International Journal of Psychology 25 (1990) 795-812 795

North-Holland

CULTURE AND WORK ALIENATION WESTERN MODELS

AND EASTERN REALITIES

Rabindra N. KANUNGO *
McGill University, Montreal, Can&

h s paper argues that the existing theoretical explanations of work alienation and corrective
management practices developed in the Western world have Limited cross-cultural applicability.
This argument is supported f i s t by identifying the cultural bias inherent in the Western
explanatory models of alienation and then by indicating how such a bias fails to adequately
explain work alienation and its opposite work involvement phenomena in Eastern societies Like
India. Finally, the paper probes into the role of some critical indigenous variables responsible for
the development of alienation among workers in India. The case of Indian workers provides an
illustrative example of what is needed for alienation research in a developing country context: to
avoid the folly of uncritically accepting the Western explanatory models and to encourage the
discovery of indigenous explanations.

The phenomena of work alienation and its opposite involvement

play a central role in determining the social and economic climate of
contemporary societies. Understanding the nature of the phenomena,
the way they develop, their causes and consequences, is of paramount
importance for improving the quality of work life and organisational
effectiveness. Realizing the importance of the phenomena, numerous
studies have been done by social scientists in the last three decades (see
Kanungo (1982) for a critical review). However, most of these studies
have been conducted in the developed Western countries. These studies
have given rise to theoretical explanations or models of worker aliena-
tion and corrective practices that fit Western cultural norms and
therefore have limited applicability for developing Afro-Asian and
Latin American countries. Research on alienation in these developing
countries that are based on the western models can be meaningful only
when the limitations of these models are recognized and avoided.
Author's address: R N . Kanungo,Faculty of Management, McGill University, 1001 Sherbrooke
St. West, Montreal. Que.. Canada H3A 1G5.

0020-7594/90/$03.50 Q 1990 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.(North-Holland)

196 R N. Kanungo / Culture and work alienation

Furthermore, alienation research in the developing world becomes

more meaningful and useful when explanations of the phenomena are
sought in terms of variables indigenous to the cultural context in which
the research is carried out.
The purpose of this paper is twofold. First it attempts to identify the
cultural bias inherent in the Western explanatory models of alienation
by identifying certain critical common features of the models and
indicating how these features are totally inadequate in explaining work
alienation or involvement among workers belonging to the developing
nations. Second, the paper probes into the role of some critical indige-
nous variables in the development of alienation among workers in
India in order to provide an example of what is needed for alienation
research in a developing country context. Thus the paper highlights the
significance of discovering indigenous explanations of alienation phe-
nomena in a given country and points out the problems associated with
the uncritical adoption of the Western models to explain the phenom-
ena in a developing nation.

Critical features of the Western explanatory models

Theoretical explanations of worker alienation were first proposed by

Marx ([1844] 1932) and then by Weber (1930). The conceptual models
proposed by them formed the basis of much of the later thinking on the
subject among both the empirically oriented behavioural scientists and
practical oriented organisational change agents. According to Marx, if
workers sacrifice their needs and interests and surrender their free will
or control over what they do at work, they may experience alienation.
Mechanization of the production process and the increased supervisory
control over workers’ behaviour and wages observed in the capitalist
system forces workers to sell their labor for survival, and to surrender
their right to engage in spontaneous, free, and self-directed production
activities and thus creates alienation of labor.
Following Marx, most social scientists have assumed that the ab-
sence of worker autonomy and control in the work place is a necessary
and sufficient condition for labor alienation. Such an assumption is
based on an uncritical acceptance of Marxian views regarding labor
and the essence of human nature. But the validity of this assumption
has been questioned on the ground that the essential nature of human
 R N . Konungo / CuIture and work alienation 191

