Bureaucracy and Development Administration

Bureaucracyand Development

Administration

BUREAUCRACYAND DEVELOPMENT

ADMINISTRATION

V A PAI PANANDIKERS S KSHIRSAGAR

CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCHNEW DELHI

O tSZS by V A Per PeraroxER AND

S S KsHrnsecan

PRINTED IN INDIABY N S RAY, THE BOOK CENTRE LTD,,rog, srxrH RoAD, sroN (nesr), nourey-4oo o22.

PUBLISHED BY THE CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH,c-6, colrurncrAl AREA, pAScHrMr MARG,VASANT VTHAR, NEW DELHr-r ro o57.

Contents

Preface

IN:rnonucrloN

Mrrnooor,ocv or Rl,srancE

J Pnorrr,r or Dnvslopl{nNt PrnsoNNrr,

Butreucnetrc CgenAcrnnrsrrcs or DBvnToPMENT

ADlvTNISTRATION

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

BunBeucnatrc Anep:ra:rroN ro DnvslopMsNrAourNtstnerroN

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

DrvrtoplrnNtar- CHenecrtnrsncs

Bunneucracv arlo Dnvrropurur AolttNtsrRATIoN

- Au Ovrnvrrw

Appendices

Besrc T,lnrss oN Runreucnarrc Pnorrrns

II Qursrrowt.lernn

Ind,ex

vlr

r7

28

48

5

6

4,1

101

r32

156

r67

203

Preface

Tns rascrNeuoN oF bureaucracy to the social scientists is only matchedby their deep-seated fear of the great institution. During recent history ofmankind the growth of state, state power, and consequently of bureaucracy'has aroused both the curiosity of scholars as also their apprehensions.

Does the expansion of the role of the state inevitably mean theuncontrolled growth of the bureaucratic leviathan? lVill bureaucract'gobble' up democracy? Holv can man manage to rcconcile these fir'oinherently difierent types of institutions? Can democracies survive rvithoutbureaucracies? If not, hor,rr are they to be married?

The issues are real and will confront human civilization for a long timeto come. Some scholars like Robert Michels etc. see the inexorable process

. of bureaucracies and the consequential oligarchies sr.rallor.ving r democraticinstitutions. Others are not willing to give up the ghost and rvould ratherfight out the issues.. The problem is even more complicated in the developing societies rvhcrcthe countervailing institutions are weak. and hence bureaucracl' takcs lcommanding position. The issues become even .rnore complex given tlrepaucity of state instruments and state options for tr:anslating its policies andprogrammes of development. Everywhere the bureaucracv emerges as thclogical or evcn the inevitable instrument for transforming traditional socie-t ies into modern ones.

If this be so, the vital question is: Is bureaucracy capable of performingthe tasks? Principally does it have the essential values and attitudes neces-

sary for performing these tasks? Wrat are the relationships betr.r'een bure:ru-cratic values and developmental values?

It is with these basiC concerns that. 1ve had undertaken the presentstudy for the Administrative Reforms Commission and to rvhom rve hadsubmitted a preliminary Report in the late sixties. We felt. horvever. thatthe studv had rnany more implications, both theoretical and practical, ancltherefore deserved to be presented in much greater detail and analvsisto students and practitioners and even lay-readers in Government andPublic Administration.

In presenting this study, our objective is to focus attention of researchersand students of bureaucracy on its fundamental administrative dimensionsespecially in relation to development. All the more so since developingcountries appear to rely increasingly on the bureaucratic apparatus forperforming the critical policy and administrative functions in development.

The study is presented in eight chapters. Chapter r, the Innoduction, is

followed by chapter 2 on the research methodology u-sed' f1 -chapter 3

we deal loiitr ttri profile of the developmental personnel studied in terms

of their demograpiric characteristics. Chapter 4 presents the frndings rela-

ting to the natuie and extent of the bureaucratization obtaining in the

Goiernment agencies included in the stud,v. The working climate of these

agencies is reported in chapter 5, n'hile chapter 6 describes the extent

oi adaptation of the civil servants and the agencies in r'l'hich they serve, to

their developmental role. The relationships between the bureaucratic

characteristici on the one hand and the requirements of the developmental

role on the other are analysed in chapter 7' Lastly, chapter 8 con-

sists of an overview of bureaucracy as a form of organisation and its com-

patibility r'vith development administration'' We aiknowledge our deep gratitude to the Administrative Reforms Com-

mission for encouraging ui to undertake this project and the Indian Insti-

tute of Public Administration for providing considerable initial support.

In particular, we 'lvish to thank Dr J. N. Khosla, former Director, IndianInsiitute of Public Administration, Nerv Delhi, for all his help. We also

rvish to acknor,tledge the excellent research support provided by Shri S' N'Slvaroop and Kumari Asha Kothari. specially in conducting the ficlcl rvork.

trVe wish to record our special thanks to the four governmental agencies

and the respondents of the study whose cooperation rn'as vital to the con-

rluct of our.research. \ve were indeed pleasantly surprised at their rvilling-ness to share with us their views, attitudes 'and assessments on matters

affecting development administration.Dr A. S. Deshpande, Dr B. L. Mahesh'rvari, Prof D. L. Sheth, Dr Kuldcep

\.{athur and Dr Udai C. Desai, amongst several others, were kind enough

to send us their detailed comments on the various drafts of the studv.Finally, r'e record our appreciation of the excellent administrative sup-

port lent by Shri Y. L. Nangia and the finc tt'ping assistance at various stages

of the draft provided bv Sarvashri Trimbak Rao and P. K. Yagneswaran.

vlll

Nerv DelhiMarch, 1978

PREFACE

V A Per P,qNeNmxnnS S KsHrnsec.ln

Introduction

Dr,rrnropltnNr coNcERNs of emerging nations the world over in the lastthree decades or more have brought the state aPParatus sharply in focus.

The two vital instruments of the state for the completion of any criticaldevclopment task have been found to be: (a) the political apparatus, and(b) the system of public administration. The focus in developing countrieshas been on both, rvith the political apparatus receiving first attention.This is but natural. Ultimately it is left to one or two crucial institutionsto galvanize the energies of the nation and direct the efforts of the bulkof the pcople lvho in most of the developing countries are generally back-

rvard, inarticulate and slightly removed from the Process of development.Outside thc socialist 'w'orld, ansrvers to questions on the political

apparatus have varied from country to country. Several developing nationsappear to find a democratic political system not suitable for- bringingabout the required socio-economic transformation which development

'calls for although a few countries like India have preferred the classical

democratic political system as the most suitablc. This is a decision whichhas profound implications not only for the entire governmental system butfor the developmental process itself.

In its own rvay, unlike many developing countries and even unlike manydcmocratically organised developing polities, India has preferred a farmore activist role for the state. 'lhrough the institution of national plan-ning rvhich is essentially an element taken from the socialist countries,and through its policies Lowards a socialist pattern of society, India has

given the state a prominent role in the socioeconomic development of thecountry - a matter of deep import to the manner in which the nationalobjcctives of development are to be achieved.

In a country 'n'ith a sharply differentiated ideological party system, andhighly devcloped gr:assroots political organisations, this could mean thatthe burden of socio-economic development is borne by the party apParatus.In the Indian political system (at the Centre as well as in the States), theparty apparatus does not .impinge on the administrative system as forcefullyand tends to get confined essentially to the highest level, namely, theCabinet. In other rvords, the political apparatus here affects the adminis-trative system in a more limited measure than it does in a system wherethe party is essentially in control of the administration.

Inherent in such a situation is the shift in power and authority in favourof the civil service. In the context of the Indian political system this has

come to mean that the civil service is the principal instrument of state

BUREAUCRACY AND DIiVELOPMENT ADTIINISTRATION

policy, and more imporranrl,v ir is the onlv r.ehicle of administrative policy.

ivith th" result that the civil service begins to take upon itself many a

task lvhich would, in a differcnt context, be essentially politrcal. not inany partisan sense but in terms of irnplementing it as a policy.

The emergence of the administrative systern varies consitlerably indifferent countries, and some of them have been createcl virtualtv from

scratch. In such a context which obtains in miny an African nation todav,

the administrativc s,vstem tends to be opportunistic in signilicant respects.

In India, hor'r'cver, the administrative systcrn has a strong personalitv of

its orvn, going back into British and even pre'British history and influencedirr several wa,vs bV thc Nfacaulavan traditions of the r qth centurv adminis-

trati\e lheon'.- The Indian administrative s,vstem has taken great pride in its non-

partisan, neutral, and constitutionally based status and in its role in thegovernance of the countrv. This is good as far as it goes and mav have

been exceedingl,v reler,ant if the functions of thc state which non' devolve

upon the administrative system had stayed the same as the r gth centuryor traditional maintenancc functions of the state. viz. of regulation. t:rx or

revenue collection and lar'l' and order. \Vith the Indian administrativesystem steeped as it is in the various control instruments, cspeciallv those of

the enforcement, these functions have become almost its second nature.Thcse traditional functions had a certain logic, viz' l'ith the exercise offorce and state ,authoritv over the people and as such crirical fttnctions ofa colonial or imperial administration. They are also relativclv simple func-tions in the sense that they represent a one-rvay traffic from the civilservants to the people. There are felv or no compulsions of responsivencssto the people's needs or feelings; no need to heed to their desires andasoilations.

The logic of developmental activities is, horvever, diflerent. DeveloP'mental process does not have only an economic aspect. It is also importantl,v(and perhaps more so in developing countries), a process of social change,

of a change in the values, attitudes and behaviour, even in the vocabular,vof the people. Success in developmental activities, unlike in traclitionalactivities, cannot therefore be achieved rvithout cbncurrence ancl even

activc involvement of the people. It hangs critically on the attitudes andresponses of the public. If they accept thc directions of change of the

clcvelopnrent sought, the hope for effectivc state performance rvould be

high. On the other hand if they do not, the state programmes r,vould be

only partially successful. In a traditional society like India, attitudinalbarriers to development H'ould be at least as important as, if not moreimportant than, the structural barriers. Any realistic del'elopment pro'gramme must therefore havc .plans and strategies for removing them. Fromall evidence. traditional state activiiies have been least concerned rvithbringing abour social changes in the country.

In other words, the fundamental values of a der-elopmentally orientedadministrative apparatus have to be different from those of the traditional

Introd'uction

one. The question rve are raising here is : Is development administration

di{Iercnt fr-orn traditional achninistration ? The ansrver is a clefinitc 'Yes''

Surelv it is not possible to have a static, control-lnindcd state aPPeratus

anrl expect it to supervise and bring about something as funclamcntal

as social change. Af thc srtmc timc l'e appreciate the importance of

traditional administralive fgnctions to provide the necessarv suPPol't to

development.al e{forts of the govcrnments of developing countries' But,

it is inconceivable that rvhile one part of the aclministrative s,vstern

concerns itself rvith development, the other or the more traditional part

of the administration continues to function in the old stylc botJr in terms

of content and procedures. If the developmdnt Process l's to progress

smoothly the latier has perforce to partake of the philosgPll' 9f !h"former. But rvhat u'e fincl it -utty a developing countr)r like India is that

tlre ne$- tasks of development are being assigned to the traditionaladministrative machinery for implementation.

By all tiris n-e do not mean to suggest that social change is an easily

definablc or even administrable concept. It is indeed not. But to the extentthat social change is the crux of development administration, it is strikinglycliffercnt from traditional administration. Despite imPortant strrrcturalconnotations ancl implications development administration is not'merelya structiral concept. It implies essentiallY an orientation ior'r'ards bringingabout changes nhich di{Ierentiates it from the status quo orientation of

traditional .administration. This obviously has profound implications forthe organisational systems from both the sttuctural and behaviouralpoints of view.

The crucial questio.n arising from the foregoing. discussion is rvhetherthe traclitional 'bureaucratic' structural and behavioural l a.lies and normsare at all compatible n ith the requiremcnts of development administra-tion? \Vhether the tlvo are not basically antagonistic to cach other and inthat sense contratlictory?

The hypothesis of the study l'as in facr that the present bureaucraticorganisation of the civil sen,ice in India is incompatible with its deve-

lopmental role. Bureaucracy hcre is taken to mean essentially the civilservice system because of the key place it holds in the execution of deve-

lopmental tasks. This Indian circumstance is npt a necessary adjunct ofstate-craft. N'Iany other devcloping countries lrave follor'ved drastically different patterns. T'he most notable of these is the Chinese experiment rvherethe Communist Party acts as a vital lever of bringing about changes. Atthe grass-l'oots le'r'el thc commune organisation. with its decentralised porverstructure developed out of the local community, plays the crucial role.

In.comparison lr.ith China the developmental path being followed in Indiaand several other countries has beeen rather traditional. Nlost of the deve'lopmental practices in these countries get rvelded together in a big adminis'trative exercise as alternatives to the traditional institutions have not beendeveloped or have not been allon'ed to be developed. The rePresentativeor democratic system has meant essentially decisional interfacing at the

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMEN.T ADMINISTRATION

Central or State Government levels, lvith little or no p,rlitical involvementat the actual administrative level.

As a result the entire developmental process is run b,v the civil sen'icelargely according to its own predilections and sense of priorities witl-r orwithout political commitment and objectives. There is an oft-repeatedcriticism that the political decisions and commitments get watered dorvnby the administrative processes, with fer,v political correctives possible atthe grass-roots levels; that even the administrative system has no built-inchecks as in the French system with its administratir.e larv and organisa-tional safeguards such as the administrative tribunals, to prcvent abuses ofpower by the bureaucracy. Consequently it

_ is alleged th,at the Indian

developmental apparatus continues to operate on traditional lincs 'rvith allits rigid framer'vork and behavioural norms and pattern.s.

The present study lvas addressed to the abof/e noted vital dimension ofthe orientation of the civil servants in India, rvhich is often described as

'bureaucratic'. Obviously the study r'l'ould not have been possible withoutmaking an empirical assessment of the 'bureaucratic' nature of the Indiancivil service. The study is not horvever merely confined to such assessment.More importantly, it explores the question, ,as mentioned earlier, t'hctherthe bureaucratic orientation of the administrative s,vstem is compatiblcrvith its developmental tasks and responsibilities.

To recapitulate, the study mainly aims at (a) empiricall,v establishingthe bureaucratic character of the civil sen/ice system in India, (b) dis-covering the extent of development orientation of the civil service system,(c) examining the factors in the personal and organisational life of thecivil servants that are associated with their bureaucratic and developmentalorientations, and (d) examining the compatibility of the bureaucratic svstemof administration with the developmental functions.

Towards the development of an analytical framervork and a reasonablemethodology to test the hypotheses of the study, it r'r'as irnportanr to serforth the characteristics of (a) 'bureaucracy', and (b) 'development ad-ministration'.

Tnr CoNcrpr or BunnArrcn,rcy

. The cruciality of'bureaucracy both as a form of organisation and as asocial system t'as perceived by sociologists beginning rvith Max \Ve berand followed by several others. On the presuppositions and causcs ofbureaucracy, Weber felt that "The development of the money economy,in so far as pecuniary colnpensation of the officials is concerned is a prc-supposition of bureaucracy. 'foday it not only prevails but is predominant.This fact is of very gr:eat importance for the lvhole bearing of bureaucracy,yet by itself it is by no means decisive for the exisrence of btreaucracy".lWeber proceeded to point out that bureaucracies. historically rather dis-

r, Weber, Max, From Max Weber :, Essays in Sociology, Ed. Hans H. Gerth andC. Wright Mills, Iondon, Oxford University nress, 1946, p, :o4.

Introd,ucti,on

tinctly developed and quantitatively large, existed in ancient Egypt, Rome

especially during the Dioclatian monarchv and the Byzantine polity and

China from the time of Shi Hwangti until the soth century.2 Bureaucratilzation by itself horvever rvas no guarantee of the success of the state. ""Iheancient Roman Empire disintegrated internally in spite of increasingbureaucratization and even during its very execution."s Even so, large-

scaie bureaucratic systems have been the continuing phenomenon of thepost-industrial revolution era and remain one of the most important instru-ments of state Power toda)r.

Bureaucracy has been defined as "The type of organization designed toaccomplish large-scale administrative tasks by systematically coordinatingthe work of many individuals."a

Bureaucracies are crucial elemeirts of the political system all over theworld and have been recognised as such more or less openly' As Bensman

and Rosenberg note, "bureaucracy is not intrinsic to communism, socialismor capitalism. It can exist in any type of society, with or lvithout privateproperty, and in a basicalll, dictatorial or a basically democratic climate."5While horver.er bureaucracy may be a useful single concept to describe theorganisational system in societies rvith varied political systems, the con-text and specific character of the bureaucracy differ a great deal accordingto the nature of the political system itself. A bureaucracy staffed and con-trolled by the Communist Party in the Soviet Union or China is a differentsystem from that in the United Kingdom, the United States of Americaor for that matter, France.

The problem of bureaucracy has been somewhat more complex in deve-

loping countries rvhere social and political institutions are relatively less

developed and where, therefore, the state has had to depend upon. bureau-cracy as its major instrument of its activist functions. This has meant thatthe bureaucraciis in countries like India have had to perform functionswhich in the non-socialist developed countries are performed by a varietyof other institutions. The dilemrna is somewhat less, though perhaps stillpresent, in the socialist countries rvhere the bureaucratic system is moreintegrally intertwined rvith the political system.

Rrvrrw or Bun seucnerrc Tnronv

Three key contributors to the classical literature on bureaucracy areKarl Nlarx, Robcrt Michels and Max Weber.

While bureaucracy was not central to Marr<ian thought, Marxist inter-pretation of bureaucracy and its relationship to the porver structure of

z. I bid. p. zo4.g. Ibid,. p. zog.

4. Blau, Peter M. and tr{arshall W. Nfeyer, Bureau.cracy in a Modern Society, NewYork, Random House, 1956, p.4.

5. Bensman, Joseph and Bernard Rosenberg. I{ass, Class and Bureau.cracy, Engle-wood Clifis, New Jeney, Prentice Hall, 19'63, p. 548.

'6 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

society and his ideas on bureaucracy must be understood rvithin the generalframework of his theory of class conflict, the crisis of capitalism and theadvent of Communism.

According to Marx the formal and legalist notion of bureaucracy (largelvHegelian) does not represent its true nature; it is simply ttrc falsc imagcthat the bureaucracy has of itself, an image rvhich derives from lerv books

and administrative regulations. Hegel's bureaucracy takes its mcaning fromthe opposition between the particular interests of thc corporafions andthe common interbst of the state. According to N{arx, this opposition is

meaningless as the state cloes not represent the general intcrest but thcparticular interests of the dominant class, itself a part of the cil'il society.

From this viervpoint, bureaucracv constitutes a very specific and parti-cular social group. It is not a social class, although its existence is linkedrvith the division of society into classes. More preciselv, buteaucracl, as thcstate itself, is an instrument by r.t'hich the dominant class excrcises its domi'nation over the other social classes.o

In other lvords, in Marxian thought bureaucrao' does not occlrpv anorganic position in the rsocial structure, since it has no direct links rviththe process of production. In thc Marxian sense its existence ancl clcr.clop-ment has a transient and parasitic character. 'l'he bureaucracy's mainfunction is to maintain the status quo and the privileges of its masters.?

tr\tithin the broader framervork of class struggle in the l{arxian inter-pretation, bureaucracy is one specific instance of thc general process ofalienation, a concept r,vhich is central to Nlarxian thought, It is b,v thisprocess of alienation that the social forces escape from the control of man,attain an independent existence and finall-v turn against man, their creator.According to Marx. bureaucracy becomes an autonomous and opprcssiveforce which is felt by the majoritv of the people as a mvsterious and distantentity.s

According to Marx, incompctence is the other major feature of bureau-cracy. Horve'l'er, this incompetence does not intimidatc the bureancrats tothink of themselves as capable of doing anything. N{arx notcs that thisbureaucratic imperialism acts as a possessive forcc on the bureaucrats, thatthey have a useful function to perform. N{oreover, this process of self-aggrandisement is accompanied b1' rvhat N{arx calls the 'sordid ntaterialism'of bureaucracy: the internal struggle for promotion, careerism. the infantile attachment to trivial symbols, status and prestige.s

Marx thought that in the ultimate analvsis bureaucracl, as an instru-ment of class structure will become redundant and rvith the evolution ofthe Communist State the bureaucracy like the state tvill rvither arvay.

6. Monzeiis, Nicos P.: Orgonisation uttd Bureauctttcl, Chicago, Aldine PublishingCompany, 1967, p. 8.

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

[ntroduction 7

The aclministfative tasks, losing their cxploitative character, l'ill consist

of the administration of things and not o[ people'1.

Robert l{ichels concentratecl his anal,vsis of bureaucracY on tht: internal

politics of large central organisations'. Mic-lrels salv in bureaucrac,v' the

most striking ionfi.mutinn of the Machiavellian theses about elite d.mina-

tionandthemeagrechancesofclemocracyoraclasslesssocietyintlremodern rvorld.

Very briefly, Michels' famous 'iron law of oligarch,v' statcs.,that.modern

large-scale organisations' by their vcr.-v structnre., are necessaril,v oligarchic'

Fro"m a seriei of his obser-vat.ions of German institutions, ]'{ichels calcu-

lated that all big organisations tend to develop a bureaucratic structufe

which rules out tire possibilitV of internal 4emocracy. According to N{ichcls

theverysizeanrlcomplexity.ofmoclernorganisationsmakedirectpartici-pation, rvhich is the essence of democracy, increasingly difficult. Rcsides,

ihe hierarchical aspect of the bureaucratic structure and the concentration

of the means of cbmmunication at the toP, make the porvcr position of

the leader impregnable ."

i\,Iax \Veber.o,,uf; p".hop, the only one of the classical thinkers to look

at bureaucracy as an administrative institution'According to \vebcr, "the clecisivc reason fot the aclvancc of bureaucratic

organisatioi has ah.va,vs been its purcl,v technical superiority ol'erânY othcr

foim of organisation."l'9 The \\ieberian definition of the benefits of the

bureaucratii form of organisation are mainly thc follol'ing: "

(r) Bureaucracy is efficicnt since it is staffecl by pco-ple n-ho have.rleve

lopedamethodlt'hich,be,vondquestion,istechnicallysuperiortoadministration b,v amateurs or dabblers.

(z) Bureaucracv is predictable. Since it proceeds from a r'vell-clefined

system of iules enforcerl through the hierarchical s,vstem, top offi

cials have every rcason to expect that ordcrs rvill be dutifully carricd

out.(3) Bureaucracy is impersonal; that it is not influenced by anv primary

group sentiment, or by emotional consiclerations; that it subdues all

personal vagaries and biases.

(4) ilureaucracli is fast. flniformity of rules makes it possible to handle

a vast numbcr of cases speeclily r,r'hich rvould otherrvise be impossible.

. As Weber himself expressed it, "Precision' speed, unambiguitl'', kno'rv-

ledge of files, continuity, discretion, unitY, strict subordination, reduction

of iiiction ancl of material and personal costs - all these are raised to the

optimum point in the strictly bureaucratic administration, and especially

n. Ibitl. p. -to.

tt. Ibitl. p.27.r s. See Gerth H. H.r3. Bensman, Joseph

and C. W. IIills (eds.) oP.

and Bernard Rosenberg, o1b.

cit. p. et 4.cit. p. 267.

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

in its monocratic form."Ia To \\'reber, "Bureaucratization offers, above all,the optimum possibility for carrying through the principle of specializingadministrative functions according to purely objective considerations . . . .

The 'objective' discharge of business primarily means a discharge of business,according to calculable rules and 'rvithout regard for persons'."ts

A government administration so defined must be understood, accordingto Weber, as a part of a legal order that is sustained by a common beliefin its legitimacy. That order is reflected in rvritten regulations, such as

enacted larvs, administrative rules, court precedents €tc. lvhich govern theemployment of officials and guide their administrative behaviour.

Weber himself clarified that his 'ideal type' bureaucracy simplifies andexaggerates the empirical evitlence in the interest of conceptual clarity. Noactual government is bureaucratic in the strict sense of his definition.

Weber pointed out a large number of the characteristics of his 'idealtype' bureaucracy.l6 They were mainly the following:

(r) Bureaucracies are hierarchically organized. "The principles of officehierarchy and of levels of graded authority mean a firml1, orderedsystem of super and subordination in r,r'hich there is a supervisionof the lower officer by the higher ones.r'

(e) Bureaucracies are based on a, systematic division of labour.(3) All bureaucratic operations are governed by a consistent s)'srem of

abstract rules.(4) Bureaucratic operations consist in thc application of these rules to

particulars cases.

(5) Bureaucracies are impersonal in their character, i.e., they function'without regard for persons'.

(6) Bureaucracies are rational in their decision-making; developedburcaucracies "succeed in eliminating from official .business, love,hatred and all purely personal, irrational and emotional elementsrvhich escape calculation".

(7) Rureaucracies are career-based.(8) Recruitment to bureaucracies is based on merit and technical euali-

ficat ions.

Several of Weber's successor social scientists have taken the Weberiantheory in several directions. Robert K. Merton was the first sociologist topoint out the other side.of the bureaucratic picture. He rvent inio thev_arious dysfunctional aspects of bureaucracy. other sociologists like AlvinGouldner, Philip Selznick and others went into various dimensions ofWeberian theory from the sociological point of view.

Robert K. Merton felt that "adherence ro rule s, originally conceived as

r4. Gerth H. H. and C. W. Mills (eds.), op. cit. p. zt4.4. Ibiil. p. ztg.16. Ibi'cl. pp. tgii-244.

Introd,uction

a means, becomes transformed into an end in itself;"rt that there occurs the

familiar process of displacement of goals rvhereby "an instrumental value

becomes a terminal value". He held that "such inadequacies in orientationrvhich involve train€d incapacity clearly derive from structural sources.

The process may be briefly recapitulated. (r) An effective bureaucracy de-

mandi reliability of response and strict devotion to regulations. (z) Such clevo-

tion to rules leads to their transformation into absolutes; thcy are no longerconceived as relative to a set of purposes. (3) This interferes with readv

adaptation under special conditions not clearlv envisaged bY those rvho

drarv up the general rulcs. (4) Thus the very elements which conduce

torvards efficiency in general produce inefficiency in specihc instances....These rules in time become symbolic in case mther than strictlyut ilitarian."B

In other words, manv scholars have vierued bureaucracy n'ith considerablesuspicion on the grouncls that bureaucracy is essentially a self-seeking institution. It displaces goals and tends to place itself and its orvn needs at thecentre of things, thus subverting the basic and essential public valucs and

aspirations. Except perhaps Peter Blau, holvever, there has been no effortby scholars to examine the extent to r'vhich bureaucracie s can be good

vehicles for social change.Bureaucracy as a focal point for research in public administration has

been the theme of considerablc literature in recent years, especiallv in thefield of comparative public administration." The maior problem face<l insuch research is whether thc institution of bureaucracy defined in thetheory can provide a basis for comParative study. Heady, in his analysis ofBerger's research20 suggests that structural characteristics of bureaucracy seem

universal enough to encourage further empirical research to test hypotheses

concerning behavioural patterns.

BUREAUCRATIC CHARACTERISTICS

Not sufficient focus has however been placed in the existing academic

literature on bureaucracy as an administrative institution' To r'r'hat extentare some of the basic \Veberian postulates valid? To r'vhat extent do these

17. Nlerton, Robert K., Sotial I-lteory and Sociul Str cture, New York, The FreePress, r968, p. e53.

ft. Ibid. p. z5g k zg4.rg. See Ferrel Heady, "Comparative Ptrblic Administration: Concerns and Priori-

ties" and Alfred Diamant, "The llureaucratic NIodel: Max Weber Reiected, Redis-covered, Reformed" il Heady, Ferrel and Sybil L. Stokes, Papers in CompanttiaePublic Administration, Ann Albor (Nlichigan), Institute of Public Administration,r96e, pp. t-18 and 59-96. Also Blau, Peter M., The Dynamics ol Bureaucracy, Chicagotlniversity Press, r963, p.3e:.

.?o. See Monoe Berger, "llureaucracy East & West" , A rlministratiae Science

Quarterly, Vol. r (N{arch rg57), pp. r,r8-5rg and Ferrel Heady, "Bureaucratic Theoryand Comparative Adminisrati ott" , Administratiae Science Qunrterly, Vol' 3 (1959)'

Pp.509-525.

l0 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

postulates relate to the realities of actual ficld situations. 'fo lvhat extentare bureaucratic systcms the best instruments of administration ?

These are some of the basic administrativc issues of bureaucratic theorvand need to be urgently probcd into. It is from that point of viov that 'n'e

sought to examine the postulates of the existing bureaucratic theor,v tofind out the extent to rvhich the Indian bure.aucratic system conforms ordoes not conform to them. For purposcs of the stud,v, u'e decicled to leave

out the last trvo characteristics, viz., that bureaucr:rcy is carecr-based andthat recruitment to it is madc on the basis of technical qualifications andmerit. We did so because there are enough stuclies of Indian burcaucracv toshor'y that it is essentiallv career-basecl and that recruitrncnt to it is based

on technical quali{ications ancl on rnerit. \Vc. therefore, conccntrated onthe first six charactcristics listed carlicr, rvhich arc:

Str'uctural characteristics I

(r) Hierarchv, i.e., arrangement of organis.ational pcrsonnel into a chainof superiors and subordinates with corresponding filtration o[ autho-rity and initiat ir t .

(z) Division of labour, i.e.. dillerentiation of functions basecl on specia-lization betlveen o$icials positioned at different organisational levels.

(3) System of rules, i.e., prescription of elaborate rulcs and proceduresto govern the operations of the office and the rights and cluties ofposition incumbents.

B eh aui oural charac t e ri s ti c,;

(4) Impersonality, i.e., discharge of olficial business 'r'r'ithout regard forpersons' and dealing rvith e-ach just as anv other 'case' to be settledaccording to standard norms or 'calculable rules'. It is nbt influ-enced by any primarl' gr',rup scntimcrts r)r emotional considerations.Thus, the tax officers r'r'ould not discriminate bctween two assessees

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

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

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

\Ve have considercd the first fhree. characteristics in thc abol'e list as re.lating essentially to the sructure of bureaucratic organisations since thev setthe basic foundations rvhile the latter three are basically the behaviouralcharacteristics of bureaucracy since they involve decisional situations.

Having defined the institution of bureaucracy in terms of its key charac-teristics, r'l'e considered it uscful to clarify certain phrases often usecl in thisconnection. 'Ihese include the term 'bureaucracv' itself, and the terms

Introilucti.on

'bureaucratization / bureaucratized', and 'bureaucratic'. Of these the use ofthe term 'bureaucracy' has been perhaps most varying. ambiguous. and con-

fusing. In the Iirst place. tle term is commonly used to refer to thc mode of

Govcrnrnent, that is, in the scnse of Governmental bureaucracy. In thissense, the terrn is employed to refer to the body of public servants chargecl

r'vith the responsibility of administering public policics anrl progranrmes'The pcjorative use of t:he term bureaucracy rt'as si.arte(l in the last

centur,v ivhen it was used to dccry the lenqthv and irksome procedurcs antl

rules of thc Government and the narrorv outlook and autocratic bchaviour of

Govcrnment officials. Other be havioural traits subsequentl,v associatcd n'iththe term include red-tapism, procrastination, buck-passing. sccretivcness,

rule ricldenness, etc. Indeed the frequent use of these tcrms both in thcliterature and actual experience of the public has coloured the stercotvpcimage'n'hich most of us hold of a bureaucracy. 'fhis common stereotYpe is

verv much eviden.t in the formul.ations of the Parkinson's 'larv'. \Vhcn a

bureaucrat is thus dubbed as a public servant rvith all or some of the ncga-

tive traits noted above, the phrase 'good burcaucrat', or 'good bureaucracy'bccomes a contradiction in terms.

I)espite many attacks on it, the terrn bureaucracv has continucd to

survive both in rvritine and specch dorvn to the prcs-ent' thcrcb,v implvingthat it is more useful to kecp it than to discard it. \Vhat is necessary is tod,istinguish between the popular derogatorv use of the term and its technicelmeaning or use. Although there are difhculties in nraintaining- such a

distinction, social scientists use 'bureaucracy' to describe a certain phcno-menon associated 'lvith formal, large-scale organisations. Their use signifies zin attempt to conceptualize this phenome non. At the macro leve l,Weber's dcfinition of bureaucracy provides pcrhaps the best available con'

ceptualization of it. Social scicntists thus usc the rvord burcaucracy to rcferto a formal organisation displaying certain characteristics -I'he usage is

intended to be value-neutral: bureaucracy is a particular form of an orga-

nrsation t'ithout connotatiolls of approval or disapproval' This is essen-

tially our position in this stud-v. \Ve have also taken the \{cberian mode-

of bureaucracy for our use because, although manv critics have attackcd it,none has been able to dispensc rvith it.

Another term rvhich has been thc tafget of confusetl interprctation is

'bureaucratization'. Historically. the term lvas used as a sYndrome to de-

scribe the process of reforms in the pultlic administration svstcnl. Roth inEurope and in the tl.s., this process consisted of separation of .administla-tive iasks from the royal household or the political overlorcls, its subclivi-sion an<l commitmcnt to thc public sdrvants, carcer appointment of publicsefiants to ensure long-term conrinuity in administration, appointmenton the basis of merit, enactment of rules and proccdures rclating to adminis-

trative actions, etc. Weber also used the r'vord burearlcratization in a similarsense. Considering lturcaucracl' as a, sociological phenomenon. he argued

on the basis of his obscrvations of post-Industrial Revolution Europc, tl-rat

as a country becbmes more industrialized. its social structure tencls to be-

ll

t2 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

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

Sometimes the rvord bureaucratization is also used in relation to thepublic administration system to refer to the situation in rvhich the publicservants become autocratic, adopt a rigid and unimaginative approach tocitizens' problems and indeed recognise only one rvay communication whichis from them to the citizens. Such a description is analogous to the derGgatory rise of bureaucracy noted above. In keeping with the technical mean-ing of the term bureaucracy to rvhich rve have confined our use of theword in this study, the term bureaucratization also $rould connote nomore than the process of formalization of the organisation.

Lastly, the term 'bureaucratic' most often means one of two things. Itmay be used in place of phrases like 'of Government sen'ants', or 'of thecivil service' or 'in the civil service'. Thus when someone talks aboutbureaucratic ,attitudes and behaviour he is really talking about attitudcsand behaviour of Governmcnt se rvants. Or r,vhen bureaucratic changes arediscussed, the discussion is about chanses in the civil service. The term'bureaucratic' is also used as an acljective to d.escribe a person, an organisation or a mode of thinking and behaviour. We have noted above thatthe word bureaucracy stands for certain structural and behavioural proper-ties. So lvhen an organisation, or an inclividual conforms rvith these pro-perties, it or he is called bureaucratic. Similarly, bureaucratic behaviourwould imply a behavioural pattern that reflects the properties associatedwith the model of a burcaucracy.

We have offered the above terminological explanations to e nsure thatwhenever we use the terms bureaucracy, bureaucr atizatron, and bureaucratic,we are not misunderstood. The context in n'hich rve have used these termswould generally make the meaning obvious. However, lvhenever a specificmeaning is intended or attached to them, this is made clear.

Tnr Coxctpr or DsvrlopN{nNr ADurNrsrRATroN

The rediscovery of the role and nature of the administrative systemrequired to support developmental planning in developing nations is oneof the most striking features of recent literature on public administration.It is now recognised that the ner,v administrarion is hoth quantitatively andqualitatively different, and hence requires diflerent appioaches and tech-niques to those available in traditional theory and in the developed coun-tries of the West. Hence the rubric 'development adminisffation' to denotene w administration that is required for the government of developingcountries.

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

Introducti.on

Riggs, Weidner, Diamant, Abueva, Montgomery, Tarlok Singh, Pai Panan-

diker, etc. It is, however, true that there is as yet no final agreement on

the distinguishing characteristics of development administration. Broadlyspeaking trn'o basic theoretical approaches are available in the studies of

arlminisiration in developing countries - (t) u social the ory emphasizing

the ,un' or ,under, developed state of socio,economic conditions in deve-

troping couritries as a determinant of .administratil,e concerns and activities'

u"? 1t y an organisarion theory emphasizing development of institutionalpolicies ancl practices supportive of development efforts. Both"approaches are

interrelated and have great relevance and deductions from them have gone

into building the total conccPt of del'elopment administration, however

diffused it might be at this point of time.Even though the concept of development administration is a difficult

one the term has acquired a commonsense ring. "-Ihe word 'development'

is intended to indicate those bodies of thought that centre around growthancl directional change. Basically therefore the framer,vork.of developmentgravitates around a planned change r'vhich is derived from a purposefuldecision to effect improvements in a social system . . . . The phrase deve-

lopment adminitration is intrinsically intertwinbd lvith this process ofchange . . . . Essentially, development administration refers to the structure,organisation and behaviour necessary for the implementation of schemes

and programmes of socio-economic change undertaken by the governmentsof developing nations."2r We have accepted the above definition for thepurpose of the present study.

The characteristics of development administration as \re see are thefollowing. First of all, it is esseniiully change-oriented unlike traditional orgeneral administration which is essencially oriented to maintenance ofstatus quo. Development administration on the other hand actively andconsciously attempts to bring about changes both in the substance of a fieldof activity, and whenever necessary in the values and attitudes of people.In that sense, socio-economic disequilibrium at the initial stage and therestoretion of equilibrium at a higher level or of a difierent nature is one

of the inherent consequences of efiective development administration. if hus

in seeking to bring about change, development administration dcliberatelytries to reorient people in directions which contrast and differ from theexisting ones, thereby creating a dynamic disequilibrium. How does theadministrative system in India perceive and understand its role as a change-agent? That is a question the present study seeks to ans$'er.

Secondly, development administration is result-oriented, i.e., it aims atachieving specific results. The performance of various tasks in developmentadministration entails fairly clearcut identification of what is to be gotdone and for rvhat purpose. In that sense, development administration isresult-specific and expresses in most areas fairly clearcut norms of per-

g r. Pai Panandiker, V. A., "Development Administration : An Approach", fndianJournal ol Public Administration, Yol. X No. r (January-March t96{ pp. 95-36.

r3

t.l BURBAUCRACY DEVELOPMENT ADMINTSTRAT1ONAND

formance preferabl,v in quantitatir,e terms as in the economic and indus-trial spheres. Even in tlte social spheres, in.a vast number of areas suchas health, education, etc., the norms are reasonablv clearcut and measurable.'Ihere rvould no doubt bc certain areas lvhere qualitative asscssnent ormeasurement may be more critical and therefore mav have to be used. Inany event, the orientation of development administration is towards achieve-ment of specific results. In other tvords, der-elopment administration rvouldbe judged on the basis of the actual results achieved.

In developing countries the government initiates many changes althoughit' is recognised that in the ultimate analysis, government initiative is nosubstitute for initiative on thc part of the citizens themselves. Developmentbeing a proccss of social change as much as of economic change, it cannotbe brought about by thc use of force or compulsion but by cnsuring thatcitizens willingly cooperate ancl participate in the task of development.Indeed rvithout such cooperation the administrative system stands littlechance of achieving its basic mission. -I-his implies the ability of the publicservants to carry the citizens r,vith them and drar,r. them activelv into thedevelopmental processes. Development administration, therefore. calls fora basic change in the outlook. It means a change from 'giving' to thecitizens r,vhich is t,vpical of traditional administration, ro thar of ,receiving,

frorn the citizens. If this change does not take place, the chances of succeisof the administrative system are remote. With such implications the atti-tude of involving the citizen in the process of change ii a criticai charac-teristic of development administration.

Fourthly, development administration req uires a firm commitment notin the partisan but in the administratile sense. For development adminis-tration to succeed in its directional change the aclm inistratir-c personnelmust have a sense of involr.ement and concern rl'ith the entire rrork effort.unless there is such an involr.ement in the tasks of rle'elopment adminis-tration, there is little prospect of any meaningful internilization of thedevelopmental values rvhich is a crucial dcterminant of performance.

.

Srloy Mr-.rirons

Thc problem of collecting the data for the study r.r,as rather complex.\ve considered the merits of different methodologies and finallr srttledfor the survey method using the quesrionnaire as the principal initrumentof data collection. The details of research methodologl,' us.d ur" describeclin the following chapter.

We do not claim any finality for the method we hal,e emploved. Indeed,n'e recognise the problem of arrir.ing at definite conclusions

' entirelv on

the basis of the methodolog,v, we have follor.r,ed. Horvever, har ins takenas much precaution as possible both in the construction ancl rhc irlminis-tration of 'the questionnaire, and having also concluctecl a follorr-up studvof the same questionnaire. rre believe ihat tu rhe exrenl our obseirationsand conclusions are based on the questionnaire data they could be consi-

l'ntrod,'uction, 15

derecl fairly reliable. It may be mentioned here that the obse 'ation and

discussions lt e hal'e had during the conduct of ti're study in the above

Government agencies also lend suPport to the findings reported h"-1": -.

