70 100

equation turned out

100

100

200

Dummy Table:

Table 4: Dummy Table of both variables

Encourage d

41

Whistle Blowing

Discourag ed

Enhanc ed

Decreas ed

Employee Motivation

CONCLUSION
As the hypothesis suggests that if Whistle Blowing is encouraged then, Employee Motivation will be enhanced. So the bi-variate tables and frequency distribution tables showed that most of the employee’s scored medium in both variables. Secondly graphical trends also showed that both variables lied in somewhere near to each other in graphs. Then mean for whistle blowing was 3.07 which is more than uncertain and mean for employee motivation

42

was 3.98 which means that most of the employee’s feel that they are motivationally enhanced which they have been encouraged whistle blowing. Then value of R is very important, which is coefficient of correlation and whose value is 0.44, which clearly shows positive relationship between whistle blowing and employee motivation. In the end dummy table and regression line concludes whole discussion by clearly showing that if whistle blowing is encouraged then employee motivation will be enhanced. So Theory of Organizational dissent withstand at AG office Lahore that “If whistle blowing is encouraged then employee motivation will be enhanced or vice versa”. However this research was limited to AG office and bureaucrats but it gave us deep insight into the system of AG office and also understanding of organizational dissent theory. We hope to research again on same topic on wider scale.

43

REFERENCES
1. Kassing (1998). Organizational dissent and motivation. Retrieved from

http:/www.wikipedia.com/organizational dissent. 2. Organizational dissent and motivation. (n.d.). Retrieved May 21, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_dissent/
3. Moore, R., W. (1922, September). The habit of Dissent. The Virginia law

register, 8(5), 338-341.
4. Stanley, J., D. (1981, January). Dissent in Organizations. The Academy of

Management review, 6(1), 13-19.
5. Berry, B.

(2004). Organizational culture: A framework and strategies for

facilitating Employee Whistle Blowing. Employee Responsibilities and rights Journal, 16(1).
6. Ravishankar, L. (2002). Encouraging internal whistle blowing in organization.

Retrieved from JSTORE April 14, 2008.
7. Argyres, N., Mui, V. (1999). A Political-economic approach to organizational

dissent. A journal from New York Press.
8.

Pomsuwan, S. (2007). Study of Individual and Managerial Effectiveness: a Case of employee of Thai life Assurance Association. Journal of Academy of Management, 17(2), 190-210.

9. Blumenfield, S., B., Thickett, G. (2005). Journal of academy of management retrieved from LUMS Library.
9. De Dreu, C., K.,W., De Vries, N., K., Franssen H., Altink., W., M., M. (2000) .

Factors influencing willingness to dissent. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(12), 2451-2466.
10. Pfeiffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations and organization theory.

Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing.
11. Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. 1988. An economic approach to influence

activities in organizations. American Journal of Sociology.
12. Santee, R., & Maslach, C. (1982). To agree or not to agree: personal dissent

amid social pressure to conform. Journal of personality and social psychology, 42, 690-700.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Uncertain

Agree

Strongly Agree

44

1. There is morally incorrect conduct in organization.

1

2

3

4

5

2. I disagree with our upper management on several issues.

1

2

3

4

5

3. I disagree with the written policies of organization.

1

2

3

4

5

4. I disagree with the practices followed inside organization.

1

2

3

4

5

5. I usually tell my juniors about these disagreements.

1

2

3

4

5

6. I usually complain to my seniors about my disagreements. 1 2 3 4 5

7. My organization thinks that dissent is not something negative.

1

2

3

4

5

8. Organization usually encourage communicating dissent outside.

1

2

3

4

5

9. Informal communication or grapevine is encouraged. 1 *Grapevine: People expressing their feelings with upper management. 2 3 4 5

45

13. Graham, j. w. (1986). Principled organizational dissent. In B.M. Staw &L.L. Cummings (Eds.), research on organizational behavior (vol.8, pp.1-52). Greenwich, CT: JAI. 14. Roberto, M.A. (2005). Why great leaders don’t take yes for an answer. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. 15. Robbins, S. P. (2005). Organizational Behavior. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. 16. Perlow, L.A. (2003). When silence spells trouble at work. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge. Retrieved April 20, 2008 from the Harvard Business School Web site: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/3494.html 17. Eilerman, D. (2006). Conflict: Personal dynamics and choice. Retrieved April 17, 2008 from http://www.mediate.com/articles/eilermanD2.cfm 18. Macy, G. & Neal, J.C. (1995). The impact of conflict-generating techniques on student reactions and decision quality. Business Communication Quarterly. 19. Deutsch, M. & Coleman, P.T. (Eds.) (2000). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Uncertain