beings and the role of labor in a worker’s life, as conceived by Marx,

does not hold true in all parts of the world. In light of the current
behavioural and motivational theories, the Marxian emphasis on worker
autonomy and control appears both ‘humanistic’ and ‘individualistic’
in orientation. Like many assumptions in humanistic psychology (such
as Maslow’s (1954) need hierarchy notion), Marxian emphasis on
autonomy and control suffers from problems of empirical validation
and strong cultural bias (see Kanungo (1982) for details).
Weber’s treatment of the concept of work alienation is very similar
to that of Marx. Both believed that the individuality or personal worth
of workers is determined by their labor, and that alienation results
from working conditions that deny the expression of individuality. But
Weber went a step further in asserting the historical antecedents of
work alienation. Study of the Protestant religion convinced Weber
(1930) that the ethical system of Protestantism trains people to be
individualists and to believe in the goodness of work. Principles within
the Protestant faith, such as ‘God helps those who help themselves’ or
‘Work is its own reward’, promote in people a high degree of indi-
vidualism, a craving for intrinsic rewards and industriousness. Like
Marx, Weber emphasized the freedom to make one’s own decisions, to
assume personal responsibility, and to prove one’s worth through
achievement at work, and saw loss of individuality as the necessary
condition of work alienation.
Translated into motivational terms, both Marx’s and Weber’s em-
phasis on the individuality of the worker imply that if the work setup
cannot provide an environment that satisfies the needs for individual
autonomy, responsibility, and achievement, it will create a state of
alienation in the workers.
Most contemporary formulations of work alienation, in both the
psychological and the sociological literature have followed the
Marxianpeberian models (for an exhaustive review, see Kanungo
1979, 1981, 1982). Almost all of the formulations emphasize lack of
intrinsic need satisfaction as the basic condition for work alienation.
The exclusive emphasis on intrinsic need satisfaction as a precondition
for worker involvement (or for better quality of working life) reflects a
strong cultural bias in the Western models. This was initiated by Marx
and Weber through their observation of individualistic societies in
which the need for personal achievement, control, and autonomy are
considered to be people’s most central and salient needs.
198 R N.Kanungo / Culrwe and work alienation

The same emphasis persists in the works of contemporary Western

organisational theorists. For instance, after reviewing the current psy-
chological literature on job involvement, Rainowitz and Hall (1977:
284) conclude that, among other things, job-involved workers believe
strongly in the Protestant Ethic, have strong growth or intrinsic needs,
and have stimulating jobs that give them a high degree of autonomy
and control. Similarly, contemporary organisational sociologists believe
that workers experience alienation when they engage in job activities
that are not rewarding in themselves, that do not express their unique
abilities and potentialities nor permit control, but are simply instru-
mental in satisfying extrinsic needs such as for money, security etc.
(Blauner 1964; Seeman 1959; Shepard 1971).
Another line of sociological research in the area of ‘individual
modernity’ tends to echo the above viewpoint. Inkeles and Smith
(1974) consider an individualistic orientation one major characteristic
of ‘modernity’. Other recent studies (e.g. Orpen 1978) have shown that
‘modernity’ implies acceptance of Protestant work-ethic ideals and an
emphasis on intrinsic work values. In contrast, ‘traditionality’ implies
familism (a form of collectivistic orientation), limited personal aspira-
tion, and less emphasis on intrinsic work values. Using the dichotomy
of ‘modem versus traditional‘, Inkeles and Smith (1974) have argued
that development of ‘modernity’ characteristics among workers is es-
sential for the effectiveness of work organisations.
To summarize, Westem models of work alienation rest on two basic
premises. First, work-alienating attitudes are formed as a result of past
socialisation training that does not emphasize Protestant Ethic norms.
Second, alienation at work stems from a lack of intrinsic need satisfac-
tion on the job.
If one accepted these premises, it would imply that many Third
World countries would be doomed to suffer from mass work alienation,
because these countries neither subscribe to the Protestant Ethic norms
nor consider intrinsic need satisfaction to be the main purpose of work
behaviour. The Western models of work alienation therefore would
argue that the only hope for these countries would rest on changing
their ways through incorporating Western work ideologies such as
Protestant Ethic norms into their socialisation process and adopting
job-design and participative leadership concepts that emphasize intrin-
sic need satisfaction of workers in the work place (Hackman and
Oldham 1976; Herzberg 1968; Lawler and Hackman 1971).
 RN.Kanungo / Culture and work alienation 799