Ir shoul<l be borne in mind that the present studv lvas not an all-Indiastudy. The finclings and conclusions as they ernerge may not be adequate

for generalising on development administration in the country as a n'hole

alrh6ugh thcy ivoulcl be quite valid for thc agcncies studied. \\te do believe

hori,evJr thai our findings r,r'oulcl be largely supported b,v similar studies

rjf other developmental agencies in the govcrnment to the extent that the

agencies stucliecl by us are re presentari\-e of them. 'I'here rvoulcl certainly be

viriations as the resulls of tic four agencics t ttr]rcd in the plcsenr studl'

themsclves exemplify.Depending upon the .zrdministrative environment. it is like\, as found

in the present stud-v, that the del'cloPment agencies. at the Central and

the Statl levels w'oulcl lic at different points on the dimensions studied by

us. For instance that a development agencY at 'the district level under the

effective panchayat raj administration. e.g., in Gujarat and X{aharashtra.

woulcl be better equipped to perform its dcr,cloprnental role than a sirnilarunit in say Bihar or Assam u'here the panchavat raj administration is weak'

r,vould be a hypothesis \{orth testing.

Wtnnn PRnspECTIvES oF Tr{E SrtrDY

An important question is: Is there a lr'ider rclevance of the study? Thereare two dimensions to this question, -

one internal and the other inter-national. Interrrally speaking, the stuclies of bureaucracri and developmentare undoubtedll, of crucial relevance to the studv of In<lian clevelopmentand socio-economic change. For rcasons alreadv rvell known, the Indianpolitical system has committed itself beyond retreat on a rvhole set ofdevelopmental goals. Having aroused the political exPectations of the peopleas a result, it is not possible. for the political system nor'' to go back on

these commitments. The political s,vstem has also at le ast as of the momentbound itself to the traditional bureaucratic apparatus for bringing aboutthe change. Since the bureaucracy has become its principal tool, or instru-ment, it is naturally important to sec holv fat the bureaucrac-v is able toperform the development tasks. From a practical or polic,v angle, therefore.the role of the bureaucracy is rnost crucial. Indccd it is a matter of funda-mental import vitally related to Indian politl, and the people'

Even from an academic point of vierv, there are many other crucial ques'tions. \Vhat are bureaucracies like? Do they by and large approximate tothe classical \Veberian model? Does the Indian develoPment bureaucracydiffer from.the traditional t,vpe? If so, in r'r'hat respects? Are the structuraland behavioural patterns interrelated? If so, how? Does thc structure affectbehaviour or vice versa? Is bureaucrac,v a slatic or a dynamic phenomenon?

All these are important questions not only to the Practitioners but toscholars in public administration and sociology as well as other disciplines.

16 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPN{ENT ADMINISTRATION

Bure4ucracy will continue to remain an important organisational institu-tion in societies of varied hues. Its differing content rvill, therefore, engagethe attention of researchers for a long time to come.

The study also has broader relevance to other developing societies andcountries which have depended basically upon a tr.aditional bureaucracyas the principal instrument of bringing about change. This is particularlyso in a largc number of Afro-Asian developing countries rvith dcmocrati-cally organised polities. The difficulties they face are similar to those Indiadoes. Horv does one implement change through an cssentially careerist civilser-vice? Is the traditional bureaucracv adecuate to such an enormous taskof social transformation?

To the extent that there are some important findings in the study, theycould have a bearing on similar patterns in the other countries. If so, thisstudy would help in the creation of a nerv body of useful knorvledge onbureaucracy and deve lopme nt administration.

We rvould like to emphasize that the study is a beginning in an importantdirection. It points up both theoretical as r,r'ell as practical problems not tomention problems associated with rcsearch mcthodology. \'Ve r'vould liketo see more r'l'ork before rvider generalisations can be undcrtaken. Thisstudy would, rve hopc, create enough interest among studcnts of publicand comparative administration as r,r'ell as the practitioners in the field.

Methodology of Research

Narunr or rnt Sruoy

As arnnarv noted in the introductory chapter, our objectives in the presentstudy were: (a)- to examine the relevance of bureiucratic theory to anunderstanding of the bureaucracy in India; (b) to find out the extent ofdevelopmental orientation among civil seryants involved in developmentploqu-T.-r.,- (c) to !1d out the significant facrofs in the personal and org.-nisational life of civil servants which can be fruirfullv related to thii,bureaucratic and developmental anitudes; and (d) to examine the compati-bility between rhe bureaucracy as it is and development administration.

The objectives of the study required that we should make it both theoretical and empirical : theoretical in as much as the study examines theapplicability of the theorerical construcr of bureaucracy to ih" civil servicein Ind-ia, and empirical in so far as the study seeks to verify the develop-mental orientation of a sample of the civil servants in terms of certain keycharacteristics of development administration. These foci of the study areintended to_throw light on the adequacy or otherwise of existing theories/concepts. M,ore importantly, however, the study purports to examine thebehaviour of the civil servants at the empirical ievel. \Me believe that suchdiagnoses are invaluable, and. necessary pre-requisites for working out prac-tical improvements in the functioning

-of the'civil service.

The study investigates a relatively little-studied field of bureaucraricbehaviour in India. The body of knowledge available in this area is there-fore understandably scanty. we need to know much more about it beforeprescribing definitive solutions. The study rvas, as a result, undertaken inthe.spirit._of an exproration of cerrain 'behavioural

phenomena retaiinlto the civil servants. Needless. to. emphasize rhar the nnaings J nrr.

""Ji,cannot be regarded as prescriptions; at best they are suggistions.

Su,ncrroN or Acnxcrns auo Seuprn

- The study was conducted among a sample of members of developmentbureaucracy- The term development bureaucracy is used here to ienoiecivil servantsserving in Government agencies essentially engaged in carrv-fg "l: d€velopment programmes, The study included four-such agencies.r wo ot these agencie-s (agencies A and B in the table below) are e"ngacedrn carryrng our development programmes in the industrial

'rector; infril.rne orner two agencies (agencies c and D in the table) are entrusted withdevelopment programmes in the agricultural sector.

18 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

As regards the level of government, agencies A and C belong to the

Union Governqent.. . Both the Union Government agencies are of the

headquarters type,' while agency D in the State Government is dis-

tinct\ a field agency. Agency B is partially a headquarters type and

partially a field type agency: on balance, hor'r'ever, we have consideredit as of the latter type. To facilitate interviews and research efforts, all the

four agencies selected for the study happen to be operating in and aroundthis Union territory of Delhi.

The development process in India has many sectoral dimensions; none-

iheless, agriculture and industry represent fivo crucial sectors of deve-

lopment. Also both the Union Government and the State Government are

r'ecognised important co-partners to bring out the desirable developments.It was, therefore, appropriate that, short of covering a1l the developmentsectors in the study. rve should concentrate on agriculture and industry'Besides, by conducting the study among both central. and state agencies,

we have broadened the empirical base of it. Lastly, the final test of deve-

lopment efforts is at the field level. The field agencies included in thesample therefore provide us 'lvith the data about the chances of the success

of development programmes, irrespective of the policies and plans made

therefor.When planning the sample for the study, n'e assumed that Class IV

Government servants do not participate in the development rtork of theiragencies. The study was, therefore, confined to Class I, II and III civilservants. At the time of the study, the total number of officials in all thethree classes, serving in the four agencies. was grr. The questionnaire,which was the principal instrument for data collection was administered toall of them. Replies to the questionnaire n'ere received from 723, givinga rate of return of 7g.3 per cent. The agency-wise break-dolvn of the civilservant-respondents is given in Table z. r belo'r'r'.

It is clear from the table that the sub-sample of the respondentsdrawn from the four agencies shorvs different class composition. 'Ihis was,however, anticipated by us in viel, of thc fact that the agencies \vere notconcerned with the development proglammes in the same manner. Roththe agencies which show a high proportion of higher class civil sen'antsserving iri them belong to the Union Government. In contrast, the agenciesbelonging to the State Government have a very high proportion of theiremployees belonging to Class III. The headquarters or secretariat type ofrvork handled by the Union Government agencies rvas bound to be reflcctedin the considerably higher proportion of Class I and II civil servants serv-ing in them. On the other hand, agency D employing almost 93 per centof its total staff at Class III level, is responsible for implementing agricul-tural development programmes at the grass-roots level. It is the same rvithdgency B which handles industrial development programmes. We do notknow if the composition of the sample of the present study is typical ofthe'stiffing pattern gener:ally followed. Overall, hor,vever, our sample doescontain a much higher proportion of both Class I and to a certain extent

Methodolo'gy ol Research

- Tenrp 2.1

RESPONDENTS BY EMPLOYING AGENCIIS AND CLASS

19

Ageniies a Class Nurfiy Pfrcentage

f$Ponat&g

Agency A (Industry/Central/Headquarters)

Class IClass IlClass III

Ageucy B (Industryi State/Field)

Class I\-tass ltClas III

Agency C (Agriculture/Central/Headquarters)

Class IClass IIClass III

Agency D (Agriculture/State/Field)

Llass I

Clas IIClass lll

Grand Total

roo

403822

roo

IJ

84

2t5*

868048

r09

3

14

92

r37

4426o,/

262

IOO

19

49

roo

26

92

'16

242

723

* I rcspondcnt d.id not report his Class.

even Class II civil servanrs than is found in Government service takenas a whole.

We have noted in the first chapter thar the respondents of this study donot constitute a representative sample of the civil service or developmentbureaucracy in India. In the first place, there is a preponderance of higherclass civil servants in the sample. Secondlv, rhe studv was conducted onlvin two development sectors. and in a limited geographical area. Even so, thefact r-emains that the l4 civil servants in the sample ,are engaged ilr theadministration of imporrant development progr:lmmes in which the higherlevel civil servants are often called upon to play an important role. Besides,as noted earlier, the study purports to explore an area,of bureaucratic beha-viour in which little empirical rvork is reported so far. In view of thesefacts, we believe that the study has considerable value even though it isnot representative.

The type of data required inTorvards reaching the objectives ofwere required to be. collected :

Typr, or Dere Corrnctr,o

a study depends uponthe present study, the

its objectives.following . data"

m

l.

2.

J.

+'


Data on structural and behavioural dimensions of bureaucracy as a

theoretical consftuct in the Indian context.Data on the adaptation of civil servants to their developmental role.

Data on certain aspects of the working climate in Governmentoffices; andData on background characteristics of the civil servants.

The data noted above were such that the civil servants themselves consti-

tuted the main source for it. As regards the first three items in the above

list, two courses (or a combination of them) I{ere oPen to us to collect thesc

data. In the first place, having determined the dimensions of behaviour/adaptation for detailed study, the researcher could first decide about the

obsirvable acts that are assumed to describe those behaviours' He r'vould

then actually observe the subjects performing these acts. A subject foundto perform most of the acts describing a Particular behavioural dimensionwould be rated high on that dim-ension. To illustrate, impersonal beh-aviour

can be defined in terms of a civil servant (a) who does not allow extraneous

considerations to influence him in decision situations, (b) u'ho applies the

same nonns of decisions in all cases, (c) rvho eliminates the play of emo-

tions in official work, etc. A civil sen'ant'w'ho exhibits these characteristicsrepeatedly in his job tasks 'rvould be described as highly impersonal. Thismethod o,t. data collection is certainly more objective and reliable' \Ve didnot, however, adopt it in the present study because of difficulties in mobilizing necessary resources for it and the operational problems associated

with it.As a second alternative, therefore, we collected behavioural data at the

cognitive level. An important limitation of all such data is that inferences

about behaviour cannot be directly made from them. Nevertheless, in as

much as our behaviour starts at the cognitive level, these data are invaluablefor understanding and improving behaviour. We hope that the presentstudy will help in this process.

The study was intended to throrv up certain hypotheses for further depthinvestigations. In this connection lve treated the cognitive data about therespondents as dependent variables. These included behavioural dimen-sions of bureaucracy, orientatibn to development administration and atti-tudes in work. In comparison, the background characteristics of the rcs-

pondents were considered as independent variables.

CoNsmucrroN oF THE Qunsr:rotvNernn

The structured questionnaire used for collection of data is reproducedat Appendix II. The contents of the questionnaire fell into four broadareas corresponding to. the data needs.

The major concern of the study was to measure and compare the civilservants in terms of certain behavioural factors. This called for uniformffeatment of the data. This in turn meant that respondents anslvered the


t . Hierarchyz. Di.aisi.cm of Labour

3. System. of Rules

4 Impersonality

a. Rati,onali,ty

6. RuIe-orientation

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

2l

same questions so that their replies wgle co?Par.able' The sffuctured ques-

tionnaire provided this facility. Besides, the. objectives of the study re-

quired that the respondents answer the questions fronr a known frame of

reference.Asregardstheformatofquestionsthefollowingpointsarenoted.We

sought tio examine the extent to which the Indian bureaucratic system con-

foris with the key postulates of the theory of bureaucracy' For this- pur-

pose, we defined the-concept of bureaucracyin terms of six characteristics,

ir"*.ty, hierarchy of authority, division of labour, system. of rules (which

are st;uctural characteristics) and impersonality, rationality, rule-orienta-

tion (which are behavioural characteristics). Since these characteristics are

basic characteristics of all formal organisations, we assumed them to exist

along a continuum rather than either as present or as absent. To measure

the f,egree of bureaucratization of the Government agencies/civil sewants

.orr.r.i here, we developed Likert type ordinal scales for the six characteris-

tics of buroaucracy noied above. The scales and the items in the ques-

rionnaire constiruiing the scales are given below (for specific questions,

see Appendix II) -

As the questionnaire will show, items r3A to r3C, and r4A to r4D relatedro the c;itical incidents pertaining to the dominant theme of a charactristicof bureaucracy.

To illustrate the Likert type scales used by us, rve reproduce below-

those items in the questionnaiie that constituted the scale of hierarchy of

authority according to the definition of it as per the theory:

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

without asking any one higher in your office?

(Mostly -

Often -

Sometimes - Seldom -

Never).

s. "There can be little action taken in this office until the superiorofficer approves a decision." How accurately does this statement de-

. scribe the day-today work of your office?_(Most aciurate -

Largely accurate - Fairly accurate - Largely

inaccurate - Mostly inaccurate).

3. How much say does your superior have in matters that alfect you

and your work? (A very great deal of say - Considerable say -

Some say -

Little say - None at all).

22 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVEI-OPMENT

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

- Often

- Somc-

times-Seldom-Never).

It may be noted that questions r and 4 are negatively keved to, thc scalero that the higher the agreement rvith it, the lorver the degree of hierarch,vof authority among the respondents reporting so; on the other hand,questions 2 and g are positively keyed to the scale so that the higher therespondents' agreement with them, the higher the hierarchy of authorityreported to be existing in their offices.

Regarding orientation of civil servants to development administration,we adopted a difierent method for ranking respondents on it. In the firstplace, we developed critical incidents around the four key characteristicsof development adminisration chosen for the study. These incidents wereadopted from real life situations faced by the civil servants working indevelopmental areas. Secondly, ne obtained structured responses of therespondents to several questions on different aspects of the incidents. Theseresponses were scored in ordinal scales intended to show the degree towhich the respon<ients rvere development oriented.

We assessed developmental orientation at two levels, namely, at actualityand idealistic perceptions. Towards this. each quesrion on the critical inci-dents was replied by the respondents in terms of

-their observations of how the civil servants generallv behavc rvhen_faced with the particul.ar situation presentecl ln the stimuli:how the respondents themselves .n'ould like to behave in thatsituation.

r.eiearch assumption for the two sets of responses was that any signi-discrepancy between them would indicate the existence of tension

(u)

(b)

T.heficantexperienced by the respondents in fulfilling their del,elopmental responsibility in a manner considered most desirable'by them. On the other hand,congruence between 'what is'.and 'what should be'. responses indicated aprocess of socialization that goes on in the Government sewice.

As the critical incidents included in the questionnaire comparecl veryclosely with the kinds of problems encountered by the respondents in theirnormal work, the questionnaire rvas not dubbed 'academic, bv most ofthem. Judging from the observations of researchers durins administration ofthe questionnaire we feel that the critical incidents m"ethod also helpeclin reducing, if not altogether eliminating, the influence of the ,srxialdesirability' factor, which is generally found to bias finclings of studiesdealing rvith norrnative behavioural questions. Besides. differentiationbetween actuality and idealistic perceprions rvas also supposed to conrrolfurther the social desirabilitv of the responses. The scalis pertaining todevelopment orientation and the items in the questionnairl compriiingthem are noted below (for specific questions, see Appendix II)

-


r. Change-orientati'onActuality PercePtions :

Idealistic PercePtions :

z. Result-mi,entationActuality PercePtions:Idealistic PercePtions :

q.. Ori,entartion to ci'tizenActualrty PercePtlons :

Idealistic percePtions :

t. Commi,tment to worh:

Items rA, zA, gA, 4,{ of PartItems rB, zB, 38, 48 of Part I

Items 5A, 6A, 74, 8A of Part IItems 58, 68, 7B, 88 of Part Ipartici.pati.onItems gA, roA, rrA of Part IItems gB, roB, rrB of Part IItems rz, r3, 14, rb of Part I

ZJ

As noted above, the questionnaire was also used by us to obtain dat-a on

the working climate experienced by the Government servants. The follow-

ing aspectJ of working climate were studied :

]-).

:).

u,

respondents,The draft questionnaire was duly Pre-tested

from the offices covered in the study.over a sub-samPle clrawn

Aovrrvrsrn,l'rroN oF THE FrNer- QursrroNNAIRE

As the study design was getting ready, rve approached the heads of the

agencies studied, wiih a'letter apprising them of the purpose of the study

and requesting their permission to conduct it among their employees' \Ve

note gratefully that the permission rvas granted to us most readily' The

Attitudes to responsibility

Delegation of authoritY

Superior-subordinate relationship

Utilization of skills

Svstem of promotions

Citizen-administrator . relationship

Some characteristics of Governrnent .iobs

As regards certain themes in superior-subordinate relationships, we deve-

loped oidinal scales to measure responses of the_ respondents. The other

aqpects of the work'-environment were tapped in discreet questions in-

cluded in parrs III and IV of the questionnaire. The last Part of the ques-

tionnaire, ihat is part V, elicited information on personal background of the

respondents like age, rural-urban background, levels of educational attain-

-"nt, p"t"t tal occupation background, economic class origin, in-sewice

trainini, progr:ession in service, professional interests, class at Present, and

Governmint agencies in which the respondents se.,''ed. These data were

utilized by us (i) ro arrive at the profile of the civil servant-respondents, and

(b) to explore iu.tot associated lvith particular patterns of behaviour of

U BUREAUcRAcy AND DEvELopMENT ADMrNrsrR lyrloN

coverng letter for the final questionnaire alio explained the objectives ofthe study and the- imp_ortance of frank replies from the respondents.

The directions for filling the questionnaire were given to the respondentsin the covering letter itself. Mosi of the questions iri the questio,rniir" ,u"r"arso self-explanatory. Yet we arranged for individual administration ofthe questionnaire to the respondents at their respective work places. Thiscourse-ofaction was adopted for two principal reasons, viz., to ensurc collec_tion of the data within minimum time and to establish the credibility ofthe study with the respondents and enlist the required cooperation fromthem.

The questions were self-explanatory. It was therefore not normally neces-sary- for the researchers to sit along with each respondent while he repliedto the-questionnaire. The presencq of the researchers at research sites, horv-ever, facilitated on the spot elucidation on the specific items in the ques-tionnaire, with the result that practically none of the schedules were re-turned incomplete.

- The employees of the two headquarrers type of agencies studied rverehoused in the same building. It was, iherefore,'ielativef easier to administerthe

-questionnaire to this -sub-sample. On the contrary, a large proportion

of the personael -serving in the two field type agencies studied. were often

found to be in the field. For instance, ttre vittage level workers may haveto call at the BDo's office some time during the

"day but most of their time

would be spent out in the field. We had, therefore, to arranse srouDmeetings of these personnel o-n a day convenient to them for adminislerinithe,questionnaire. The completed schedules were, of course, collected baciat the conclusion of the day. It is admitted that the personal administrationof the _questionnaire was made possible by the restricted geographical areacovered by the study sample.

_ Of the grr Class I, II and III civil servants working (on rolls) in thcf9u1 agelcfs studied, ?23 returned rhe questionnaire aiq) filled in. Somcof the civil servants were on leave at the time of the study. \ve do norknorv if these and other non-responding employees are materially diffcrenrfrom the responding emproyees. It was"mad. .i.r, to the potential rcsDon-

L.".rr ",1": their cooperation -in the study was voluntary and depended on

rnerr talth rn rt. our own view is that the 7g.4 per cent rate oi retur-n isexceptionally high and afiords a broad empiricaf base for rhe conclusionsof the study.

FOLLOW-TIP STUDY

Following the main inquiry, we also administered rhe same question-naire to a small sub-samplb drawn from the above sample of the develop-mental personnel after i lapse of little over a monrh. The results of thefollow-up study closely corresponded with those of the main inquirv indi-cating consistency of the data over time.


ScomNc eNo TnnarlrnNr or rHr Dare

As alrpady mentioned rve sought to determine in this study the extentof bureaucratization of the public administration system in India in termsof the six characteristics of bureaucratic organisation, and the extent ofadaptation of civil servants to their development role in terms of the fourdistinguishing characteristics of development administration. In addition,the two major aspects of the working climate in which our respondentsperformed and on which we tried to collect data are employee-orientationof superior officers and the extent of intrinsic job satisfaction experiencedby them. We were also interested in discovering the relationship amongthese variables, and between them and the background characteristics ofthe civil servants.

The format of the ordinal type of Likert scale suited our purpose best.It enabled us to ascertain the degree in which the above twelve dimen-sions are present in these agencies or among the sample of the civil servantsserving in them. The intensity scales which the l-ikert scales provide areindeed useful tor the analysis of associationship betrveen different variables. The Likert type scales rvere constructecl by us for the six charac-teristics of bureaucracy. the four characteristics of developmenr orienla-tion of civil servants, and for measuring the ernployee-orientation of super-visory ofrcers and the intrinsic job satisfaction reported by the respondents.In terms of internal consistency these scales rvere found moderately re-liable or more.

For the purpose of rating the civil servants,/agencies studied on theabove scales, we adopted a three-fold classification plan consisting of a

'high' group, a 'low' group, and between the two a 'middle' or 'moderate'group. The three-fold classification afforded identification of distinctly highgroups and distinctly low groups of the respondents 'lvith referencc to adimension studied, and an examination of the difierences between the tlvo.

Having decided to rate the respondents on the scales into three groups,we faced the problem of the basis for making the groups. The total scoreof a respondent on any one particular scale varied betrveen a certainminimum and a certain rnaximum. Thus the minimum and the maximunrscores on the 4-item Likert type scale on commirment to work ranged frorn4 to 2c. It was possible to ule the total sbores of the 7n respondents of thestudy on a scale and formulate high, moderate and 1ow groups on thebasis of Q, r"d Q, values or some such cut-off points. This method of classification is generally adopted rvhen the groups so formed arc comparecl interms of certain other variables. The latter variables rvould then becomeindependent variables with the scale becoming the dependent variable.Studies of the relationship betrveen employee job satisfaction on rhe onehand and the personality of the employees on the other'fall in this category.

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

25


servants but also from the point of view of the relationship among them-selves. We, therefore, adopted a three-fold classification based on the scales

themselves. Depending on the score point between which the actual per-formance of most of the respondents fell, we divided the range of these

score points into approximately three equal groups, with the toP groupdenoting the 'high' category, middle group denoting the 'moderate' cate-gory and the lowest group denoting the 'low' category. To illustrate, rve

describe below how the respondents were classified on the scale of imper-sonality, a dimension of bureaucracy.

The possible score on the 4-item scale of impersonality ranged bet-ween 4 and 2c. The actual score of most of the respondents(gg.g p.r cent) however ranged between 6 and zo. Therefore, forthe pu{pose of classif-ving the respondents into three groups ofhighly impersonal, moderatelv impersonal and poorly (low) impersonal,we treated this scale as consisting of from 6 to eo score points, with therespondents scoring 16 and over classified as forming a group of highs,those scoring between r5 and rr as a group of moderates and those scoringro and below as a group reporting low level of impersonality. The actualscore range for each scale thus considered by us covered tl:'e 729 respon-dents ranging from gg.r per cent of them in the case of hierarchy of autho-rity scale to roo per cent in the case of manv other scales like commitmentto work, citizen participative orientation and rule orientation. The basicapproach in the abol'e method of classification has been that those res-pondents who score more on a scale are higher than those who score less onthat scale.

The questionnaire fetched varied information about the attitudes, beha-vioural dispositions and background characteristics of the sample. Theinformation was, therefore, coded, computer-processed and analysed to yieldthe various tables and findings.

The general pattern follorved l hile n:porting the findings of the studl'is that the basic tables are presented in the form of frequency distribution.All other data are reported in contingency tables. As regards determiningthe relationship betr'veen the variables. this'r'r'as done by using the chi-squaremethod. For this purpose the respondents $'ere first divided into high,moderate and lorv groups on the tr'velve dimensions. \\re chose to use thechi-souare method because it is a non-oarametric measure of associationbetween any two variables and hence allor'vs for fewest assumptions aboutthe data. For considering the association between any two variables as signi-frcant, we decided that the chisquare value should exceed 5 per cent levelof significance.

Lastly, a point about the interpretation of the data. The respondentsof this study are part of the civil ser\.ice system and of the developmentadministration in India. Apart from the question of their representativecharacter. r'e have follorvcd the methodologv of disccrning. the traits orpeculiar features of the development administration through the attitudesand responses of these respondents. We have believed that it is the dis-

ilIethodology of Research 27

covery and interpretation. of these responses that provide us with state-ments about the characteristics or attributes of the organisational systemsin which the respondents n'ork. Besides, we have already noted earlier thcimportance of exploring the perceptual world of the civil servants becauseof its potent influence on their behaviour. In our vierv the absolute beha-vioural attributes of an organisation do not exist, or if they do at all exisL.there is probably no suitable methodology available to ascertain thernwithout any bias or contamination. Or is this a challenge before rejsearch-ers in organisational behaviour?

Profile of DevelopmentPersonnel

THs txrnnsst in bureaucratic behaviour in recent years of both the studentsand practitioners of public administration has inevitably led to intensiveefforts to identify the factors that direct and shape the behaviour of civilservants. One group of factors, which has interested researchers for itsinfluence on bureaucratic behaviour, relates to the background charac-teristics of the civil servants. Questions such as these are often asked: Whoare the aivil servants? What are their educational athinments? What istheir family background and origin ? Which occupational groups are theydrawn from? What happened to them in their 'work-life'? To find ansurersto these questions, a few research studies have been conducted in Indiain the last decade or more. Illustrative of such work are studies made byR. K. Trivedi and D. N. Rao,1 V. Subramaniam,s V. A. Pai Panandiker3and C. P. Bhambhri.l

In this chapter, we shall attempt a profile of Indian bureaucracy in thedevelopmental spheres. We shall also attempt to compare it lvith its counter-parts in othef countries. Admittedly, such comparisons are difficult to makedue to difierences in the sample of the civil servants studied, the charac-teristics considered in their socioeconomic background, and the time ofundertaking the studies. The comparative data presented in the follow-ing pages, therefore, need to be interpreted rather broadly to arrive at a

degree of commonness among civil sen'ants aeross national frontiers. Tothe extent that similarities in the profile of civil servants from difierentcountries are identifi:lble, they could help in the developmenr of a commonbody of knowledge useful both for building a theory and in the adminis-tration of policies and programmes in many counrries.

The profile of the respondents of the present study was examined alongthe dimensions of marital status, rural/urban background. educationalattainments, parental occupation, economic class origin, pre-entry expe-rience, year and mode of entry into go'r'ernment service, uprvard mobilit,v,in-service training received, and professional interests. 'I'he findings arcpresented below.

r. Trivedi, R. K. and D. N. Rao. "Highcr Civil Service in India", Joutnal ol theNational Acad.emy of Ad,ministration, Yol. 6, No. g, pp.-33-64.

g. Subramaniam, V., "Representative Bureaucracy: A Re-assessment", Ant,ericanPoliliral Scienrc Reuiew, \'ol. 6r, No. 4. pp.

'oro-toig.3. Pai Panandiker, V. A.. "Values, Attitudes and Motives of Civil Ser-vants", IncliattJournal ol Public Administratiort, Yo}. re, No. 3, pp. b44-Sb8.

4. Bhambhri, C. P., Bureattcracy antl Politics in India, Delhi, Vikas. r97o.

Profile of Deaelopment Personnel

FrNorNos

AGE

As Table A in the Appendix I5 shows, about 7o Per cent of the totalrespondents of the study are in the age grouP of zr'4o years and theremaining go per cent are above 4o years. If those between 2r-85years are classified as 'young', those between 36-45 years as 'middle-aged'

and those above 46 as 'old', it is found that about 52 Per cent of therespondents are 'young', 30 Per cent 'middle-aged' and r 8 per cent'old'. The age distribution of the respondents according to their class

of service is given in Table 3.t'

TABTE 3,1

AGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY CLASS OF SERVICE

29

Clas of the Responilents

Age Groups Class I(per cett)

Cldss II Clas III(per ent) (per cent)

Young (21-3s)

vtiddle-aged (r6+:)

old (46)

23.3

/10.9

35. 8

34.6

32.3

JJ. I

65 .9

25.4

8.7

Toral 100.09/o(N: 137)

r0o.o%(N: 136)

100.0%(N : 44e)

Note.' Mean Age: Class IClass IIClass IIIWhole group

41 . 8 years,10.9 years34. I years, and36.8 years

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

5. All basic tables describing the frequency distribution along backgroundcharacteristics of the respondents are presented in Appendix I. Bi-variate tables are,however, incorporated in the chapter. [Body of the article]

6. Stanley, David T., The Higher Citil Seraice, Washington (DC), BrookingsInstitution r964, p. .r5.

7. Kelsall, k. K' Higher Ciail Servants in Britain, London, Routledge and KeganPaul, r955. pp. r98-eoo.

30 BUREAUcRAcY AND DEVELoPMENT ADMINISTRATIoN

only about 36 per cent are 'oldr. The higher civil servants at leastin the development bureaucracy in India aie thus found to be muchyounger than those in the u.s.A. and the u.K. An examination of sonreof the other experiences showed that the higher civil servants in devc-loping countries, like Egypt and pakistan, arso displayed a similar patrern.The Bergef study, for instance, showed that ,abbui bo per ceni of thchigher civil servants are less than 45 years old. Similaily,'Ahmed's, striclyof the Pakistan ci'ii service shorvs that about the same proportion ofhigher civil servants in Pakistan are less than 45 years of age.

Are there differences in the age of the respondents employed in the fouragencies stLrdied? Analysis of the data indicites that the iwo central agen-cies (with N * er5 and ,r37) \{rere composed somewhat more of iltl,personnel, r,r'hile the tr,r'o Sr.are agencies (rvith N: rog and z6z) werefound to be made up of younger people. The mean ug" o'f th" ,"rporrd.rrt,from the two central agencies was {o.g and 3g.6 yea:rs respectiveiy whiiethe, mean age of the respondents employed in the

' two st"i"

"gen.i", ,"u,

24.6 and 32.5 years respectively.This difference could. hor,r'e'er, be explained by the fact that the lower

ler,el civil servants I'r'ho . are- relati.r,ely o-b*rg.r in age tyere employed in

a larger proportion in the State agencies.

nuner,/uneaN BAcKGRouND

A point often debated- -abour _representative bureaucracies. especially in

develoPing democracies, l;ke India, is the adequate representation of ruraland urban sub-cultures in the civir services. The ,igrr-"rrt is that thecultural differences betr,r'een the urban and the rural" backgrounds affectsignificantlv the performance of bureaucracies and the citizeis' resDonsive-ness to rhem.

. Assuming- that_ the place of birth indicates rural/urban backgrountl.it r'vas found (T,able B in the Appen<lix I) that nearry 6o per cenr" of rherespondents of this study came from a rural backgrounrl'wh e onrv zzper cent came from urban and metropolitan b4ckgrounds. However, thedata also show that the weight of an urban background increases when thec'iterion_ is the place li'ed in most by the resp-ondents during naol",.""tyears. Thus, in contrast to 60 per cent of the respondents boln in rurarareas, only 50 per cent reported to have .actually iived, in ,,r.ul ur"u, ,rpto the age of-rS years. The migration to urban centres l,as probably forthe purp_ose- of_ secondary and higher educarion for which the ficilities lvercnot available in the rural areas in the past. Nonetheless, that the largerproportion of civil servants in the present sample had a predomirrurr-tivrural background was importanr in is much as they rvorke'd in rhe agri

S. B;g* M;;.;, Bureaut:racy and Society in .Mod,ern Egypt, pnncetoH (New,Jelsey).. Princeton University prers. rg<7, p. 4i.

9. A'med, Muneer, T he Ciuil Siiait ti pahistan, London, Oxford. UniversityPress, 1964, p. 47. )

Profite of Deuelopment Personnel 31

cultural and field level agencies of the States'

Further analysis of thi rural/urban background of the civil servants,

. according to the class of service revealed interesting differences as seen in

Table 3.2.

T,csr r .1.2

RURAL/URBAN BACKGROUND BY CLASS

Nunber of Resltonfunts

Place stdyed in p to tB YeirsClass I

\Pff ccnr l

Class II\Yer centl

Class III\per cent)

Rural

Scnri-nrban

Urban

Metropolitan

Not Rcpirtcd

24 .8

30. ?

27 .0

16. 8

o .'7

34.5,

28.0

22.8

12.5

2.2

60 .4

14 .3

12.2

12.5

0.6

Torer

The table indicates that ' among the higher civil servants, especiall,v inclass I, there is a lotver propoftion of those brought up in rural surfound-ings and a higher proportion of those rvho have spent their 'impression-

able' years in urban tyPe areas. Again, these differences \ rere found tobe associated with differences in the levels of education attained by the

respondents in the three classes. As rePorted later; the proPortion of highlveducatecl civil servants is much higher among the higher class than among

the lorver class civil sertants. Comparative data relating to the rural/urbanbackground of American and British civil sen'ants could not be obrained'However. Berger's'o study noted that the overwhelmingly large Proportion(g7 per cent) of higher civil servants in Egypt had an urban background'

Jhe predominantly urban character of the elite in the civil service ofrleveloping countries is also demonstrated by Bhambhri's studv of the IndianAdrninistrative Ser-vice personnel.ll 'Ihis stud,v reported that 77 Per centof the LA.S. officers came from urban centres of population.

Apart from its importance for the rePresentative character of the Indianbureaucracy, the rural/urban background of civil servants may also bcuseful for effective implementation of development Programmes in the

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

100. 0o,ro

(N:137)roo. 07;

(N: 136)

1oo. o?b

(N - 44e)

32 BUREAUcRAcy AND DEvnLopMENT ADMINISTRATToN

industrial and agriculture sectors. The findings of the study in this regardare presented in Table 3.3.

TABLE 3.3

RURALiURBAN BACKGROUND AND AGENCIES STUDIED

Nunbet Repo*il 0y AgmciesPlaces stayed in up to 18 years

A Qnd)

ll,cr ce t)B (kd)

(per ctnt)c (Agrfi

(per cnt)D (Agrfl(pu cent)

Rural

Scmi-urban

Urban

Metropolitar;

Not Reported

26.l

27 .9

27 .4

17.2

1.4

42.2

23.8

11.9

22.l

41.6

24.1

z),+

10 .2

0,7

73.7

9.5

7,2

8.0

1.6

ToTAT, 1oo. oolo

(N - 2r5)

100.0%

{N : r09)

100.0% 1oo.o%(N: l3z) (N:262)

With the exception of Agency D, Table 3.3 indicates that the employeesin agriculture and industrial development agencies do not difier muchin terms of their rural/urban background. The findings of the study aboutthe civil servants in Agency D are encouraging because this agency handlesmost of the work relating to the agricultural development programme arthe field level. The predominantly rural background of the employees ofthis agency could thus be a source of strength in its functioning. Similarlv,Agency A deals with development programmes mostly of organized in-dustry so that the urban background of a large proportion of its employeesmay be helpful in better appreciation of industrial matters.

PARENTAL OCCUPATION

The background of parental occupation of the civil servants is describedin Table C in the Appendix L The most commonly reported familyoccupational background tvas: government sewice, agriculture, and business. Almost an equal proportion of the respondents have or had theirparent either serving in the government, or engaged in agr:iculture, or inbusiness. I contrast, only little over r 2 per cent of the civil senants in thesample belonged to the families of independent professionals and teachers.

It is interesting to compare the above findings about the family back-ground of the respondents of the present study with a similar study con-ducted by Pai Panandiker among civil servants working in a traditionalgovernmental agency rvhich was'sufficiently bureaucratic in its structure'.1?

Profile of Deuelopment Persomnel 33

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

TABLE 3.4

PARENTAL OCCUPATION COMPARED

Fanily BackgroundNumber Reporting

Prexnt Study Panmdiker Sndylper rcnt) (per unt)

Goyernment Service

Agriculturist

Business

ProGssionals

Teachers

Others

Not Reported

27 .9

28 .t27.4

5.7

6.8

0.5

3.6

45.0

18.4

25.6

11 .0

ToTAL 1oo.o%(N - 723)

100.0%(N:10e)

- The study (Table 3.4) clearly indicares thar the developmenal and. non_developmental or traditional government agencies are sAfied by civil ser-vants d-raw.n frorn varying family backgrounds. Apparenrly rhe childrenwith a family background of government service are more attracted towardsestablished traditional government agencies than towards developmentalagencies. Further

3na,lysis -9f the background of the respondents n..-ding to

their class yielded the following results,

TABT"E 3 . 5

PARXNTAL OCCUPATION BY CLASS

Number ReportingParcntal Occupatiou

L t4JS l(per cenr)

Class lI(per cent)

Government Service

Agriculturist

Business

ProGssional

Ieactung

Other Occupation

Not Reported

Class III,(per

cent)

',? A

37.6

28 .3

2.93.6

4.0

34.3

13.9

23 .4

9.516. 1

0.7

2.1

36.0

11 .0

28 .7

11 .0

8.1

2.23.0

Torar: 137 :l : 449

loo.o% 100.0% 100.0%


It is apparent from the above table that while government service is apronounced feature of the family background of Class I and II reipon-dents, Class III respondents are more often the sons ol agriculturists. Inother words, the higher the class of respondents, the higher the chances oftheir coming from civil service family backgrounds. Similarly, the familiesof independent professionals. like doctors, larvyers and teachers, appear roconffibute more to higher classes than to Class III of the civil service.

These results of the present study about the family background of Class Icivil servants are comparable to V. Subramaniam's study of the socio-econo-mic class origin of members of all-India services, like LA.S., I.F.S., LP.S.and the Accounts Service.B He found the following pattern of family back.ground of the members of these elite services: government service 32.7per cent; professionals (doctors, lawyers and the like) r3.8 per cent; busi-ness (businessmen and business employees) r 8.9 per cent; agriculturists(land owners and farmers) 13.6 per cent; and other occupations (workers.artisans etc.) 4.'6 per cent. Thus, Class I civil sen,ants in the Governmentof India appear to have similar socio-economic class origins as the deve-lopment bureaucracy cor.ered in the present study.

Further analysis of the family background of the respondents accordingto the agencies studied showed the following results:

TABLI 3.6

PARENTAL OCCUPATION RY OFFICES STUDIED

Number Reporting lry Agencies

Parental OccupationA (Ind)

\?er cnlt)B (Ind)

(yr cent)

C (Agri)

\lJet Knt)D (Agri)

(yer rcft)

Government Service

Agriculturists

Business

Professional

Teachers

Others

Not Reported

35. 8

10. 7

30 .7

8.8

8.8

1.0

4.2

29 .4

14.7

38.5

6.4

6.4

0.9

32.1

22 .6

8.8

8.8

o.7

18.7

50. 8

20.6

1.1

4.2

4.6

Torar 100.0%(N:215)

1oo.o%(N: 10e)

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

As expected, the results show thatagricultural families in the agenciesment plogrammes though in varying

there is a higher representation ofdealing rvith agricultural develop-proportion between headquarters

r3; Suttramaniam, Y,, op. cit., pp, roro-rorg

Profile of Deuelo"pment Personnel

and field agencies. Likewise, the business community contributed morepersonnel to the agencies concerned rvith indusffial development program-mes' Table 3.6 also shows that the central agencies include generaliy h"igherproportion of the sons of government servants than thJ state agenlcies(B and D). The forrner have also employed a higher proporrion oi civilservants from the families of independent professionals and teachers, .onthe other hand, except in Agency D, the fim ies of governmenr servants

lppe.ar tobe similarly represented in the offices studied. Agency D is pre_dominantly a field agency at the state level. The brunt of ihe work of ihisagency is carried out by class III civil servants who, as noted earlier. comemore often from the families of agriculturists than from those of civiLservants.

There appears to be a common tendency among d.eveloping countriesto draw their higher level civil servanrs more often from ihe

*families of

government servants than from any other single occupational background.Thus Berger's study in Egypt revealed that ibout 4o p., cent oihighercivil servants were sons of government servants.u sd arly, th" pur.oi, ofnearly two-thirds of the civil servants in pakistan were found to be ingovernment employment.b In contrast, in a western counry like the U.K.,only_ ro per cent of the senior civil se^,ants have parents in the civilseryice,16

.ECONOMIC CLASS ORIGIN

A background characteristic which is regarded as important in mostcountries and sociological srudies is the ecoiomic crass oi origin. A-;;;other things. a proper representation in this respect is berieved'to .r"",.-ibetter appreciation and understanding of the problems of the commonpeople. In the case of the civil service in India the general belief is thaiit.is largely manned by people from upper and midlle economic classes.The present study does noi bear o,rt liri, impression.