Agree

Strongly Agree

46

14. I usually achieve possible accuracy in a given task.

1

2

3

4

5

15. I am quite efficient at doing operational tasks.

1

2

3

4

5

16. I am usually punctual in arriving office on time.

1

2

3

4

5

17. I take responsibility of my own actions.

1

2

3

4

5

18. I communicate to my subordinates about my business actions.

1

2

3

4

5

19. I also take them in confidence informally.

1

2

3

4

5

20. I participate in occasional training programs.

1

2

3

4

5

21. I also communicate horizontally with people of other departments.

1

2

3

4

5

22. I take decisions without fear independently.

1

2

3

4

5

23. I have no fear of mistakes.

1

2

3

4

5

24. I learn from my mistakes.

1

2

3

4

5

25. I usually take advice from experienced people in same field.

1

2

3

4

5

47

RECOMMENDATIONS
After working on this project, following recommendations were observed:

Organizations should give more freedom to employees to express their views positively or negatively through the concept known as “Whistle Blowing”, which was also thoroughly studied under this research. In order to increase employee’s moral, whistle blowing should be encouraged in organizations, as the hypothesis presented in this research clearly showed that. More extensive research should be done in various organizations, in order to find out about their views regarding this concept.

48

APPENDIX

COVER LETTER:
Dear Respondents, It is to inform you with deep respect, that we are conducting a research on a topic *Impact of organizational policies and practices on employee dissent* at AGO office, which states that if the phenomenon of whistle blowing is encouraged in an organization, then it enhances its employees motivational level. We are basically the under-graduates of Institute of Administrative Sciences, Punjab University. Thus, in order to conduct this research, your utmost cooperation would be seriously appreciated, as you play a very important role in our research, being the employees of AGO Office, which is our target population. We will make sure that your responses and personal suggestions would be kept under strict confidence. The attached questionnaire with this letter comprises of twenty six questions. Rest assured that it would hardly take five minutes of your precious time in filling this questionnaire. Your cooperation would make us immensely happy if you fill this with honesty. If you find any difficulty regarding the questions, or any other query then we would be more glad to be of your assistance. You can reach us at: Contact No: 0321 8553855 Email: asad_ias2005@hotmail.com We would appreciate your coordination. Thank you for reading this.

Sincerely, Asad Ali Khawaja

49

QUESTIONNAIRE:

Name (Optional): _____________________

Age: __________________

Sex: Male Female

Marital Status: Married Single Divorced

Department Name: _______________________ Instructions: Please rate Strongly Disagree to 1 and Strongly Agree to 5 according to the statement. PART 1:

Continued….

50

PART 2:

Thank You!

LIST OF RESPONDENTS

51

1. Zaheer Ahmed DG Accounts (Works) Lahore 2. Furqan Salabat Assist. Director (Works) Office of DG Accounts (Works) AG office Phone no: 042- 9210143 3. Sameen Asghar DG AATI, Lahore 4. Adrees Tarar DG AUDIT (Works), Lahore 5. Mirza Kamran Baig DDG AUDIT(Works), Lahore 6. Wasim Shahzad Assist. Director, Office of DG AUDIT (Works), Lahore 7. Babar Bashir Assist.AG, AG Pb (Sub office), Lahore 8. Kashif Haroon Assist.AG, AG Pb (Sub office), Lahore 9. Shahzad Khalid Assist.AG, AGPR (Sub office), Lahore 10.Abdul Basit Jasra Assist.AG, AGPR (Sub office), Lahore

11.Saadiq Saleem

52

AAG,AG(Pb) Sub office, Lahore 12.Asma Fayaz AAG,AG(Pb) Sub office, Lahore 13.Farzeena Lal Assist.CMA, CMA Lahore 14.Ibrar-Ul-Haq Defence AUDIT Lahore 15.Federal Secretary Planning PAKISTAN Mr. Khawaja Sohail Safdar Phone no: 051-9225211 16.Sheikh Muhammad Amin Director Admin and Finance Directorate General Publishing Welfare Punjab 17.Muhammad Aslam Pervaiz Deputy Director Finance, Punjab 18.Salman-Ur-Rashid Assist. Director Finance, Punjab Residence no: 042-5420208 19. Abdul Rauf DG Finance, Punjab

20. Dr. Zabda

Deputy Director Planning 21.Javaid Akhtar Javaid

53

(General & Procurement) 22.Muhammad Hanif Khan Assist. Director Planning, Punjab 23.Javaid Rafique Section Officer Budget 24.Muhammad Shahid Deputy Director ADMIN and General

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.