Limitations of the Western models

This position taken according to Western models is not tenable on

two grounds. First, one can argue that satisfaction of intrinsic needs at
work may be a suflicient, but not a necessary, condition for work
involvement. Work involvement does not necessarily depend on job
characteristics that allow for satisfaction of needs for control and
autonomy. It must be emphasized that workers have a variety of needs,
some more salient than others. The saliency of the needs in any
particular person is determined by his or her past socialisation in a
particular culture, and is constantly modified by present job conditions.
Different groups of people, because of their different socialisation
training or cultural background, may develop correspondingly different
need-saliency patterns. They may value extrinsic and intrinsic job
outcomes reflecting those diverse factors. A specific set of needs (e.g.,
growth needs, such as self-esteem and autonomy) may be salient in one
group of workers, but not in another group. This may result in different
self-images in the two groups and, consequently in different job expec-
tations in the two groups. A group of workers that considers control
and autonomy to be the core of their self-image may get involved in
jobs that are perceived as offering opportunity for exercising control
and autonomy. Predictably, they may become alienated from jobs that
are perceived as providing little freedom and control. However, such
job characteristics may not be a crucial consideration in the detennina-
tion of the job involvement or alienation of some other groups, which
may view security and social solidarity needs as the core of their
self-image.
Also, we should not overlook differences in people’s self-concepts.
The industrially developed societies of the West may socialize their
citizens to believe that all that counts in one’s life is to have individual
liberty or freedom. Workers belonging to these societies may feel,
therefore, that working life is of little worth without freedom and
control. In the developing societies however, economic and social
security often are considered more important to life than are freedom
and control at the work place. Thus, workers in these societies may find
work very involving if it guarantees such security, but may not care
very much for freedom and control in their jobs. In these societies,
people may value equality more than liberty as the guiding principle of
working life. The data from Inkeles and Smith’s (1974) study of six
800 R N. Kanungo / Culture and work alienation

developing countries (Argentina, Bangladesh, Chile, India, Israel, and

Nigeria) seem to provide indirect support for this contention and to
contradict the commonly held notion among organisational theorists
that assembly-line and large-scale production factory systems neces-
sarily create worker alienation.
The second reason for the nontenability of the Western models lies
in the faulty assumption that Protestant-Ethic-type socialisation train-
ing is the only appropriate way to achieve greater work involvement
and consequent industrial development. Moreover, it must be pointed
out that socialisation of the Protestant Ethic variety is not the only type
of training that increases work involvement. Any type of training
through which people realize that their work role can fulfill their salient
needs will increase work involvement. This can be illustrated by com-
paring Eastern and Western cultures.
First, let us consider the socialisation process in many Western
cultures. These cultures value individualism and promote in their
members greater saliency of autonomy and personal achievement needs.
The Protestant work-ethic in such cultures trains people to believe that
work can satisfy these salient needs, and can provide opportunities for
the expression of one’s individuality. Therefore, work should be valued
as being good and central to one’s life.
In contrast, consider socialisation in many developing countries.
Cultures in these countries promote in their members a sense of
collectivism and saliency of social and security needs. In these cultures
religious preaching about achieving universal brotherhood of mankind
and religious practices advocating the value of sacrificing self-interest
for the benefit of others have a different socializing influence. People in
these cultures develop a belief in the centrality of work not because
work can promote personal achievement, but because it can fulfill the
collectivist goals of brotherhood and sharing in life. The Hindu reli-
gion, for example, encourages a form of work ethic that considers work
as central to one’s life, but maintains that it must be performed as duty
in the service of others (family members, friends, relatives, even
strangers), and not for one’s own personal achievement. Social scien-
tists (e.g., Mehta 1976, 1978) have noticed the presence of this desire
for collective rather than individual success among Indian workers.
Those workers who believe that work can achieve a sense of collecti-
vism and also fulfill salient social and security needs might therefore
show the same level of work involvement as a Protestant. In Chinese
 R.N. Kanungo / Culture and work alienation 801

society, the influence of Confucianism has created an altruistic set of

values directed toward achieving common good rather than individual
achievement. ‘Chinese cultural tradition fosters the internalization of
self-discipline and self-restraint. These traits imply the moral obligation
of one’s deferential compliance with parents, elders, and other senior’s
wishes...‘there is always moral commitment to the collective goal which
strives at excellence, dedication and involvement, notwithstanding how
resentful or onerous the task is to the individual’ (Chao 1988: 3).
Similar collectivist orientation with emphasis on familism, in group
loyalty, and affective reciprocity forms the basis of worker involvement
in many developing countries in Africa and Latin America.
The above examples demonstrate that people belonging to a non-
Western culture tend to develop different salient needs as a result of
being influenced by different cultural and group norms. The socialisa-
tion training in any given culture that emphasizes the instrumentality
of work roles in satisfying people’s culturally determined salient needs
is primarily responsible for the development of work involvement.