The respondents were alke$ t1 repo,rt the income of the father/guardianat the time ,h-:y !*-k _up their first Job. The replies, as shown in iabli Dot the Appendix r, indicate that as many us 5z per cent of the respondentscome from middle rower or rower crass fattriri"i *ith an income'att"p a"Rs. e5o per month. on the other hand, little over r r per cent of the res-pondents were drawn from upper class families with a monthly t*"_.of Rs. 75r and above.

. The^data also reveal (Table 3.7), as was expeCred, that a higher propor_tion of class I civil servants in

.the sample belonged ro rt? u"ir.r'on

families, _i.e., upper and middle class families (26 p"er cent in Cfus I lsagainst about B per cenr each in Class II and litt.

14. Berger, IUor:ro", op. cit., p. 45.15. Ahmed, Muneer, bp. cit., p. gg.t6. Kelsall, R. K., op. cit., pp. cit.. pp. r50_ r5 r.

36 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT

TABLE 3.7

ECONOMIC CLASS ORIGIN BY CLASS OF SERVICE

Number Reporting

Patental Clais Rep orted Class I(per cmt)

Class II(per ccnt)

Clws lII(pet cent)

UpperUpper-middle

Middle

Middlc-lowerLower

Not Repr..,rted

8.8

17.6

JJ.O

25.5

10. 9

3.6

1.5

46 .3

24.3

16 .9

2.7

5.0

24.9

35.8

25 .6

6.0

Torer,

LEVELS OF EDUCATION

Of the various background characteristics, the level of education attain-ed is regarded as a crucial variable. In this study, it was found that nearly

bo per cent of the respondents dict not have a university degree (Table Eof the Appendix I). Even so, the developmental agencies appear to have asomewhat higher proportion of university graduates than the traditionalagencies. The Pai Panandiker study referred to earlier reported that 64

per cent of the resPondents did not have anJr university education andthat only 86 per cent rvere university educated.u The results of the pre-sent study also show that almost 20 per cent of the respondents possessed

post-graduate degrees, suggesting a generally higher educational level amongthe members of the developmental agencies.

Where did the respondents receive their university education ? 'I'he dataindicates that five per cent of the respondents had studicd in foreignuniversities. It is also interesting to note that about r3 per cent of therespondents reported to have attained the highest level of their educationsince joining service. These results suggest that advancement in the civilservice depends at least partially on the educational attainments. That

is so is also demonstrated by Table 3.8 about the levels of educationthe respondents of this study according to their class.

The table shows that the bulk of Class III civil servants have com-pleted high school or have had some college education. In contrast, onlyabout two per cent of Class I respondents have been educated to the levelof the intermediate or lower. On the other hand, the proportion of university educated civil $ervants is found to be higher among the higherclasses. Thus, among Class I respondents g r per cent had Bachelor's and

r.0o.o%(N: 137)

100.o%(N: 136)

1oo.o%(N : 44e)

itof

Profile of Deaelopment Personnel 37

Tesle 3.8

LEVELS OF EDUCATION BY CLASS

Number Reporting

Lerels of Ed.ucation Class I(per cent)

Class II(per cent)

Class IIIQtet cent)

High Schoc I

Int.-rrnediate arrd equivaletrt

Diplorla

Bachelor's degree

Master's degrcc

Doctoratc

Not reported

1.5

o.7

tr. )

42.3

39.3

9.0

14.7

11 .8

42.7

30. I

0.7

60.6

6.0

1.5

24.3

7.6

1oo.o% 100.0% loo.o%

higher degrees; in fact over 48 Per cent held post-graduate. degrees' It is,

hJwever, significant that about one-rhird of the Class III civil servants inthe sample were graduates and ,Post-graduates'

How do the Ciass I civil servants in the study comPare with theircounterparts in other countries in regard to their educational attainments?

In the sample of the U.S. civil sewants studied by Stanley,ts 96 per cent had

Bachelor's -or

advanced degrees. Similarly, qo Per cent of the higher. civilservants in Egypt are retorted to have attained Bachelor's and higher

levels of univeriity education.l'g Ahmed's'z' study also shows that a vast

majoriry of the higher civil servanrs in Pakistan similarly possessed higher

degrees. In other words, the higher civil servants in developed as well as

developing countries, aPpear.to be generally a highly educated grouP' -.

We -also

analysed the edricational levels of the respondents according

to the agencies employing them. The results are described in Table 3'9'The level of edulation attained by the civil servants in Central agencies

(A and C) is thus often higher than that of the civil servants working inState agencies (B and D). The data also show that the resPondents concern-

ed r,vitli agricultural developrnent programmes at the freld level have oftenless formal education than their counterParts in the Secretariat. While 3 tper cent of the respondents drawn from Agency D, which is a block deve-

iopme.tt office, were universitv educated, the proportion of university edu'cated among the respondents of Agency C, which is the secretariat type,

was found to be as high as 79 Per cent.

r8. Stanley, David T., op. cit., P. 3rl.r9. Berger, Morroe, op, cit., p. 43.eo. Ahmed, Muneer, op. cit., pp.47'48,

38 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPI,fENT ADMINISTRATION

TA3IE 3 .9

EDI,-}CATIONAL ATTAINMENTS BY AGENCIES STUDIXD

Number Reporting by Apencie s

Leuek of Education ,4tnined

High School

Diploma/some college educationUniveniry DegreeNot Reported

--'-7i-Tor,ri-

,A$nd). B(Ind) c(Agri)\per rct ) Qer rut) (per rcnt1 P (asri)

\!er caflt )

i1.l60. 5

0.9

39. 4

12 .048.6

16. 8

4.478.8

64.1

5.030.9

100.0%

(N :215)100.0%

(N : 10e)

100.0.,/o

(N : 137)

100.00_/o

(N : 262)

^. We also enquired into_.the major academic fields of the respondents.

since some klnd 9f specialization is possible at the degree level and above,we. considered only the university educated responde"nts for this prtpor".Table

-9. ro presented below shows that over 4 i p"r cent of the gradiuatc

respondents studied social sciences for their university degree. bn th"other hand, technical or appried fields, like agriculture ani engineeringaccounted Jor 3b per cenr of the university etrucated respondeni und zZper cent of the respondents are found to be graduates in pure sciences.

TA-BIE 3. l0

SUBJECTS STUDIED AT UNIVERSITY LXVEL

Subjeas Sndied

Agriculrure and allied subjects

Physics, Chemistry, Geology, and MathematicsEngineering

Social Sciencis

Other Fields of Study

Not Reported

Nunber Reporting

\per cent)

21 .8

22.3

t3.l41 .4

0.9u. )

Torar, 100.0% (N:367)2r

The high percenrage of graduates in scientific and technical subiects inthe sample of the civil servants studied is explained by the fact t"hat thenature of the functions of the four agencies st,.t-d i"d was ionsiderably specia-lized. rn contrast, the Pai Panandik& study of the civil servanrs in'a iraditional governmental agency found that 68 per cent of the respondents who

- er. Out of 7e3 respondents, 367 had university educarion. RemaininE qa6 re.non_d.ents were matriculates, diploma holders or had limited collese educaii;;

Profile of Deuelopment Persomnel

were university educated .studied humanities and social

only 3z per cent lvere graduates in science subjec.ts.n

MARITAL STATUS

39

sciences, while

As shown in Table 3. r r. in spite of the relatively young age of theaverage respondent of the present study only about g per cent of the civilservants in the sample are unmarried or single and as many as 91 Per centare married. This does not however mean, unlike the normal observationsin a Western country, that the former class of our respondents do not have

any dependency responsibilities. Thus, among the 6e unmarried respondents

56.5 per cent are reported to be looking after the livelihood of one or morerelatives. As against this, only 2 per cent of the married respondents donot have responsibility for any dependents which probably means thatthey are widowers with theit children living life on their own or thattheir rvives are ehr4ing independently.

The manied civil servants in the study are most commonly reportedto have 3 to 4 persons dependent on them. This implies, besides the wife,z to 3 children, assuming that no other relative is dependent on the res-

pondents - as noted above, a doubtful assumption in Indian conditions.

Nevertheless, these facts indicate that at least until the present time themessage of family planning is 'rvell received among the governmentservants.

TABLE 3.ll

MARITAL STATUS OF RESPONDENTS

Marital Status lDe pendency

Responsibility Number per cent

SingleNo depcndents

1-2 dependents

3-4 depcndents

4 or more depcndents

Torar single (8. 5o/o)

MarriedNo dependents

1-2 dependents

3-4 dependents

4 or mote dcpendents

Torar married'(ol o/o)

Not Reported (0. 5,od)

27 43.6

18 29.0

11 17 .7

6 9.762- @15 2.2 l

97 14.7

285 43.3

262 39.8

6ss 100,0%-

GnlNo Torar


PRIOR EXPERIENCE

In trying to ascertain the work experience of the respondents before theyentered government service, the idea rvas to find out the extent to whichcivil service is desired as the sole career. This was also mednt to determinethe open character of the service. The study found. that 6z per cent ofthe respondents entered government service without previous work expe-rience. It is noted later that 80 per cent of the respondents of this studyjoined the government sewice inltially in clasi III with very little or noprevious experience. It follows, therefore, that the bulk of thi respondentswho had previous experience joined government service at class i and IIlevels.

we have so far described the social background of the respondents. Inthe remaining part of this chapter rve shali deal with the profile of thcrespondents closer to their life as government emplovees.

LENGTH OF SERVICE

. As suggested in Table F of the Appendix I, the bulk of the respondenrs(72 pet cglt) joined governm€nt_service during the plan periods beginningrgbGbr. This indicates that developmenr bureiucra.y io inaiu grerv"mainlounder the aegis of the Five year Plans and did not involve mirch transferof personnel from other areas.

Further analysis showed that the responclents had put in an average ofr 3.8 years of service with the govemment. Earlier ii rvas notetr thai theaverage age of the respondenrs was 36.g years. This implies roughly rharthe average respondent entered government service at th. .g. of-e3. fh.recruitment thus appears to be made largely on the

" princiile of'catch 'em yyoung'.

- As regards the mode of entry,- it was found (Table G of the Appendix I)that.little over bo per cen_t of the respondenti were recruited trirougtr the

employment exchange and an intervilw. Another mode of entry reiorteclby the second largest group of respondents (3o per cent) is direct recruirment through an open advertisement and lnterview 6y the concernedoffice. On the other hand. r-i, per cent of rhe responclenis came irrt;;;government service as a result of recruitmenr by open comperitive cxami-nation of the union Pubric Service commission (upsc) or'the singlc o.urinterview by the Commision. That a small proporrion of the respSrrdeniswere -recruited by the upsc or the State puLfic service commision is:"pl"il.4 by the fact that the bulk of them entered government serviceinitially in the lower class of service to which the upsd or the State pscdoes not recruit. The results arso show that the development ug"rai"-,studied gnjoyed considerable autoriorny in the matter of recruitment ofpersonnel.

- According to data, as at presenr, little over half of, the respondents ofthis study are^ permanent employees in government service,

"iorrt 13 p",cent are quasi-permanent and the remaining 27 p€r cent enjoy a tempo_

Profile of Deuelopment Personnel 4l

rary status. This distribution of the respondents according to their employ.ment s(atus gives an idea of the stability of the development programmeshandled by the agencies and also of the recruitment policies of thegovernment

CLASS INITIALLY .JOINED

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

TABLE 3. l2

CLASS INITIALLY IOINED BY THE CLASS AT ?RESENT

Class at Prasent

Class Initi ally -l oined Closs Illter ctnt)

Cla.s,r II Class III(pu cent) (per cent)

Class IClass IIClas iIIClass IVNot Reported

28.5

27.7

32 .1

11 .7

14.7

83.i

2.2

.94 0

5.1

0.9

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

It is evident from Table q.12 that the initial intake of personnel inthe civil service is predominantly at Class III level. Nearly 69 per centof the respondents now in Class I and 83 per c€nt of respondents nor,v inClass II got there as a result of promotion from lower positions. Therespondents have thus reported fairly high inter-class mobility rvhich againis the result of the career staffing system in vogue in the government. 'I'heresults also imply that the development agencies studied started rvith tradi-tional class composition and that the bias in favour of higher class hascome in as a result of quick movement from the lolver classes.

UPWARD MOBILITY

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

A' BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPN{ENT ADMINISTRATION

not had any promotion since joining. About the same proportion of thecivil servants in the sample reported to have received two or more pro.motions. Nearly 3o per cent were found to have been promoted once. .

Among the civil sewants who have been promoted once or more times,it was found that on an average they have advanced r.8 positions in t7.8years. These respondents have thus received one promotion in about g]years on an average. In comparison, the higher level civil servants in theU.S are reported to have advanced 6.3 grades in zo years or about onegrade in every 3 years.s3 The rate of progression in the civil service inIndia is thus relatil'ely slow. These data must be seen against the factthat in the U.S., the civil service grades are r8 as against only four in India.

Further analysis of the upward mobility of the respondents aicordingto their class at present revealed, as shown in Table 3.r2, that Class I res-pondents have enjoyed more promotional opportunities (2.4r on an average)than Class II respondents (2.2r on an average). while Class III respon-dents have had least advancement opportunities (r.6o on an aver:age). Ifit is assumed that the civil servants in the higher class have joined govern-ment service earlier than those in the lower class, the results imply thatthe opportunities for upward mobility in government service have de-clined over a number of years. Alternatively, if longer service accountsfor more promotions, it may be because seniority is given higher premiumin promotions in government service.

IABIE 3.13

UPWARD MOBILITY BY CLASS AT PRESENT

Numbcr oJ Pronotiotts

Nrmber Reportitrg

Class I Class II Class III(per cent) (per cent) (per cent)

NilOnc

TwoI hree

Four

Over four

Not Rcportcd

24.8

23.4

l/.)

16. I

14.6

2.9

0.7

18 .4

19. 1

36. 1

17 .6

1.5

43 .9

35.0

14.7

o,2

0.4

Torar 100. oo/o

(N: 137)

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

:3. Stanley, David T., op. cit., p. 81.

100.0"; 100.

Pro,file of Det-telopment Personnel 43

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

IN.SERVICE TRAINING

A question of special interest to students and practitioners of publicadministration is the formal tlaining of the civil servants. The amount offormal training received by the civil servants in the sample of the presentstudy is shown in Table J of the Appendix I.

The study found that as many as 68 per cent of the respondents have notbeen exposed to any formal training during their service in the govern-ment. Only 16.5 per cent of the respondents appear to havc received a

reasonable amount of formal training, i.e.-, for a period of over threemonths. The remaining 15.g per cent were trained for periods lasting onlvup to three months.

As regards the type of training, the data shorved that nearlv 49 per centof the e3z trained respondents had received training in agriculture in-cluding training in extension and cooperation

- 2Z per cent l\:ere trainedin managerial and executive skills; r 2.5 per cent in technical l'ork; and18.5 per cent in secretarial work. In other rvords, formal training as adeliberate policy and managerial instrument appears to have been moresystematically used in agricultural programmcs than in others includingthe industrial ones.

The question r.ttrether the civil servants in the three classes differed interms of formal training received was also examined. The results are de-

scribed in Table 3.r4.

Tenu 3. 14

FORMAL TRAINING RECEIVED BY CLASS AT PRESENT

Length of Ttaining

Nunb* Receiu ing Training

Class I Class II Class III(per cent) (per rcnt) (yer cent)

NilUp tc 3 months

6-12

Over 2 vears

63.5

t4.6

.0

).t

62 -5

19.8

10. 3

2.2

3.7

71.2

1,4.2

t.l

3.3

3.8

0.4

loo.09;(N:137)

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


As Table 3. 14 shnrvs, the bulk of the civil servanrs in all the threeclasses were not exposed to any formal training. Nor does the length oftraining received appear to vary according to the class of service. Furtheranalysis showed that among the trained Class I respondents, the amounr offormal training received \t'as on an average 5.8 months and that among thetrained Class II respondents, it was 5.2 months. The figure for Class IIIrespondents was also about the same

- 5] months to be precise. Theseresults suggest that most of . the formal training is imparted to the civilservants in the earlier years of their service in the government.

The study also found that the civil servants handling agricultural deve-lopment programmes are more often formally trained than those handlingindustrial development programmes. While 4o per cent of the civil servantrespondents working in the field of agricultural development were foundto be formally trained, the number of trained civil servants in the indus-trial development programmes was onlv 2l per cent. However, the extentof such training amongst the trained respondents is found to be highlycomparable indicating that the training efiorts of both these agencies arethinly spread. It appears that the major focus of such training is to bridgegaps in the knowledge of the trainees for efficient performance of theirimmediate work assignment than to prepare them for a range of activities.

I'ROFI'SSIONAL INTERESTS

Lastly, the respondents were asked about their professional interestsbecause such interests indicate their receptivity to new thoughts andnorms of behaviour in the profession. The professional examinationspassed, their reading habits and membership of professional bodies gaveus a rough measure of the respondents' professional interests.and perhapsdevelopmen t.

It ryas found that go per cent of the civil servants in the sample studiedhad not taken up anv professional studies and examinations. The remain-ing ro per cent had passed such cxaminations either before or after joiningthe sewice; some reporled to bc preparine for them. Almost 68 per centof the respondents neither read any professional journals nor are theymembers of any professional associat:ons. The remaining 32 per cent re-ported to be doing one of the two or both: reading professional journalsand holding membership of professional societies (Table K of Appendix I).When, however; the professional interests of the respondents were analysedaccording to the class of service. :nter-esting differences were noticed as

shown in Table 3.r5 belolv.The results in the table are encouraging for they show that higher level

civil servants show professional interests more often than lower level civilservants. Again it was found that a highcr prbportion of respondents in theState level agencies (B and D) do not have the professional interests of thetype considered in this study as compared r'vith the respondents in Centralagencies (A and C). About 8r per cent of rhe respondeuts in the State

Profile of Deuelopment Personnel

TABrE 3.15

PROFESSIONAL INTERXSTS BY CLASS AT PRXSENT

n<

Numbet Reportitg

Ty1:es Professional Interests Con sidtretl Class I(pet cent)

Class II Class III(per cent) (pu cat)

Read proGssional joumals only

Member of professional societies only

Read ptofessional journals and memberof professional societies

Neither read orofessional iournals norrnembcr of anv professioial associ:rtion

36.5

).1

34.3

24. I

25.0

6.6

13 .2

55 .2

6.96.2

2.2

84.7

Torar

agencies did not read any professional jourrrals nor were they members ofprofessional associations as against 39 per cent in the Central apiencies.

It was noticed that difierence in orofessional interests varied more ac-

cording to whether they were rvorking in Central or State agencies thanaccording to the development sectors in which the agencies r{ere engaged.

Suuu.lnv AND PRoFTLE oF DEVELopMENT PERsoNNEL

We have described the demographic characteristics of the 7e3 civilservants in the sample. These civil servants served in four different Gov-ernment agencies engaged in carrying out development Programmes in thefields of agriculture and industry. Based on the modal frequencies, thefollowing profile of developmental personnel emerges from the study. .

Civil servants in India engaged in developmental activities appear totle generally younger than those doing traditional functions. In this respectthey come closer to the newer bureaucracies, such as those of Egypt andPakistan.

Unlike the Egyptian bureaucr-acy, howevcr, developmental personnel inIndian Governments are more often 11131

- 6o per cent on the criterion of

the place of birth and 5o per cent on the criterion of the place lil'ed induring adolescent years. The study nevertheless shows that the higher class

civil servants have more often ,an urban and metropolitan background thanthe lor,ver class civil servants. It is also found that the civil servants rvithan urban and metropolitan background preponderate in the industrialdevelopment programmes while in the agricultural development pro-grammes the preponderence is of those with rural background.

In so far as parental occupational background is concerned, rvhen com-pared with the traditional sectors of the civil service, the development civilservants seem generally more representative of various national groupings.

100.0% 100.0% 100.0o/o

(N: 137) (N: 116) (N - 44e)

46 BUREAUcRACY AND DEVELoPMENT ADMINIsTRATIoN

Comparisons with the Egyptian and Pakistani civil service in this respectalso suggest that the distribution of Indian development bureaucracy amongdifferent occupational backgrounds is more even. The Egyptian andPakistani bureaucracies are somewhat more inclined to reproduce them-selves. The study however shows that the higher the class of the develop-ment civil servant in India, the greater the chance of his coming from thecivil service family background, and conversely the lor,ver the class the greaterthe chance of his backqround being that of an agricultural family. Thestudv found that the rcsponclenrs have largely entered the higher class bvmcans of promotions from the lolvcr class. This implies that the represen-tation of difierent occupational backgrounds in the civil service is a morerecent phenomenon.

An important finding of the studv is that the development bureaucracyin India is not dominated by the upper and upper-middle economic classesof the soc;ety, rvhich is the general pattern in many bureaucracies in bothde'r'eloped and developing countr-ics. To that extent again the 'reprcsenta-tive' character of the de'r'elopment bureaucracy in India seems greater.

It is also seen rhrr doelopmcnral personnei have attained hi[her levelsof education than their counterparr lvorking in traditional functional areas.As expected, the higher level civil ser\.ants ctrme with a higher educationalattainment than the lorvcr level civil servants. In this respect, the higherclass civil servants in India are comparable n'ith the higher civil servantsin developed as well as developing countries. The study also demonstratedthat the Central Government agencies attract better educated personnelthan the State Government agencies. As regards the academic disciplinesstudied at the university level, the social sciences seem to dominate evenin the development spheres, albcit to a lesser extent than in traditionalspheres of Governmcnr act ivities.

The study shows that the Indian civil Service in developmental spheresoperates under a closed career system much like the civil service in tradi-tional spheres. This is in spite of the fact that a larger proportion of therespondents in the sample of the study are reported to have been recruiteddirectly by concerned agencies. To the extent that fresh blood is inducted'into the developmental agencies, it is done most often at the Class Ilevel, probably because they had specific rvork experience gained elsewherewhich was found to have direct relevance for their assignment.

The rate of progression in the service is g.5 years on in average amongthe development personnel which is expected to be shorter than that amongthe civil servants serving in ffaditional areas of governmental operations.Hbwever, it is difficult to reconcile the poor rate of promotions with thee*.cessive reliance on lower level personnel for manning higher level positions, which is implied by the closed career system. Among other things,this implies that the development bureaucracy thinks more or less ontraditional lines about filling up the hierarchies in the organization and thartheie are too many civil servants competing for a limited number of promo.tional opportunities. Overstaffing and inadequate filling of hierarchiescould be some of the important causes for this phenonenon.

Profile ol Development Personnel 4'1

From a practical standpoint, an important finding about the develop-

*"rrt p.rroirnel is that the level of their formal training is highly inade-

quate. In fact the majority of the respondents are found to have received

rio training at all. What is more, the modest amount of formal traininga small prJportion of civil servants go through, aPpears to come their way

onlv in the initial years of their career.

To tt, the above findings were rather unexpected' Many a respondent

joined in the service of the agenqies studied at a relatively youn8 age at

which they did not have, or had very little previous work experience.

Furthermore, the agencies studied are engaged in development Programmesthat most probably called for nelv skills and outlook on the Part o{ theit

employees. It was expected, therefore, that the formal training of the em'

ployees would be a more prominent featur€ reported by these offices' How-

iu.i, io the absence of it, on-the-job training assumes great imPortance inttil#:tlTf,

throwing up information about their demographic cornpo-

sition, studies of profiles of civil servants as noted at. the beginning of thechapter, do not in themselves lead to any significant conclusions unless

their relationship with certain behavioural Pattelns are established. Inthe later chapterl We shall examine if and in what manner the backgrouno

characteristics of development buleaucracy are associated rvith their job

orientations.

Bureaucratic Characteristics ofDevelopment Administration

THn rnnonr:,rrcar formulations about bureaucracy as a form of organisa-tion have been revierved in Chapter I. In the present study we haveexamined the parameters of bureaucratic theory further to find out theextent to rvhich it applies to the civil service system in the developmentspheres in India. As stated earlier, in this exercise we have concentratedon the six key characteristics of bureaucracy, viz., hierarchy, division oflabour, system of rules, impersonality, rationality, and rule-orientation. Ourresults are discussed in this chapter.

Pnonrtrt ron Stunv

The first three characteristics rve took as relating essentially to the struc-ture of organisations since thev formed the foundation, and the other threeas basically the behavioural characteristics of bureaucracy involving deci-sional and operational situations. In this study, we have assumed thalbureaucracy is an organisational condition that exists along a continuumand that it is not a condition that is cither present or absent.t Our problemhere was to ascerrain r he cxrcnr to rrhich development administiation ischaractcrized by burcaucratic qualitics. Morc specificallv. l-c examinedthe following nvo hypotheses leading towards it.

(a) The civil service in India is highly 'bureaucratic' indicating thatall the characteristics of bureaucracy are present in it to a highdegree and in comparable proportion;

(b) Since bureaucratic characteristics are inherently related .ro eachother, the civil service in Inclia is uniformly bureaucratic alongstructural and behavioural dimensions.

The first hypothesis is based on the r,videly held characterizarion of theIndian civil service as 'bureaucratic'. Most often, 'brreaucratic' meansadherence to a plethora of rules and regulations, to formalization and tostandardized ffeatment of cases. Robert Merton calls these very featuresof a formal organisation system as bureaucratic.s Accepting the generalcharacterization, we hypothesized that the Indian civil service is highly

r, H{I,- R. H., 'Intraorganizatio)ral Structuml Variations: Application of Bureau-cratic Model', Administratiae Science Quarterly, Vol. VII, No. 3 (i962-63), pp. :g5-3og.

e. Merton, Robert K., Social Theory and Social Struitutre, New york, -Th6- free

Press, 1968, pp. e49-e6o.

Bureaucratic Characteristics of Deaelobment Administration

bureaucratic along all the dimensions considered in the study.Writers on the subject are generally more in agreement about the struc-

tural characteristics and much less agreed on the behavioural characteri-stics of bureaucracy. Even so, bureaucratic organisation continues to beoften described in terms of the characteristics postulated in the classicaltheory. The theoretical formulation thus conforms largely with the idealtype of Weber. It includes both structural and behavioural characteristics.Both these characteristics are integral pafts of Weberian bureaucracy. Infact they are components of the very definition of bureaucracy. What ismore, at least theoretically, the two are assumed to co-exist in a compar-able degree. It follows that as a group the structural characteristics of aparticular bureaucracy should compare lvith the behavioural characteris-tics of it as a group. This is the basis of the second hypothesis. If the,civilservice in India is highly bureaucratic on the structural dimension, then,in accordance with the postulates of the theory, it should also be highlybureaucratic on the behal'ioural dimension. Besides examining thc abovehypotheses, the study also explored the relationship of certain factors inthe personal and organisational life of the civil servants, .lvith the degree ofbureaucratization reported by them.

FrNorNcs

OVERALL NA-I'| IRE OF BI IR EAUCRATIZATION

As already mentioned we used l.ikert typc scales for scoring, 'r'r'i th eachscale dichotomizcd at thc mean score and respondents marked 'hieh' and'low' according to the scoring above or belorv the mean. 'I-he results ofour examination of the responses of the 723 members to test the overallcharacter of the Indian civil sen'ice in terms of its 'bureaucratic' natureare presented in the following table.

TasrE 4.1

SCORES ON BUREATJCRATIC CHARACTIRISTICS(N:723)

49

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

. Ratings of Respondents

High Low(yer cent) (pet cent)

Structural:HierarchyDivision of Labour

System of Rules

Behavioural:ImpersonalityRationality

Rule-orientation

59.8r 68.6

52.8

45.5

34. 8

40.2

31.447 .2

26.754.5

65.2

50 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPN{I,NT ADMINISTRATION

Studying the bureaucratic characteristics along the structural and be-havioural dimensions we found that on the structural side, the two charac-teristics of hierarchy and division of labour were substantially supported.However, on the third, i.e., the system of rules, the score of the respon-dents was not as high as anticipated. A sizeable proportion of the respon-dents (little over 47 per cent) reported that their jobs were not so highlycodified that they could be reduced to a mere application of prescribedrules and procedures. One explanation of this could be that most of thedevelopment agencies were new and their internal system of rules had notyet reached the rigid levels that the older and traditional agencies had.

The findings on the structural characteristics suggest that there \4'as

sharp differentiation betr'veen the levels and in the functions of officersand their subordinates. 'l'hus, the process of bureaucratization in the senseof the various characteristics of the bure.aucratic slructure seems to havegenerally 'arrived' in the development agencies of the government at theState as rrell as the Central levels.

The findings on the behavioural dimensions, horvever, suggest importantvariations. lVhile the score on 'impersonality' lvas quite high, on both'rationality' and 'rule-orientation' the scores were perceptibly low. Thedegree of adaptation of rules suggested by the findings, suggest that theprocess of bureaucratization in the development agencies with respect tobehavioural characteristics is indicative of a different trend; that a pro-nounced structural feature of a 'r'l'ell-organized system of rules is not neces-

sarily followed by a behavioural pattern of rule-orientation.When classifying the scores into 'high' and 'low' we did recognise that

this kind of two-way classification is rather global and that the high andthe lolv groups may not contain really high or really low cases respec-tively. Undoubtcdly further analysis rcquired that we identify more sharplydifferentiated groups of the respondents in terms of their bureaucraticdispositions or environment. To meet this, rve adopted a three'fold classi-fication plan described later in this chapter.

The three-way classification as presented in Table 4.2 gives further de-tails on the performance on the scales. Thus, the first hypothesis that thecivil service in India is highly bure aucratic uniformly over all dimensionsis not entirely borne out. The proportion of respondents scoring high ina three-way classification varies from about 34 per cent in the case of therationality dimension to about r3 per cent in the case of the hierarchyof authority dimension. Similarly, one-third of the respondents were foundhighly impersonal in their dealings with citizen clientelc. On the otherhand, it r.vas found that contrary to popular belief, only about rB per centof the respondents are highly rule-oriented.

A little less than a quarter of the respondents are rated low on thehierarchv of authoritv and tule-orientation charactcrist ics. On the otherhand, only r8 to rz per cent of the respondents are found to score lolvon the other four dimensions studied. The majority of the respondents -ranging from 35 to 7r per cent - falling in the moderate group indicates

Bureaucratic Characteristics ol Deaelopment Administration

'l ARLE 4.2

SCORES ON BUREAUCRATIC CHARACTERISTICS

(N:723)

51

. llatings of Re sp o nde nt s

Btr e au cr atic C h ar act er i s t i c s C onside r e d High(yer cent)

Moderate Low(yer cent) (yer cent)

Structural:Hierarchy of Authority

Division of Labour

Systems of Rules . .-

Behavioural:Impcrsonality

RatiolalityRulc-crientation

12.8

16 .9

14 .6

33.3

33 .6

17.8

63 .6

OI.L

70.6

54.7

48 .2

59.3

23 .6

t5 .9

14.8

t2.o18 .2

22.9

bureaucratization to a moderate degree in development administration.The study shorvs important variations in respect of behavioural charac-

teristics of bureaucracy applied to Indian conditions. By rvay of a broad

statement, therefol:e, it could be said that so far as the civil service engaged

in developmental functions is concerned, it is not 'very' highly bureau-

cratic; th;t the modal dbgree of its adaPtation to bureaucratic forrn oforganisation is moderate, and that rvithin it there are important

- differ-

ences in its adaptation along individual dimensions r'vhich are furtherexamined in the second hypothesis.

In order to test the second hyPothesis regarding the Pattern of bureau-

cratization. in the Indian civil - serl'ice \'\'e adopted a diflerent procedure.

The items in the questionnaire relating to the structural characteristics of

bureaucracy were pooled together and considered as a syndrome of bureau-

cratic structure. In the samc way, the items in the scales of bchaviouralchar,acteristics of bureaucracy were taken together to form a syndrome ofbureaucratic behaviour. The responses of each respondent to the items

thus put together in a composite scale were added up to yield a _singlercor. or that scale. The division of the respondents into high, moderate,

and. lotv groups along the two scales of bureaucratic structure and behaviourwas .nrad; again in the same rvay as in the case of individual dimensions'

since we sought to identify the patterns of bureaucratization along struc-

tural and behavioural dimensions, the data $'ere tabulated separately interms of the four agencies studied. The results of this analysis are shorvn

in Figure r.Thi figure shows the grouping of the respondents from each agency into

high, moderate and low gl-ouPs seParately on both dimensions of bureau-

critic structure and behavipur. Since our hypothesis states that the civil

High

Moderate

Low

Percent ofrespondents

100 80 60 40 20 00

Bureaucratic Structure

HiCh

Moderate

Low

High

Moderate

Low

High

Moderate

Low

High

Moderate

Low

Percent ofrespondents

' , I I | , | , t! E, I

00 20 40 60 80 t00

Bureaucratic Behaviour

Agency A

(N:2r5)

Agency B

(N= l0e)

Agency C

(N:r37)

Agency D

(N= 262)

Fig. l: &rrearcrad*iorii;l €cr&ilc *ud,idd

Bureaucratic Characteristics of Development Ad,ministrati'on 53

service in India is uniformlr burcaucratic along structural and behaviouraldimensions if it has a certain level of bureaucratic structure, it shouldalso show a similar level of bureaucratic behaviour. Figure r shorvs theproportion of the emplovees of each aqency scoring high, modcrate, andlow on bureaucratic structure on the one hand. and bureaucratic behaviouron the other. For the purposes of comparison, we have considered onlv thehigh and the lorv groups. The rnoderate grouPs we thought may distortthe comparison. Besides the extremes are also likely to bring out thediflerences more sharply.

Considering first the 'hiqhs' on thc scale of bureaucratic slructure. r're

find that Agency B ranks highest in terms of the proportion of its employees

in the sample scoring high on this dimension, follorved by A, D, and C inthat order. If our hypothesis holds, Agency B should also have the highestproportion of highly bureatrcratic employres in the behavioural sense,

follorved by Agencies A, D and C, again in that order. Actually, holvever,the proportion of respondents scoring highest on the bureaucratic behaviourscale is maximum in Agency A. Agency D reports the next lower propor-tion of employees performing high on bureaucratic behaviour, followed byAgency C. These discrepancies in the rankings of agencies studied suggest

that there is no necessary correspondence befiveen the level of bureaucraticstructure attained in the Indian civil service and the level of bureaucraticbehaviour it shows. Similat discrcpancies are noticed if rve compare theagencies in terms of the proportion of their employees scoring'Iow'on thetwo dimensions. These results imply that the same forces may not be

operating or even when they do, in operation they mav not affect thelevels of bureaucratic structure and behaviour in the same rvay. The second

hypothesis, therefore, does not hold, at Ieast as far as the present data goes.

FURTHER ANALYSIS OF BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE & SEUET'TOUN

From the above data it appears that different Government agencies areat different 'burcaucratic' levels since the Process of 'bureaucratization'(in the technical sense) is influenced by a number of factors which may notoperate in the same nay in all situations. We, therefore, attempted toanalyze these factors. In the first place, rl'e examined the relationshipbefiveen certain organizational characteristics of the agencies studied on theone hand and the degree of their bureaucratizatiotr on the other. For thispurpose, however, the performance of the respondents on each of the sixcharacteristics of bureaucracy was considered separately

Deuelob me n I SectorThe study included tr'r'o Govcrnmenl offices concerned with development

programmes in the field of industry and two offices which handled agricultural development programmes. When the data was analyzed separately

for the tr,r'o development sectors, it yielded the following results.As Table 4.3 indicates, the development sector in which the civil servants


function, viz., agriculture and industry in the present study, noticeablyaccount for differences in the degree of bureaucratization of the officesdealing r,vith them. The study shor'vs that the agriculture sector is morehierarchically organizcd than the industry sector, indicating a great degreeof stratification. Thus about 8o per cent of the rcsponrlcnts from the twoagriculture agencies report high io moderatc clegree of hierarchy of autho-rity in their offices compared to 73 pcr ccnt of the rcspondents frorn theindustrial agencies reporting highly and moderately hierarchical organization in their offrces. 'I'hese differences ,are also statistically significant(chi-square _ r 8.6; df : zl significant at .or level).

In terms of the system of rules, holvever, the study shows agriculturaldevelopment seitor to be less bureaucratic than the industrial develob-ment ;ector. Thus about r o per cent of the sub-sample of respondentsserving in the forrner have scored high on system of rules scale while rg.3per cent of them scorc lorv on it.

Tasr s 4.3

BURXAUCRATIZATION PROCESS & DEVELO?MENT SECTORS

Dcgree of Bureaucratization Reported.

chi-Dinensioxs ofBureaucratization squsre

values High Moderate Low

01 a/ a//o /o /o

Agriculture Sector

(N: 3ee)

Industry Sector

(N:324)High

%

Moderate Low

o/ ol/o /o'

Hierarc\ of Authority

Division of Labour

Systcrn of Rule s

Impersonality

Rationality

Rule-orientation

13.6x* 10. 1 69.4

3.8* 14.9 67.6

77.3** 9.6 71.1

31 .6** 25 .3 59.4

2.7* 35.8 48.8

0.1* 18. 1 59.4

20.5 16.2

17 .5 19.4

19.3 20.6

1s. 3 43 .5

15 .4 32.0

22.5 17.4

56.4 27.1

66.6 14.0

70.0 I .4

49.0 7 .5

47 .2 20.8

58 .9 23 .7

* Not Significant.* SignifiJ-ant at .01 level and above.

In contrast, about 2r per cent of the civil servants serving in industrialprogrammes are found to score high on the system of rules dimension ofbureaucracy while only 9.4 per cent of them score low on it (chi-square -27 8; df : e; significant at .oor level): These results imply that in theagricultural programmes, there are fewer formal rules and proceduresgoverning decisional and operating situations than in industrial programmes.

Lastly, the results on the scale of division of labour indicate thar thetwo sectors are comparable as regards differentiation ..of roles and func-

Bureaucratic ClLaracteristics of Deuelopment Admi'nistration 55

tions among the personnel emplo,ved by them. overall, the agriculture

,..ro, upp.i.s more bureaucraiically organized in terms of hierarchical

relations n-ottg its personnel than the industry sector' At the same time,

it is less bure iucratic than the latter in terms of the formal rules and

procedures governing the job behaviour of its personnel''On the b"ehaviouril side, the agriculture sector, as Table 4'3 shows, is

much less impersonal. one fourth of the respondents drawn from the

tr,vo agriculture offices stuclied report acloption of a highly impersonal

uppr.r*h in the illvork in contrast to 4 3.5 Per cent of the respondents

serving.in inclustry offices reporting the same. On the other side, the Pro-portioi of rcspondcnts from an agriculture office scoring lorv on the scale

of impersonality is much higher (r 5.3 Per cent) than the proportion -of

,.rpottd.ttt, from industrial offices scoring lorv on that scale (7'5)' We also

found these differences to be significant (chi-square - 3r.6; df : 2; significant at .oo r level). As regards the other two behavioural dimensions of

bureaucracy, viz., rationality and rule-orientation, the study failed to notice

any significant differences befiveen the two scctors. Nevertheless, the fore-

going hnclings shorv that there are differences in the bureaucratic character

6f d.\'"lopt r.nt administration operating in agricultural and industrialareas._

Size of the O rganizationWe then triicl to see if the size of the agencies rnade for differences in

the lcvel of their bureaucratization' Size n'as defined by us in terms of the

number of personnel employed. As the proportion of respondents to- the

total emplolees was more or less similar in all, the number of resp-ondents

f.om euch 'agency inclicated its relative size' We have reported- above

some differences in bureaucratization in the agricultural and. industrial

sectors. 'fhe relationship of size with bureaucr atizatiom is examincd below

withreferencetoeachsectorseparatelytoensurethatthenatureofthesector does not vitiate the findings.

Table 4.4 shorvs that rvirhin the industrial development sector,, there are

many differences be tween the degree of bureaucratization attained by small

urrd'lutg" organizations. First, the larger of -the two agencies studied.is

found ti be "more

hierarchically organized than the smaller one. If the

lower proportion of our resPondents scoring- lor'v on the scale of hierarchy

of uutirority is taken to indicate a higher level of bureaucratization, we

find that about r3 per cent of the civil servants servin8 in the largtr agency

score low on thalt scale compared with z6 per cent of the civil servants

working in the smalle. ug".iy. Similarly, 28- Per cent of the respondents

employ"ed in the larger ag:ency have scored -high on hierarchy of authority

", ig"itttt 23 Per cenl of ihe employees in the smaller agency'-These differ-

.rr.J. ho*.rl.i narrowly missed the b per cent level of significance -se

t {orthe study. Nonetheless, they validate the findings -of many a study .thatthe size of the organization and its hierarchical character are Positivelyassociated rvith each other.