Search for indigenous factors

If Western explanatory models of alienation are inadequate in the

context of developing nations because of cultural difference, then it is
appropriate to look for explanations within the cultural milieu of these
nations. This section explores the nature and causes of alienation of
workers in India and describes a set of indigenous explanatory varia-
bles that are very different from the variables suggested by Western
models. The causes of worker alienation in the Indian context can be
identified both in the past’socialisation process of workers (i.e. to reveal
the historical or predisposing cause) and in their present perceptions of
the need satisfying potential of the job illustrating the contemporary or
precipitating causes. Let us analyse these two sets of causes of worker
alienation in India.

Indian socialisation influence

The early socialisation or conditioning process involves the influence

of different social institutions, such as family, educational institutions,
religion and political atmosphere. As individuals learn modes of think-
802 R N. Kanwgo / Culture and work alienation

ing, feeling, and performance they are shaped by such ideological and
cultural influences. Early interactions with social institutions and their
specific representatives form the basis of many enduring psychological
characteristics of future personality. The influences of socialisation in
India produce three types of behavioural dispositions (or ethics) that
are particularly relevant in the context of work motivation. These
dispositions w i l l be referred to as (a) a personal ethic of helplessness,
(b) an organisational ethic of personalised relationships, and (c) an
idealized, family-centred work ethic.
Workers at all levels of organisations in India seem to manifest a
personal sense of helplessness. In their day-to-day work and non-work
spheres of life, they exhibit a passive attitude towards their environ-
ment. They feel that they can do nothing (in a direct manner) to change
their environment. They have inculcated an external orientation; i.e. a
belief that the external environment controls them, rather than them
controlling their environment. Thus they become insecure and demon-
strate a strong need for dependence on others to reduce their feeling of
insecurity. As individuals, they feel that they are insignificant, power-
less particles of humanity and, therefore, believe in the futility of their
actions. These beliefs create an attitude of fatalism and they become
indifferent to work and work organisations. As individuals, therefore,
they do not strive for challenge and excellence, but rather remain
content with status quo and mediocrity. They become the victims of
‘what can I do? and chulegu type syndrome. (Chalegu is a common
vocabulary often used to express ready acceptance of status quo and
mediocrity).
Some social scientist (Kapp 1963; Weber 1958) have argued that the
passive helplessness attitude of the Indian worker may result from the
influence of Hindu doctrines of (a) Moksha (salvation) through re-
nunciation of all material possessions (Sanyas) as an ultimate goal in
life, (b) illusory nature of the material world (Maya) and the experi-
ences of present life resulting from the actions in previous life (the ‘law
of Karma’ in an endless cosmic causal chain). Although such beliefs
may play a role in the development of certain attitudes toward life in
general (such as contempt for competitive acquisitiveness or equanim-
ity in the face of extreme sufferings and hardships in life), they
certainly are not the soIe reasons for the helplessness feelings in a
worker’s day-to-day life. The helplessness feeling and the attitude of
fatalism or external locus of control (Rotter 1966) orientation are
 R N. Kanungo / Culture and work alienation 803

acquired primarily through socialisation practices related to action-con-

tingent reward allocation in family, school, work organisations or other
social institutions. This point will be discussed later in the section.
The organisational ethic of Indian workers is also shaped by a strong
sense of insecurity and dependence on others. Their work relationships
are personalized rather than contractual. They work for their superiors,
friends, and relatives, rather than for accomplishing the task or organi-
sational goals under contractual obligations. Personal loyalty takes
priority over organisational efficiency. Within the organisation, seeking
and maintaining personal status becomes the primary objective for
which organisational interests can be sacrificed. Most supervisors pro-
vide personal rather than institutional leadership. Their leadership
behaviour is directed towards maintaining their status or saving their
skin by pleasing everyone, avoiding conflicts or confrontation, and by
not taking any risk that might rock the boat even if such actions are
desirable for protecting organisational interest.
Indian workers also manifest a family centered work ethic. Most
workers believe that work is necessary and good, primarily for main-
taining one’s family, providing for the well-being of aging parents,
spouse, and children. Work for the sake of personal mastery over the
job, or for personal sense of task accomplishment is somewhat alien to
many. They have, however, an idealized form of work ethic derived
from the Bhagavat Gita. They tend to subscribe in the abstract to the
norm: ‘Your right is to work only. But never to the fruit thereof. Let
not the fruit of action be your object. Nor let your attachment be to
inaction’. Such abstract principles are hardly every practised in real
working life. Duties are performed generally in the family context, but
the same sense of duty does not prevail at work place. In fact, Indian
workers subscribe more to leisure and to family ethic than to work
ethic. They are more familiar with the sneha (fondness), shrudha
(affection), and arum (relaxation) culture than with Karma culture.
There is an emphasis on idle leisure pursuits that satisfy security and
affiliative needs, rather than creative leisure pursuits that achieve work
objectives; on maintaining status positions rather than task goal
accomplishments; on performing socially approved duties in interper-
sonal contexts rather than in the job contexts. These are the typical
characteristics of the Indian personality, and constitute disguised
manifestations of a feudalistic temperament that prevails among most
Indian workers.
a04 RN.Kanungo / Culture and work alienation