56 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELopMENT ADIVfINISTRATIoN

. TaBLE 4.4

BUREAUCRATIZATION PROCESS & SIZT OF ORGANIZATIONIN THN INDUSTRIAL SECTOR

Degree s of Bwcaucratization Re por tu d

chi-Dinensions ofBureaucratizatiott square

v alues

Moderatc

/()

Hipho/io

High tr4oderateo/ olio /o

Low

%

Saalkr Agutty(N: toe)

Larger Agenty(N: 215)

Low

%

Hierarchy of Authority

Division of labour

Systcm of Rulcs

Impersonality

I{ationality

Rule-oricntation

5. t* x.1 5l .3

4.6* 18.3 70.0

2.7* 22.0 't2.4

6. 1** 34.8 58.7

I7.6*** 16.6 58.7

8.9** 39.4 56.8

2s .6 27 .9

11.7 20.0

59.0 13.1

64.6 15.4

5.6 20.0 68.8 tt .2

6.5 4'1 .9 44 .1 8 .0

24..7 39.5 41.4 19.1

3.8 23.7 70.2 6.1

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

As regards the trvo othcr structural characteristics, viz. division of labourand system of rules, the differences bettveen the large and the smallagencies operating in the industrial dcvelopment sector i".r" n,,t material.The fivo agencies, hor'vever, differ sharply on the behavioural characteristics.N{embers of the larger agency .are disposed to function much more im-personally than those of the smaller agency. Thus about 4g per cent ofthe civil servants drarvn from the larger agency are rated highly impersonalin their dealings r,r'ith citizens. In contrast 85 per cenr of ihe respondentsfrom the- smaller agency score high on impersonality dimcnsion (chisquare: 6.r; df : 2; significant ar .o5 level). Similarly, a largcr proportion ofrespondents from the larger organization (gg.S per cent) are found to be'highly' rational than those from the smaller organization (16.6. per cent).From the other side also the poorly rational civil servants come in higherproportion from the smaller agency (24.7 per cenr) than from the largeragency (rg.r per cent). These differences are also statistically sienificint(chi+quare : ,?rB; df : q' significant at .oor level). They sugfest tharthe larger organisations rend to be more rational in their official bihaviourthan the smaller organizations. It may be recalled that as the behaviouraldimension of bureaucracy rationality is defined in the present study as thedisposition to choose between alternatives obiectively

-on the basis of effi-

ciency without allowing any personal considcrarions ro influence it.One of the surprising findings of the study, as described in Table 4.4,

Bureaucratic Characteristics of DeueXopmental Administration '5'1

is that smaller organizations evidence greater degree of rule-orientationthan larger organiltions. About 4o per cent of the respondents from the

smaller ig"".y stuclied ,are found to be highly iule-oriented, rvhereas the

proportio; of such people in the larger agcncy is onlv zl per cent (chisquure :8.g; dl : 2t significant at .o5 le'r'el). One plausible

-explanationfor this phinomenon, assuming that an elaborate system of .Iormal rules

itself induces rule-oriented behaviour on the Part of the cir,il servants. is

that the smaller agency in the sample also operates rvith a more elaborale

framervork of official rule s and procedures for the guidance of its em-

ployees in their rvork (95 per cent of the respondents from the smaller

ig".r.y report high to moderate system of rules as against 89 per cent

from the larger agcncy).Overall, the smaller and the larger agencies handling industrial cleve-

lopment programmcs aPPear to difter from each othcr less in respect of

their organizational structure and more significantly in terms of theirbehavioural styles.

Table 4.5 below examines the problem of the relationship betr'veen size

and bureaucr atization further with reference to the agriculture sector.

TABT.E 4.5

PROCESS OF BUREAUCRATIZATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE

IN THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR

Degree o-f Bureaucr atization Re pofted

D im en sion s of Bure aucrut i zat i ofichi-squafepalues)f

- 1

Snaller Agency(N:13?)

Larger Agency

(N : 262)

High Moderate

%%Lotu

%

Hiph Mod.erateo/ o//o /o

Low

%

Hierarchy of Authoriry

Division of labour

System of Rules

Impersonality

Rationality

Rule-orientation

5 .0* 11 .0

26.5*** 21 .3

3.1* 48.8

4.0* 35.0 59.8

24.8 8. 8 14.8 16.4

28.4 27.1 64.1 8.8

6.0 32.O 50.7 r7 .3

5 .2 26.7 69.8 3.5

4.8* 11.1 62.7 26.2 9.6 72.9 17 .5

13.3** 9 .6 64.2 26.2 1',l .5 69 .4 13. 1

64 .2

50.3

45 .2

* Not significant** Significant at the .01 level.

*** Significant at the .001 lcvel.

The above table shows that the larger and the smaller agencies operat-ing in the agricultural development area have achieved the same levelof bureaucratization except in respect of division of labour and imperso-nality dimensions. The larger agency shows a more elaborate differentiation


of duties and responsibilities among its personnel. Thus 87 per cenr ofthe respondents from the larger agencies report high to moderate degreeof division of labour, in juxtaposition with 24 p€r cenr of rhe respondentsdrawn from the smaller agency reporting similar experience. These differ-ences are also statistically significant (chisquare - r3.3: d,f : 2; significantat .or level). Similarly, the larger organi2ation is also found to functionwith a higher degree of impersonality than the smaller organization. About,28 per cent of the sample drawn from the smaller agency is rated low onthe impersonality scale, lvhile only g per cent of the employees serving inthe larger agency scored low on impersonality (chisquare = 26.b; df : 2;significant at .oo r level). These findings are a little intriguing because, asTable 4.5 shor,vs, the larger agency is reported ro operate with a little moreelaborate system of rules than the smaller ,agency. \\rhat is observed tohappen in the industrial sector is thus partially contradicted by our flnd-ings for the agriculture sector. The data in Table 4.5 also sholv that thesmall organization in the agriculture sector is somervhat more bureaucraticin terms of the behavioural dimensions of rationality and rule-orientationthan the larger organizations, although these differences are not statisticallysignifica nt .

In the foregoing analysis of the relationship of the process of bureaucra-tization with the size of the organisation within the agriculture and in-dustrial fields only one structural dimension, viz., division of labour, andtwo behavioural dimensions, viz., impersonality and rationality, ,are foundto make for significant differences. It is, ho.wever, noted that size makesfor significant differences in the degree of division of labour only in thcagriculture sector. Similarly, rationali_ty is'significantly associated rvith thevariable of size only in the industrial sector. In both the sectors, h.o.wevcr,impersonality is found to be similarly related with the size of the orga-nization. On the n'hole, the size of an organization appears to be moreoften associated with bureaucratic behavioui than with

^bûreaucratic struc-

ture- It is likely that the small agencies in our sample are not really thatsmall as to bring out all the differences in their bureaucratization.

The study included ttvo agencics each of the Central and a State Gov-ernments. In the industrial sector, the larger agency (N : 2 r b) is a Centr,alGovernment age ncy, lvhile the smaller age ncy (N : rog) is a State Govern-m€nt- agency. Similarly, in the agriculture sector, the larger agency (N -z6e) is a State Governmenr agency. and the smaller agency (N : r g?) is acentral Governmenr agency. T able q.q sholvs that rvithin the industrialsector, the Central agency is organized more on bureaucratic lines in asmuch as it is the more hierarchical and has a greater degree of divisionof labour among its personnel, although it has a somewhat less elaboratesystem of formal rules than the State agency operating in the same deve-lopment sector. The data also shorv that the Central agency functionswith a significantly higher degree of impersonality and rationality butwith a somewhat lower degree of rule-orientation than its counterpart atthe State level.

58

Bureaucratic C_haracteristics o'f Deaelopment Administration 59

As regards the agricultural sector the Central agency (N : r37) is founcto operite through a less bureaucratic structure' especially -in terms of

system of rules, than the State agency (N : z1z). Behaviouralll', however,

tire State agency is less bureaucratic (in terms of rationality and ruleorientation dimensions) than the Central agency. The State agency in the

agriculture devclopment sector is ,also significantly more impersonal inits dealings with the citizens than its counterpart in the Central Govern-

ment. These differences have many implications rvhich are discussed later'

Clo.ss ol SeruiceIn this study we assessed the bureaucratization achieved in the Indian

civil service in terms of class. Our hypothesis rvas that the higher class

civil sewants would report less patterned and hence less bureaucraticfeatures.

T^BLE 4.6

BUREAUCRATIZATION PROCESS AND CLASS AT PRXSENT

Dimetsions ofBureauuatizat;on

Degree of Bw e auer ati zat i onaL;-I;:,;;,, crdrsr(ry=lll) t!"il(ry116i 9!!'I!I (itl:_1fl,ilurt Hfuh M. Lotu Hi2h M. Lotu Hi7h M. Lotu

,1f:4 % % % % % % % % %

Hicrarchy of Authority

Division of Labour

Sptem of Rule s

Lnpersonality

Rationality

Rule-orientation

15.0** 6.7

18.1** 6.6

5.0* 10.9

24.O*** 39.4

1 .0* 32-8

35.7*** 10.3

57 .6 35.7

73 .O 20.4

67.1 22.O

39 .4 2l .2

46.O 21 .Z

46.7 43.O

14.6 58.5 26.9 14.4

15.5 64.7 19.8 20.4

16.1 72.O 11.9 15.l

33.1 51 .4 ls.5 31 .4

39.O 45.5. r5.5 32.2

21.4 52.2 26.4 19.3

66.7 18.9

66.1. 13.5

71 .2 13.7

60.5 8.1

40.4 27.4

65 .0 15.7

* Not significant.** Significant at .01 level

*** Significant at .001 level.

Table 4.6 brings out sharply the fact, so far as the sample is concerned,that the higher the class of the civil servants, the less hierarchical is the

organization according to them. Thus only 6.7 per cent of the resPondehts

belonging to Class I have reported a high degree of hierarchy oT authority,compired with about r5 per cent of the respondents belonging to Class IIand III. Similarly, the proportion of respondents Perceiving a low degree

of hierarchy of authority is higher in the case of a higher class than in the

60 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADI{INISTRATION

case of a lower class (35.7 per cent of Class I; s6.g per cent of Class IIand r8.g per cent of Class III). Lastly, the moderate degree of hierarchyis perceived more often by lor,ver class respondents. \Vhat is more, thesedifferences are found to be significant (chisquare : | !'.oi df : 4: significantat .ol level). T'he higher class civil servants thereforc appcar to be lesshierarchically organized than the lower class civil scrvants. That is, thecivil senants of the higher class are required to be less dependent upontheir superiors in the matter of rvork than those in the lon'er class.

The data regarding the divrsion of labour dimension 'lr'hich is presentedin Table 4.6 also show a similar relationship betrveen the class of therespondent and the division of labour experienced. The functions of thehigher level civil sen'ants are reported to be less difierentiated from thoseof other positions. C)n the other hand, the lorver level civil servants reporttheir jobs to be more clearly differentiated from other jobs (chisquare -t5.o; df - 4; significant at .or level). Lastly, the Class I respondents arereported to be rvorking under a slightly less elaborate system of formalrules and procedures than Class II and III respondents. The differencesbetween the degree of ltureaucratization on account of formal rules andprocedures reported by the respondents from the three classes are how-ever not significant.

On the behavioural side of the process of bureaucratization, our data,as described in Table 4.6. shor'v that the loryer the class of the civil servant.the more often is he likely to ,adopt impersonal attitudes in his rvork. Thusonly 8.r per cent of the Class III respondents have scored lorr on the im-personality scale, compared to r,i,6 per cent of Class II respondents and2 r.2 per cent of Class I responclents. Similarly, a highcr proportion oflower class respondents hold a moderatelv impersonal vier,v of their workthan the higher class respondents (6o.5 per cent of Class III; 5r.4 per centof Class II and 39.4 per cent of Class I). Hou'ever, a slightly higher per-centage of Class I respondents are 'highly' impersonal than Class II and IIIrespondents. Overall, the study results shor,v the lower class civil servants tobe more impersonal in their dealings rvith the citizen than the higherclass civil servants. The differences are also found to be significant (chisquare : 24.o; df : 4; significant at .oor level).

We also found (Table 4.6) that the lorver class respondenrs in the samplefunction with a higher degree of rule-orientation than the higher classrespondents. As many as 43 per cent of the Class I respondents have re-ported low degree of rule-orientation, rvhereas it is reported by 26.4 percent of Class II respondents and only r5.7 per cent of Class III respondents.Like-wise, only ro.3 per cent of Class I respondents are highly rule-orienetdcompared to r g to 2 r per cent of the Class II and III respondents. Thesedifferences are highly significant (chisquare : 5o.o; df: 4; significant at.oor level). As regards the rationality aspect of the bureaucratizationprocess, the study found the rhree classes pedorming closely similarly onit. In sum, it can be said that the civil servants serving in the lower classesare more bureaucratized both in terms of structure ind behaviour.

Bureaucratic Characteristics of Deaelopment Administration 6l

RELATIONSHIP WITH BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS

The relationship of bureaucratic characteristics rvith certain organiza-

tional t ariables was examined in the foregoing pages. We were also inte-

rested in finding our if the background characteristics of the civil servants

are associated wlth their bureaucratic disposition; and if so, to what extent.

We confined this exercise to thc behavioural dimensions only' viz'' im'

personality, rationalitli and rule-orientation' The results are described

below.

Type of Personnel'\,\'h"r, ,". analyzed the bureaucratic disposition of the respondents accord-

ing to the type of work they performed, the follor'ving distributional

pattern emerged.

'l rl.l-n 4.7

BUREAUCRATIC DISPOSITION AND TYPE OF PERSONNXL

chi-square

v alues

df:2

Rankiry oJ Respondents

D imen sion s of Bure au cr at lc

Disposition ,Jvuv4J\:n5L- !:!-!YlYY4ry-=1)Hteh Moderate Lotu H|gh Moderate Lowo)' o/ o/ o/ o/ o//o lo /o /o /o /o

Impersonality

Rrtionality

Rule-orientation

9. 5** 36. 1

1.8* 31.9

25.8*** 32.2

l)-)

t6.9

r7 .3 16.6 64.1 19 .3

31 .5 56.6 1l .9

34.7 46.1 r9.2

48.4

5t .2

50.5

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

The above table shorvs that the two grouPs of technical and non-

technical respondents in the sample Perform similarly on the scale .of

rationality. Fio-.".t, they are found to differ significantly as regards.the

degree of impersonality and rule-orientation rePorted by them' Comparison

of the extreme groups of 'highs' and 'lows', indicates that on the whole

non-technical civ-il servants uri" *o." often rule-bound than the technical

civil servants. A somewhat higher proportion (r9.3 per cent) of non-tcchni-

cal respondents have scored l-o'rv on rule-orientation than that of technical

,"rpoth"nr* (r7.3). Similarly a higher percentage of the former Croop 1t

mode.utely rule-fiouncl as compared with the latter group. Therefore, al-

though the technical group has a sizeable proportion of highly tule-oriented

respo*ndents, as a gToup they are in an overall vîew less rule-oriented than

the non-technical respondents. (Average score of technical respondents on

rule-orientation scale ls 5.4, while that of non-technical resPondents is 6'5).

62 BUREAUcRAcY AND DEvEI,oPMENT ADMINIsTRATIoN

These difierences are also significant (chi-square : 28.8; df _ 2; significantat .oor level). Similarly the study shows that the technical and ihe non-technical civil servants hold dissimilar attitudes of impersonalitv in theirwork; however, it is difficult to conclude from the data that one of themis distinctly more impersonal than the other.

Educalional Attai n ments

- The relationship between the graduate and non-gr,aduate respondentsin the sample as regards their bureaucratic disposition is brought out inTable 4.8 below.

TABLB 4.8

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND BUREAUCRATIC DISPOSITION

Dinensions ofBureauuat;cDisllosition

chi-squdre

ualues,$-1

Ranktug of Responden*

g!!!y,ry{y - @_ Not-graduates(N:t56)

High Moilerate Low High Moderute Lowa/ o/ o/ o/ o/ o//o lo /o /o /o /o

Impersonality

Rationality

Rule-orientation

19.0** 33.0 47.7

0.1* 33.0 48.5

48.9** 14.0 52.3

r9.3 33.0 60.0 7.018.5 33.0 4'1 .7 19.3

33.7 21.6 66.3 rz.t* Not sisnificant.** Signifiiant at .001 level.

The study here shorvs that the graduate civil servants are by naruresignificantly less rule-bound than their non-graduate colleagucs. (ine-thirdof the graduate respondents report lolv degree of rule-orieniation and only14 per cent of them are highly rule-oriented. The comparative proportionsfor hig-hly and poorly rule'oriented among rhe non-gracluate iesponclentsate zy.6 per cenr and r2.r per cent respectively (chi-square : +B.S; df _ z;significant at .oor level). The proportion of moderatefu rure-orienied is alsohigher among the latter group.

. Th" study shows rhe same proporrion of graduate and non-graduatecivil servants to be 'highly' impersonal in their dealings with clientele.Excepting for this fact, however, the non-graduates are found to be oftenmore inlpersonal than the graduates. only 7 per cent of the non-graduaterespondents have scored.low on the impersonality scale compr."d to ,qper cent of the graduate respondents. Similarly 6o per ient of thenon-graduates- and 48 per cent of the graduates have scored moderately onthis scale. These differences are also significant. surprisingly the siudyfound close similarity between the graduite and non-giaduat'respondentson the attitude of rationality. we had expected thai the mattei of factconsiderations lvould weigh more with the graduates in their attitude totheir work.

Bureaucratic Characteri.stics of Deuelopment Ad,ministration 63

We analyzed above the bureaucratic dispo.sition of graduate.civil strvants

in the sample on the one hand with that of'non-graduate civil servants. on

the other. ^w. t".t. also interested to examine further and see if higher

lelrls of educational attainment are associated with different degrees of

bureaucratic disposition. -fhis data is presented in Table 4.9. It does show

rhar the higher the cducation of the respondcnt, the less bureaucratic he

generally is in terms of impcrsonality and rule-orientation; but not neces-

sarily in terms of rationality.

TABrB 4.9

BUREAUCRATIC DISPOSITION BY LEVELS OF EDUCATION

Ranking of Responden*

Dinensiots ofB rcauctatic

Disposition

Higher Secondary Graduates Post-gradaates and

(N- 2e4) (N:225) (;':'r;High M. Lowol a/ o//o /o io

Iliph M. Lo'u High M. I-opu/"OO/oOr/o /o /o lo /o /o

Lnpersonality

Rationality

Rule-orientation

30.9 61 .9 7.2 36.4 32.8 30.8 28.1 45.0 ,26.9

34.3 46.9 18.8 32.9 s2.9 14.2 35.2 41.5 13.3

22.1 66.6 11 .3 17.4 54.2 28.4 10.0 49.5 40.5

Nore; The table includes clara fcr only three levels of educational attainment' viz.,

higher seconclary, graduate and post-graduate (including doctorate). Respondents

*ho ".. diploma holders and who have had some college education (say up to

intermcdiate dcgree) are left out.

Eronontic Class OriginAs Table 4. r o sh;ws, among the resPondents rvith higher, middle and

lower economlc class origin, only the respondents rvith higher economic class

origin stand o.rt pto-iir"tttly as more impersonal and lcss rule-oriented,wh"ereas responde;ts .lvith a background of the other trvo economic classes

are found to per{or-rn identically on the three dimensions of bureaucratic

disposition. H-or,vever, only the differences on account of nrle-orientationar; found to be statistically significant. As a grouP, the civil servants

with the higher economic class origin appear to be significantly less rule-

bound than their colleagues rvith a middle and lower class background'Further, although the differences in respect of the impersonality dimension

are not statisti-al1y significant, the data do show the higher class civilservants to be someu'hat more impersonal, i.e., less inclined to allow per-

$onal and relational considerations to influence decision-making'


TABIE 4.l0

ECONOMIC CLASS ORIGIN AND BUREAUCRATIC DISPOSITION

Dimensions ofBurcaunaticDisposition

chi-squ4fe

ualues,1f-

^

Ranking of Respondents

Higher Class Middle Class Lower ClassOilgix (N:82) Origin (N:221) Origin (N-4zo)

High M.o/ o//o /o

Low High M. Low HiglL I.t. Lowo/ o/ o/ ol oi o/ o//o /o /o /o /o /o /o

14.7 30.7 58.3 11.0 32.3 55.7 t2.0

17.2 33.0 48.4 18.6 33.5 48.1 18.4

35.3 18.6 57.0 24.4 18.9 61.1 20.0

* Not significant.** Sigrrificarrt at .05 level.

Rural f Urban BackgrrrundFor the purpose of this study, we considered a civil servant to have rural

or urban background on the basis o{ his having spent a major part ofhis adolescent years in either rural or urban areas. The study, however,found that there are no material differences in the bureaucratie disposition of the civil servants with a rural or urban background.

Parental OccupationThe study also examined the relationship between parental occupation

of the civil servants and thcir bureaucratic disoosition. As shown in Table4.r l the differences in the degree of rationality reported by the respondentswith differing parental backgrounds are not significant. Horvever, the fivegroups of respondents are found to score significantly differently on thescale of impersonality. On the one hand, respondents coming from thefamilies of Government servants ind independent professionals like doctorsand lawyers are similarly distributed over the scale indicating a similarpattern of disposition in terms of the attitude of impersonality. On theother hand, more or less the same proportion of respondents from the twosub-samples of agriculture background and privare business backgroundare found 'lorv' on impersonality.

. Also, they are highly and moderately impersonal in a similar proporrion.Lastly, the civil serv.ants whose parents are/rvere teachers are found to bemore or less evenly distributed as 'highly', 'moderately' and 'poorly' im-personal. In the overall perspective, respondents who are sons of agricul-turists and private businessmen are found to be more often impersonal intheir work, followed by the respondents rvhose parents /guardians ,are Gov.ernment servants and independent professionals. The parental backgroundof the teaching profession appears to provide the civil servants who are less

Impersonality

Rationality

Rule-orientation

8.4* 45.1 40.2

0.1* 35.3 47 .5

11.3** 9.9 54.8

Bureauctatic Characteristics of l)euelobnt.eut AdminisLration

TABLE 4.11

pinENrar occupATroNAL RACK(;RouND ANnBUREAUCIIA IIC I)I5I'O5I TION

b)

Rankiry oJ'Resyondents acco ling to Parc*al Batkgtound

Dimensions & Dqrae o-f

Bure aucr at i c Dt s p osit i ottPriuate Indel:endent Teaching

Ba.rircss ProfesionGout.

SupittAgricul-

ture(N: 202) (N: 203) (N: 1e8) (N: 4r) (N: 4e)

.o//o

o//o

oi o//o loo//o

Impersonality*

High

Moderate

Low

Rationality**

High

Moderate,

low

' Rule-orientation***

High

Moderate

Lo*'

Jl .l

5t.4

17 .5

----i00.0

22.5

70.0

7.5

3l .8

5.6

48.9

17.0

38.7

38.7

zz -6

100.0 100.0 r00.0 100.0

100.0

31 .9

45.4

22.7

100_o100.0

15.5

62.3

))i

29 .2

<1 A

18.4

35.0

5t .z

13. 8

43.8

43.8

't2.4

40. 8

36.1

23.1

100.0 100.0

100.0 100.0

20."t

62.0

t7 .3

18. I

56.0

25.9

o.+

53.6

40.0

100. o

18 .4

49 .O

32.6

100.0 100.0

.* Chi-square - 22.0; df :8; Significanr ar .01 level.** Clri-sqLrnrc -- 14.6: df . 8; Nit sisnificirnt.*** Chi-sq-uarc : I 6. I ; df : 8; SignifiTant at .05 level.

often impersonal. These rcsuks are sharply brought our by rhe examina_tion.of the pioportion of respbndents from each group, periorming lorv ont he impcrsonalitl scale.

As regards rule-orientation, the studv shows (Table 4. r r ) that the civilservants coming from the families of independent professionals are leastrule-orienred. As many as 40 per cenr of this group of respondenm have


scored low on rule-orientation while only 6.4 per cent of them are reportedto be highly rule-oriented. On the other hand, the resporxlents broughtup in the tradition of agricultural families are more rule-oriented thanperhaps any other group in the sample. About 17 per cent of them havescored low on rule-orientation scales, while 83 per cent shol,v either highor moderate rule-orientation. The data further shorv that the civil servantswhose parents are Government servants and those who hail from familiesof private businessmen have a comparable pattern of attitude torvardsofficial rules and procedurCs. Lastly, as in the case of the results on im-personality, the sons of teachers joining Government service are foundto be only slightly more rule-orie nted than their colleagues whose parentsare independent professionals.

Ag,It is said that advancing age brings in a greater bureaucratic approach

in the work of the civil servant. In the present study, only the attitude ofrule-orientation 'rvas found to be related to the age of the respondents toa significant measure. Low rule-orientation is a less common phenomenonamong the younger respondents than among the middle-aged and olderrespondents. Similarly a larger proporrion (65.5 per cent) of the youngercivil servants in the sample are moderately rule-oriented than that foundamong middle-aged and older respondents (5 r .55 per cenr). The studythus does not support the popular view mentioned atrove, not ,at .least inrelation to an important characteristic of the bureaucratic mode of work-ing, viz., rule-bound behaviour in a job. As regards the other nvo bureau-cratic characteristics, viz., impersonality and r.ationality, the study did notfind the three age groups to differ on them significanrly.

Talr.s 4. 12

BUREAUCRATIC DISPOSITION AND AGE OF RESPONDENTS

Ranbing of Resyond.en* according to Age Groups

Dinension E Degree ofB urearcrat ic D i sp o sition

Youno(iv: iz:)

Middle aged

(N: 214)otd

(N:134)

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

Rationality*

Rule-orientation**

3l .4 59 .2 9;4 37 .7 50.O 12.3 32.8 50.0 t7 .2

32.5 52.0 r5.5 33.3 46.2 20.5 37.3 40.3 22.4

17.l 65.6 17.3 t8.3 50.9 30.8 r8.5 54.4 27.r

* Not sienificant.* Chi+qrire - 17.5; df :4; sigaificant.at .01 level.

Bureaucratic Characieristics of Deaelopmeni .Administration 6i

Upwaril Mobi,lityPromotions of career employees are presumed to give rise to positive

attitudes and behaviour relevant to their job assignments. We, therefore,examined if those of our respondents who have been upwardly mobilc inGovernment service showed different bureaucratic dispositions. For thispurpose lve divided the respondcnts into fivo bload groups of those rvhohave received one or more promotions and those rvho h.ave not receivedany promotion. The data is presented in Table 4.r3.

TABLE 4.13

BUREAUCRATIC DISPOSITION AND UP'WARD MOBILITY

D imen si on s of Bur e au cr ati c

Disposition

Rdnhing of Respondehts

- !::r!:::(N =

467) Non-protttotees(N:256)Chi-squareualuesd;f:2

High Modeiate Low Hieh Moilerate Lowo/ ol o/ o/ o/ o//o /o /o /o /o /o

impersonality

Rationality

Rule-orientation

2.6** 35.3 52.6

3.2* 34.0 46.0

12.1 29 .8 58. 5 tl .7

20.o 33.2 51 .9 14.9

tl.2** 19.0 54.7 26.3 14.9 67.1 18.0

* Not significant.** Significant at .01 level.

The only significant finding emerging from the above table is that the'civil servants rvho have received promotions tend to be less rule-boundthan those rrho have not. Thus a6.3 per cent of the former group of res-pondents have scored lorv on the rule-orientation scale compared t-o rB percent of

-the latter group. Like-wise the proporrion of the moderately rule_

oriented- among the promoted and non-promoted respondents is 54.7 percent and 67.r per cenr respectively. These differences are also slgnincint(chi-square : r r.2; df : q. significant at .or level). The data also"suggeststhat the more rhe promotions received by the civil servant, the less iule-oriented he is.

Formal T ra!n in g

- The importance of formal training for matching the person lvith his jobin terms of skills, values, attitudes etc. cannot be over-emphasized. unfoitu-nately as noted in the earlier chapter, a large proportian of the subjectsof the present study are found never to have reieived any formal trainingduring their career in Goverrrment. However, even then we tried to finaout if formal tr:aining makes any difierence to the bureaucratic dispositiorrof our respondents. Our dara on this problem is presented in Table 4.r4 interms of the groups of trained and untrained iespondents.

68 BUREAUCRACY ANI] DT,VIILOP$'IENT ADTTINIS11TATION

'fAtsr[ 4. 14

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

Ranl<h.g of Respondcnt s

Di snrcn sions o-[ BurrcunaticDisposition

'Iiaine d Un-trainedChi-squart

uahes,lf:2 (N : 232) (N: 4e1)

xf"o '"4;*. 3[ High Moduateo/ ol/o io

Lowoi/o

Impe rsonality

Rationality

Rr.rle-orientation

11 . 6**

0.5*

26.6 56.4 17.0

30.1 50.8 19.1

16.5 59.4 24.r

36.4 s3.9 9.7

35.0 46.8 18.2

18.4 59.0 22.6

* Not sieui{icant.** Significant at .01 lcvel.

The foregoing table demonstrates that the civil servants who have been

exposed to formal in-se rvice training are less impersonal by dispositionthan those who have not received any such training. Thus the formergroup has a smaller proportion of highly impersonal and a larger groupof poorly impersonal civil servants tl-ran the latter. These differences are

also statistically significant (chisquare : rr.6; clt : 2; significant at 'orlevel). It n'as al.so generally found that the greater the length of formaltraining received by the respondents, the lesser did thev emPhasize im-personal handling of thcir r,ork. We could not. holvet'er, discriminatebetlveen trained and untrained respondents as regarcls the other tlt'o dimen-sions of bureaucratic disposition, viz., rationality and rule'orientation.

Suultanv AND CoNcr,usIoNS

I n r his chaptt'r n e havc examined. if it docs so. how far the Indian arlmi-nistrative system in the development sphere conforms to the propositionsof bureaucratic theory. \Ve have used the lr'ord burcaucracy in a techni-cal sense to refer to a formal organisation which has certain charact crist ics.

The six characteristics of bureaucracy considered bv us for the purposesof the present study werc: (r) hierarchy, (z) division of labour, and (3)system of rules (these are structural in character); and (4) impersonality.(5) rationality, and (6) rule-orientation (these are behavioural in character).We confined ourselves to these six characteristics of the bureaucratic formof organization because they have a r,vide support in the literature on thesubject. Essentiallv, they have been drawn from the \Veberian concept ofthe 'ideal type' bureaucracy n'hich, in spite of the I'arious modifrcations,remains to this date perhaps the most rvidely accepted theoretical '

formulation.

Bureaucratic Characteristi'cs of Dettelopmenb Administration 69

Our first hypothesis rvas that the civil service in India is highly bureaucra-

tic implying thereby that all the characteristics of bureaucracy are pr€sent

i" rii"'"'r.,rsh degreJ ancl in comparable proportion. This h,vpothesis required

that the Government agencies studied by us should lie at or near the toP

of the ordinal scales thai rve consttllcted along the six bureaucratic dimen-

sions notetl above. Our informants in this excrcise have been the entire

group of the civil servants in Class I, II and III serving in these agencies

it th. ti_" of the stucl_v and their cxpericnce of it. The agencies handlc

the development programmes in the fields of agticulture and industry' at

the Central and at the State levels.

The finclings of the stuclv did not fully support the abovr: hypothesis

Incleed the study showecl the agencies in the samplc to be-' on the rvhole'

moderately bureaucratic rarher than eirher hiehly or poorlr bttreaucratjc.

Thus half or more of the total number of 723 responrlents rate these egencies

as moclerately bttreaucratic along both structural and behavioural dimen-

sions. Furthermore, the studv shorvs interesting differenccs in the bureau-

cratization of the agencies studied along individual dimensions'

The proportiotr Jf 'highr' ancl 'moderates' on the three structural charac-

teristics ure co-pn.uble, fall;ng in the range from r? per cent on the

hierarchv of authority t.t t7 p"t cent on the division of labour' and in

the range from 64 per cent on thc hierarchy of authoritv to 7r per -cent

on the ;ystcm of iules respecrivelv. This su_ggests that $'c can talk about

bureaucratic structufe as bcing of a high or low ordet lvith the dimensions

of it present in more or less the sarne order. Hot re\rcr, our stutly has shol'ed

differences in the proportion of highs on the stnrctural characteristics and

the highs on the behivioural charactcristics, rvith the implication that an

organiiation may nor be equalll' bureaucratic _along all the dimensions at

a iarticular point in time. We 'are here actually moving on to the seconrl

hyiothesis of the stuclv, viz., that the Indian administr:ative system is uni-

foimlv bureaucratic along structural and behavioural dimensions. As re-

gards the first hypothesis, suffice it to say h.ere that the generallv held hypo

ihesis that the developmental Inclian civil service is highly bureaucratic

is not borne out by the present study.our seconcl hypothesis that thc civil service is uniforml,v bureaucratic

along structural antl be hal'ioural rlimeniions is also no1 supportcd, bv the

data of the stucly. The stucly has demonstrated that the level of bureau-

cratic structure attainecl b1' an organisation may not necessarily correspond.lvith the level of bureaucratic lrehaviour displayed by it. That is, it is

possible for an organisation A to be structurally more bureaucratic than

organisation B, lr'hile bcing at the same time behaviourally less bureau-

critic. These results suggcsi 1o; tnat the bureaucratia structure is not thc

only source of bureaucratic behaviour, (b) that forccs determining bureau-

cratic sffucturc and behaviour alc not the same oI that thc-V clo not oPerate

in the same rvay for the trvo climensions.Notlvithstanding the forcqoinq observations. a basic conclusion emerg-

ing out of the study is that the general constructs of hureaucratic thcory


as evolved by weber and others provide a useful basis both for practicalas rvell as for broader theoretical and comparative purposes. 'ro the extentthat the study identifies the universality oi the structural characteristics ofbureaucracy it_ also srlppelts the thesis of several schorars that for comp.ara-tive purposes buieaucratic strucrure presents a meaningful starting point.

\\re may reiterate that the stutry rvas . concructed in the Gove-rnmentagencies handling developmental progr,anrmes in the fields of industry andagriculture. The study, therefore, significantlv demonstrates that modifica-tions in the bureaucratic. character have taken place in these agencies. In thcabsence of criteria variables, rve do not knor,l' ivhat purpose tirese moclifications are sen'ing. If it is assumed that developmental taiks ancl the bureau-cratic model of organization are basically antithctical, then.the lesser thebureaucratization of development.al agcncies, the better the chance fortheir efficient performance. on the other hand, if rve assume that thereis no inherent conflict between the two, the moderate to low bureaucraticnature of the developrnental agencies would reduce the chances of theirperforming well. This subject is dealt rvith at length later in this book.

The study has revealed that the structuxal and the behavioural charac.teristics of bureaucracy do not operate similarly. Hoping to explarn thesedifferences, rve examined cert.ain factors in the personal ind orsanisationalIifc of the civil servants for hints of bureaucrat'ic propensiries.

At the organizational level, it was seen that the functional content ofbureaucracy, the type of office, and its levcl of contacts to meet the pro.grammatic needs, do make a difference in its structural and behaviouralcharacteristics. Thus the Government agencies functioning in the agricul-tural development sector rver:e found to be significantly more heiLrchi.cally organized, the roles of their members less differentiated from cachother, and their operation less impersonal than the agencies handling developme nt programmes in industry. Similarly given ihdt the nvo C"rrtrulGovernment agencies studied are the secre.tariat or policy type anrl thctr,vo State Government agencies studied are the field or operaiional type,the study showed that the former were organized more on bureaucraticlines than rhe latrer in rcrms of hierarchy of authorirv and division oflabour' Howcver. they were Iess bureaucratic in rerms of the svstcm offormal rules' on the other hand, the field agencies rvere founcl to functionwith significantly lower degree of impersonality and also of rationality.overall, the secretariat agencies appeared to be more bureaucratic thanthe field agencies. The foregoing findings of the study about the bureau-cratic character of developmental agencies and further about the associa.tionship between the nature of development programmes handled by Gov-ernment agencies and their bureaucratic nature, have rather importanttheoretical as well as practical implications.

.Theoretically this implies that bureaucracy is not a static phenomenrnwith an analgam of certain structural and behavioural cLaracteristicspresent in more or less comparable proportions; that bureaucracy is a farmore dynamic phenomgnon with the functional contents and the nature

Bureaucratic Characteristics of Deaelopment Ad'ministration 7I

Of work themselvcs influencing these characteristics. Indeed it is difficult to

understand the adaptation reported by the agencies studied if bureaucracy

as postulated in theory, is an efficient mode of organisation. Would thismein that there are less chances of their performing efficiently as a resultof these adaptations? Or would it indicate the ellorts of these agencies to

adapt their structures and behavioural styles to the requirements of deve-

lopmental responsibilities ?

All organisitions are brought inro existence to fulfil certain functions

or. p.,rpou"r. The form of organisation shoulcl, therefore, be relevant to the

functions it is expected to perform. In fact the functions should take pre-.

cedence in any question about the appropriate form of organisatio"' Th-'existing theory oi bureaucracy, based essentiallv on the Weberian model,

though exriemely useful as a starting point, is static as it prescribes struc'

turai- an<l behaviour4l norms and assumes them to lead to efficient per-

formance. In this sense, Heady's3 suggestion to use the structural postulates

of Weberian theory only and explore the various behaviours associated withthem appears to be unnecessarilv restrictive' While such an approach wouldmake ctmparative studies in bureaucracy relatively easy it would not- help

adequately in fhe development of a rigorous and tralid bureaucratic theory

either for academic or policy purPoses. The main limitation of Heady's

approach is that it makes structural postulates of bureaucratic theory in-dependent of behavioural postulates. The present study shows that it is

,r.i.rr"ry to examine structural and behavioural postulates togethel and

in relation to the functional contents to formulate a more valid and usefu-

bureaucratic theory. Admittedly this would cfeate many research problems.

The findings of the study also suggest that rvhat we need is not only ageneralizecl bureaucratic model but also a range of sub-models in rvhich its

iarious characteristics play different roles, some more powerful, some less

powerful, in various combinations, towards the fulfilment of organisational

goals and objectives. As noted above the main consideration which appears

io necersitate such a range is the functional content of bureaucracy whichmay differ from agency to agency and the type of the work which may ormay not involve so much contact rvith the field or the masses'

-iht study also brought out a number of other factors besides the func-

tional contents of organisations that art significantly associated with thbirbureaucratk dispositions. Thus, the size of the organisation in, terrns

. of

the number of pirsonnel sewing in it is found to be positively__related withthe impersonal attitudes of the latter in their rvork. The civil servants inthe larger agencies studied are reported to be more impersonal towards

_thepeople-who come to them for rvork than those working in- the

-smalleruger.i.r. What is more, this is true in both theagricultural and indus-

trlal development sectors, and also that both the larger and smaller agen-

cies are found to function significantly not under different systems of rules.

The higher class civil servants in the sample are found to be less hierar-

BUREAUCR{CV AND DEVELOPMEIfI ADMINISTRATION

chically organized and their tvork less finely demarcated than is the casewith the lolyer class civil servants. This is perhaps as it ought to bc. T'hework of the higher class civil servants cspecially in the clevelopmenr spheres'is morc complex. not vcry amcnable to exact definitions, and requiring agreater degree of autonornv, i.e.. it should be less formalized and rleid.It may however be pointed out that because of its dynamic nature. ihework of the lorver class civil scrvants in the developrnent adrninistrationcannol be bureaucratized ro thc.srme exlenr as in the tradiri,rnal aclrninistration. We do not know if the lorver class cil,il ser\rants in the sarnpleare functioning under just enough or excessive bureaucratic structures. Tothe extent the agencies studied har.e adoptcd their structures in relationto higher class ci.l'il servants, tve think the,v havc improved the chances ofefficient performance.

On the behavioural sidc the study iholved the lower class civil servantsto be more impersonal and rule-oriented than the higher class civil ser\-ants.In a sense this finding confirms the popular vier,v about the Governnrentbureaucracv beine 'lvooden', rvhich vielv applies more to lorver cla"s. espe-cially Class III civil servants rvith lvhom citizens most ofren come intocontact. This attitude is perhaps a legacy from the past rvhen the colonialadministration $ras mostly engaged in regulatory functions in the perform-ance of rvhich impersonal and rule-bound behaviour rl'as actuallv expecte(lof rhe civil \ervants. The prr'renr srudv shorrs rhat although thesi' atri-tudes are nor{ on a dcclinc among the highcr class civil scrlants. thcv arestill a significanr part of the behaviour pattern of lorver class civil servants.It sholvs that the Indian administrative system is behaviourallv morcbureaucratic al lhe lorrer lcrcls ancl lcss hurcaucmric at lhe hiehei lerelr.There can thus be clifferences in the burcaucratizarion of not onlv clifferenragencies but also of different lel'els of personnel sen.ing in thc 'same

agencv. The studv shor,r's that although thc changes in the functional gon-tents of agencies stutlied hal'e lerl to modifications in their oreanisaiionon bureaucratic lines. thesc raoclifications har.e taken place more anronq thehigher lcvcl than amonq thc lol'er level personnel. 'Ihe pay off fromthese moclifications in tcrms of impro'r'ccl pcrfor'mancc of the functions isbound to be lcss than exoected.

The strrrh has rliscor.c,l somc h:rckg'orrnd characrerisr ics of the cir,ilservants in the sample to be significantlv associated n'ith their bureaucraticdispositions. For instance, gradu.ate ci'il scrvants are founcl to be less irn-personal and lcss rulc-orientcrl than non-gracluatc cil'il servants. similarlvyounger civil serl'ants are rnore rule-bounc{ than oldel ciril servanrs. afinding r,vhich is .in line rvith the observation maclc :rbo'e that lolt erclass cir il servanrs ale m()re .rlc-bounrl rhin higher c]ass ci'il scr'anrc.Again, civil servants lvho have received formal training are founcr to havLsignificaurly lcss artirrrdc ,[ impclsonalirr rhnn thc non.trainecl cir il scr-vants. These results suggest that a r,arietv of levers can be userl to ensulethe desirable behaviour on the part of the civil ser\:ants.