Four key elements in the socialisation process in India are responsi-

ble for the formation of the three types of ethic that we have identified.
First, the authoritarian practices in the family, the educational system,
and the religious institutions act to create a strong sense of dependence.
This is reinforced by the hierarchical authority structure in all of these
institutions. Those who are in authority position tend to overcontrol
their subordinates through the use of formal authority or rule-minded
supervision. Unconditional obedience by surrendering to authority is
considered a virtue. Personal initiative, originality, and independence in
thinking and decision making in every sphere of life meets with social
disapproval. As a result, independent critical thinking and reasoning
(i.e. to solve one’s own life problems) diminish. Positional or status
authority rather than personal informed reason, forms the basis of
blind conformity and compliance.
Second, the reward systems within Indian social institutions tend to
promote helplessness and external orientation. Very often people in
authority positions (parents, teachers, political leaders) promise valued
rewards for the desired behaviour of subordinates but do not furnish
these rewards. Such broken promises create a state of uncertainty of
goal attainment, a deep sense of insecurity, external orientation, power-
lessness and, finally, low self-reliance. Furthermore, pervasive attitudes
of negativism (searching only for what is wrong with an individual) and
pessimism about outcomes of every action on the part of superiors,
discourages risk-taking and responsibility-seeking behaviour, eventually
leading to passivity in one’s dealings with the environment.
Third, family and religious traditionalism of the Indian culture has
created a time perspective that has an emphasis on the past rather than
on the present. Emotional gratification of one’s desire to maintain
self-esteem through the recollection of past achievements is quite a
commonplace happening. In a sense, most individuals live physically in
the present, but psychologically in the past, and are unconcerned about
the future. Emphasis on the past and a lack of futuristic orientation
leads to a lack of planning while trying to achieve task goals. Thus,jobs
are handled as they come up, and problems are seldom anticipated
ahead of time for making adequate preparation to solve them. Without
prior preparation to solve anticipated problems, most problem solving
behaviour becomes chaotic, unplanned, and unorganised. Failures to
solve problems are then attributed to the complex and unanticipated
 R N. Kanwgo / Culture and work alienation a05

nature of the problem, rather than to the lack of futuristic thinking of

the individual.
There is another aspect to Indian time perspective. Time is often
considered in an abstract philosophical way as being external, i.e. ever
present but never passing. Thus, delays in actions or slowness at work
are easily tolerated as normal. Deadlines, time targets, punctuality, etc.
are meaningless. People are very much used to taking in their stride, the
familiar, ‘foot dragging’ bureaucratic response: action/decision will be
taken in ‘due course’ of time.
Finally, the tradition of the joint family systems, creates problems of
meeting obligatory demands from relatives, friends, superiors, co-
workers, and subordinates. Such demands often conflict with organisa-
tional and task requirements. For instance, jobs are offered to candi-
dates not on the basis of their job competency, but on the basis of
demands from superiors, relatives, and friends. Conflicting demands
from significant others lead to misplacement of priorities in job activity
and mis-allocation of resources. Planning gets disrupted and personal
effectiveness is lost. Besides, under the constant influence of conflicting
demands from significant others, the individual experiences dissonance,
and, to reduce such dissonance, develops hypocritical habits of ‘show-
ing an honest face’ but actually doing something else. Pressure from
relevant others in a tradition-bound family culture forces the individual
to sacrifice organisational and task objectives for the sake of maintain-
ing personalized relationships. Work ethic is sacrificed for family ethic.

Employee’s on-thej o b work experience

Besides the above mentioned predisposing socialisation influences,

work alienation also results from the work experiences within organisa-
tions. Employee work experiences that contribute to work alienation
can be divided into three broad categories: those related to the nature
of tasks performed on the job (task-related experiences), those related
to the nature of rewards or compensation system (reward-related
experiences) and those related to the nature of superior-subordinate
relation (supervision-related experiences). Employees’ work behaviour
is mainly determined by these three sets of job perceptions: the
requirements of what the employees are expected to do on the job, the
returns of material, social, and psychological benefits the employees are
806 R N. Kanungo / Cultwe and work alienation

going to receive in.return for their work, and the manner in which the
employees are treated by their superiors.

Task-related experiences
Work motivation suffers if there are no clear job expectations
regarding what the employee is supposed to do on the job, and whether
he can get what he values most through his job behaviour for the
satisfaction of his important needs. No one would perform adequately
on the job when one lacks job clarity, and is unable to satisfy his
pressing needs.
Many employees do not have clear task objectives. Very often, they
have confused knowledge of what their responsibilities are, what task
goals or targets they should be aiming for, what paths or procedures
they should be following to reach such targets and how they are moving
on these paths. Lack of job clarity in the employees’ mind is the fault
of management. Managements fail to develop adequate job descrip-
tions and job standards which might clarify employees’ duties and
responsibilities. Supervisors fail to provide their subordinates with
concrete task goals, and specified time periods for completion of the
job.
Furthermore, neither supervisors nor subordinates receive proper
feedback of work progress because of the absence of a systematic
reporting system and feedback procedures. Reporting and feedback
systems at work are simply absent, and the employees know it. When
standards of performance are an unknown quantity in the organisation
(in the minds of all employees including management), the problem of
increasing motivation for improving performance becomes meaning-
less. Employee motivation and performance can improve only when the
employees have a clear job perception with regard to what is required
of them for attaining very specific task goals within some prescribed
time by following some well tested paths (i.e. a work method). Task
clarity, goal specificity, and targeted time for task completion con-
stitute the minimal condition for improved work motivation and per-
formance.

Reward-related experiences
Even if job clarity is a necessary condition for worker motivation
and productivity, it is not sufficient. What is also needed is to provide
employees with job outcomes or rewards and compensations that the
 RN. Kanungo / Cubure and work alienation 807

employees consider relevant for satisfaction of their needs. It must be

kept in mind that not each and every reward is effective in inducing
greater work motivation among employees. Rewards valued highb by
employees are more effective than less valued rewards. An employee
who values job promotion more than increased salary will not be
motivated by more money. Managements must determine how the
employees value various rewards before utilizing them for increasing
motivation.
Several other characteristics of rewards also come into play. For
instance, while receiving a reward, if an employee perceives the situa-
tions to be inequitable by comparing himself with co-workers, his work
motivation will be lowered. If an employee finds that a junior co-worker
with an inferior work record gets a promotion along with him, then
promotion as a reward will act to lower rather than increase his
motivation. Thus perceived equity ofa reward is an important source of
increased work motivation.
Another important characteristic of rewards that make them motiva-
tionally effective is its contingency on job behauiour. A reward that is
received as a result of high performance is more effective in inducing
high performance in the future, than a reward that is not dependent on
performance. If the money one gets at the end of the month is not
dependent on one’s day-to-day job performance, an increase in salary is
not going to increase motivation for higher job performance. On the
other hand, since the receipt of one’s salary depends on one’s being
present on the last day of the month, the attendance record on that day
would be higher than any other day of the month.
Besides the perceived value or importance, the equity among co-
workers and contingency of job outcomes, two other reward character-
istics seem to influence motivation of employees. They are reward
uisibiliry or concreteness and reward immediacy following job perfor-
mance. A job outcome that is highly concrete and tangible becomes
more visible and salient in the minds of employees. Such outcomes like
money, tend to be pursued with greater vigour or create higher levels of
work motivation than less tangible outcomes like job autonomy or job
responsibility. Finally, an outcome or reward that immediately follows
high performance is more effective in maintaining the performance,
than a reward that is delayed. Recognition of one’s work immediately
after its accomplishment is more motivating than its recognition two
808 RN.Kanungo / Culture and work alienation