While the present findings could be termed at besr proposing nerv

12

Bureaucratic Charact eristics of Deuelopment Admi'nistrati'on I5

hypotheses, it is important to bear in mind that at no time has the gov-

ernment in India attemPtecl to clelibcrately adapt bebavioural patterns of

bureaucracy to suit the organisational objectives. 'fhe-changes lvhich are

noticeableinthelntlians"ettinghar,cclearl,vgro\{norrtofthenaturalprocesses and the aclministrative compulsions, rathcr than by design' The

hnclings, therefore, are important boih for the theorcti.cal as r'vell as for

practiial purposes. Does the study suggest any specific moclifications in the

gene.ul bureiucratic model? 'fhe ansrver scenls to he: Partly ycs' In-the

f,"r,.lopme.rtul bureaucracy, at least two modifications seetn to emerge' One

. i, -n.. of a traditional equilibrium burcaucracy in r.vhich the structural

ancl behavioural postulatci arc relativelv balanced' Such a bureaucracy

rvould be .r".r"tuiiut' type rvith relativelv little 'mass contact' for achicve-

menr of its objectives. -ihe other 'vould

be a 'dynamic' condition rvhelc

both the struct;ral and behavio'ral charactcristics are changing as a result

inter aliatof the interaction betlveen the burcalcracY and the citizen clien-

tele inherent in the achievement of administrative objectives'

The study thus suPports to an cxtent some of the findings of Peter Blau'Horvever, Blun rvu, more cotr..tt-ted rvith the asscssnlent of 'functional'

and 'dysfunctional' adaptation of the. bureaucracy to changing organisational

objectives.' The present stucl,v did not specificallv seek to analvze the

functional adaptation or other$Iise of the Indian bureaucracv. - While sorne

degree of change in the direction of funcrional adaptation is visible, themo"re importani concl*sions of the study relate to the basic theoreticalframewoik of burcaucracy itself and the performance of the Indian bureau-

cracv in terms of the framervork.To sum up, the findings'of the studv suggest that the existing bureau-

cratic theory is somervhat 'static' and that it does not take into account

forces r,vhich tend to change significantly both the structural and behaviouralpostulates. For applied as rvell as academic purPoses, therefore, lve need tobuild into the theory, factors, such as its functional content, the degree ofcitizen participation in its operations, etc., rvhich give it a more clvnamic

character. From a practical point of vierv, the findings of the stud,v suggest

a variety of levers n'hich can help utilizing bureaucracy as il mole eltectiveinstrument for achieving administrative objectives.

4. Blarr, Peter NI., oP. rir.

Working Climate in DevelopmentAdministration

Arr rNsrrruuoNA'- arrangements, designed though they are to facilitateattainment of certain goals, are finally mediated through the actions ofindividuals. This is true as much in relation to the system of puhlic adminis-tration as others. The behavio'r of civil scrvants is an important deter-ininer of the outputs which any public administration sl,stem is expectedto yield.

In India,.lr'ide gaps betr,r'een the expected and the actual behaviour orperformance of the civil service have driven home the .realization thatreal life bureaucracy cannor be understood solely on the basis of the formalorganisational system; that the behaviour of civil servants in their iobroles is determincd by a hosr of factors related to rhe personality of thecivil servants themsclves and the conditions in rvhich thev ioin the civilier-vice and sen'e in it. Horvever. althoueh knorvledge about the condi-tions in which civil scrvants do rheir *ork ir impor(ant to both academi-cians and politicians, systematic studies in this area,are few. In the presentstudy rve felt that the study of developmenr bureaucracy .lvould be ratherincomplete rvithout a certain amount of attention paid to the rvorkingclimate experienced by the civil servants.

IuponreNcn or SrunyrNc \VonrrNc Crrl.tarn

A formal organisation rvith a certain division of work among its membersand a svstem of relationships among them, is essentially a purposeful crea-tion. It is supposed to justify its existence by pedorming predeterminedfunctions. Tor.uards this objective the mcmbers of the organisation areengaged in various activities and tasks. Stuclies in this subjeit have amplydemonstrated that the beha.l,iour of employees is governed mainly by theindividual's charactcristics and their perceptions of the various factors inthe setting or environment in rvhich they discharge their functions fromday to day. These factors include practices relating, among others, tosuperior-subordinate relationships, entrustment of responsibility and autho-rity, utilization of the capabilities of personnel, development of personnel,styles of management and of control, and treatment of citizen clientele.In the literature on organisational behaviour, these kinds of factors areoften described as constituting the working climate of an organisation,office or agency.

To the extentthe behaviour of

the working climare isorganisational personnel,

an important determinant ofthe importance of it in deve-

W orking Clim,ate in Deuelop'ment Administration

lopment administration also cannot be or.eremphasized. Any efforts toimprove the chances of the developmental civil servants performing theirfunctions efficientll' must also include steps to ensure the existence of theworking climate that is most conducive to such a performance. In thepresent study, we have attempted to diagnose the working climate ofdevelopmental agencies in the sample in terms of certain key characteri-stics. We believe that a systematic diagnosis of the present is the first neces.

sary step towards further improvements in it.

FrNnrNcs

ATTITUDE TOWARDS RESPONSIBILITY

one of the key variables in the efficient operations of the administlativemachinery is the willingness of the civil scrvants to accept increasing re-

sponsibility for handling their rvork. -I- he problems facing public servants

working in development programrnes are often complex and demand dyna-

mism of approach. The success in dealing with these problems, therefore,

depends in an important lvay on the self-starting ability of the civil .s€llaltsreflected in such attitudes as the readiness to assume larger responsibilities.

In the present study rve ascertained the attitude of civil servants tolvardsresponsibility by asking them the following questiort :

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

As Table 5. r below shorvs, a large majority of the respondents of the

study reported a favourable attitude tot'ards accepting more responsibility

in tireir- present work. Thus nearly 73 Per cent of the respondents are

clisposed to urr,r-. much more or somcrvhat more responsibility for qualityrvork in their present position'

TABLE 5.1

ATTITUDE TOWARDS RESPONSIBII ITY

75

In terns of the quality of work, how much more

rcsponsibility wduld you like to take

NumberRepofting

Per cent

Very much more

Somewhat more

Keep things as they are

Somewhat less

Very much less

Not replied

271

256

149

21

t2

37 .5

35 .4

20.72.91.81.7

Torar 1oo.o%

76 BUR.EAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

It is notelvorthy that the emphasis in the above question rvas not so muchon the volume of work transacted by the respondcnts as on thc qualitativeaspects of it like the scope for decision-making permitted in one's job role,the difficulty level that is comparable with the capabilities of job incum-bents, etc. The results, thcrefore, suggest relative dorvngrading of jobs atleast in the Govcrnmental agencies studied. 'fhese agencies, as reportedearlier, deal r'vith .important developmcntal programmes. It rvas expcctedthat the rvork content of the jobs of civil servants serving in them lvouldbe more varied and challenging.

The study also found similar .attitudes torvards responsibility amongClass I, II, and III respondents (Table 5.2). l,ittle over 8o per cent ofthe responden ts from each class rvould like to have 'verv much more' or'somcwhat more ' responsibility in terms of the quality of their rvork. Onthe other hand only about one-quarter of the rcspondents from each of thethrce classcslvould like either to keep things as they are or have somervhatIess resoonsibilitv than thev oresentlv have.

TABIE 5 2

ATTITUDE TOWARDS RESPONSIBILITY BY CLASS

Number ReportingI4/illing to haue resporsibility

for 4uality of u'ork Class I\yet.eflt)

Class II(yer cent)

Closs III\per ceflt)

Very much nore

Somewhat rnorc

Kcep ihings as they ate

Sorner'vhat less

Very much le ss

22.7 2l .3

29 .9

44 .5

35.3

39 .7

40. 5

32.9

20. 8

J.5J. I2.9

Torer 10o.0:l/NT

- r 17\

100.0o,/o 100.0o/o

(N: 136) (N:44e)

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

llorking Climate in Deuelopnent Atltninistration

talents. 'I'he feelings of thc rcspondents about the

bilities in their current assignments are broken

cording to the class of service'

11

utilization of their caPa-

dolvn in Table 5.r ac-

TAD! [ 5.3

UTILIZATION OF CAPAI]ILITIES BY CLASS

Number Reporting

Extent of IJtilization RePorrcd Class I(per cent)

Class Il(per cent)

Class III(pu cenr)

Fully

Moderately

Little

27 .7

54 .7

t1 .6

19. 8

40.2

40.0

33.4

5t.t

28 .7

Torar 100.0%(N:137)

1oo.o% loo.o%(N - 136) (N:44e)

\'Ve expected that n'ith longcr service and lPward mobility' the - value

of the civil servants rvould'inJrease and that it I'ould be reflected in the

employing agencies drar'ving more and more on the pool of experience ancl

abiiities ihat* such a civil s6rl,ant represented. The abo'l.e results, hott'ever,

show nor only sub-optimal manpon'ei utilization in the agencies studied but

also rhe lirnited opportunities'.available to t5e civil servants for gror,vth

and development through their day-to-day routine'

DELECATION RY SUPERTORS

Besides enriching civil service jobs, delegation of authorit,v to the sub-

ordinates is general-ly acceptecl as one of the most desirable means of train-

ing adminisirators. Such clelegation improves , administrative cornPetence

of"the civil servanrs and stimulates theii Sro$Ith Pot€ntial. Delegation also

expedites clisposal of work. The need for adequate delegation down the

hierarchy is even greater in clevelopment administration so tl-rat delays inclecision-making and achievement of programmatic goals are minimized'Table 5.4 shoris hor,v the respondents of the present study felt about the

clelegation of authority by their superior officers'

As the results shorv, 35 Per cent of the civil servant respondents

have superiors delegating ro them as much authority as they desire to

take on and even more, r.vhile for the remaining 6r, per cent there r'vas not

enough or there was little or no delegation of authority' To the extent

readiiess of the subordinates to assume increasing responsibilities is an

important variable of the delegation oI authority by their suPeriors, the

78 BUREAIJCRACY ANb DEVEL;PMENT ADMINISTRATION

TABIE 5.4

PERCEIVED DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY RY SUPERIORS

Extent of .DelegxionoI ,JUpetrcfs

NwfierReporting

Per cent

Greai deal

Enough

Some, but not enough

Little

None

77

l,/)

214

tl5

84

1,0.7

'1, 1

?9.6

23 .9

ll.6

Torarl o0 . 09/o

study shows that there is considerably more scope for it than the presentPractices seem to make.

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

TATLE i.5

PTRCEIVED DXLEGATION BY SUPIRIORS ACCORDING TOTHE CLASS OF RESPONI)ENTS

Number Reporting

Extent of Delegation Repofied Clas I(pu cent)

Class II(per rcnt)

Clas UI(per cenr)

Gre at deal

Enough

Some, but not enough

Little

None

8.8

44.8

28.6

t2.s

5.3

7.6

25 .9

28.8

10. 3

12.4

17 .5

30 .2

26.2

Torer loo.o%(N : 137)

.100.0%(N : 136)

100.0%(N : 44e)

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

Worhing Ctimate in Deuelopment Ad'mini'stration 79

was reported by about 40 per cent of the Class II and III respondents''These results suggesr that the sharing of responsibilities between superiors

and their subordinates is pre'l,alent to a greater extent among Class I civilservants than among lower class civil servants. Indeed, the experience of

Class II and III civil servants in this regard is highly comparable.

IN{AGES AI]OUT ASSUMING RESPONSIBILITY

The respondents of this study clearly indicated that they rvould like tobe entrustcd rvith more responsibility than at present. \\re also sought tofind out the organisational climate relating to assumption of responsibilityin rvhich the respondents are functioning. In particular, they reportedtheir perceptions about the attitude torvards responsibility among thcirsuperior and subordinate omcers. As regards the former, the followingpercePtions rvere reported.

l ABl E 5.6

IMAGE OF SUPERIORS UNDSRTAKING RXSPONSIBILITY

In your opinion, do your superior oftcers NuuberRepoiing

Petrct

Like to take great deal ofresponsibility

Like to take little more than enough responsibility

Like to takejust enough responsibility

Like to take vcry little responsibility

Do not like to take any responsibility

99

78

203

240

103

13.7

10.8

28. I33.2

14.2

Torar, 100.0%

It is notervorthy that as many-as 47 per cent of the respond-ents reportedthat their superior officers took very little or no responsibility' On theother hand one-fourth of the respondents perccived their superiors willingto assume appreciable amount of responsibility, t'hile z8 per cent ofthe superiors are rePorted to be taking on themselves just enough responsi-

bility.,4 positive orientation of the superior officers towards responsibi-.lity not only indicates their high degree of involvement in the officialactivities but also. serves as a stimulant for a similar attitude among thesubordinates. The foregoing results shorv that at least as their subordinatesperceive, the superior officers are not highly involved in their work.

When lve further analyzed the respondents' im:ige about the attitudeof their superiors towards responsibility, according to the class of service towhich they currently belonged, the following distributional Patternemerged.

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

TABr.r 5 .7

IMAGE OF SUPEIIIOI{S UNDERTAKING RESPONSIBILITYACCORDING.TO CLASS OF I{ESPONDINTS

Nutnber Reportitg

Itt your opirion do your stltariors Clas I\pct cent)

Class II Class III(yer cent) (per rcnt)

Like to take great deal of responsibility

Like to take little rnore than cnough responsibiiity

Like to take just enough rcsponsibility

Likc to take very little responsibility

Do not like to taLe any responsibility

5.9

6.6

45 .6

34.6

13.1

5.8

29 .9

38. 7

12.5

16.2

13 .6

22 .O

31 .3

16.9

Toul

As the above table shows, the proportion of the superiors rePorted tobe taking 'great deal'or'more than enough' responsibility is on the declinelvith about 40 per cent according to Class III respondents. lq Per centaccording to Class II respondents and onl)r r2.5 per cent according toClass I respondents. Florvever. Class II and Class III respondents alsorcport 48-gl per cent of their superiors to be taking little or less responsi-bility in their l'ork, compared to 42 per cent of the superiors 'of Class Irespondents reported to be taking responsibilitv to the similar extent. C)n

the whole, therefore, there does not appear to be signilicant difierence inthe pattern of the superiors' attitude to responsibility reported b,v therespondents in the three classes. Nevertheless, to the extent the decidedl,vpositive attitucle to responsibility on the part of a superior has a wholesomeinfluence on the behaviour of the subordinates ne imagine it to be presentless and less at the higher echelons of bureauiracy.

We also ascertained the pcrceptions of the superior civil ser-vants them-selves about the attiiucle of their subordinates ton'ards responsibility, as

shown in Table 5.8 belolv. As the Class III respondents in the samplervere not likelv to have any subordinates lvorking under them we havereported the perceptions of Class I and Class II respondents only (N : z7B).

Table rr.B shows that, if the subordinate civil servants generally havea poor opinion about their superiors' readiness ro accept responsibilitr inr.ork, the superiors themselves do not have any better or different imageabout their subordinates' attitude to rcsponsibilit,v. 'Ihus little over one-third of the respondents in Class I and II together have reported that theirsubordinates are willing to take very little or no responsibility. In contrast,one in every four of the superior respondents have to say that his subordinates are willing to take just enough or a great deal of responsibility in

100.0%(N: 137)

loo.o% loo.o.o/o(N: 136) (N:44e)

Wmking Climate in Dettelofment Administration

rABLB 5.8

IMAGE OF SUBORDINATXS UNDERTAKING RESPONSIBILITY

8l

In your opinion , are your subordinate offcers NumberRepdrting

Pet cent

Willing to take grcat deal .,,f tesponsibilitv

Willing to take just enough responsibility

Willing to take some, but not en6ugh rcsponsibility

Willing to takc very little re sponsibility

Not willing to takc any rcsponsibility

Not reported

5

65

97

69

14

1.8

23 .8

J). O

25.3

8.4

5.1

Tor,a.r 100.0%

work. Again for nearly 36 per cent of the supervisory respondents, theirsubordinates do take responsibilitv in work but it is not enough.

The foregoing findings show that the superior and thi subordinateofficials at least in the agencies studied do not entertain a positive imageof each other as far as shouldering the developmental responsibilities is con-cerned. Overall, it indicates concern for just enough or minimal involve-ment in the developmental process. Earlier, r'r'e have seen that the res-pondcnts thcmselves r'r'ould like more responsibility to be entrusted tothern. We have thus the phenomenon of the civil servants whose superiorsare not quite enthusiastic about fulfilling organisational rcsponsibilities,and whose subordinates too have a passive attitude towards responsibilities,and finally rvho are themselves experiencing low level of responsibilitybeing assigned to them. The resulting confusion about accounrability forperformance is bound to be dysfunctional to the achievement of program-matic goals of development administration.

STYLES IN EIVIPLOYEE SUPERVISION

Research in the field of organisational behaviour has amply demons-trated that the styles of employee supervision have a significant influenceupon the morale of employees and in consequence upon their efficiency ofjob performance. In this study wc have examined certain aspects of thepattern of supervision in the four developmental agencies on the basis ofthe perceptions reported by the respondents.

For the purpose of the present study, we considered overwhelrningly'task-centred' style of supcrv'ision, and overwhelmingly 'employee'centred'style of supervision to be two extreme polar positions ofl the conti-

U auREAUcF"acy AND DEvEr opMENT ADMINTSTRATToN

nuum of employee supervision. Our basic premise was that the complexi-'ties of the tasks facing the civil servants today, especially in the develop-ment spheres, require (i) that they handle their work with great initiativeand enthusiasm, and (ii) that they enjoy opportunities tb grow profession-ally in the service. As these considerations are tapped in the concept ofemployee-centered style of supervision, we tried to find out to what extentthis style is being experienced try our respondents.

As described in the methodological chapter, we defined employee-orientation of superiors in terms of the efforts they make to adequatelyexplain and teach their subordinates how to perform difficult tasks, theiraccessibility to all the subordinates without discrimiriation, the friendlinessof their relationship with the subordinates, and the openness of inter-personal relations wherein the subordinate feels free to discuss his personaland work problems with his superior. Since the behavioural response ofthe employees is determined significantly by their own perceptions abouremployee-orientedness of their superiors, despite how subjective this canbe, we asked the respondents to rate their superiors on thiq. scale of em-ployee-orientedness. The results are reported. below in Table 5.g.

TADLE 5.9

EMPLOYEE-ORIENTATION OF SUPERIORS

Degtee of Employee-oimtation oJ Suleiors NumbetReportitrg

Per cett

1E4

395

143

25.5

54.7

19. 8

High*

Moderate

Low

Torar, Loo.o"/"

* For classification into high, moderate and low &gree of employee-orieotati6n, see

chapter on methodology.

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

Worhing Qlimate in Deuelopment Ad,ministration 83

Telr.r 5. 10

EMPLOYEE-ORIENTATION OF SUPERIORS BY CLASS

Nunber Reporting

Degre e of Employe e-ori entati on Class I@u cmt)

Class II$ter cer.t)

Class IIIQter cent)

High

Moderate

Low

N. R.

t8 .2

64.2

r3.8

3.8

27 .9

50.0

17 .6

4.5

26.3

5r.1

2t ..8

0.5

Torerroo.o%(N : 137)

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

The employee zr. task-orientarion of superiors has attracted theattention of social scientists because of its influence on the motivation ofemployees and the sharing,of organisational responsibilities. To explore thisrelationship further in the context of developrnent administrition, weanalyzed the employec orientation of their superiors reported by our res-pondents on rhe oni hand, and the amount of authority delegated ro rhemby their superiors. The results are presented in Table 5.r r bilow.

Tatrn 5.11

EMPLOYEE-ORIENTATION AND DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

D-egree. gf Enfloyeearientation ofnupefrcrt

Anount of Delegation of Authority Reporteil

Creat deal Some butaful enough rot enough

per cent per cent

Little lnone

Per cefiI

Total

High 50.2

3l .2

23 .9

24.9

34.8

2t .2

24.9

34.0

54.9

r0o.P/o(N: 184)

tw.oyo(N : 3e5)

1ffi.e/o(N : la3)

Moderate

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


to be more often enjoying little delegated duthority and less often as much ofdelegated authority as they would like to have. Implicit in the employee-orientation of the superiors considered in the study is the relationship oftrust and interest between the superior and his subordinates r,vhich isreflected in the former sharing his responsibilities r.vith the latter to a largeexrent.

How do the civil servants who are having emplol'ee-oriented superiorsrespond when the superiors are prepared to delegate more authoiity to

' them? Our data in this regard, reported belo,r'1. does not, however, sho\.\'that the respondents with employe e-oriented superiors have a particularlypositive attitude to responsibility. It will be recalled that the latter tvasascertained through the question: In terms of the quality of work, howmuch more or less responsibility would you like to have than at present?As reported above, a great majority of the respondents havc asked for moreresponsibility than is presently given to them. Possibly because of thisskewness in the replies, the study could not discover the relationship bet'ween employee-orientation of superiors and the subordinates' attitude toresoonsibilitv in work.

TABT.E 5 . 12

XMPLOYIE-ORIENTATION'AND ATTITTIDE TO RESPONSIBII-ITY

84

Amomt of Responsibility Desired

Degree of Einployee-orientation ofSupeiors

Much Status 1uomorelmore

Muchlesslles

l otdI

(yer cent) , (per cent) (yer cent)

High

Moderate

Low

78.1 20.8 , 1.1

21 .5 6.t

100.0%(N:184)loo.o%

(N : 3e5)

1oo.o%(N:143)

72.4

6l .7 22.O 16. 3

ATTITUDES

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

Worki,ng Climate in. Deuelopment Administration 85

more to assume higher responsibilities. In the present study the respon-

dents of Class I, II and II.I rcported the following attitudes of their supe-

riors in this regard.

TABIE 5.13

ATTITUDES IN PERSONNEL DEVELOPMINT BY CLASS OF RISPONDENTS

Does your supvrior hrlp you to lir'orn

to ass me higher responsibilities

Nunbu Reporting

Class I Class II(per cent) (per cent)

Class III Total(per cert) (per cenr)

Always

Usually

Sometimes

Rarely

Ncver

15.0

33.0

22.O

22.O

8.0

14.0

24 .O

25 .O

27 .O

10.0

22.0

25 .0

26.O

17 .O

10.0

19.4

27 .O

24.3

20.2

9..1

1oo.o% 1oo.o%(N: 13?) (N: 136)

100.0% 1oo.o%(N:44e) (N:723)i

* One respondent did not report his class ofservice,

Table 5.r3 shotvs that in the view of about 48 Per cent of Class I, 38

per cent of Class II respondents and 47 per cent of Class III respondents,iheir superiors are taking 'high' interest in helping their professional ,grorvth and thereby PreParing them for positions of greater responsibility.It is also important to note that one-fourth of Class III respondents and littleover one-third of Class I and II resPondents rePort little or no interesttaken by their supetiors in.their development. With limited formal train-ing facilities and equally limited interest taken by their superiors, thesc

civil servants are bound to require an inordinately long time to acquirehigher capabilities.

PERCEPTION OF CRITERIA OF PROIUOTIONS

It is the stated policy of the Government to promote civil serr'ants on

the basis of seniority and merit (merit being most commonly assessed

through confidential reports). At the same time, other considerations are

also bilieved to influenie decisions.about promotions. In the final analysis,

the trehaviour of the civil servants in their job roles is governed by theirown experience and understanding of the factors that go into decisions

about promotions in Government service, whatever be the declared policyrelating to it.

The urgency of civil sewants in the developmental programmes turn-ing out the desired level of output in their work, both in terms of quality

86 .BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

and -quantity cannot be overe_mphasized. It is widely recognized. that oneof

-the long-term incentives {of high standards of perforiran.. in w*kis the system of promotions that is inderstood to be based or, .o*p.,.rr.".

[_t-.T^ry:r:lt fr"9y,. rherefore,. we anempred ro ascerrain tt" p!r."iu"armpormnce ot me't for promotions in Government service in rilation tothat of other criteria, according to our respondents. In other words, the res,pondents indicated their understanding oi the weight of several t"a"r, i"prornotional matters in the civil serviie. The factirs ,". .orrria"-J

"r. ,seniority, hard work, superior quality of work, being a g*a pof iti.iunin the sense of the ability to minipuiate the things to one,s own benefit,

being a friend or relation of highei officials, and letting "fo"g *"ii;ith

one's superior. of these, seniority consideration is dJtermined bi the lengthof service in a particular position or grade. Hard work and superior orr"iiruo.f y*\ represent merir considerations, while the last tt r." t#or, "r"';;;tially in the nature of social considerations. In the questionnaire trr. risi-ing of these factors was preceded by the foilowing iristructional set:

"speaking about your own personal impressions, which of the followingthings do you beli€ve help the person most to advance in Governmen'tservice? Please put- r against whJt you consider to be the most import"ntfactor, z against. the next important and so on until you have put 6against the least important factor,'.

_ Tlr" perceptions reported by the respondents are described inTable 5.r4.

The table shows that seniority is clearly perceived by the respondent-civil servants as the relatively most important factor responsible.'for pro-motion in Government service. The average ranking oi this factor 'hasbeen z.6th.1 on the other hand the facror 6f ,up.rioi quality of work isgiven the secorrd highest average rank (3.3rd). However, the proportion ofrespondents giving first to sixth rank of importance to this factor is aboutequal indicating thereby considerable ambivirence with regard to the placeof quality work in promotional decisiorrs in Government service. In con-ffast, the clqar importance of seniority is evident from the fact that thereis

-a sharp decline in the per cent of respondents assigning lower rank to

this factor. The ambivalence rowards being a politicia'n f# getting aheJin the service is shown by the data; nevertlheless, it cloes notlndicite thatthe civil servants have discounted this factor as of no consequence in earn-ing promotions (average rank : 4.rst). On the other hand, hard work as anelement in decision-making in promotions is found to be at 3.5tt .urrt,suggesting that it is just of average importance.

. r. To arrive at average ranking, 1st to 6th ranks were assigned r to 6 numbers sothat the lower the average numericar rank of a factor, the gfeater it, p"r""iveJ ior-portance for promotion$,

W orking C Ximat e in D euelop ment A d"mi,nistration

TaBLE 5. 14

PERCEIVED RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF CRITERIA OF PROMOTIONS

87

Rank, O er of Impotane Reported.

Criteria of Ptonotions Rank I Rank ll Rank. Iper cent per cent per cent

Rank. IV Rank V Ranle W Totalper cent ler cettt let cmt

Seniority

Flard worlr

31 .9

tJ. I

r7.3 21.6

18.5 17.4

18.8 20.6

13.5 10.4

16.7 6.6

14.5 23.1

9.3 23.5

13.8 14.8

13.5 17.6

8 .4 26.7

34.6 10.1

5.4 loo.o%(N:716)

17.5 100.0%(N : 715)

r7.3 100.0%(N :711)

34.5 l00.O%(N: 711)

r7.9 100.0%(N: 711)

r2.9 100.0%

. (N:714

A119. I

Superior quality of work 14.1

Being a good politician 10.4

Being a friend/relation ofhigher ofiicials 23.7

Getting along *.1 *irhone's superior 4.8

Note: (a) Higher rankLower rank

: more importance: less importance

(b) In the last column 'N' is different for dilGrent criteria because all the responilentsdid not check all criteria.

Similar average ranking is given by the respondents to 'being a friend/relation of higher ofrcials'. It is noted that as many as 40 per cent of therespondents have assigned the first two rank orders of importance to thisfactor, while about the same proportion have assigned it the last two ranks.The implication is that friendship and familial considerations are either ofcrucial importance or not at all. Lastly, nearly 6o per cent of the respon-dents have indicated 3rd and 4th rank order of importance of 'getting alongwell with one's superior' in promotional matters. This may mean thatalthough this factor is neither insignificant nor all that important forpromotions in the service, it does 'help'. hi as much as the confidentialreports of the superior officer are an input for deciding about promotions,the working relationship between the superior and his subordinate is un-likely to be perceived as unimportant.

Are there any difterences in the rankings of promotional criteria ac-cording to different groups- the respondents may.belong to? As regardsthe class of the respondents the findings of the study are as in Table g.r5.

In the table the average rank order of importance for each cri-terion of promotion ranged between r and 6 with the lower score denotinghigher perceived importance of a criterion, and the higher score indicatinglower perceived importance of it. Any score below g.b could, therefore, beregarded as indicative of relatively higher impoitance.


TesrE 5. 15

IMPORTANCE OF PROMOTIONS CRITERIA BY CLASS

Crireria of Promotion

Average Rank Order of Inportante*

Class I Class II Class III(N: 137) (N:136) (N:44e)

Seniority

Hard work

Superior quality of work

Be ing a Politician

Being a friend/relation ofhigher otlicials

Getting along well with supcriors

2.9

4.1

3.9

3.0

3.1

2.7

4.2

3.0

3.3

J.J

3.6

3.9

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

The table clearly brings out that according to the respondents from allclasses, seniority is still the most important basis of promotion in Govern-ment service. None of the other factors of promotion is given lorver than?rd average rank by the respondents. Next to seniority, being a friend/relation of the immediate superior, is ranked as an imPortant considera-tion by the Class I respondenis. \Ve are rather surprised to find the sampleof civil servants perceiving quality of r,vork and hard rvork as a relativelyless important requirement of promotion, less important than 'being apolitician'.

On the other hand manoeuvring actir itics arc considercd to bc leastnecessary by the Class I and III respondents. In fact, Class III respondentshave reported hard rvork and superior quality of n'ork as thc importantconsideration in promotional decisions, next only to seniority. This class ofcivil servants also belier.e that'superior officers are less useful than Class Iand II civil servants think them to be. The study thus brings out trvofeatures of present practice in the Government for granting promotions as

significant in the vier.v of our respondents. First and foremost, theseniority of the civil sen/ant has the maximum weightage in these decisions.Secondly, that the higher the level of the civil servant, the lorver theperceived importance of merit (consisting of hard work and quality workthat he is able to put in) for promotions. Admittedly lve have' assessed therelative importance of different criteria of promotions at the level of per-ceptions of our respondents. It cannot, however, be gainsaid that percep-tions of people are one of the important determinants of their behaviour.

We also considered the respondents rvho have been promoted ence ormore times and rhose u,ho have not so far received iny promotion interms of their perceptions of promotional fabtors,

Worhing Climate in Det,elopntent Ad.ministration 89

TABLE 5.16

PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF PROMOTION CRITERIA BY

PROMOTIONS RECEIVED

Auercgt Ranb Order of Importance*

Criteria of Promotion Proffiotees

(N : 463)Non-protnotees

(N: 256)

Seniority

Hard work

Supcrior quality of work

Being a politician

Being a friend/relation of higher ofiicials

Ccrring:rlong wcll with onc's supcrior

2.6

3.9

4.2

3.5

3.5

2.1

3.5

3.5

4.0

J.J

4.0

* The lower the average rank importance of a factor, the highcr the perceived importance

of it For promotions.

Table 5.16 shor'vs that both the groups of Promoted and non-promotedrespondents perceive seniority as the most important basis of promotionsin Governmertt service. The relative importance ascribed by the two groupsto other criteria are similar except in the matter of rvorking relationshipwith the superio r officer, and hard work. Surprisingly. the propoted civilservants consider the place of hard work in promotion less imPortant thando the civil servants rvho have not received any Promotion so far. On theother hand, the formcr perceive good r'vorking relations rvith their supe-

riors to be of greater help. On the whole, the experience of having receivedpromotions does not seem to make for material dilferences in the perceivedimoortance of different criteria of Dromotions in civil service.

IN CIVIL SERVICE

Cir il servants hare rarious neerls and they legitimately expect to har"e

them fulfilled in their service in Government. In fact, thc match betr'r'eentheir expectations of several things from the service and the cxtent to whichthey are able to actually enjot them indicates the level of job satisfactionor dissatisfaction. The latter is an important stimulant for the civil servantsto perform well. In the present study, therefore, we also tried to find outhow much the development agencies studied are providing for the ful-filment of the needs of their employees.

The needs considered by us are listed in 'I-able 5. t7 and Figure z that

. follow. Admittedly, an important need of the civil servants, namely, theiremoluments, is missing in our list. Two major considerations were beforeus when we decided on this omission. In the first place, there are many

90 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINiSTRATTON

coruponents of the earnings of the civil servants like the basic pay, dearnessallowance, house rent allowance, other allowances, provision- for pensionetc' This dimension of the civil servants' need therefore requires an ela-borate treatment which was somewhat beyond the nature oi the presentstudy. Secondly, even if we had confined ourselves to the take-ho*" p"y,nothing new would probably have been added to rhe study bv its inclu-sion since the lack of enthusiasm on this score among civil servants is quitewell known. On the other hand, not much empiriCal data were avaiiableon the job factors that we considered.

It is true that certain needs of, say, two different civil servants mayhave been fulfilled to the same extent and yet the levels of satisfactionderived may nor be comparable because the reiative importance of difterentneeds may difier among these civil servants. For instance, employees Aand B may report thar their jobs provide a 'good amounr of ihailenge'However, if A has pitched his expecration at a higher level he would berelatively less satisfied with his job than B whose expectations are as muchas,the job provides. Realizing this we conducted a pilot survey among thesub-sample of the respondents of this study to find out rhe relativJ im-portance ascribed by them to the job factors studied (ranging from theleast important to the mosr important) towards making them saiisfied withtheir jobs. The analysis of these .responses showed these job facrors ro beof comparable imporrance. Hence. in the final study, we only ascertainedthe degree to which different needs of the respondents from their presenrjobs are reported to be fulfiIled. In a sense, the reported degrees oi frrlfil-ment represent the levels of job satisfaction experienced by the respondents.

TABLE 5.17

PERCEIVED NESO TUITU\4ENT BY CLASS

Nuils ConsidetedMe dn F ulfihnent Reootteil*

Class I Clras II Class IIISocial prestige ofjobHelping relationship among co-wotkersRecognition of good workGrowth in one's workFeeling of accomplishment

Interesting workVariety in workWorking relationship with superiors

Work suited to capabilities

Opportunities for further promotions

Feeling ofjob security

5. t

J.J

3.0

3.8

3.7

3.5

4.33.92.83.6

3.2

3.42.5

2.8

3.63.5

4.1

3.43.5

2.23.6

2.8

3.73.8

3.6

3.24.12,|

2.53.2

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

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

Social prastige of the job

Helping telationship among co-workers

Recognition of good work

Gro$th in one's work

Fecling of accompli$hment

Int€r€sting work

Variety in work

Working relationship with superiors

Work suited to cspabilities

Opportunities for further promotions

Feeline of job seurity

91

-

Class I respondents

---- Class II respondcnts

-'-.-'- Class III respondents

. .":

ltr| 2 3,

Fig, l. Perceived Need-Fulfilment by Class (See Table 5.12)

I

{


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

In terms of the level of fulfilment the data shorv that 'opportunitiesfor promotions' is the least fulfilled need of the respondents generally,implying that the chances of rapid promotions in Governmcnt service areperceived to be poor. Similarly, the respondents' need for recognition of evena particularly good piece of rvork done by them is also not being fulfilledat a higher than iust tolerable level.

The needs of the respondents as a whole which appear to be parti-cularly fulfilled are: having working relationship with their superiors,getting a feeling of having accomplished something rvorthrvhile in theirr'vork, having variety in ivo1k, having interesting u'ork, and the feelingof job security.

The expectations of the employees rvorking in organisations are some-times broadly classified into those that are external or extrinsic to thejob or tasks performed by the employees and those that are intrinsic tothem. It is noted in many a research that the latter group of expectationsoften spur the emplovces ro \vork harder on rheir jobs and thus coirtri-bute directly to organisational performance. For the purpose of thepresent study rve picked out the follorving task /job'related expectationsfrom the abor.e list- to find out the extent to which they are being fulfilledby the agencies stuclied. We have considered the level of fulfiIment asequivalent to the levcl of satisfaction reported by the respondents.

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

Based on the above factors. we consrructed an index of intrinsic johsatisfaction as explained in the methodological chapter. The performanceof the respondents on this index is described in Table 5.r8.

As the table shows, about one third of Class I and II respondents arereported to erjoy a high degree gf intrinsic job satisfaction in their presentwork. The proportion of Class II respondents reporting similar experienceis, however, less being about 2? per cent. A good proportion of 3o per

Warfung Climate in Deaelopment Administrati'on

TABLE 5.18

LEVELS OF INTRINSIC TOB SATISFACTION BY CLASS OF RESPONDINTS

Nunber Reporting

93

Levels of Intrittsic Job Satisfaction Qlass I(pu cent)

Class II(pet cent)

l)uefaII(pir cent)

Class III(pu cent)

I{ioh

Moderate

Low

32.9

54.1

13 .0

2t .9

48.0

30.1

33 .5

43 .3

23 .2

3i .1

45 .9

23 .O

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

* The class ofone respondcnt was not rcported.

cent of these respondents are also getting' lor'v .intrinsic job satisfaction-' -On

the other hand only r3 per cent of Class I rcspondents find their job yieldinglow intrinsic satisfaction. The fact remains that a larger proPortion of the

respondents from each class perceive their jobs as giving them a moderate

degree of intrinsic satisfaction. Overall, it is interesting that 71 per cent ofthi 723 development personnel in the sample studied have repbrted as

high or moderate the satisfaction they get from their work itsef'

ATTITUDES IN CITIZEN-ADMTNISTRATOR RELATIONSHIPS

All democracies place considerable emphasis upon cooperation rather than

coercion of citizens in the fulfilment of dcvelopment Programmes. Thereadiness of the citizens to cooperate with public servants in carrying outpublic policies and Programmes dePcnds significantly uPon the treatmentwhich citizens 'receive at the hands of public servants. In this study, we

obtained the perceptions of the civil servants themselves about the kindof treatment meted out to the citizen clientele. These perceptions lvere

obtained along three dimensions: (a) attitude towards citizen contacts,

(b) image of citizcns, and (c) treatment of citizens.

Attitude towards Citizen ContactsWe asked the respondents whether they liked to meet the people who

visit their office on business. The replies are tabulated in the followingfrequency distribrition (Table 5. r 9).

The significant proportion of 45 per cent of the respondcnts rvho did notmind meeting the citizens rvas in keeping r'l'ith the high degree of im-personal approach to work rcported by these respondents and discussed inihe earlier chapter of the book. We do not know if having to meet citizensis necessary for the performance of the job roles of the respondents. Never-


Tau.d 5. 19 r

ATTITUDE TOWARDS CITIZEN CONTACTS

Attitude towards Citizett ContactsNumber

Reporting Pet cent

Like very much to meet citizen3

Like to meet them

Do not mind meeting them

Do not like to meet them

Strongly dislike to meet them

Not replied

118

r40

328

16. 3

t9.4

45 .4

11.0

5.4

7.5

EO

39

18

ToTAL 100.0%

theless, when we juxtaposed the above results with the frequency of con'

tacts of the respondents with citizen clientele, we found as shown in Table

5.2o below that these contacts do have a Positive associationshiP withcivil servants' attitudes to citizen contacts.

TABLE 5.2o

CITIZEN CONTACTS AND ATTITUDE TOWARDS THEM

Attit de to Citizen Contacts

Frequetrcy of Citizen Contdcts RePotudNeutral Negative Total

High

Moderate

Low

fi.8%

36.Oo/o

11 <o/'"' /o

43j%

54.ffo

45 .3o/o

2.e% 1oo.o%(N : 288)

L}.a% 100.0%(N - 161)

37.2% 100.0%(N : 256)

We cannot conclude that having to meet the public more frequentlygenerates a positive feeling towards them in the civil servants. Nor can we

say that pro-client civil servants tend io welcome contacts more often withthe public. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that at least in develop-ment administration, contacts with citizen clients have the support of a

positive attitude on the part of the civil servants towards them. The basic

neutral attitude of a large proportion of the civil servants in this regard,however, continues to stay. This has also emerged in the following tablewhich examines this problem in relation to the class of the respondents.

Working Climate in Deuelopment Ailministration

Tetls 5 .2l

ATTITUDE TO CITIZEN CONTACT BY CI,ASS OF RESPONDENTS

95

Nunbu ReportingAttituile to Citizen Contacts

Class I(yer cent)

.Class II(pu cent)

Class III(yter cett)

Positive

Neutral

Negative

Not reported

35.0

58 .4

4.4

2.2

13 .2

55.9

27 .2

3.7

3E.1

16. E

2.4

100.0%(N : 137)

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

As regards the development agencies we found the following partern ofattitude to citizen contacts among their employees.

TLRLE 5 .22

ATTITUDE TO CITIZEN CONTACTS BY AGENCIES STUDIED

Number Reporting

Auit ile to Citizen Contacts Agency A Agenty B Agency C Agency D(t d.) (Ind.) (Acr.) (tci.)

Qter cnt) (pn rent) (per cent) (per cnt)

Positive

Neutral

Negative

16.0

53.4

30.6

)1 <

61.4

11.1

27 .O

54. 8

l8.2

61.0

26.9

12.l

Torer 1m.0o/o 100.0%(N:2ts) (N: loe)

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

The foregoing table strikingly demonsrrares that the civil servantsserving in agency D which handles agricultural development programmesand community development schemes are significantly most often posirivelyoriented to their clientele; that the tradition of neutrality is breaking downfast among them. On the other hand, this tradition conrinues among themeribers of agency B which, in our sample, handles development pro-grammes in industry at the field level. The secretariat/central agencies Aand C dealing with industrial and agricultural programmes respecrively ofcourse have the traditional neutral attitude.