years later when the employee has already forgotten that for which he
is being rewarded.
In many Indian organisations, compensation schemes are set up and
administered without any consideration of their value, equity, con-
tingency, visibility, and timing. Employees are hired with the under-
standing of receiving a compensation package that is largely time-based,
rather than performance or skill-based. Employees know that their
skills and performance have no relation to the salary and benefits they
receive from the organisations. Many so-called performance- or merit-
based rewards are clearly perceived as arbitrary and inequitable since
the employees work in an inadequate (mostly non-existent) appraisal
system. They are often ill-informed about the reward system and
consequently perceive a state of randomness or arbitrariness in reward
allocation. Since job performance does not bring in the sought-after
reward, they feel impotent in controlling the reward through their job
behaviour and consequently develop apathy toward their job. They
withdraw their energy from the job and engage in organizationally
dysfunctional activities (gossiping, ingratiating supervisors, etc.) hoping
that such activities w i l l bring in the valued rewards (status in the eyes
of co-workers, or perhaps a promotion or accelerated salary-increment
from superiors). Organizationally dysfunctional behaviour among In-
dian employees is so pervasive that like the black market money
crippling Indian economic system, blackmailing at work (through de-
liberate inefficiency and apathy) is destroying the moral fabric or
Dharma and Karma ethic of the Indian society.

Supervision-related experiences
In addition to the lack of task role clarity and inadequate reward
system, many Indian organisations emphasize bureaucratic practices
with excessive reliance on rules and regulations. Such practices create
an organisational norm that is perceived by employees as cold and
impersonal. Workers in these organisations see themselves as legalistic
robots guided by rules and regulations of a depersonalized organisa-
tion. An impersonal and legalistic environment alienates workers from
both their job and the organisation. Organizational interests are seen as
separate and distinct from the interests of the workers, and workers’
behaviour is often directed toward meeting their own interests even at
the cost of organisational interest.
Supervisors and executives within organisations who engage in such
I. Historial Predisposing
Causes:
Socialization Leading Stable Behavior Reflected Three Levels
Practices to - in QLE!iuG

(a) Authoritarian
Practices
~ Dependence
-
(a) Personal Ethic
of Helplessness
(b) Noncontingent (b) Organizational Alienation 8
Reward System and Low \
Personalized Productivity c,
Relationship 3
s
(c) Religious -- Lack of Futuristic (c) Idealized
Traditionalism Thinking Family Context
Work Ethic s%
(d) Extended Kinship - Importance of Meeting B
Network Obligatory Damands P
2.
8
Fig. 1. A n explanatory model ofworker alienation in India.

[Continued on /allowing page 1

11. On-the-Job Precipitating
Causes :
organizational Leading Resulting
Eracticea to Job Perceotions in Job Motivation

rn
4-
(a) Inadequate Job ~ ~ Lack of Job
Descriptions, Job __t
Standards
(b) Inadequate Reporting
System and Feedback -
Procedure (I Work Methods

(c) Administering Rewards Perceived Absence of Alienation

- that are Noncontingent- Reward for Good
Performance commitment
and Low
Productivity
(d) Inadequate and Perceived Inequity /
Arbitrary Reward Allocation- of Rewards

(e) Bureaucratic Practices Perceived

-
(f) Lording Behavior
-
- Env ironment
Perceived j’
Powerlessness
Fig. 1 (continued).
 R N. Kanungo / Culture and work alienation 811

bureaucratic practices are often more interested in lording power ouer

others than in achieving organisational objectives through their sub-
ordinates. Such lording behaviors of people in authority position within
organisations often manifest in the forms of personal and public
criticism of employees, condescending or patronizing attitudes shown
toward subordinates, maintaining a certain psychological (and physi-
cal) distance from subordinates, and using rigid, legal and coercive
styles of supervision. As several researchers (Ashforth 1986; Kipnis
1976) have argued, through lording power over others, supervisors and
executives use power for personal aggrandizement and devaluing the
worth of other employees. Employees in subordinate positions in turn
feel low in self-esteem, powerless and alienated at work.
The indigenous variables responsible for worker alienation in the
Indian context are summarized in fig. 1. These variables are divided
into two broad categories: predisposing (cultural) and precipitating
(organisational) factors responsible for worker alienation. Identifica-
tions of these two types of factors in other developing countries should
help us understand workers’ alienation in those countries better than
the existing Western models. Attempts at de-alienation in a developing
country context, therefore, have to deal systematically with both the
indigenous cultural and organisational practices, rather than blindly
following prescriptions derived from the Western models. Changing
certain accepted cultural practices through intervention at the societal
level is often a very difficult and slow process. However, attempts for
reformative changes at the macro level should be one of the major goals
of development projects in Third World countries. These attempts over
a period of time, tend to generally alter the prevailing culturally
determined attitudes (such as authoritarianism, traditionalism, etc.)
that contribute to work alienation. But with these changes, work
organisations must also bring about appropriate changes in their prac-
tices if worker alienation has to be avoided.