96 Br.tREAucRAcy AND DEvELopMENT ADMINISTRATToN

Image of Citizen AttitudesWhen we tfied to . assess the perceptions of the respondents about the

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

Treatnten t ol CilizensThere is a rvidespread feeling among the public that the civil servanrs

are generally not helpful in their dealings rvith them. What do the civilservants themselves have to say about this matter? The respondents ofthis study held the following perceptions about the behaviour of officialsof their department torvards people who came to them for work.

TaBLE 5.23 .

REPORTED TREATMENT OF CITIZENS

Beltauiour Tou ards Citizen s NtunberReporting

Per rcnt

Very often helpful

Often helpful

Sometimes helpful

Rarely helpful

Never helpful

Not reportcd

176

321

164

24 .3

44.4

22.7

11

1.0

0.5

51

7

4

Torar 100.0%

The foregoing findings of the stucly are in sharp contrast to the publicfeeling merltioned above. Obviously, there is a woeful mismatch bent'eenthe help sought by the public and the concepr of it according ro rhe civilservants. In other words, the role of the civil servants in respect of citizenproblems is being vier,r'ed differently by the citizens themselve.s antl the cir.ilservants on their part, indicating a gap in the communication betweent he two.

. SuiltnrARy AND CoucrusroNs

In this chapter, we were concerned with someclimate in development administration. \Ve lvere

aspects of the workingespecially interested in

Worhing Climate in Deuelopment Administration

finding out the working climate in lthich our respondents performed theirfunctions or tasks because of its importance as one of the determiners ofhuman behaviour in organizations. The aspects r,\'e considered rvere: theattitudes toivards responsibility, attitude to delegation, artitudes in em-ployee supervision and development, perceptions about criteria of prci-motions in Govemment sen/ice. and attitudes in citizen-administritorrelationships.

We hypothesized that the l,'orking climate conducive to efficiency of deve-lopmental functions should have the following prominent features:

r. the developmental personnel at all heirar-chical levels should have ahigh degree of positive attitude towards responsibility ir-r rvork; thevshould be prepared to take on more and not less responsibility;

2. there should be a vigolous programlne of clelegat.i.on of authority tothe personnel at subordinate levels not onlv to expedite I'ork butalso to provide for their individual gror,r'th;

q. the style of super.r,ision sl-rould be predominantly employee-centredbecause such a style is knorvn to enhance the possibilities of betteremployee pertormance in the long run. Besides. it is the corollary ofthe pro-citizen attitudc requirecl of developmental personnel rvhichn'e have emphasized in the earlier chapter;

4. as the number of opportunities for- institutional training of develop-mental personnel are bound to be limited, planned and deliberateefforts should be made to develop these personnel on their jobs orthrough their rvork-dav experience;

i. promotions should be perceived to be based primarily on merit so,as to provide a rlircct ancl continuing incentive to the civil servantsto perform better. Merit-based promotions also enhance the chancesof fulfilment of organisational goals rvhich in the contexr of deve-

97

t)-

loprnent administration is of crucial significance;the de'r,elopmcntal personnel should cxperience a fairly good level ofintrinsic job satisfaction since it is directly related to better per.-formance in their assignments; andthe developmental personnel should feel positivelv obliged to helpthe clientele thar come ro them for I'ork" and with their prqllems.

On the basis of the findings of the study presented in the foregoing pages,can rve concltrde that thc rvorking climate in development administiationrepresented by the civil senants in our sample is distinguished bv theabove seven features? Our conclusions in this regard are based on modalfindings.

As regards rhe .attitucle rorvards responsibility, the study founcl a vastmajority (o'er 7o pe. cent) of the respondents in all the rhree clesses willingto undertake very much more otr somer,rrhat more respo'sibilih' in rheiir.r.ork in terms of quality. 'Io the extent the positiYe attitude to responsi-bility on the part of civil servants is a necessary pre-condition for success

98 BUREAUCiAC\' AND DEVEI,OPMENT ADMINISTRATION

of clevelopmental efiorts, the sturly sholvs that such a condition does exist

in a substantial measure. At the samc time, thc results could imply that

thecivilservicejobsarcnotsufficientlyu'ellstructtrrerltosuitthcCaPa-bitities of their incumbents. That thcse jobs arc moIC routinizerl than tht:

civil servants care for is also indicatecl by the feeling of a largt: ProPortionnf th. ,.rpo.t.lents of this stud,v that thcir training ancl cxperience. arg^tltlll

partially use.l up in the rvork of their Presenj positions' It is.significant

irrut tnJ higher level positions are found as 'little' or 'poorlv' challenging as

the lower livel positions.The lack of sufficient challengc in the task contents of their jobs is bound

to retarcl the personal gro'tl'th of civil serl'ants' Apart from tlris' othcr

opportunities available to the civil seNants for personal gfolvth also appcat

t;'bc limited. Thus nearl)' tt'o-thirds of the respondents have the srtpe-

riors delegating to them less than enough authorit\'. This is. horvt'r'er, less

true of the higher level than of the lou'er civil servants'

Both the pircei'ed mismatch be6r,een the capabilities of the ciril ser-

vants ancl the .r,vork performed by them and the re stricted dclegation of

authority by their superiors inclicate the limited inrinsic \vorth of ciyilservice jobs. This is further corroborated bv our data on intrinsic jotr

sarisfaction experienced by the rcspondents - almost half of the respon-

clents reported to have a moderatr: degr ee of ir. rvhile twenty-three Per cent

.*pt"$..I a lot' level of intrinsic job satisfaction. It ma,v llc rccalled that

1"e hu"" defined intrinsic job satisfaction in terrns of certain factors likeinteresting nature of t'ork, variet-v in the'r\'ork, opportrtnities for gainingexperiencE useful for trigher jobs, etc.. rvhich are inhcrcnt in the workneiformccl bv the civil servanrs. That is, the chances of {ulfilrncnt of these

iactors are built into the rr.ork itself. On the rvhole. therefore, on the basis

of the data of the present studv, it is difficult to conclude that the structureof the jobs in development administration is plesentlv such as tr.r enablecivil stivants to feel both psychologically and intellet:tuallv involved indoing them. To the cxtent such a feeling of involvement is an importantingredient of bettcr performancc. \\re are not likelv to sec mttch of thelatter in tlre cxisting situation.

The study has throlvn up gratifying findings about emplovee-orientationo[ superiors inasmuch .as 8o per cent of the respondents havc lepolttrdtheir immediate superiors to bc highl,v of at least rloderatclv positivelvoricntecl towards them. The resulting climate of interpersonal tnrst and

regard is not lr.ithout a payofl. The stuclr' shor,r's that there is a posi tivenssociation betlt'een employee-orientatioll of superiors on thc trnc hand,:rncl thc attitudc to responsibility arnong the subordinates and tlre delega-tion of authoritv to the subordinates on the other. 'fhat is. thc morc tlrereqpondents find thcir superiors to be cmploye e-oriented, thc more n illingthey are to take responsibilitv for qualitv t'ork and thc morc delegationof authority bv their superiors. (These results are fottnd to be statisticallvsignificant.)

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

Worhing Clintate in Deitelopment Administration 99

superiors in the civil service not having a positive attitud.e towards usingdelegation as an aggressive instrument both to expedite disposal of l,orliand to develop lorver level employecs. These rules may give a feeling tothe_ superiors that thcy alone are responsible for anything that happcnsunder thcir charge, and hence it is better that they themselves do as manlthings as possible.. 'l-his notion of accountability is clcarly dr.sfunctionalto the complcrities of der'clopmental tasks and rhe nced to invoive differ.entpersonncl ir-r performing them. \Vhile. therefore. it would b.e necessary tr,dispel it. thc prcscnt stud' shnrvs thar grearcr delegation does in facr iakcplacc

- informrllr. dcpcnding on rhe cgalitarian rclarionship borr'een rhe

superior and his subordinates. The fact however remains thai thc long termsolution to this problem has to come from organisation planners in thcGovern men L .

Tht: p'olllcnrs arising f'orn rhc poo' rnarriagc lrerrtcen rlrc intlinsitaspects of civil service jobs and the needs and capabilitics of the civil ser.vants manning them can be tackled either (a) b\, scaling dorvn the manspecificatiorrs :tssociated rrirh diffcrcnr positioris. or (lr) hv rrpgratling rhciobs in terms of qualitl. of rvork cxpected from lob incumbent,s. The needsof clcvelopment administration are likclv to bc met bv the httcl courseof action.

Besides formal training and challenging job designs, the dircct interesr.taken by the supcrior officers is an important irid to the dcr.elopment ofs'bordinates. As regards the ci'il sert u.ris in the samplc. their supiriors arere ported to be making varying cfforrs to help them to assume higher rer_ponsibilities. Thus thc supcriots do not seem to be. able presently to devotesufficient attention to the de'elopment of their subordinates. Tiris circum-stance leads to different civil scn'ants being prepared for higher positionsat diflerent paces. In this process those fortunate ci'il seivanti havingsuperiors lvho gil'e high prioritv to personnel development *,oulcl have anedge over their colleagucs whose supcriors are not itle to carry out thisresponsibilitv as much as expected, for- one reason or the.ther-. The lattergr-oup of cir.il scr-vants are bound to feel frustratcd bv this cxperience. Toatrgrd.- gorygarable opp.ortunitics for professional growth. it is necessan.to build this responsibility into the role definition of the superior officersand assess. them periodically for it along n'ith tireir other rciponsihilities.

From thc foregoing anah'sis, r,r.c did not get thc impression that theagencics studicd are making clcar, conscio,r*

"ffnrr, ro rlevelop rhcir per'-sonnel profcssionallv, although rve do not deny that *olnc ,uch efforts arebeing made. on their orr' initiatir-c also thcj responclents arc n.t likel'to

- exert rmrclr t' develop themsclves. one of the iong term incentives in

this regard is the system of promotions basecl primarilv on merit, by*hich is meant the ability to r.r'ork hard and turn o*r superior quelity *,ork.Hol'ever, thc r"elativc importance of differcnt factors in prom.,tional rleci-siorrs in the ci'il service as percei'ed bv the rcspondent,s is nor likely tospur them to put in their best. Accordi'g to thc iespondents .f all classes.seniority continues to weigh maximally. \\rhile meii t is at be st assigned


a 'second order of importance, other considerations too ar'e reported toplay some part in promotion decisions. It is indeed unfortunate that the

irigirer ttre ievel of ihe civil servants. the lolvet: is the importance of merit

as a Promotional factor.It is maintained that promotions in Government ser'ice are 6ased at

least as much, if not mot . on merit as uPoll senioritY. On the basis of the

present study, it cannot be said that the civil senrants perceive it to be so.

iyor"ou"r, their behaviour in job roles is likely to be determined more bv

their own perceptions rather ihan by the assertions made 5y others. It is

thus not .nongh to claim that promotions are based on merit. but thev

must also upp.ur to be so determined to the cir.il ser\rants. To this end

Governmeni need to lay do.lvn merit criteria for prornotions to differenl

positions more explicitly and take acti\re steps to ensule that civil servants

irnderstancl these iriteria and the manner of the ir assessment. Civil sen'ants

are rhen more likely to make positive efforts to improve their capabilitiesand consequently their job performance.

Lastlv. the relatively cold attitude of the ciyil scrvants torvatrds the publicas revealed in the present study poses a serious problem for their changerl.

role. It may be recalled thar the Governmenral agencies covercd in the studv

are engaged in key devclop ent activities. By its very key premise, deve

lopment aclministration iequires a client-oriented approach rvith- publicad^minisffators actil'ely seeking to meet the needs of their clientelc. Theproblem of the pro-citizen attitude of civil sclvants is indcccl cornplex anchu. ,ro ,ont* in the civil service traditions of this country' Exhortationsapart, more studies are needed to explore its dimensions and natnre beforebeginning to make prescriptions in this important it1'ea.

We have no comparative data to conclude if the lvorking clintatc in the

agencies studied is better or different to that prevailing in other segrnents

of the civil service. Nonetheless, it is distinguished, as in man,v other'

Government agencies, by a lack of high premium either on perforrnanceor on the development of their hurnan resources. In viert' of this rve irnaginethat the civil .servauts ser:r'ing in thesc agencies are fulfilling their deve-

lopmental role rather routinelv. 'fhis observation is borne out bv the lo$lperformance of the respondents on development orientation reported inthe {ollorr'ing chapter.

Bureaucratic Adaptation toDevelopment Administration

Evm srxce the era of planned economic development, the adaptation ofbureaucracy to the values of development administration has been a majortheme of policy concern in all developing countries; more so in India. Thetheme came up repeatedly in each of the successive five year plans indifferent forms, and led to policy pronouncements of related hues.

'I'he Administrative Reforms Comrnission was assigned the task of"making public administration a fit instrument for carrying out the socialand economic policies of the Govenement and for achieving social and eco-

nomic goals of development." In brief. to design a system of developmentadministration. To do so, it is necessaly to define the essential characteris-tics of development administration.

For the purposes of this study. as describedthe essential characteristics of devclopmentfour behavioural parameters, v iz..

r. Change-orientation,

z. Re sult-orie ntation,

sr Citizen participative-orientation, and' ,r. Commitment to work.

in Chapter I, rve have definedadministration in terms of

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

While ascertaining bureaucratic adaptation to development administra-tion, rve addrcssed oursclves to t\vo questions: (a) the extcnt of this adapta-tion in the civil serr,ice generally, and (b) the,adaptatiorr of the respondenthimself, that is, the respondent's own vier,r' of his developmental role. Wemade this distincti.on realising that the civil servant may not always be inagreement rvith the beha'r.iour of othcr civil ser"vants and that his owninclinations may be different from it. That the clisciepancy between the twoindicates a tension cxperienced by the civil servant in fulfilling his deve-lopmental responsibilities in a manner considered appropriate by him.On the other hand, a high degrce of agreement bet'rveen the actualityposition and the respondents' orvn vierrs about the behaviour in develop-mental role denotes the process of socialization tlut goes in Gove rnmentservice,

102 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPNIENT ADMINTSTRATION

I'rnnr Ncs

nrspoNDrNts' ADAprArroN To DEVELoINTENT ADLIINISTRATToN

'fable 6.r below shows the performance of the respondenr on the dimen-sions of development administration as defined in the study.

TABrI 6.t

RESPONDENTS, ADAPTATION TO DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

Rnrri?irr g .y'R, ipoarlerrts

Dimensions olAdaptation High hfoderatc

(per cent) (per tnt)Lot| Not reported 'lotal

(ptr a'ut) (p'r tutt)

Change-orientatiotr

Result-orieutation

Citizet participative-orient:rtion

(lommitment to rvork

21.5

ll .0

17.5

27.6

61 .4

46.5

50.9

58.9

I5.9

2l .5

30. s

13.4

l.t l00.0_o/o

(N - 723)

l.o roo.o%(N .- 723)

1. r 100.09,;(N : 723)

0. r 100.09;(N : ?23)

The basis for ranking. the respondents into high, modcratc, and lowadaptation groups is explained in the chapter on mcthodol.ogv. Change'orientation is defined bv us as the concern of the civil ser\rants cngagedin dcr"clopment activities to bring about thc desirable changes both inthe sutrstance of the field of their activities like agriculturc irnd industryas rvell.as in the values and attitudes of the pcoplc, l'henever thcr irnpinpleon the developrnent process. As Table 6. r shows. about qq per ccrrt ofthe respondents of this study arc change-oriented to a prorrounced degree ifthe highs are so described. On the other hand, ncarlv 16 per r;enl of thccivil sen'ants have scorecl lorv on this dimerrsion. that is therc is littleevidence of their acceptance of the role of a change-agent in the above sensr:of the term. A vast majority, that is about 6z per <:ent of the respondentswho are moderately change oriented indicates partial adoption of thechange-agent's role by the developmcntal personnel.

Like change-orientation, result-orientation of thc bureaucrircl is an im,portant prerequisite of the success of cleveloprnent rdrninistration. Thepresent study however found that as high a proporrion as 6i} per cent ofthe respondents are moderately or even less result-oriented. \Vc have cle-Iined this particular characteristic of development adminisfration in termsof the concern of the civil servants to achieve specific programmatic resultsin their rvork. For us, therefore, civil servants working in developmental

Burea,,ucratic Adaptatiort, to Deuelopment Ad,ministration

areas would be adjudged efiective or othelwise according to the extent towhich they actually achieve speci{ic results. In view of the critical im-portance of this factor it is noteworthy that only 3r per cent of the deve-lopmental personnel in the sample scored high, that is, showed a high con-cern fol achier ing results.

As emphasize<l earlier, one of the key ingredients of success in devclop-ment administration is citizen response to and participation in the der,.elop-ment process. Indeed, without active citizen participation it is difficult tovisualize continuing success of diverse developmental activities in the dis-persed areas like agriculture. As things stand today, the extent of citizenresponse and active support to developmental efforts depends significantlyon the attitudes of civil servants themselves towards citizens

- the treat-

ment t he) get and the efforts made to involve them in the formulationand irnplementation of public policies affecting them.

-fhe results of the present study dramatically reveal that citizen-orienta-tion of the vast majority of the civil servants is moderate to poor. Thusnearlv 3r per cent of the civil servants in the sample stuclied have reportedlorv level of citizen-orientation, while another br per cent are moderatelycitizen-orien ted. Only about r8 per cenr of the respondenrs appear to bcrpiite positivelv adapted to their new developmental role in terms of highcitizen-centredness displayed by them.

Lasdr'. a. large proportion of our respondents are also not distinguishedby a high degree of commitment to their work. This we have identified asthe fourth important ingredient of the developmental role. For the pur-poses of the study, commitment to rvork implies the feeling of involvernentexperienced b1 ihe civil ser\,anls in respeci of thcir deueiopmenral activi-ties, rvithout which high congruence between organisational objectives andactual results is difficulr to achieve. A high degree of such a feeling is evi-denced by about z8 per ccnt of the. respondents, .in contrast to about r3 percent poorly committed to their work. 'l-he remaining 59 per cent civilservants in the sample show moderate commitment to their work.

On the whole, the foregoing results show the modal adaptation of civilservanrs to developmental -rolc to be moderate. 'l-he mean scores of 723respondents on each of the scales also fall betr,veen the ranges of the scdrefor each, scale desclibecl by us as denoting moderate orientation. Withinthe overall pattern, horver,er, respondents are found to be less oftenrnoderatelV adapted. and more often poorly adaptcd first in terms of t:itizen-orientation and next in terms ()f result-orientation. Nonetheless. it appearsthat the process o[ developmental personnel internalizing rheir nerv rolehas already ltegun. granted at a slorv pace.

REI,ATIONSIITP AMONG DIMENSIONS

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

103


ships among the above charateristics.

TABL! 6.2

tirerroNsnp AMoNG RESPONIxNTS' ADAPTAIIoN ToDEVELO?MENT ADMINISTRATION ALONG FOUR DIMENSIONS

D i men sion s qf Adap to tion Chi-square Values

S. l\'o. Descr!ption

1.

2.

3.

Char ge-t ricntation

Result-oricntation

Citizen-orientation

Commitment to work

?1.3x 50.2*

26. 1*

6.5 NS

7.6 NS

2.9 NS

* Significant at .001 level with df :4.NS Not significant.

Table 6.e sho'lvs that the three dimensions of the developmental role.namely change-orientation, result-orientation and citizen participationorientation are positively and significantly associated \vith one another. Onthe other hand, none of them is associa.ted significantly with thc commit"ment to 14/ork dimension. The first threc dimensions can, therefore, Jre

considered to hold together to constitutc the s,vstenl of de'r-eloprnentaladaptation. As regards rvork commitment. although it is an important inputfor success in the developmental role. admittedly development administra'tion shares this particular characteristic rvith general aclministration ot'forthat matter w'ith any successful organisation.

RELATIONSHIP \{TITH BACKGROUND C}IARACTERISTICS

'l he dcmographic chalacteristics ol the tcspotrdents of the studr harebeen described in an earlier chapter. \\rhen these data nere examineclagainst the data for the rcspondents' adaptation to the developnrent-al lolc,the follorving results r'vere noted.

Change-O rientationTable 6.3 belorv reports change-orientation of the respondents groupeci

according to several background characteristics like age, education. parentaloccupational background, economic class origin, upr,r'ard mobilitv in service,class at present, type of agencies studied, etc.

C)ur study includes nvo o{fices dealing r.r'ith industrial c1cr,'clopment.alprogrammes and two others related to agricultural developmcnt. In orderto find out if the personnel serving in the tlvo development sectors aredifferent in terms of their change-orientation, we divided the four offices

Buyeaucratic Adaptation to Deuelopment Administration 105

into two groups as shorvn in Table 6.9. \Ve found that the industry officeshave a somewhat higher proportion of both high change-oriented and lor,r,.

change-oriented stafi compar:ed to the agricultural offices. 'Ihese difier-ences, howevef, \'rere not statistically significant.

TABu 6.3

CHANGE-ORIENTA'TION AND BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS

{N '= 723}

Ranking of Respondrnts

B abgroun d Char acta i stic s]\I" High Moderute Lou., NR

o/o/oo//o /o h /'o

723

3.2 TypeofPersonnel****(X2 : t6.3' df : 2)

Technical 285 28.7 57.l )2.6 1.6

Non-technical 438 16.6 64.1 18.0 1.3

3 . I Type of Office Studied(I, : 6.e" df =- 3)

Indusrv (trvo)

Agriculturc (tn'o)

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

Class I

Class Il

Class IIi

N. Jl.,

3.4 Age****('t"2 : 24.6, dt : 2\

Yo ung

old

1.,t. R.

324 23 .4 56 . 1 19 ..'t 0. 8

loo 10 _7 4{ t l) 1 I n

131 31.6 57.0 10.9 0.5

136 33.8 47.0 11 .6 . 1.6

449 14.7 67.0 16.9 1.4

I

503 16.5 65.8 16.5 1.2

2rE 33.0 50.9 14.6 r.5

)

106' BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT .ADMINISTRATION

B a ckgr o und C htt d{ter i s t i t s Ithrlto:

/(dfllilrig U Kc-ipo,rdr i ra-{

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

J.f, Educational Attainment****(r'2:28.0, df - 2)

Graduites

Non-graduates

N. 11.

Rutal/Urbaa Backgroundt(r, : tt.l,df :3)Rural

Semi-urban

urDau

Metropolitirn

N. R.

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

Governrnent Servicc

Agricultr"rrist

Privatc busiress & trading

Independent pr<rfcssional

I cacl').lllg

Othcrs

N. R.

Econornic Class Origin***(Xz :14.3,df : 4)

Upper

Middlc

Lorver

N, R,

16. 1

15.2

t4.6

t8,0

1.3

1.6

).6

0.0

58,4 14.3 1,1

66.0 1t..1 0.0

61 .6 .- 14.6 I :.-" 3. i53 .6 19.5 2.5

57 .1 12.3 0.0) _.50.0 50.0 0. o

2

28.6

13.8

57 .4

65.2

t2.0

20. 0

2.o

L0

':'123

16.'t 65 .S

27 .'/ 55. 5

)1 A qS)

20. tt 60.4

20.7

:0.7

30.6

0.0

352

1.44

l?3

96

8

723

202

203

t98

49

4

26

723

3.8

82

22t' 382

38

34.1

21 .0

t9.I

5E.5 6.1 1.3

58.3 19.0 I ' 1.7

64.t 15.9 0.9

723

Bureaucratic Adaptation to Deuelopment Ad,ministration r07

Rankitg oJ Re sp ontlents

B ackgr ound C hu acte r i s t i t s N NRt>/,o

High

%Moderate Lou

%ii3.9 Years of Setvice in Govt.***

(X2 : 17.2, d{ : 4)

1949 and belbrc

Betwecn 1950-61

1962 ancl later

N. R.

203

381

133

6

30.5

18.3

t7.3

49 .1

65.3

ob_6

11 a 1 |

t{ ? | )

15. l O.8-

3 . fo Upward Mobility**l*(x2 : 14.7, a{ : 2)

One or morepromofions

Ncr promotions

N. R,

3. 11 Fonnal Traiaing*(X, : s.4, af : 2)

I'rained

Untrrir:'d

N. R.

723

463

256

4

25.0

13.6

23 .4

?0.5

s8.l

67 .1

t4.6

18.0

230

191

2

63 .4 1t.3 1-.9

60.2 18. t 1,.2

* Not significant.t* Signiii6311 at .05 levej.

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

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

l0E BUREAUCRACY AND DEIELOPNTENT ADI'TINISTRATION

members and a lolver proportion of poor chan 1e-oriented mernbers than

the gToup of non-technical respondcnts. These. tli{Terences are also statlstl-

cailf sgtti6.unt (chisquare : -16.3; df : z, significant at 'or lc'r'el)'

As re-gards the class of se1.\ ice of the r.espon(lcnts. thc stud,v found t-hat

civil sei,ants of Class I ancl II perceivcd thcir positive r'le as change-

agenrs more sharply than did class III resPonclcnts. Arnong the fo ner itlias revealed thai Class I rcspondenrs 6ave a snraller proportion (to.o pet

cent) of pool. change-orientcd respor-rdents than class II ( t 7.fi per cent).

These reiults indicite that Class I. II ancl III civil scrvants in develop-

ment administration differ significantl-v as rc'Ial-ds PcrcePtion of their

change-agent role (chi-square : 35.5, df : 4. sip;nificant at 'ot levcl, see

Table 6-3.3).when

"we considerecl the change-orientation of respondents according to

age, we found, as described in Table 6-3.4, that the olcler civil servants

(fo + ) are more ofren high change-oriented and less often moderatc and poor

c-hange-oriente cl than the ,vounger civil servants (belorv 4.o). -fhese rliffer-

"rr."r-,,,.r" also significant (chisquare : 24.6. rlf : z. significanl. at or

level). Further, lvhen r,e broke dorvn the t'es1>ondents. into threc age

groups: namely young (belolr' :r5). middle aged (36 45,) ancl r.rld (over 'tr5)'ive found that the above differcnces wel'e sustainccl. Thus, onl,v l.t per cent

of the ,voung respondents scored high on changc-orientation. compared to

z8 per cent of tle middle-agcd respondents and 32 pcr ccnt o{ the oklrespondents scoring high on this climenston of tlevelopmenl. arltninistlation. Similarly, out of ttre 442 modcratc cl-tangc-oricnted respondents' ;7per cent are young, e6 per ccnt rniddlc-aged and only r7 per,cent old'These results shorv that hig"hcr age in a civil servant goes 'rl'ith a more

mature viet' of his role in developinent aclministt'ation.The study did not point out any sharp differclrces in the changc'orienta-

tion of the ofifrceri belonging to rural irnd urban backgrounds ('I able 6 3.6).. One important question is thc irrfluence of educational attainmentsamong civil servants on their orientation to cllirnge' Our h-vpothesis l'asthat higher education lvoulcl make for greater- cottsciousness an<l hencc forhigher change-orie ntation. Toilards the data tor this h,vpothe si's. n'e groupedtlne 7% respondents into one group of graduatcs, Post-graduates and doc-

torates, and anothcr group of highr:r seconclatv ccrtificate and diplornaholders and those nho have had sonre collegc cdttcation (-Ia.ble ti-3.5)" Itrvas found that the graduate gloup consisted of a. higher proPortion of htgh

change-oriented civil servants irnd :r lorver proportion of moderate andpoor change-oriented civil servants than the non-graduatc group. \\thatis more, these differenccs are significant (chi-square : 28.o; df : z' significalt at .o r level).

Further analysis of the gracluate glouP shorvs that thc respondents holcl-

ing post-graduate and doctoral degrees are e\ren more change-orienfecithan graduate respondents, inclicating- that highcr education is possibly a

consistent influence in sensitizing civil servants to their nelv role in deve-

lopment hdministration. Table 6.4 bclow gives clata on above observations,

Bure'awcratic Adaptation to Deuelopment Administration 109

TABr.r 6.4

UNTVERSTIYEDUCATIONALA]fAINMENTANDCHANGE.O]IIENTATION

Ranleing o.f Res1to enx

Letel of LJnh'ercity Ehration N

":,f"'' Motlerurt I.ou, NR

% '1,;

Gradrrate

?ost-graduate arrd doctorate

225

142

25.8

33. E

60.0

53.5

t2.4

11.3

1.8

t.4

Similarly, although the non-graduate resPondents scored lower on

change-oricntation tiian gr.aduate icsponclents, rvc founrl that the diploma-

trolders \{ere more often sharpll' change'orientcd than the matriculates'

fhrrr, n5, per cent of the diplorna holders in the sample are l-righ change-

orient"d' ancl only tr.5 p.i ccnt are poor change-oriented tornpared to

r2.per cent of thc mairiiulates $'ho are high change-oriented and zz per

c.ni of thc matriculates tt'ho are Poor change-oriented' These results are

consistent rvith the fincling rcported earlier that tcchnical civil servants

are more change-oriented.In so far u, ih" p"r.ntal occupational background of thc lespondents-is

conccrne4 the sturiy shorverl ('lhble 6-3.7) highlv similar -ranking of the

respondents on change-oricntation. n'hether their parental background was

Government service. agriculture. or private busincss and trading' or PrG

fessional like meclicine or lalr" ol- teaching'How far are cit il servants rvith different economic class origins similarlv

or rlissimilarly change-orienred? our findings here 'as

shor'vn in Table 6-3.8

are that higher thc'economic class brckgrou tl of a civil scrvaut. the Inore

often is he'likely to be high changc-orie nterl and less often poor change-

orienterl. Th.s, of the reslonclenti rvith an upPer class 5ackgro'n4. 11,1

per cent r,vere high change-orierlted, lvhereas ^ onlv 6 pcr cent \!el'e- POor

ihange-o.i.nted. Ll comparison, I q per cent ,of the responclents rvith lorver

class "background rvere |righ .hur-tg"-,r.ie'ted. rvhile r 6 per cent of th-em

l\,ere poor change-orienteci. Lastly- zr Per cent of thc resPondcnts rvith a

rnidclle-class ba&ground rvere high change-oriented compared to r I per

cent of them who-were poor change-oriented. These differences were found

to be significant (chisquare : r4.3, <lf = 4, significant at or lcvel)'

It rvit s"ett above that the older respondcnts rvere found to bc more

change-oriented than the younger respondents..In the earlier thapter' itis noied that many of the respondents of the studv appear to have takcn

up their first job in the Government at about.the same age. These_ findings

further implv that higher changc-orientation should come about rvith more

time in thi Government service. 'I"hat it is indeed so is indicatcd by Table

6-3.9. 'Those of our respondents n'ho joined Government sen'ice. before

, gli .,u".. found to be more of ten high change-oriented although after

110

that y,ear recruits to the ci'il service rvere found similarly change-oriented(chi-sqnare - q.2, dl : 4, significant at.o5,, level). The study ihus shorvsthat in the absence of deliberate e[Tort], civil ser\:anrs are likelv to takelong time perceiving their role of change-agents.. Does. possible promotion accolrnt for the clegree of change-orientation

in a ci'il servan I ? The present studv does shorrl that up,"u, ,l progressionof the responclcnts is associatecl rvith their positivc orieniation to b-ringingabout changes in the society (Table 6-3.ro). Thus, out of thc t"rpntr.l"rri..tho havc earned one or trore prornotions tluring their .nr..r*, 2b percent are high change-oriented. l'hereas only r..t.6 per ccnt of the respon.dents whn have not had any promotion so far arc similarlv change-oriented.simila'ly. the proportion of moderate and poor change-oriented icspondentsis less among the former group than among the riitcr. These differencesarc also- statistically significant (chisquar c * |4.7. df : 2. significant at'or level)..F,rther analysis of thc data rclating to the rrumbei'rif promo-tions^ r'eceived by- the resporrdents a'rl thcir change-orientatio' yieldedthe follor.ving results (Table 6.5). Thcsc rcsults do. shor.v that the numberof times thc. civil sen'ant is promotecl has a consisrent relationship withhis change-orientation.

BIIREAUCRACY AND DE\TTI,OPMtrNT ADI,IINISTRATION

']'ABL[ 6.5

IIPWA11D NIORILITY AND CHANGE-ORIENTATION

Number o l' l4omot ion s R ece it,

Rar king of Rasp anrlents

N Higlto.,

Modtran' Lou'

% oi,AIRo'

NilOne

Trvo

Orer lg.o

NR

256

it )

139

109

4

13.6

20.3

10,0

L2

61 .4

60. 9

s4.1

56.8

18.3

16 ,9

14.4

t2.0

0.7

1.9

0.9

0.0

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

R r:tr I I -( ) ri c n I atiottf'he rli:rribrrtion of tlrt. 7r3 r'cspondents .l thc stu<l\, on the rcsult-

orientati.n di'rension of devt l.pment adminisrrari* i, glr.,'-.urit.;.- +;;

Buyeawcratic Adaptation to Deuelopment Administration lf I

follorving Talle 6.6 describes the relationship betlveen result-orientationof the .r'espondents tur,the one.-hand and thcir demographic backgronnd onthe other.

As in the case of changc-orientation, the industries offices studied rverefountl to be more rcsult-oriented than the agriculture offices. Thus, as

shown in Table 6-6.r, about 37 .per cent of the 324 respondents of the twoagencies studied which dealt rvith development programmes in the area ofindustries, evidence high result-orientation.

TABrE 6.6

I].ESUT-T-ORIENTATION AND BACK(}I{OUNI) CHA1TACTERIST'ICS(N .: 7231

R anking of Rcsyondents

Borckyouril Cltarath'ristirs i\r'' High Moderan' I.ou, NRt,. (k g,;, 1;

6. I Type of Offices Studied***(x2 - 13.4, Af : 2\

Industr,v (two) 324 36.7 46.7 16.0 0.4Aqriculture (trvo) 399 .:6.5 46.1 25,S 1.6

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

Technical 285 36.4 41 .O I 5 . .l t . 2

Non-rechnical 418 27.6 46"1 2s.4 0.9

723

6. 3 Class at Present****(It . r3.0. di 1)

Class I l3'7 3'7 .3 46.7 t6.0 0.0Clasi ll 136 44.R 37.5 16.8 0.9Cllass III 449 25 .1 49.0 24 . S | .4N.R, I

'12 "l

(, .4 Ag"*(/,i 0.:r. .li 1)

Yorurg -503 30.6 ,16. 1 22.O I 3

Old : ?18 32.1 46.7 20. I I I

t\. R. 2

123

1t2 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

Ranlehry of Responden*

Backgrom d Char acte r i s ic s N Lou, NR?i, %

Iiishn/

NIoderatt(r//o

6. 5 Educational Attai4ment**tr(x' - qt. o' df : 2)

Graduates

Non-graduates

N. R.

tt. ./

Rural/Urban Background*(1,' : 11 .0, df: 6)

l{rlrrl

Semi-urbar

Urban

Mcrropoliren

N, R.

Parental Occupation*(x'? : e.8, df -- 8)

Govcrnment Servict

Agricr.rlturisr

Privatc business & trading

Independent professionrl

Trading

Others

N. R.

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

Llpper

Middler

Lo*'et

N. Ir..

JO/

354

2

40.0

22 .O

lt.o

34.0

35 .4

26 .2

20 .1

20.7

24.4

30.6

00

44 .7

46.4

46.0

43 .7

46.3

50.0

58 .4

66.0

6l .(r

53.6

57. 1

50.0

42.6

47 .O

46.1

14. 1

29 .1

1.2

2.5

'1|i

o.o

J)l

r44

123

9(r

6

25.8 0.6

20.8 1 . 5.

l -5.1. 2-6

14.6 0.0

723

202

203

198

4l

49

4

Itt

t4.1 1.1

l].3 0.0

t4.6 3.1

19.5 2.5

12.3 0.0

50, 0 0.0

6.8

82

221

382

38

35.3

16, 6

2E.5

20.7

15.3

24.6

1.4

l l

tro

Burea,ticriltic Adaptation to Deuelo'prneitt Atlministration ll3

Ranking of Rcspondents

B a ckgr owd C h ar act e r i s t i cs Lotu NRa/ o//o to

Higho//o

Modercte'o//o

6.9 Years of Service in Govt.*(Xt | .7, df 4)

. 1949 and beforc

Bctween 1950-61

1962 ancl later

N. R.

6.10 UpwardMobility***(^/"2 : e.5, df : 2)

One or more promotions

No proruotions

N. 11.

6-11 Formal Training*(xz : o.4, dl : z)

Traincd

Untrained

N. R.

203 .

381

6

32.5

30.4

J_t.)

35.0

24.2

46.8

46.9'

42.8

44.4

49.6

19.1

2t .7

24.8

1.6

1.00.9

463

256

4

19.4

25.4

1.2

0.8

491

2

Jl. /

30.9

47 .3

45.8

20.2

22.2

0.8

1.1

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

On the other hancl" a similar degree of result-orientation is shorvn byonly- about 26 per cent of 3gg respondents drawn from the agriculturaldevelopment agencies studied. If the low scores on result-orien-tation areconsidered, it is observed (Table 6-6.r) that the industries and asricultureofEccs havc rcspeclively r6 per ccnt and 25.8 per cent of the ir "pcrsonnel

showing poor result-orientation. 'llhese differrcnces are significant (chis(luare : t3.4, df : 2, significant at .or level) and havc many irnplications,especially

_ sincc agriculrural dcvelopment has a high prioriry in ihe coun-

try's devclopment schemes. Lack oi sufficient result-ofientation amons thepersonnel rvorking in this field could lead to many distortions in actualperformance.

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

tt4 BUfi.EAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADI{INISTRATION

these relationships. About 36 per cent of the respondents 'rvho are techni-cal are highly result-oriented and about rb per cent of them are poorlyresult-oriented; whereas the proportion of highly and poorly result-orientedrespondents who are non-technical stand at lb per cent and e5 per centrespectively (chisquare : !2.8, df : z, significant at .or level). Thesedifferences cannot be described as arising basically from the type of offices

studied. As a group, the agriculture offices show a higher proportion oftechnical personnel than the industries offices (63 per cent against 116 percent). This would implv that result-orien tation t'oulcl be higher in theIatter bfifrces, whereas as noted above it is found to be lower.

As regards the class of service of the reppondents, our data shor'r' (Tablc6-6.3) that Class II respondents are most often highl)' rcsult-oriented, follor.r-ed bv Class I respondents. and that the Class III respondents are com-paratively least result-oriented. The proportion of highl,v result-orientedrespondents belonging to Class I, II and III is 37.3 per ccnt,44.8 per centand e5.r per cent respectively. Similarly, the poorh' result-oriented respon.dents come in highest proportion from Class III. These clifferences arealso statistically significant (chisquare : 4, dt : 4, significant at .o r

level). These results are disheartening since the crux of development pro-grammes is their proper implementation for which Class III civil servantscarry much of the responsibility.

The study did not sho'lr. that the aqe of the respondents rnakcs for anysignificant differences in their result-orientation (Table 6-6.4). The sub-sample of young and old respondents evidence a closely similar pattern oft hq degrees of result-orientation.

As Table 6-6.ri shows, the level of education attained by the respon-dents is significantly associated with their result-orientation. As many as

40 per cent of the graduate respondents are found to be highly result-oriented, lt'hereas only 14 per cent of them report poor result-orientation.In contrast the proportions of highly result-oriented and poorly result-oriented respondents among the non-graduate group are 22 and 29 percent respectively (chi-squarc : 4r, df : z, significant at .or level). Furtheranalysis indicates, as in thc case of change-orientation, that the higher thelevel of education of the respondent, the higher generally his result-orien-tation. The data also revealed that respondents lvho had received practicaltralning leading to professional diplomas \'r'ere more result-oriented thaneven graduates.

In terms of the rural/urban background, the study fountl that the morcurban the background of the respondent, the less often he is likely to bepoorly result-oriented (Table 6-6.6). However, as regards high result-oiien-tation, we did not find a similar patrern emerge except between respon-dents 'lvith a rural background on the one hand and respondents r,vith asemi-urban. urban ancl metropolitan background on the other. Anywer.these difierences are not statisticallv significant.

\\/e also did not find anv significant association between the parentaloccupational background of the respondents and the degree of their result-

Bureaucratic Adaptation to Deuelopment Ad,m.inistrati,on I 15

orientation (Table 6-6.7). similarly, rhe economic class origin of the res-pondents and the number of years of their survice in the Covernment donot appear to make for rnaterial differences in their result-orientation(Table 6-6.8 and 6-6.9).

As regards upward mobility in the service we found as sqen in Table6-6.ro that those of our respondents who had been promoted once ormore times were more often highly result-oriented and less often poorlvresult-oriented than the respondents who had not so far received uru oro-motion. Thus 35 per cenr of the former group of the responden,r' *"r.highly result-oriented compared ro 24 per ceni of the latter group whowere highly resulr-oriented. To presenr it difierenrly, it was fouid that theproportion of the poorly result-oriented respondents among the trvo groupsof promoted and noa-promoted respondents was r g.4 uid 25.4 p.i ..rrtrespectively,. These differences-are_found to be signifiiant (chisquare _ 9.7,df : 2, significant at .or level). The relationship between pro-ntion. i.riresult-orienration rvas further analysed in the Table 6.7 which. shows aconsistent relationship between the two.

TABrE 6.?

UPWARD MOBILITY & RESULT-ORIENTATION

Ranking of Respondents

Number of Promotions RecefuedNR%

Low

%

High

%Moilerate

%

NilOne

Two

Over f,wo

N. R.

256

215

139

109

31 .6

38. 3

37 .6

49 .6

42.8

46.1

45.8

25.3

23.2

15. 6

16.6

0.9

0.0

0.0

, oddly enough formal training or lack of it did nor emerge as a significantfactor associated rvith civil servants' result-orientation ii this siudy. AsTable 6-6.r r shows, the trained and untrained members of our sample areseen to be result-oriented in a similar way.

Cilizen-O rientation :

As emphasized earlier,.one of the key ingredients of success in develop-ment administration is the extent to whici the civil servan$ are able ioorient themselves towards the citizens in the implementation of these pro-grammes. The extent of citizen response to paiticipation in the deveiop-rnenr process depends largely upon the attitude of the eivil.rlourr,, tn_wards the citizens: how they are treatd and the efiorts made to involve

116 Bt'REAUCRAqY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

the. citizen .clie ntele in the formulation and implementation of public

policies afiecting them,. 1e invite.their cooperation or to order them around

lry an assertion of duthoritY. .

. R anleing oJ' ResPondnts

AT

" Iligh l\[odcrnre Lov NR

%%%%

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

Indrxtry (two) 324 19.5 45.3 34 5 o'7 '

Agriculture (two) 399 15 .7 55 6 27 0 1 '7

723

8.2 Type of Personnel*t*(X2 : 1o.2; A{ - 2) ,

Technical 285 22.7 4g.4 26 7 1-z

. . Non-technical 438 13.9 52.0 32' 8 1' 3

:

8 . 3 Class at Ptese,nt****(Xz : 20.e; df : 4)

Class I

(-lrss lI

Class Ill'' N. R.

t37 2!.5 52.5 23.s 0.5

136 Z7 .8 44.8. 26.4 1'0

449 12.4 52.3 33.8 1 .5

1

1J1

Bureawcratic Adaptation to Deaelopment Adtministration rL7

Ranbing of Re sponilcnt s

B acl<gr ound Char acte r i st ic s High Moderute

%%Low NRo/ o//o lo

8.5 Educational Attainment****(X2 : 2a.0; df : 2)

Graduates

Non-gradfiates

N. R.

367

354

2

11.8

51.7

50.2

24.2 1.5

37.0 1.0

723

8.6 Rural/Urban Bachground*(x,'z:5.0; df :6)

Rural

Semi-urban

Urban

Metropolitan

N. R.

352

144

123

96

8

15.3

18.7

2t .9

17 .7

50.8

49.3

52.O

)J. I

30.5

22.7

29 .Z

o.7

l.)

1/l

0.0

8.7 Parental Occupation*(xe : 14.7; df : s)

Govemment Service

, Agriculturist

Private Busine ss & Trade

Independent ProGssional

Teaching

_ .Others

'N.R.

202

203

198

41

49

4

?6

18.8

14. 8

16. 1

24.4

26 -5

54.9 25.2 1.1

46.8 38.4 0.0

52.O 29.3 2.6

46.3 27.O 2.3

55. 1 18.4 0.0

8.8 Economic Classifi cation*(^X"2 - 1.6; d{ : a)

Upper

Middle

LOtnr'er

N. R.

82

221

.382

38

19. 5

20.3

15.7

54.8

48.9

23.r 2.6

26.2 1.1

34.8 0.6

118 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVET,OPT{EN'T ADMINISTRATION

Ranking o.f Re sp ondent s

B a chgr ound. C h ar actu i s ti c s N Low NRo/ o/lo /o

High

%Modera|e

o//o

8.9 Years of Service*(r(': r's; df: +)

1949 and before

Between 1960-61

1962 and later

N. R.

tn1

381

19.7

15 .2

2l .0

48 .2

53.0

50.3

30.0 2,1

30.9 0.9

27 .8 0.9133

6

463

256

4

t9 .2

i 4.0

52.9

47.6

26.5

31 .5

1.4

0.9

230

491

2

19. 5

16. 8

1.5

0.848.? 30. E

52.3 30. 1

* Not significrnt.** Significant at .05 level.

*** Significant at .ol ievel.**** Significant at .001 level.

When we placed the respondents in concrete situations familiar to them,we found that a large majodty of them would not adopt the course ofaction indicating a proclientele attitude. Juxtaposition of this attitude lvithdemographic background of the respondents yielded the follorving results(Table 6.8). It should be noted that this analysis is done keeping in vier'r'

the overall position of a small percentage of the respondents evidencinghigh citizen-orientation.

It is evident from Table 6-8.r that the respondents from the industriesoffices on the oni hand and those from the agriculture offices on the otherare dissimilarly oriented ton'ards their citizen clientele. These differencesare however not sharp enough to suggest any definite conclusion abouteither of the type of offices being more positively oriented. Thus, lr'hilerg.b per cent of the industries offices personnel are highly citizen-oriented

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

One or more prornotions

No promotions

N. R.

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

Trained

Untrained

N. R.

Burewcratic Ad,aptation to Deuelopment Ad,rninistration 119

compared to r5.7 per cent of the agriculture offices personnel rn,ho arcsimilarly oriented, data also shorv that only zl per cent of the latter groupare poorly citizen-oriented as against Z4.b per cent of the former group.

So far as the type of personnel is concerned, the study shows a definiterelationship between it and the degree of citizen-orientation. Thus about22 per cent of the technical respondents of the study are highly citizen-oriented rvhile about 27 per cent of them have scored lorv on citizen-orientation. In contrast, about r4 per cent of the non-technical respondentsare highly citizen-oriented and about BB per cent of them are poorlycitizen-oriented (Table 6-8.e). The technical civil servants also include aslightly lower proportion of moderately citizen-oriented than the non-technical civil servants. These difierences are found to be statistically signi-ficant (chisquare : ro.2, df : z, significant at .or ler.el).

We hypothesized in this study that the higher the class of the civilservant, the greater rvill be his citizen-orientation. Public servants inIndia have followed a sfong tradition of authoritarianism. Therefore, a

breakthrough in their behaviour towards citizens which is required by theirnew role in development adrninistration, is nccessary. Exhortation apart,such a breakthrough must be initiated by the higher level civil servants whoare probably most influential in moulding the behaviour styles of subordi-nate civil servants. Our hypothesis lvas borne out by the data rvhich ispresented in Table ti-8.3. It shor'ys that a higher proportion of higher levelrespondents of the study (Class I. II) is highly citizen-oriented than theClass III respondents. Surprisingly, Class II respondents have the highestproportion of highly citizen-oriented members. The data also shorvs thatthe lorver the class of the civil servants, the higher the proportion of thepoorly citizen-oriented among them. These differences are significant(chi-square : eo.8, df : 4, significant at.or level).

The educational background of the civil servants too is found to besigni{icantly related to their positive or negative citizen-orientation. AsTable 6-8.5 shows, about 2Z per cent of thc graduate respondents andabout z4 per cent.of them are highly and poorly citizen-oriented respec-tively. The proportions of highly and poorly citizen-oriented among the non-graduate respondents are rz and Zj per cent respectively (chisquare :24, df : z, significant at.or level). We also found that the post-graduatesand doctorates among university educated respondents are more often highlycitizen-oriented and less often poorly citizen-oriented than the graduaterespondents. Thus. it could be said generally that the higher levels ofeducation make for more positive attitude torvards citizen clientele.

l,astly, the upward mobility of the respondents rvas found to make fortheir citizen-orientat ion. Respondents rrho halc got onc or nrorc promotionsare more often highly citizen-oriented (r9.2 per cent) and less often poorlycitizen-oriented (e6.5 per cent) than the respondents who have not so farreceived,any promotion (14 per cent and Z7.b per cent respectively). Thesedifferences are also signifrcant (chisquare : 9.8, df : e, significant at.or level).


As regards the age of the respondents, their rural/urban background,parental occupation, economic class origin, years of service in the Govern-ment, and formal training received by them, lve found as sholvn in Table6.8 that these factors are not materially related with the degree of pro-citizen fdeling of the respondents.

Commilment to WorhThe degree of commitment to work reported by the respondents is com-

pared along with their background characteristics in Table 6.q.It was heartening for us to note as seen in Table 6-9. r that the civil

servants working in agricultural development programmes are more com-mitted to their work than those rvorking in industrial development pro-grammes. q4 per cent of the former group are highly committed to theirwork compared to only r g per cent of the latter group, rvho are similarlycommitted to their work. Iirom another angle of low commitment to work,it is noted that about rg per cent of the respondents from industriesoffices are poorly committed to work as against g per cent of the respon-dents from agricultural offices. These differences are also statistically signi-ficant (chisquare : 28.b, dl : z, significant at .or level).

Apart from the type of offices in which they served, none of the otherbackground characteristics of the respondents was significantly related tothe degree of work commitment reported by them. The data presented inTable 6.9, however, roughly points out to the follou'ing hypotheses, al-though in this particular studv, we are unable to advance statistical supportfor them:

(a) Upward progression of the civil servants tends to enhance theircommitment to work;

(b) The later a civil servant has joined Government service, the loweris likely to be his commitment to work;

(c) Following from the above, the older the civil ser-vant, the higher islikely to be his commitment to work;

(d) Civil servants exposed to formal in-service trainingcommitted to their work;

(e) Technical personnel in Government ser-vice tendcommitted than non-technical personnel;

(f) The level of educational attainment of the civil servants does notmake for differences in the deqree of their r,r'ork commitment.

ADAPTATION TO DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION -

A CONTRAST IN PERCEPTION

Tn-the foregoing pages we rated rhe respondenrs o[ this study in termsof the extent to which they have adapted to the developmenral role, andexamined the factors in their personal and work life associated r.r'ith it.For reasons explained earlier, we made a di$tinction between the respon-

tend to be more

to be morb work

.Bureawcrati.c Ad"aptation to Deaelo'pment Ad,ministration l2I

TABIL 6.9

BACKGROUND CHARACTIRISTICS AND COMMITMENT TO .WORK

B ackgr ound C har acter i st ics

Ratfting of Respondents

' 9 .1 Type of Ofrces Studied****(X2 : 28 '5; df -- 2)

Iudustrics (two)

Agriculture (two)

324 19 .4 6l .3 18. 8 0.5

399 34.3 56.8 8.9 0.0

723

9.2 Type ofPersonnel*(1,'z: a.8; df :2)

lechnlcal

Non-tcchnical

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

Class ILnss 1l

Clas IIIN. R.

285 26.6 62.8 10.1 0.5

438 28.3 56.4 15.3 0.0

723

g .4 Educational Attainment*(,(, : l.r, df: 2)

Graduate 367 27 .2 60.7 11 .7 o.4Non-graduate 354 27.6 57.3 15.1 0.0N,R. 2

9.5 Upward Mobility*(X2 - 3.2, dl - 2)

One or more promotions 463 28 .7 59. 3 11 . 6 0 .4

No prolnotions 256 25.0 58.9 16. 1 0.0N.R. 4

r22 BUREAUCRACY AND DE\"ELOPMENT ADMiNISTRATION

Rank ry of Respondin*

B ackg ound C har ac tei sti cs High Moderattoin l.;

Lotu N-ltal oi10 io

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

Upper

Middle

LowerN, R.

Years of Service*(Ir:7.8,df:4)

1949 & Before

Between 1950-61

1962 &. LrterN. R.

9.8 PatentalOccupaiion*(x'z : e.4' df: 8)

Govemmetrt Service

Agriculturist

Privatc Business and trading

Independent ProGssicnal

Teacher

C)thers

N. R.

Rural /Urban Background*(r: -: e.5, df : 6)

Il.ural

Semi-urblrutDalt

Metropclitan

N. R.

82

z2l

382

38

203

381

I JJ

6

30. 5

22.6

29.4

34.4

25.4

24 .O

26 .'t

?6.'l28 .7

Jt. I

30.6

25.0

28.4

26.4

29.2

25.0

59 .6

62.4

57.0

53.2

61 .6

58.6

8.5 r.4I 5.0 0.013.6 0.o

11.3 1.1

13 .0 0.0

l7 .4 0.0

9 .',|

723

9.9

202

203

198

41

49

4

26

56.9

64.4

5?.0

5t .2(rl .1

75.0

5E. l58.3

56.9

53.1

16.4

8.9

t4.3

t7 .l6. i0.0

13.3

1,1. -5

13 .9

2t.9

0.0

0.00.00.o

2.2

0.0

o.00,80.00.0

35:

t44

123

96

8

Bureaucrati.c Adaptation to Deuelopment Ad,ministration 123

Raxking of Respondents

B ackground C harccter i st ic s N NITo,,,o

High

%iuloacfatc Lotu

o/ o,'lo to

9 . l0 Ag"*(x2:r.o,A{:2)Young

oldN. R.

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

I farnec

Untrained

N. R.

10.5 0.415.0 0.0

503

218

2

26 .6

29.8

59.4

51 .',l

14.0

I1.90.0o.6

230

491

2

29 .l25.8

60.0

58.2

* Not sisnificant.**** Signifiiant at .001 level.

dents' own adaptation to de\ elopment adminisration and their perceptionsof the adaptation to developlnent administrati()n generally accomplished inthe civil sen,ice. Data relating to the latter are discussed belo'trr.

Our informants in respect of the adaptation to development administra-tion that has taken place in the civil service so far, hal.e been the respon-dents themselves. The methodology we adopted for collecting this infornration has been explained in the chapter on methodolog,v. \Ve believe thatthese facts reported by the rqspondents are perceived by thcm from thcir'obsen'ations of the overt behaviour of their superiors, colleagues. and othercir il sen'ants in soecific situations.

Wc obtained thi picture of perceptions from our respondents rclatingto adaptation to developmcnt administration in terrns of its {irst threecharacteristics, namely, change-orientation, result-orientation, and citizen-orientation. As regards the fourth characteristic. viz., commitment to work,it indicated, so far as this studv is concemed, the feelings of involvementexpericnced by the civil s(rvants in rcspect of rheir dertlopnrcntal rcs-ponsibilities. .Since 'r,r'e thus assessed commitment to rvork at the feelinglevel, we have not included it in the picture of perceptions presented belo'lv.

As noted previously, the perceptions as portrayed bv thc rcspondentsare important to us for their impact on the respondents' or,r'n. attitudcs antlbehaviour. A comparison of the data presented in Table 6.ro belor,v and inTable 6.r at the beginning of this chapter shows t[at the pattern of the

t24 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTR,ATION

TABIE 6. l0

PERCEPTUAL ADAPTATION TO DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

Degree oJ Adaptations Accomplkhcd

D' inren sion s of Ad ap t at io n ITigh Nloderate Lou NofRepofted

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

Total

Change-orientation:

Result-orientation:

' Citizen-orientation :

28.5

18 .2

13 .2

60. 9

55 .4

63.6

9.6

25.4

22.1

1.0

1.0

100.0o7i

(N : 723)

100.0%(N : 723)

1oo. oo/o

(N : 723)1.1

respondents' own adaptation to development administration resembles veryclosely their portrayal of the perception. No doubt, as a group the respon-dents have presented a better image about themselves on the dimensionof result-orientation. Howevcr, they also show themselves rvorse than theperception in regard to change-orien tation and to some extent even inregard tb citizen-orientation. These differences are, of course, not material,for the study found.the respondents' own adaptation to development ad-ministration and that evidenced in perception to be fairly interrelated.asshown in the following table.

TABiE 6. 11

CORRELATION BETWEXN ADAPTATION TO DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRA-TION IN ACTUALITY PERCXPTION AND RESPONDENTS'OWN ADAPTATION

D imen si ons o-f Ad ap tati on CorrelationCoeJficient

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

Result-orientation :

In actuality and ofthe respondents' themselves

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

The moderate to fair correlations reportedtible influence of the environment in whichtheir own attitudes and behaviour. It appears

above indicate the percep-the civil servants rvork, onthat the notions about their

Bureawcratic Adaptation to Development Administration 125

role in development administration are formed by the respondents largelyfrom their observation in rvork life situations; that the manner in whichthe respondent sees the civil servants generally behaving in thbse situa-tions influences importantly the respondents' ideas about legitimate expec-tations or norms that he should follow in his or,yn behaviour. If he sees thecivil servants to be generally highly change-oriented or alternatively poorlychange-oriented, he also tends to be comparably change-oriented in his ownr,r,ork. Similarly, in the matter of result- and citizcn-oricntation. Theseresults rea$irm the findings of many a study of organisational behaviourthat people in the organisation get the cues for behav_ioural expectationsimportantly from their observations of whar is happening around.

Earlier, wc h4ve reported significant positive association among the res-pondents' changc-oricntation, result-orientation, and citizen-orientation. Asregards the adaptation to deve lopment administration rve found the follor,r'ing relationship among the above dimensions of it.

TABLE 6.12

RELATIONSI{IP AMONG DIMENSIONS OF ADAPTATION TODEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION IN PERCEPTUALITY

Dimensions of Adaptat ion

S. No, Desniption

Chi-square Values

)Change-orientation

Result-orientation

Citizen-orientation

17 .9* 23 .2 't4 .7*

* Significant at .01 level with df: 4.** Significant at .001 level with {f: 4.

As Table 6. r z shows, all the three climensions of adaptation to develop-ment aclministration in perccptuality are positively associated rvith oneanother to a significant degrce. That is, if the civil servants arc scen behavi-ourally high in respcct of change-orientation, they are also seen behaviour-ally high in respect of result- and citizen-orientation. These results alsosuggcst, as already observed, that adaptation to a developmental role canbe described as a system of related orientations.

Suruuany eNn Coxcr,usroxs

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

126 ITUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMANT ADN{INISTRATION

Our results show that the majority of the civil servants are moderatell'atlapted to their developmental role irt terms of the dimensions of change-

orientation, result-orien tation and citizen participative-orientation - 55to 64 per cent of the civil sen'ants are rated to be so oriented. These resultsimply that the concern for bringing about people-related changes along r'vitheconomic changes, for achieving programmed results in rvork, and for en-

suring the participation of citizen groups in the developmental prcrcess,. is

neither particularly high. nor quite lor,r'. among the developmentalpersonnel.

Given the generally accepted vielr- that the performance of developmentbureaucracy is not in tune with the requiremefts, we had hypothesizedthat a large proportion of our respondents rvould shor.r' a low degree ofadaptation to development role. The finding of moderate adaptation modi-fiecl our hypothesis. Even so, lve do not consider the pattern reported inthe study to be a r.ery. positive finding. Any administration is a purposefulactivity intended to demonstrate certain rcsults. This is true er,ren oftraditional public administration. It is, horve't er, crucial for a nation trvingto bring about planned cler.elopment. For this ver-v reason, rve consideredresult-orientation an important char:acteristic of der.eloprneut administra-tion. Since it is a traditional value of administration, rl'e expectecl the res-

pondents of the present study to perform reasonably lvell on result-orien-tation. Little over one in cverv five respondents showing a lorv dcgree ofresult-orientation ancl a large proportion of them showing moclerate rlcgreeof result-orientation $/as the main finding in this respect. Again, the levelof the results achievecl by thc civil re.vunrc in practice rvould not be con-gruent rvith, and in all probability n'ould be lou'er than the level of result-orientation reported by them. This would be so because a number ofvariables intervene between thc motivation or desires of the civil servantsand their actual job performance. The above findr'ngs. therefore. point tothe relatively poor prospects of developmental personnel being able toshow particularly satisfactorf'' results in their rvork.

The moderatc to poor r:esult oricntation of a vast maioritv of the deve-lopmcnral personnel that is revealecl in thc prcsent stuclv. ancl still lorvt'rprospects of achieving them in practice havc important implications.C)bviously. the developmental personnel arc not sufficiently orientcd,motivated or prepared for achieving programuratic goals in their areas ofoperation. The nvo important stimuli for high deglee of concern for resultsin one's work are the climate in which the person is rvorking ancl his o.rvninnel commitmcnl. As regar<ls the formcr. ivc lrave nored abovc rlrar tlrcclimate of concern for performing a developmental role in the agenciesstudied is not sufficiently favourable to inspire high concern for achievingresults among the respondents. In fact, thcy find the cir.il ser\ianrs aroundthem to be less result-oriented than themseh,es. Thc study also shorvs, asnoted later, that as many as 70 per cent of the respondents are moderatelvor poorly committed to their rvork. The lack of urgency for achieving pro-grammatic results ultimately results in upsetting the priorities in develop-

Bureaucratic Adaptation to Deuelopment Administration 127

rnental plans and prolonging their realisation.Compared to result-orientation, the other two characteristics of develop-

ment administration, viz., change-orientation and citizen participative-orientation, have involved reletiveh nerv demands on the civil servants.These characteristics are alien to traditional administration rvhich is con-cerned primarily with maintcneucc of the status q uo and law and order.and collection of revenue. Nevertheless, the two characteristics constitutethe key ingredient of development administration and are the .sine qua nonfor its success in the long run. The results of the present study in thisregard at'e important. C)n the one hand, the vast majority of develoP-mental personnel are moderately or poorly clange and citizen participativeoriented. This implies that they perceive themselves to be functioning ina weak climate in terms of the necessity of involving the citizens directlyin the developmental process and trying to bring about necessary attr-tudinal changes among them along with economic de'r'elopment. On theother hand, the idealistic Berceptions of the respondents on these trvo di-mensions indicate that they themselves are less prone to take on the roleimplied by the dimensions. In other words. tl-rey do not consider it to bevery much their job to bring about changes in the values and attitudesof the citizen clientele. Similarly, thev believe a shade less than other civilservants in the.need to ensure direct participation of the clients in thedevelopment pr(xess. These results suggest that the respondents do notsubscribe to these ideas even to the extent they are being practised b1' otherpersonnel serving in the same agencies.

To us the change and citizen participation dimensions of developmentaclministration implied that the process of development is essentially to bccarried out by the people themselvei if it is to be endudng, and that thepublic administrators have to play an important enabling role tor,vards it.Also. that thc latter canrot be a substitute for the citizens wanting a changeand act ively rrorking torvards bringing it about. The present study. horvever.does not indicate that the developmental personnel have a full appreciationof the above dimension of their role. To put it differently, there is a pro-nounced tendencv towards the traditional paternalistic attitude in the qd-ministration towards the citizen clientele. Besidcs, ,as in the olden days,civil servants continue to concern themselves primarily rvith the economicand technological aspects of development.

The results of the study about the commitment to work among the res-pondents arc no doubt somewhat more encollraging than those about ntherdimensions of development administration. These results sholr' that civilservants are not as indifferent to their responsibilities as is generally madeout. If their work does not yield the desired results, they do feel distressedand unhappy. On the other hand, if they achieve the expected results thevare happy about it. Similarlv, the unresolved problems of their lvork continue to bother them even after office hours. These are indicators of em<rtional involvement in work. The study shows, horvever. that the 'commit-ment to work' variable is not correlated with other dimensions of deve-

128 BIJREATJCRACY AND DEVELdPMENT ADMINISTRATIOT(

Iopment administration we have considered.The stud,v showed the first three dimensions of the developmental role,

viz., change-orientation, result-orientation, and citizen participative orien-tation, to be closely interrelated. That the civil scrvants rvho evidence ahigher degree of change-orientation than an another group of their col.leagues r,vould often be more result and citizen participation oriel)ted.These findings of the study bring out the systemic character of the deve-lopment administration. .It implies that any deterioration in respect of anyone of these dimensions of the role r,vould not onlv r,r'eaken that oarticulardimension hut rrould also hare a negative influencc on the othcr two cli-mensions. On the olhcl hand, the rrLak relationship o[ these dimcnsionswith the commitmcnt to n ork among civil servants ihat is revealecl in thestudv suggests thar alrhough rhe lartei is imporrant in itselt. rhe manipula.tion of it may not hclp much in improving the performance of the civilser\rants in their developmental role.

On the whole, the siudysholvs the civil servants in the offices studiedto be just moderately prepared to fulfil their developmental role. Whateverthe levels of the respondents' own orientation to the developmental role,tve attempted to find out the facts in thcir personal and organisational lifethat are significanrlv associated wirh those Ievels.

As regards change-orientation, lve found it to be significantly higheramong

-(a) technical civil servants than among non-technical civil servants,(b) higher class civil servants than among lorr.er . class civil seivants,(c) older civil servanrs than among young"r civil servants.(d) graduate civil servants than among non-graduate cir il sen.ants. in

fact_ it is also higher among post-graduate civil servants than amonggraduate civil servants,

(e) civil servants with a higher economic class background than amongthose with a lower economic class-background, and

(f) civil servants who have rcceivcd promorion/s rhan among rhose whohave not rcceived anv Dromotion.

On the othcr hand, the diflerences in the degrees of change-orientarionlvere not as material as among the respondents serving in industrial andagricultural developmcnt prograrnmes. among thosc wiih rural ancl urbanbackground, among diffcrcnt parcntal occufational groups, and pcrhapsimportantly among the formally trained ancl untrainecl icsponclents. '

In asking the respondents about their change-orientation, wc emphasizedchanges in the valucs and arrirudcs of rhe pcoplc. It was. therciore. animportant finding that the technical civil servints in the samplc weresignificanrll more awarc o[ thc ahore aspects of the change proccss thantheir non-technical counterparts. As rve emphasized in the carlier chapter.development in the Indian contexr is not merelv technical in content; itis.equally imporrantly a process of social change. Hence, ro rhe exrenr rhe

Bureaucratic Adaptation to Deaelopntent Ad,ministration l}g

technical civil servants bear in mind both the aspects of their development tasks, the fuller are likely to be the benefits from them. It is, however,worth noting that the non-technical civil servants are less change-oriented.Am.ong them there is a large number of village level rvorkers ivorking inag:ricultural development programmes and

- field ofrcers rvorking" inindustrial development programmes. In both these programmes," theplanned

_economic change is inextricably linked up with social changeamong the concerned citizen clientele. It may be noted that the dis-tinction between technical and non-technical respondent civil sewantsin the sample ii based on the technical or non-technical nature of workhandled by thcm.

We had hypothesized that the higher level civil servants would be morehighlv change-oriented than.the lorver level civil servants. This was borneout bv the findings. As the higher civil servants are often older than thelorvcr ones, the study does shorr that age .has a positive relationship tochange-orientation. Perhaps, rvith advancing age ind greater experience,ci'il sen'ants come to ha.r,e bettei a\\rareness of the intricicies of the changeprclcess especially in the Indian context.

An important finding of ihe study is that education does make the deve_lopmental personnel see rhe proccss of change in its entirety, that is in itsvarious aspects. The higher change.orientation exhibited by better educaiedrespondents indicates their readiness to try bringing about changes in bothlhe economic life and thc pre'ailing values and attitudes of ihe masses.Education is thus likely to prepare the civil servanr ro accept a fuller deve-lopmen tal role.

Lastly, the upward mobility of rhe civil servants in the service is foundto be significanrly associated with higher change-orientation. Notwith_standing the fact that promotions in government service in Ind.ia are slow,they do enhance motivation, and this is reflected in their identifying them_selves with the employing agencies and the greater sense of involvement inthe expccted roles.

The significant frndings of the study about associationship betweenresult-orien tation of the respondents and their backgrpund chiracteristicsare summarized belor.r' :

(a) civil servan$ serving in industrial development prqgrarnmes arernore result-oriented than those serwing in agricultural developmentProgrammes,

(b;- as in the case of change-orientation, technical civil servants are moreresult-oriented than non-technical civil seryants,

(c) class II civil servanrs are more result-oriented than class I and IIIcivil servants, but Class I civil servants are more result-orientedthan Class III civil sen'anrs,

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

r30 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

(e) the more the Promotions received by the civil servant' the higher

generally is his result-orientation'

It may be recalled that a large majority of the sample of developmental

civil servants studied have moderate io low result-odentation in their work.

It is obvious that in this distribution there is a larger contribution from the

respondents working in agricultural development Programmes than those

*ott ittg in industri-al devilopment Programmes' As a group, the .formerare- sign-ificantly less concerned with ichieving specific results in their rvork

than ihe latter. There cannor be two opinions about the critical importance

of agricultural development plans and programmes and the results sought

in tf,em. What is moie, indultrial de'elopment itself is heavily dependent

on : the success of the above programmes. The civil servants working inagricultural development programmes shorving a rveaker disposition topiodo.. specific results in their work are therefore a matter of some concern.'

shortcomings in the achievements of these programmes could also be due

to the Class fff ci rit servants having low result-orient'ation, since they

constitute such a vital link between bureaucracy and the public. Citizens

too form their opinions about the intentions of the bureaucracy in imple-

menting development schemes on the basis of their experience- of the

attitudes and peiformance of Class III civil servants. We have already. noted

rhar, the highir class civil servants are significantly more result-oriented.Many of theie officials, we believe, occuPy supervisory positions so that theirhigher result-orientation would be reflected in their Putting Pressul'e on

thiir subordinates to achieve better results.As regards promotions in the civil service, the study does shot' that

promotions are associated with greater arvareness on the Part of the pro-

moted civil servants. to achieve concrete results. What is more, the study

shows consistantly Positive relationship between the number of pl-omotionsreceived by the respondents and their degree of result-orientation.

Like change-orientation, we also found result-orientation of the graduaterespondents to be significantly higher than that of non-graduatc resPon

dents. The study, however, failed to discover any significant relationshipbetween the respondents' result-orientation on the one hand and theirirge, rural/urban background, parental occuPational background and theireconomic class origin. Surprisingly, formal training received by the res-

pondents too lvas not found to make anv diflerence in their urge to achieve

specific results in work.The only variables which rve found signilicantly associated rvith difier

ences in the citizen participation orientation of the respondents are thetype of rvork (technical or non-technical) they clo. their present class (Class

I,-II or III), their educational attainment (graduate /non-graduate), andtheir upward mobility in government servicc (promotions reccived/notreceived). More or less the same variables have been noted above to btr

significantly related to the respondents' change and result-orientation '\Me lvere particularly struck by the relatively poor citizen-orientation

Bureaucratic Ad,aptation to Deuektpment Administration i

reported by Class III civil servants in the sample, among whom are in-cluded village level workers engaged in implementing agricultural develop-ment programmes at the grassroots level. The perfognance of these officialsdepends to a greater degree on their capacity to motivate the citizen clientele.The study shows that the citizen participation orientation of the develop-mental civil servants in the sample as a whole is already pdor. Hence theClass III civil servants reporting a still lower level of this orientation couldvery rvell signify serious handicaps in getting proper cooperation from thecitizen in the key developmental areas.

The pattern of commitment to work reported by the respondents doeinot bear significant relationship with any of their. background 'characteris.

tics except the fact that the respondents sewing in agricultural develop.ment programmes are found significantly committed to rvork to a greaterextent than their counterparts rvorking in indusffial devblopment programmes. This is a very positive finding.

The foregoing summary shows that only the variables of the 'type ofpersonnel', 'class ,at present', 'educational attainment', and 'upward mobility'are consistently associated rvith the developmental orientation..of the res-pondent civil sewants, considered in the present study in terms of fourdimensions, but the fourth dimension of 'commitmEnt to worlC::is.nst. on1\lnot closely related to many background characteristics of the respondentsbut is also not correlated with the other three dimensions as noted earlier.In effect, therefore, the study has found the first three dimensions, namely,change-orientation, result-orientatiqn, and citizen participative-orientationto be the system of development orientation.

Except education, the factors that are found to be making for differencesin the development orientation of the respondents are a parr of their orga-nisational life. The actuality conditions about the civil sen,ants' adoptionof a de'r'elopmental role that our respondents have reported are also a partof their organisational life. These rbsults indicare thar the forces lhatinfluence the civil sewants to develop a proper orientation to theii deve.lopmental role are within their work environment and traditions and notso much in their pre-employment life. While this is a happy situation, thestudy does not give us the impression that it has been deliberately ex-ploited to prepare the civil servants for their developmental roles. In-servicetraining is obviously an important insrnrment for developing any organi-.sational personnel. The present study however shorvs that the training receir,'.ed by our respondents has no impact on their development orientliion,that they are only a shade better than their untrained colleagues in thisrcgard. Based on thc foregoing findings, we hazard a generalization thatto the extent civil sel'vants are adapted to their de'elopmental .role, it has:happened so by coincidence, without any deliberate or conscious efiort qn thepart of the government. In other r,rrcrds, we feel that a far greater degree. ofadaptation lvould have taken place had there been a deliberate, plannedprogramme towards it.

l3l

Relationship betweenBureaucratic and DeveloPmentalCharacteristics

IN CHeprnn 4 wn examined the structural and behavioural characteristics

of Indian Bureaucracy in the developmental setting. In the last chapter rve

presented the data relating to the extent to which the agencies/civil servants

itudied have accepted their developmental roles. The crucial questions

before us in the present study rvas the nature of relationship benteenbureauctatic Characteristics on the one hand and the charzcteristics of thcr

developmental role on the other. If this relationship is positive, it rt'ouldimply one set of conclusions. If, on the other hand, the relationship is

nefative, then the relevance of bureaucracy as an institution at lcast fordevelopmental work would be seriously questioned. With a vier'v to make

this asiessment we have attempted to analvse in this chaptel: the r-elation-

ship between the two phenomena.

FrNottttcs

RUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE AND DEVF.I.OPMENTAL ROI,E

We first examined if the bureaucratic structure of the offices in rvhrch

the respondents worketi has any relationship n'ith the performance of theirdevelopmental role. As regards hierarchy of authority, ,a structuraldimension of bureaucracy considered in the study, 'lve found it to bc

significantly related to the result-orientation anl citizen-orientation of thcrespondents, but not so related with their change-orientation and commit-ment to work.

Figure 3 shows that the.respondents rvho are reportecl to be rvorkingunder low degree of hierarchical structure are more often highlv result-oriented, while those working under a highly hierarchical structure are

less often highly result-oriented. Thus about 43 Per cent of thc forrner'group are found to be highly result-oriented compared rvith 3o per cent ofthe latter group being similarly result-oriented. Horvever. this negativcrelationship rvas not corroborated further when lve compared the pro-portion of the poorly result-oriented among the high and thc lorv grotrps

'on hierarchy. Nonetheless, on balance it appehrs that for the developmcntalpersonnel to be positively result-oriented, it is useful if their jobs are

oiganised in a less hierarchical pattern (chi-square betrt'een hierarcht' and

result-orientation : r5.r; significant at .oo4. level rvith df : 4).When we considered hierarchy in relation to the citizen-orientation of

the respondents, it revealed interesting results as presented in Figure 4.

Bureaucratic

Percent

100

80

60

40

20

00

Percent

l-:l

ll

N

133

Rcsult<riantation

High

Moderate

Low

Citizen-orientation

High

Moderate

Low

Moderete Low

(N:460) (N-l7o)

Hiererchy

and Deaelopmental Characteristics

High

(N:e3)

Fig. 3 : Hierarchy in relation to result-orientation'

100

80

60

40

2A

00

N

High

(N-e3)Moderate

(N=460)

Low

(N=l?0)

Fig. 4: Hierarchy in rclation to citizen-orientation.

t34 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOFI\IENT ADMINISTRATION

It is seen here that as many as 40 per cent of the respondents scoring highon the hierarc:hy scale are reported to have low level citizen-orientationcompared with only a quarter of the respondents scoring low on the hier-archy scale, reporting a similar level of citizen-orientation. On the otherhand, the proportion of highly citizen-oriented among the respondents ratedhigh and low on hierarchy is *3 and 27 per cenr respectively. That means.again thal the civil servants operating in a highly hierarchical strucrureare likely to be less often highly citizen-oriented than their colleaguesworking under a lorv degree of hierachical sffucture. Finally, the propor-tion of poorly citizen-oriented (go per cenr) among the respondents re.ported to be working under a moderately hierarchical strucrure is less thanthat of the respondents (4o per cent) working under a highly hierarchicalstructure but more than ttrrat of respondents (25 per cent) working under.a low level of hierarchical structure. We found the above negative associa.tion between hierarchy and citizen-orientation to be statistically significant(chi-square : 22.7, significant ar .oor level rvith df : 4).

When we worked out the correlation coefficient betrveen hierarchy onthe one hand and result-orientation and citizen-orientation on the other.it was not found to be significant. However the-direction r,vas distinctlynegative, confirming the reliability of chi-square analysis given above.

We next examined the bureaucratic dimension of the division of labouror rvork in relation tq development orientation. In the first place. rve foundit to be negatively associated with the citizen-orientation of our respondents.Thus, as shown in Figure 5, the proportion of poorly citizen-oriented civilservants is higher among the respondents reportcd to be .r,r'orking underthe: condition of a high degree of division of labour than .among the rcs-pondents working under a lolv degree of division of rvork. What is morc,resporrdents reporting moderate division of .labour lie benveen the abovetwo exffeme groups so far as high citizen-orientation among them is con-cerned. The correlation betrveen division of labour and citizen-orientation'a,lso shows negative direction. The study thus suggests negatil'e influcnceof this dimension on citizen-centredness of the civil servants. Further analysisalso showed the relationship betlveen division of labour and citizen-orien-tation repoited above to be significant (chisquare : ro.4; significant at.o5 level with df : 4).

As regards the relationship of division of labour rvith change ancl resuk-orientation of the respondents rve found it to be onlv partially negativc.

Figure 6 belorv shows that those respondcnts who per-ceive a high order.of division of work under which they function contain .a smaller. pro-portion of highly rcsult-orienred colleagues among rhem rhan rhat founr.among the respondents reported operating under conditions of a lorv degreeof division of work. However, the latter group of respondents has also ahigher proportion of poorly result-oriented than that found in the formergroup. As the correlation coefficient between division of labour and result-orientation also did not carry a negative sign. rve are not in a positionto conclude that rhe rwo are entirely antithetical to each other. Similar

B ureawcrati.c and D euelop mental Ch arac t eri.s tic s

Pcrcent

High Moderate Low

(N:r22) (N:486) (N:ils)

Division of labour

10(I

80

60

40

20

00

High I

Moderate

LowN

t00

80

60

40

20

00

Citizen-orientation

Result-orientation

tl

N

High Moderate Low

(N:122) (N-4E6) (N:lls)

Division of labour

Fig. 6: Division of labour in relation to result-orientation'

136 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPNIENT ADMINISTRATION

r€sults are available to us'about the division of labour in relation to change-orientation, as sholvn in Figure 7.

-fhe high and the lor,v groups on divisionof labour difier in respecr of the proportion of the highly change-oricntcdamong them but if we take into account the proportion of thcm scoringhigh 'on change-orientation, the two groupi are exactly alike.

Pcrcent

Changc-orientatron

High

Moderatc

LO11'

Modcratc

(N:486)

Division of labour

100

r;-:-=it'.'.

" '.1

tlN

Fig. ?: Division of labour in relation to change-oricutetion.

. I .astly, the study did not reveal any dominant pattern of relat ionship

either positivc or negative betweerr -division of labour a'd comnrirrnenrto n'ork.

Also 'n'e could not cliscover any significant relationship be*vecn a systenrof rules (the third structural characteristic of bureaucricy) ancl anv of thcfour characleristics of the devel6pnrcntal r"olt'.

BUREAUCRATIC BIIHAVIOTIR AND DL,VELOPNIEN'TAL I{(JLI,

\Ve have noted abovc that the bureaucratic siruct.re is negatir.el_r. associato.d *ith the assumption of a developme't r'le in s.mc urpectr. Ir,

^development situation. however, it is the behaviour rvhich holds ir kev tothe understanding of bureaucracy and to its pcrfor-mancc. \\'c har.c thcr.c-fore examined below in detail the relationship bet*een the bchar-iouralcharacteristics of bureaucracy and those of development administration con-sidercd in this studv.

Hrgh

(N:r22)Low

(N:lls)

Bureaucratic &n(J Deaelo'bmcntal Characteristics

personality (7.4 pcr cent).

137

I ntpersonalitl'our general hypothesis hcre rvas that inrpersonality rvould conflict- rvith

change-6rientation required of developmental personnel. This implied that

-,r,ve eipected to find the respondents r,vho are highly impersonal in the ir,uork io be less change-oriemed rhan their collcagues rvho arc impersonal

frorn a moderate to a lor,t' extent. Figule 8 belor,v bears out this distributionlargely. Little over one-fourth of the respondents scoring high on im-

perionality have also indicatbd their high change-orientation, horvever 3rp.t ."trt of the respondents rvho have scored lon' on impersonality, are

iound to be highly change-oriented. Additional evidence of this relatio'-ship is providecl by the fact that the proportion of poorly changeorientedum-o.rg ih" t\{o groups scoring high ancl lorv on impersonality is r 9. r ancl

7.4 p& cent respectively. What is more, the proportion of poorly change-

oriented is .found to decline consistently from the highly impersonal groupof respondents (rg.r per ccnt); moderately impersonal group (16.r per

cent); to the last group consisting of respondents rvho scored lo'w on im-

Frg.8: lmpcrsonaliry in rclatiou to chair ge-orientation.