References

Ashforth, B.E.. 1986. ‘The experience of powerlessness in the operating core of the machine
bureaucracy’. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Blamer, R, 1964. Alienation and freedom: The factory worker and his industry. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
812 R N. Kanungo / Culture and work alienation

Chao, Y.T., 1988. Corporate culture and Chinese management. Keynote speech, International
Symposium on Social Values and Effective Organization, November 26-30, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hackman, J.R. and G.R Oldham, 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16.259-279.
Herzberg, F.. 1968.One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review,
J a n w - F e b m , 53-62.
Inkeles. A. and D.H. Smith, 1974. &coming modem: Individual change in six developing
countries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kanungo, RN.. 1971. The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited. Psychological
Bullelin 86, 119-138.
Kanungo, RN.. 1981. Work alienation and involvement: Roblems and prospects. International
Revim of Applied psYch010g~30,l-16.
Kanungo, RN., 1982. Work alienation: An integrative approach. New York: Praeger.
Kapp. W.K., 1963. Hindu culture, economic development and economic planning in India.
Bombay: Asia Publishing
Kipnis D.,1976.The powerholdcrs. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
hurler, EE and J.R Hackman, 1971.Corporate profits and employee satisfaction: Must they be
in conflict? California Management Review 14.46-55.
Man, K., 1932. Economic and philosophical manuscripts'. In: K. Maor and F. Engels,
Gesamtausgbe, Vol. 3. Berlin: Marx-Engels Institute (first published in 1844).
Man. K., 1968. 'Critique of the gotha programme'. In: K. Man and F. Engels, Sclected works.
New York: International Publishas ( f i t published in 1875).
Maslow. A.H., 1954.Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
Mehta, P., 1976. From economic to democratic commitment: The role of worker participation.
Vialpa (4)l. 39-46.
Mehta, P.. 1978. Objective and subjective factor in employee satisfaction. Indian Journal of
Industrial Relations 2(13), 433-444.
O F , C., 1978. The Work values Of Westem and tribal black CIXIPIOYCCS. Journal of Crm-Cult-
ural Psychology 9. 99-112.
Rabinowiy S. and D.T. Hall, 1977. Organkational research on job involvement. Psychological
Bulletin 84. 265-288.
Rotter, J.B., 1966.Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs 80(1), 1-28.
Seeman, M., 1959.On the meaning of alienation. American Sociological Review 24,783-791.
Shepard, J.M.,1971. Automation and &enation: A study of office and factory workers. Cam-
bridge. MA: M.I.T. Ress.
Weber, M., 1930.The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. London: Men and Unwin.
Weber,M., 1958.The religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism. (H.H. Gcrth
and D. Martindale US. and eds.) Glencoc, CT Free h.

Cette ttude soutient quc les explications thtoriques existantes de I'alitnation au travail et les
pratiques administratives correcuices mists au point dans le mondc occidental podde nt une
valeur d'application interculturelle limit&. Cet argument a t appuyt d'abord en identifiant l a
biais culturels inhCrents aux modkles utplicatifs occidcntaux de I'alitnation et ensuite cn indiquant
comment un tel biais nc r k i t pas A expliquer adtquatement l'alitnation au travail, ainsi que le
phknomhe oppod d'implication au travail, dans des sociktts orientals cornme I'Inde. Enfin,
cettc ttudc examine le r8le de Ccrtaines variables indighes critiques qui scraicnt responsables du
dtveloppement dc I'alihation cha les travailleurs Indiars. Lc cas d a travailleucs Indiens fournit
unc illustration de cc que la recherche sur I'alihation a besoin dans Ic contcxte d'un pays en voie
de dCveloppemcnt: Cvitn la foiie d'acccptcr sans esprit critique les modtles #explication oc-
cidentaux et encourager la dtcouverte d'explications indighnes.
Copyright of International Journal of Psychology is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.