'f he conclusion thereforc is that inrpcisonality :rs a gcneral feature ofcivil scrvice attitude has ncgative implicatioir for the kel clcveloprnentalcharacteristic, viz.. change-crientation. We also found thc negative asso-

.ciation between impersonality and change-orientation to be statisticallysignificant (chisquare : 17.l; significant at.oor level u,ith clf : 4).

Change-orientation

High

Moderate

Low

High

(N-24r)Moderate

(1.{ :3e6 )

Inrpersonality

Low

(N:86)


Did the high degree of impersonality of the civil service have a negativebearing upon their result-orientation ? The question is especially importantbecause the achievement of planned developmett goals is left considerablyin the hands of the civil servants.

Percent

Resuli-orientation

Moderate

Low

Moderate

(N:3e6)

100

t'.'.'.'.1

tl

N

High

High

(N:241)tow

(N:86)

Impersonaliry

Fig. 9: Impersonality in relation to result-orientation.

Figure 9 above does shorv that the proportion of the highly resulr-orienredis slightly higher (gg per cenr) among the respondents rio.itrg high on im-personality than the proportion (gz per cent) among those scoring lor.r, onimpersonality. Also that low impersonality is somervhat more often ac-cqmpanied with low result-orientation than high impersonality. These re-lationships are however weak (chi-square : 3.oi not significant) ancl hence\{€ are

- unable to suggest a definite impact of impersonality on resuk-

orientation of the civil srvants.On the other hand, the study has suggested, as expectetl by us, a definite

negative :usociation between impersonality and citizen-orientation as shownin Figure ro.

It may be noted that the proportiou of poorlv citizen-oriented is higherlmlng the respondents scoring high on impersonality (83.b per cent) ihantheir proportion among the respondents who scored low on' impersonality(24.7 per cent). Likewise, the latter group of responderirs is founrl to havca m.ucl.r higherproportion of highlv citizen-oriented members (3g.b percent) than we found among the former group of respondents (oniy r7 Sper cent of them are highly citizen-oriented). These distributions ur. itighly

Bureaucrati,c and' Deuelop mental Characteristi'cs

Percent

t00

80

60

40

20

00

High

(N:24r)

r39

Citizen-orientation

H'Ch

Moderate

Iow

Moderate

(N:3e6)Low

(N:86)

|'_:It.''.'.'.1

nN

Impersonaliry

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

significant (chi-square : 23.1): significant at .oor level rvith df : .1)' Sufiiceit to conclude here that the impersonal attitucle of the development civilseryants has a negative impact on their attitude towards bringing the cil.izelr

clientele into the vortex of administrative decision-making and irnple-mentat ion.

Lastly, we examined the rclationship betrveen impelsonality anrl cotnntit-ment to work. Figure r r clearly shows some relationship bettveen the tw()

Thus the proportion of the poorly committed among the responclents

scoring high, moderate, and low on impersonality is found to be r 7 perce t, r2.7 per cent,, and 6.2 per cent respectively. 'Ihis shorvs the negativeimpact of the impersonality attitude on comriritment to rvork in the sense

that we have defined this term for the purposes of the prescnt stud.v.

Seen from the other end, it is found that the respondents scoring lorv onimpersonality are more often highly committed to their lvork than therespondents with moderate score on impersonality (34.6 per cetrt against2jg per cent) and again that the latter group scoring high on irnpersonality(25.8 per cent). These patterns suggest that impersonality as a behaviouraltrait of the civil servants tends to reduce their commitment to n ork. Wervould not, hon'evcr, like to stress this obsen ation as a significant conclusionarrived at by our analysis because it does not pass the statistical test ofsignificance adopted by us (chi-square of association between impersonalityand commitment to work : 2.6; not .significant).

AA

Prrcent

EUREAUCRACY _AND

DEVgLOPMENT ADI{INISTRT|IION

Commitment to work

High

Moderatc

Low

Moderrte

(N:3e6)

Lot"r

(N="86)

t00

High

(N:241)

Impersonaliry

Fig, I I : Impersonaliry in relation to commirrn€nr ro work.

Rat ional ityWhen lve examined the scores of the respollclents ou rationality (thc

second behavioural characterist:c of bureaucracl ) in rdlation to their deve-lopmental orientation, lve coukl not lind the t$.<l to be significantly relatcdto each other. The details bf this analysis are prcsented in Iiigurc rz.

As Figure r2 sho$rs, the scores on rationality and change-orienta-tion appear to be positively associatecl. The ploportion of highly change-oriented is higher among the responclents who have scored high. on ration-ality (26.3 per cent) than thc proportion among the respondents lorv onrationality (rB per cent). From the other sidc too it is found that thchighly rational civil servants in the sample contain a lower proportion ofpoorly change-oriented (rr, per cent) than the cir.il scrvants scoring low onrationality (zo.z per cent). The study thus suggcsts a l'eak but positir,crelationship betrveen the bure:rucratic characteristic of rationality and thedevelopmental characteristic of change-orientation (chisquare : r-,.7; notsignificant).

\Vc found a similar pattern of relationship. betrvecn rationalit,v anclresult-orientation as shor.vn in Figure r 3.

It is clear that the highly rational civil servants are more often highl,vresult-oriente cl and less often poorl,v result-oriented than the proportionsfound among the respondents performing lon on rationality. Again, hor,v-

ever, these relationships were not found to be significant (chi-square : 6.7;

Bureaucratic

Percent

and Deuelopnrcntal Characteristics

l' . . . It. . . .l

N

Moderate Low

(N:348) (N-132)

Rationaliry

t4l

Change-orientation

High

Moderate

tow

Result-orientation

High

Moderatc

tow

100

80

60

40

20

00

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

High

1t t:z+:1

High

(hr -243)

Modcrate

(N.'348)

Retionaliry

Lovr

(N: r32)

t00

EO

60

40

20

00

Fiq. l3: Rationrlity in relation to result-orientation.

t42 BUREAUCRACY AN-D DEVET.OPMENT ADIVTINISTRATION

not significant). We also {ound a somervhat positive relationship to exist

hetween rationality and citizen-orientation'Figure r4 below indicates that 34 Per cent of the respondents scorin-g_lol'

on iationality are poorly citizen-oriented, rvhereas the proportion of lorc-

citizen orienta'tion among the respondents high on rationality is z8 per cent.

On the other hand, the former group of respondents has a lort'er ProPortion

Percent

Citizen-orientationt00

EO

60

40

20

00

High

(N:243)

Moderate

(N+348)

Rationality

Low

(N: r32)

Fig. 14 : Rationaliry.in relation to citizen-orientation.

of highly change-oriented (r3 per cent) than the latter group (zz per cent).It appears, therefore, that the higher the rationality among the civil ser-vants, the higher the citizen-orientation among them also. These relation-ships, however, did not pass our standard of significance (chi-squarc -5.6; not significant).

Contrary to the foregoing trends. lve found thc respondcnts' r"ltionalitvin the course of work to be inversely related to the degree of commitmentthey brought to bear on their rvork.

As seen from Figure r 5 the proportion of the highly rvork-comrnittedamong the respondents scoring high on rationality on the one hand, andtheir proportion among the respondents scoring lorv on rationality on theother are ?9.5 per cent and 34,r per cent respecti\.ely. Likelvise, highrationality is found to be somel'hat more associated n ith a lolr' levcl ofcommitment to lvork than rvith a high level of it. Thus r7.4 per cent o{the respondents scoring high on rationality have scored low on commit-

HEN

High

Moderatc

Liw

Bur eawcrati c and Dea elo'b mental Charac t eristi c s

Percent

143

100

N

High

(N-243)

Modererc

(N:348)Low

(N- 132)

Rationaliry

Fig, 15 : Rationaliry in relation to commitment to work.

ment to rvork, whereas the lattel' phenomenon is reported bv tz.4 per centof the respondents scoring lorv on rationality. These relationships are alsosignificant (chi-square - r2.4; significant at .or level n'ith df : 4).

Overall, the study shorvs the rational approach of the civil servants intheir lvork to be somewhat positively associated with their change-orien-tation, result-orientation and citizen-orientation, but negatively associatedrvith their feeling of commitment to a significant degree.

Ru,lr-orienf ati onLastly, wc turned to rule-crientation as a feature of bureaucrafic behavi

rrul of the civil servants.We first examined the rule-orientation reported by the respondents, in

its relationship with change-orientation. As shown in Figure rG we foundsignificant contracliction befiveen the two. Considering the extreme groupsof highly and poorly ru-le-oriented respondents, rve found that the propor-tion of poorly change-oriented among the r\ro groups is z8 and lr.g percent respectivelv. In other rvords, the highly rule-oriented civil servantsare less change-oriented than their colleagues scoring lorv on rule-orienta-tion. Similarly, ncarly one-third of the respondents pcrforming lol. onnrle-orientation are reported highly change-oriented. As.against this about14 per cent of the respondents who are highly rule-oriented, are also foundto be highly change-oriented. What is more, the proportion of highly

Commitment to work

Hioh

Moderatc

Low

r44 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVEI,OPMENT,AD]\{INISTRA'fION

changc-oriented increases successivelv among the groups of responclents

scoring high, moderate, and low on rule-orientation. Similarl,v, the poorlvchange"oriented come in smaller proportion from the lor'r'er level of rulc-orientation than from the higher level of rulc-orientation anong the rcs-

pondents. The negative relationship betrn'een rule-orientation and changc-

oricntation is thus indicated rather sharpll' bv Ihe studv (chisquare : z8'9;significant at ovei .oor level rvith df : 4).

Pcrccnt

Change-orientation

Moderate

Lorv

Hrgn

(N:128)Mode rate

(N:428)

Rule-orientation

Low(N:167)

Fig. l6: (uls-6;;e ntation in relation to chanee-orientation.

We also found the rule-orientation to be significantlv inversclv rclatcdrr.'ith result-orientation as seen from Figure r 7.

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

100

80

60

High

Bureaucrattc and Developmental Characteristics

Percent

145

Result-orieltation

.''6"

Moderate

Low

100

ll

N

High

(N:128)Moderate

(N:428)

Rule-orientation

I-ow

(N- r67)

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

. The _study also shows rule-orientation of the civil servants to have nega-

tive influence on their citizen-orientation as may be seen from Figil ;g... Of_ therespondents scoring high on rule_orientation, 4r per E r,, "..found to ha'r'e a lorv level of citizen-orientation and orly i5 p'". ..rri t,[r,level of it. Il comparison, u5 per cent of the respondents"s;ring lorv inrule-orientation have also scored lo''v on citizen-orientation and

"rritt "r rTper- cent of this group ha'e scored high on citizen-orientation. Thus thenrghly rule-oriented civil senants are found morc often poorly citizen_oriented and less often highly citizen-orientecl than the civil servants witha low degree of rule-orientation. These patterns of inverse ."ruti."rt ip l.i-r'r'een rule-orientation and citizen-orientation are also highly significani(chi-square : 2o.Z; significant at over .oor level with df : a).

As regards the last characteristic of developmental role,'namely com-mitment to work, the findings about its relationship with rule_orie;;;;;of the civil servants are not in keeping rvith the above partern.. As_shown in,Figure r9,-the study did not establish any significant relarion_

ship between th_ese two phenomena. We found the respondents scoring hish.moderare, and lorv on r're-orientation to be similariy co-mittJ ; *rA;work (chi-square l'alue of relationship be*veen rule-orientatio' urra .o*-mitment to work : g. I ; not significint).To sum up, rule-orientation of the civil servanrs is found in this studyto have negative influence on their change-orientation, result-o.ie;r;",;;

146

Percent

EUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMBNT ADMINISTRATION

Citizen-orientation

High

Moderate

Low

1....1

ll

N

100

80

60

40

2A

00

100

80

60

fi

20

(X)

High

(N:128)

Low

(N:r67)Moderate

(N:428)

Rule-orientation

Percent

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

Commitment to worlc

High

Moderate

Low

High Moderate Low(N:r28) (N:42s) (N:167)

R ule-orientation

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

tlN

Bureaucratic and Deuelopmental C haracteristics

and citizen-orientation; it is apparently not meaningfully related with theirfeeling of commitment to work.

SUMMARy aNo Coxcr.usroNs'fhis chapter dealt with probably the mosr vital part of the present study,

namely the exploration of the relationship between the bureiucratic modeof_functioning on the one hand, and the requirements of the developmentalrole on the other. The specific findings of the study in this regard aresummarised in the table belor,r',

I ABIE 7. I

RELArroNSHrp "rt*.BTuxsifoyR+1il?gr-AcrBRrsrrcs AND

Relationship with Developmental Role

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

147

Chnngeoienhtio

RessltotIentatiotl

Citizen Com,nitftreflt toorientation uork

Structural11te rarcnyDivision ofLabourSysten ofRules

BehaviouralImpersonalityRatiiorrality

'

Rule-orientadon

Negative (S)

Negative(S)Positive(NS)Negative (S)

Negative (S)

Negative (P)

Positive(NS)Positive(NS)Negative(S)

Negative (S)

Negative (S)

Negative(S) Negative(NS)Positive(NS) Negative(NS)Negative(S) No clear pattern

(s)

(Ns)

(P)

Significant II Based on chi-square valLres

Not significant ): N-egativc ro rhc cxtcnr that respondents working under corrditions ofhiqh division

of labour arc found lcs often highly.result-orie'nted than the responderits;..[ir;under conditions of low division oflibour.

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


office, (c) the extent oI say the superiors have in matters afiecting the res-

pondents and their work, and (d) the acrc_ssibility of the respondent to

ihe officials above his immediate superior. Hierarchy thus implies depend-

ence of the civil servant on his superior anrl a sort of a monolithic arrange-

ment of positions and Persons.We asslmed that one of the serious consequences of hierarchical struc-

ture and of the dependence it generates lvould be the loss of initiativeamong the civil servants working under these conditions. we also assumed

that iire loss of initiative would be reflected in the ci'il servants getting

less concerned with achieving concrete results in their work, and becoming

less prone to adopt the new ityle of citizen-centred administration. Indeed

the study amply bears this out. The hierarchical conditions in rvhich the

civil servants ^ worked did make for difierences in their result-orientation

and citizen-orientation.The active efiorts of the civil servants to achieve specific results in their

respective job assignments constitute one of the key requirements of -

suc-

..*i in d"ullopment administration. Such efiorts start at the cognitive level

with the civil servants $ranting or agreeing to achieve the results expected

of them. The study sholvs that the culture of dependence of the civilservant on his superior reduccs the intensity of his concern for achievingspecific results iL wbrk. It is possible that thc civil servant in this casc

regards the achievement of rerults to be more a concern of his superiorthin of himself. The fact, horvever, appears to bc that a hierarchical rela-

tionship dilutes the subordinate's sense of responsibilitr, cven in his own

lvork.Civil servants may be more or less concerned r'vith achieving specific

results in their work either on their orvn or under external pressures. We

do not know the determiner of the level of concern for results reported

by our resPondents. It, however, apPears that the external pressures inthis regardare weak. Perhaps the important element of such extcrnalp."rrnrir is the attitude of thc superior officers. In any formal organisa-

lion and perhaps much more in government, the superior officer I'ieldsgreat influence over his subordinates. Therefore if he puts Pressure otl

ihe suborclinate to perform rvell it is bound to be reflected in the latterconcerning himself more with it. It follows from this that a hierarchicalstructure yields to the employees concerning themselves more rvith per-

formance because it affords more opPortunities to the superiors to exertpressure on subordinates. The findings of the present study are holevcrio the contrary. The respondents functioning under more hierarchicalstructure are found to be less result-oriented than those working under less

hierarchical structure. We are led to concludc from these results that thcsuperior officers themselves may not 'be having a high level of concern forreiults. At least it is not reflected in their dealing with the subordinates.

\A/e ascertained citizen-orientation of the civil servants in terms bf theirattitude towards involving their clientele in the formulation and imple-mentation of developmental policies and programmes. It would have been,

B ur eaucrati c anil D ea elob mental Charac t eri,sti,cs 149

we felt, difficult to find respondents working under a highly hierarchicalstructure to be also highly citizeh-oriented. A hierarchical structure ac-

cords a superior status to the superior and an inferior status to the subordi-nates. It is based essentially on a power relationship between the two.Unless he holds strong convictions which take him above it, the civilservant is not likely to extend the kind of egalitarian treatment to the citizens which he himself is denied. in his office. Many a research has demons-trated that the treatment that the employees themselves receive within theorganisation in which they rvork has a great imPact on the treatment ofthe clientele at the hands of these employees. This suggests that a highercitizen-orientation among civil servants would come forth in a climate ofsupervisory style r.l'hich is civil servant-centred.

As regards division of work -

a structural dimension of bureaucracy - -

we considered it in the Present study to connote differentiation in thefunctions performed by difierent personnel in thc organi$ation. Thus themore different or dissimilar the activities performed by the difierent em-

ployees, the higher the division of labour among them. In accordance rvithbureaucratic theory, we also assumed the division of labour to. be

based . on specialization implying thereby that there is a plannedrelationship between a job and the qualifications of the persons consi-dered for doirlg it. Lastly, it is noted that a high degree of division ofwork

- horizontal as in the case of assembly lines or vertical as in the

case of a tall organisation consisting of many levels of superwision andrnanagement -

makes the rvork performed by individual job'holders repe-titive to some extent.

The study found that the bureaucratic condition of high division oflabour is negatively related to the civil servant's change-orientation, result-orientation and citizen-orientation. That the civil servants who work undera system of high division of work are more often less development-orientedthan those working under a low degree of division of labour.

To divide the work among employees means programming their con-cerns and activities, telling them what is formally expected of them andhow it is different from expectations from others. High order division ofwork would thus crystallize, or even sometimes freeze, the duties andresponsibilities lvhich go to make a role. Employees working under theseconditions tend to develop stercotype notions about legitimate and non-legitimate activities associated with their respective jobs.

To us the change-orientation of development personnel implied theiracceptance of the role of a change-agent in the full sense of the term. Asstated earlier the change lvhich developing nations like India are tryingto bring about is a change in the values and life'style of their people,rvhich includes not only change in their economic status but also in theirattitudes and behaviour. It is this social aspect of change which because ofits crucial importance, rve have emphasized in ascertaining developmentorientation of the civil servants. The results, however, shor,v respondentswhose jobs are highly diflerentiated to be less concerned with the social

150 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINIS RATION

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

We were holvever somewhat intrigued by the relationship betr,veen division of work and result-orientation reported bv the resoondents. Accord-ing to us. the resultoriented civil servant working in a developmcntal areais one who works actively to bring abour tarrgible resulrs Loth for rhcbenefit of the citizens and the country, if necessary even by n.aiving someof the official requirements. In essence, lve have tapped the managerialorientation of the respondents in the above description, where manage-ment is defined as the process of getting results in one's area of rvork.Division of labour should enable civil servants to see their role morc -

clearly in relation to other roles. To the extent that expectations frorrrthe civil seryant are spelled out as a pal't of his role, clivision of labourshould be associated with greater awareness of outputs or results fromone's role.

It may be recalled that in Chapter 4 $'e pooled together the scalcitems on the three dimensions of bureaucratic structure (viz. hierarchy,division of labour, system of rules) to arrive at a composite scale of bureau-cratic structure. Similarly, the scale items on the three dimensions ofbureaucratic behaviour (viz. impersonality, rationality, rule-orieuration)rvere pooled together to constitute a composite scale of bureaucratic behavi.our. To examine the overall relationship of bureauciatic structure andbehaviour, we have also formed a scale of orientation to developmentalrole by combining under it the items constituting the scale of change-orientation, result-orientation. citizen-orientation, and commitment towork. When rve analysed bureaucratic structure in relation to the devt:-lopment orientation of the respondents, the follorving results were indicated.

As Figure zo below shows, th€ study did not find the bureaucratic stnrc-ture as a whole in conflict rn'ith bureaucratic behaviour. Thus the propor-tion of the respondents rvho are highly and poorly oriented to their deve-lopmental role is about the same among the sub-sample reported to bervorking under a highly bureaucratic structure as that among the sub-sample reported to be working under a lorv bureaucratic structure. Fromthese results, it appears that the bureaucratic structure of the Governmentagencies in which civil servants sen'e, and their orientation to develop-mental role are not necessarilv incompatible, except for certain relation-

Buremtcratic

Pcrccnt

and Deaelo'bmental Characteristics

100developmental role

High

Moderate

Low

High

(N:103)

Moderatc Lorry

(N-482) (N:138)

Bureaueratic structure

151

Orientation io

l.r:i

EN

ships noted above.The study has, however, brought out the generally adverse influence

of the bureaucratic behaviour of thb civil servants on their develop-ment.

orienta tion.As a characteristic of bureaucrztic behaviour, impersonality implies dis-

charge of official business rvithout regard for 'persons', that is, dealing witheach case according to calculable r-ules, rvithout emotional and other consi-

derations. According to Weber, the bureaucratic official approaches the pub-lic in a spirit of formalistic impersonality without any feelings whatsoever.His decision-making is impersonal in the sense that decisions are takenstrictly according to formal criteria and the scope for any other considera-tions to influence the decisions is eliminated.

On the other hand, change-orientation lvith its emphasis upon bringitrgabout changes in the values and attitudes of the citizens, requires thedevelopmental personnel to identify themselves with their clientele . andactively help them in the process of change in their values, attitudes, andbehaviour. The process'of change itself is complex and cannot possibly bemanaged through a set of formal rules or criteria rvithin which civilservants havc to function. In other rvords, this function of the developmentadministration cannot be standar:dised or structured, and reduced to handl-ing it according to certain calculable rûles. The whole process of changervith which development administration is concerned is dynamic and

152 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPN{ENT ADMINISTRATION

behoves the civil sewants to be sensitive to variations in the environmentin which it is to be brought about. The change-orientation required ofthe civil servants working in development administration is thus incom-patible with their impersonal, stereorype, standardised approach to work.

From the above. it is also obvious that impersonality would be negativelyrelated to the respondent's commitment to rvork. As regards the presentstudy, the commitment to rvork among the development personnel impliedtheir intellectual as r,vell as. emotional invoh-ement in their lvork. It issometimes even argued that the emotional involvement of these personnelin their work is of higher value (although it is necessary to have bothemotional and intellectual involvement) for it represents an inner direct-ing force motivating the civil servants to perform rvell. The impersonalapproach to work, on the other hand. has no place for emotions in it.A highly impersonal civil servant does his rvork rvithout hatred or passion.'lvithout affection or enthusiasm. and r,r'ith a sense of detachment. Thisnegative associationship betr.t een i,mpersonality an<l commitment to rvork isdemonstrated by the present study although not very significantly inasmuchas the respondents per{orming high on impersonality. are often found lesscommitted to their work, while those performing low on impersonalitv arefound more committed to their work.

Both change-orientation and commitment ro work among the develop-mental personnel imply their readiness to reach oui to the 'person' behindtheir clientele. It is our conviction that the development process has essen-tially to be people-centred; that people are the focus of development ancleven if the Government initiates the development process, it is no substi-tute for the movemen t on the part of pebple rhemselves. The citizen-cenffedness of the civil servant leads him to adopt a less impersonal. moredirect, and friendly approach in his dealings with thc citizens ancl to br.clkaway from the social isolation of himself such as lvas t_vpical of his e arliercolonial incarnation. Both these behaviours are taboo to a civil servantperforming his work in an impersonal manner. We offer this interpretationof the adverse relationship found by us between bureaucratic characteristicof impersonality and citizen-orientation rvhich is an important charac-teristic of the developmental role.

The study did not find impersonality of the respondents to be negativelvrelated to their result-orientation. On the other hand, the trvo characteris-tics are positively related, though not significantly. That is. the highlyimpersonal civil servants are likely to be more concerned with rchier.inqspecific results in their work than their colleagues who are less impersonal.

As regards the second behavioural characteristic of bureaucracy, viz.,rationality, we found it to be somewhat positively related to developmentalrole in terms of the respondents' change-orientation, result-oricn tation. anclcitizen-orientation, while at the same time somel'hat negativelv related totheir commitment to work. These relationships, however, are r,r'eak accord-ing to the tests adopted by us.

We have defined rational behaviour of the civil sewant as the behaviour

Bureaucratic and Deuelopmental Characteristics

involving choosing objectivcly between ahern.atives on considerations ofefficiency. Matter-of-factness dominates in the work of such a civil servant.He takes his various decisions as objectively as possible; and his norms.therefore, are universalistic rather than particularistic. For example. pro-motions based on merit and seniority are illusffations of universalism, *'hilenepotism is an illustration .of particularism. The study dicl not sholv anrconffadiction befiveen the rrtional behaviour of the civil servants uncler-stood in the above sense and their adoption of the developmental role. Asregards commitmenr ro wor k. it will be recallcd that it implied, for tht.purpose of this study. emor ional involvemenr of rhe civil slrvant in hiswork. The matter-of-factness of the rational civil servant precludes theemotions to influence his l,ork. Hence the mildly negative relationshipbetween rationalitv and commitment to work found by us. On the rvholc,the bureaucratic characteristic of rationality appears to be functional tothe performance of the development role by the civil servants.

Lastly, the negative relationship of rule-orientation rvith development-orientation of the civil servants is consistent r,vith the influence of imper-sonality discussed above. As a behavioural characteristic of bureaucracy.rule-orientation means strictly following the officially prescribed rules,norms of conduct, and procedures. Merton has noted that a rule-boundcivil sen ant sees his role as consisting of a mechanical application of offi-cial rules. To him these rules do noi have instrumental

-value, thev have

a terminal value.' It is this approach of the civil servants rvhich is morepathological.

The terminal value ascribed by the civil servants ro the rules and pro-cedures governing their work would logicallv make them indiffereni tothe specific results expected of them. There is no quesrion of their rvantingto achieve certain results and actit.ely rvorking for them. The results justhappen to come about from the strict application of the official rules inspecific cases. The concern. to follorv stipuhted rules and the concern toachieve desired results thus seem to conflict rvith each other.

As noted earlier, both change-orientation and citizen-orientation requirethe civil servant to be citizen-centrcd, to consider his clientele and theirdevelopment as the real touchstone of his efficiencv. The official rules andprocedures are intended merely to help him in this task. The studr,.however, has shon'n that excessivelv rule-bound civil servants often stootheir concern rvith the applicarion of formal rules and fail to sec beyonj.

In other words, their serr,:iceorientation which is implied in the abovetu'o kev characteristics of the developmental role, is less. On the otherhand, it is higher among the civil servants.n'ho are less rule-oriented. Henct,thesc civil scrvants are also signi{icantlv more changc-oricnted and citizen-oriented.

r. Merton Robert K., Social Theory and Social Stiucture, Nerv york, -fhe FreePress, r968. p. z5g.

153

Bureaucracy and DeveloPment

Administration - An Overview

Srxcr sunneucRAcY as a system of government has come to stay in almost

all countries and certainiy in Inclia. it is onl ' to be exPected that the

bureaucratic phenomenon will grol' in the conring years' More and more

state activitiei which are on the anvil, lvill iner-itably see the burgeoning

of the bureaucracy in fields which have traditionally been outside the. pur-

vier'r, of the governmental system. From all evidence of the recent historv

of India every new state activity seems inexorablr, to lead to gTeater bureau-

cratic growth and consequently bureaucratization.Is this process as inevitible as it seems? The c1[estion could take different

forms in different countries. In the Third \Arorld non-Socialist countries.

the question gets linked lvith fundamental problems of development' Isdevelbpment i process of social evolution through environmental in-ter-

action in which icope for human intet-vention is limited? Or can develop-

ment be engineered to suit the needs and tastes of man and the societ,v

in which he lives.The experience of the post-planning period in India clearly, demons-

trates thai the developmental process can be greatly accelerated throughstate action. Compared to the first t1,vo quarters of the zoth century' the

pace of development in the third quarter has decidedly been superior andiaster. In othei words, development is not mercly an outgro$'th of historvbut can be engineered and compresscd in time.

The problem of development seems ultimatelv to hinge uPon manage-

ment, eipecially holv the process of developnent is conceived, handled'and administered. In other lvords, this means management in the broadersense. Evidence suggests that developmental activities are broadly of tlvotypes. Discrete activities such as building of roads, bridges, communications,trinspo.t, dams, etc., and diffused activities like education, health, familywelfare, etc. The former are amenable to cliscrete organisational treatment.The latter a-re not. The diffused sector needs <lifferent forms of organisa-

tion. Evidence also suggests that rvhere the Process is more people-based,it is qualitatively different; that rvith all their limitations, in the people-based programme, to the extent that they succeed in involving the peopleclosely into the programme, the success level in the diffusecl sector seems

to be much greater.This poses basic problems to development management. On the onc'

hand development in countries like India sees the almost inevitable grorvthof bureaucracy as the sole instrument of state policy. On the other hand,bureaucracy also develops a stranglehold on the developmental process

r57An Oueraieu

and it adjuSts this process to suit its own pace and liking whether it meets

the needs of a country like India which is primarily interested in accele-

rating development or not.Evin more^fundamental, as studies by Robert Michels, Peter Blau ancl

others have pointed out (referred earlier in the text), are certain inherent

contradictio;s between bureaucracy and democracy. The essential values

of bureaucracy are hierarchy, status, secrecy, sPecialisation, rules and an

unflinching obedience to authority. In contrast, democracy is built around

almost diairetrically opposite values of 'egalitarianism, non-hierarchism, oPen

discussion, and above all dissent. The guiding principle of bureaucrzcy

is rationality which, in essence, means efficiency' The guiding principleof democracy is popular will.

At the ,"-. iitn. there are almost no examples to shorv democratic

institutions as insnuments of implbmentation or actual day-to'day manage-

ment. A11 democracies have, therefore, had to fall back upon bureaucracies

as their principal instruments for getting things done. This is what Peter

Blau calls a piradox, that is, the necessary co-existence of democratic and

bureaucratic institutions.The question, therefore, is not rvhether or not we need bureaucracy but

what kind of bureaucracy or bureaucracies. can we afford the classical

weberian type of bureaucracy which is essentially static in its values and

orientations? Or do we need the types of modifications rvhich many scho-

lars, and also practitioners, have seen the need for. To an extent changes

have indeed been made from time to time in the bureaucratic aPparatus

even in India. But these changes have been rvithin the existing framc-

work, and at least Indian bureaucracy basically wears the looks of the

classical Weberian model both structurally and behaviourally, rvith ex-

cessive emphasis on hierarchy, status, secrecv and authoritv, not to speak

of rule-orientation and impersonality.From these perspectives the findings of the present study are important.

While we did find a significant level of incompatibility betwecn bureau-

cratic values and developmental values, the results were far more complex.As bureaucracy came face to face with dcvelopmental tasks

- especially

tasks requiring people's ParticiPation and. involvement - bureaucratic

no.m, and values began to undergo a metamorphosis. There was a markedand percentible trend towards lessening the rigours of the structural andbehavioural patterns of bureaucracy. The structure of bureiucracy began

to get adapted. The hierarchies becam€ lcss rigid, the system of rulcs'losttheir deadly stranglehold, they began to be more responsive albeit ir"t

limited terms. More importantly, behavioural values began to get radicallvaffected. Impersonality became less rigorous and the needs of the citizenbecame a little more important. This was more so in respect of the fieldagencies, especially in the agricultural scctor rtherc people's invoh'emcntand participation are essential for the successful implementation of theprogramme of development. In other lvords the bureaucracv showed signs

of dvnamic institution.

r58 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT

It was perhaps a crucial finding that developmenral bureaucracies rvhichare more at the 'receiving end' i.e.. those requirlng citizen cooperation for'bureaucratic performance rather than at thc 'giving end' i.e., the civilservice dishing out favorus, permits, etc., tend to get structurally less rigidand behaviourally more responsive. The whole 'gestalt' of the bureaucraclgets altered and the concerns begin to shift, undoubtedly through neces-sity to meet the needs of the people rather than of the bureaucracy itself.This holds out the prospect that even the traditional bureaucratic organi-sations such as the ones in India are not bevond hopc. More so since thekind of transformation that has taken place thus fai in different bureaucratic organisations is entirelv accidental and not by design - accidentalin the sense that the occurrence is a consequence of something not plannedin a systematic manner. A rvell-planned adaptation could, therefore, yieklfar gteater results, an issue that rvill be dealt in some more detail later.

The incompatibility which rve found between the traditional, bureau-cratic, structurzl, and behavioural values and the values of developrnenttherefore is not entirely a negati\re conclusion. It only means that while theclassical model may be irrelevant for India. bureaucracy ,lter se is nornecessarily so. As an organisational instrurnent it can be moclificcl, altererland adapted to meet, at least to so'rne extent, the needs of development.

Por,rcY Il,rprtcerroxs

In other words, the findings of the stucly l-rave profound policv inrpli-cations. As noted earlier, during the entire era of planned developments theadministrative policy of the srare in India barring a few exceptions has beenbased on the assumption that the state rrould use the bureaucracy as itskey instrument of development management. In other rvords, the arlminis.trative policy of the country has been essentially predicated upon thebureaucracy. There have, of course, been several attempts at reforming thcadministrative system. But all these attempts have been rvithin the existingframework. And rvhat is more. they have been unsuccessful in brinuingabout any significant change in the workings of Indian bureaucracv.

It is not conceivable thar in rhe near future the administrativc policvof the state in India rvill undergo any basic change. Bureaucracv is ex-ceedingly resistant to reform and the political system lacks either the lvillor the capability to force a change. If this be so the findings of thc stuclr,pose some fundamental problems. Abovc.all, if there are sone inhercntcontradictions betr.veen bureaucratic values and developmental r.alues. hot,far rvould bureaucracy be able to deliver the goods ? To what cxrcnt \\.oul(tit be able to meet the challenges of the future especially in the complicated area of rural development? If the study has io be believed, hureau-cracv r'vould not be able to deliver the goods so long as it continues toretain its present character.

What then are the options? One important but perhaps a rarher clifficultrvay would be to transform the existing bureaucratic system, at least at the

An Oaentiew 159

higher levels, by integrating it with the political system. That is to say,that the higher bureaucracy 'lvould be politicized and key bureaucraticpositions would be manned by the cadres of the nrling party so that thereis an active and direct involvement of the political system in the actualimplementation of development programmci. To some exrent thcre is aparallel to this in some \\restern countries not to speak of the socialistcountries. This is by no means an easy solution and goes against the grainof the 'neutral' bureaucratic system rvhich has been built in India sinceIndependence. There is also no guarantee that such a system l,ill neces-sarily be able to perform better. But to the extent that the ruling partl.at any given point of time is interested in its political future in a free anddemocratic system, it is likely that the party I'ill seek to ensur-e betterperformance at the grassroots. This alternative therefore deserves to beexperimented upon in a limited rvay and in selective fields.

A variant of this approach lvould be to design a bureaucraric svsremrvhich seeks a greater involvement of the people in its work programme.In other n'ords, to design the system in such a nay that people's institu-tions ,are given more and more say in developmental functions. One rvayto do this would be to develop the Panchayat institutions especially at thegrassrogts level and help them to develop as instruments of administrationrather than as merely local political institutions.

lVe have at least two States which have extensive experience in this field.namely Gujarat and Maharashtra. In Guiarar the T;luka Panchayat is apivotal institution rvith an elected President lvho directs the entire Talukadevelopment office tvith a sen ior officer called the Taluka DevelopmentOfficer to assist him in his function. In Maharashtrz the principal institutionis the Zilla Parishad with an elected President and a Chief Executie officeras the administrative head. Er,en here rhe experiment has stopped short olgiving full po\4'ers in local developmental matters to rhe panchayarinstitutions.

The irrstitutional base, holvever, already exists and it would not bedifficult to build these people's representative institutions iirto full scaleinstruments both of development and local self-government. Despite manylimitations in terms of availability of necessary levels of skills and caoa-bilities. it would be possible to give these representative insritutions amuch greater say and role in matters of local importance and those having:r direct bearing on the life of the immediate community. Admittedlv notthe entire country rvould be ready for such an experiment in decentralization and devolution of development administration. At Icasr an imme-diatc beginni"g g1 ,be made where the base already exists rvhile pre-paratory work could be started in other cases.

A third alternative rvould be to identify whatever people's organisationsexist at various le.r'els and strengthen and support them rvith a view tocnabling.them to play a greater and expanded role in development ad_ministration. Sercral voluntary organisations. sometimes affiliared to poli.rical parr.ies. but quite often independent of parrisan involvemenr exist


with excellent record o{ development services to the local community. Theseexist extensively in fields like education, health. agriculture and some-times even in the small-scale industrial fields. These are precisely theareas where people's institutions are ideal vehicles of development effon.However limited it may be, voluntary efiort has repeatedly been found tobe more efficacious than bureaucratic effort imposed from the top. Thistype of effort from within needs to be encouraged. nurtured and supporte<las a matter of deliberate administrative policy.

While on this alternative special mention should be made of the co_operative system. Amul, the milk cooperative in Gujarat, has amply demons_trated in most efiective terms, what a well organised cooperalive systemcan do for the development of a rvhole and ciucial sector even againstnatural odds. Many parts of India, especially Gujarat. Maharashtra. iamilNadu, etc', have long traditions of effective and sound cooperatives. rnrecent years political factors have eroded their strength. Even so a consciouspolicy to utilise the cooperatives, along rvith voluntary organisations, asinstruments of development administratio', rvilr not only iifuse new lifeinto this. sector, but provide the srate rvith a less expensive and more efii-cacious instrument of implementation and cle.r,elopment.

A fourth alternarive could be the direct associatlon of the citizen clien-tele

-with the official agencies at the key performance levels so that thepeople have a say in programmes directry affecting them. This may involvesetting up of people's commitrees either functio.t"lly or in aggregat. areas.This would ensure a greatcr dovetailing of the people's exfictations andaspirations into . the administrati.l,e apparatus and enable an iasier andspeedier adaptation of both the citizen ind thc .administration to the needso.f the de'r'elopment programme. Admitterlly there are not many successfulilhrstrations of. this approach *'ith possibre exceptions in tire socialistco'ntries. But it is a method that could bc selectively usecl in programmesof a developmental character, such as. in agriculture.

Experiment r'vith these 'arious altcrnati.r.e"s should ancl neecl to be tested

and micd out. From a theoretical standpoinr if the people's direct involve-rnent is a greater guarantee of per.formance, then the developmental pay-offof these policies rvould be much greater and, therefor", d.."r"." i"rinu,administrati'e- policy consideration. There arc thus crucial macro-policvimplications of the study.

These alternatil'es do not, however, impry that burcaucracr. rvill har.eno role in development administration. Many discrete sectors such as trans-port, roads. medium and large irrigation. public sector enterprises. etc.r'vill continue to be and need to be Jrganisei on bureaucratic rines. Thesesectors will be large and important enough for thc b'reaucracv to be fur\,occupied and perhaps rr'ith benefit to the nation.

\Vhat, holl'e'er, if s'ch alternativ,es do not get the support they desene?Is it possible .to conceive -of

more rimited opiion, rvittrin the "irr,i"f "J-ministrarive frame'w'ork? That is to-say, if bureaucracy remains trrc oniy orat least the principal insrrument of development administration, can Jurl*."

An Oaeruiezu

and modification be made within the existing organisational parameters roadapt it more efiectively for performance of these tasks?

Even from such a narrower or intra-bureaucratic perspective, the studvhas' indicated several policy suggestions. Not all of these deserve to berepeated here and sumce'it to highlight the mosr crucial ones, especiallvthose relevant to development administration.

First of all, since the study reveals a certain degree of dysfunctionalitybetween hierarchy and development orientation, it is necessary that thesteeply hierarchical propensities and taditions of Indian bureaucracy bccurbed or modified. These propensities and traditions have posed every con-ceivable barrier within the bureaucracy and have'been inimical to the deve-lopment of effective lrorking relationship between the civil service andthe citizen especially in the developmental context. The task of de-hierarchi-zation will be undoutedly difficult since it is a deeply ingrained value inthe Indian governmental system. Even so, it will be beneficial to the sysremto organise somewhat more flat organisations, insist less on superior-subordinate status relationship, and generally encourage a greater degreeof informality and florv rvithin the bureaucratic system and with the peopleat large, especially rvith the citizen clientele.

The negative relationship of division of labour with change, result-orientation and citizen-orientation is also suggestive of necessarv prescrip-tive action. Excessive division of labour tends to diffuse creative response ofthe bureaucracy in essential terms. Here too some modification should bedesigned to give the people more .integrated service. High differentiationappears to lessen bureaucratic con€€rn with social aspects of thc changeprocess and responsiveness ro the people's needs. This implies that thegovernment needs to take greater care in designing jobs and in organisingthe departmental systems than has been done so far. Considerable literaturealready exists on job enrichment and rvork design rvhich need not beelaborated lrere.

The behavioural characteristic of impersonality 'lvhich is so strongly in.grained in the Indian bureaucracy generally, though not so strongly in thedevelopmental one, also poses problems. Impersonality and change-orienta-tion are negatively related. Similar relationship extends to commitmen t,though no such conflict is demonstrated befit'een impersonalitv and result-orien tation.

Modifications rvould, therefore, be necessary to make the Indian bureau-cratic system less impersonal. This poses problems because a personalizedbureaucratic system could also create several difficulties in programme im-plementation. As the study indicates the nature of the tasks itself in certaindevelopntental areas like agriculturc, ensures to an extent that the bureau-cracy would be less impersonal. Ideally, therefore, n'hat needs to be doneis to design administrative tasks and functions in rvhich the citizen is atthe 'giving end' and the bureaucracy at the 'receiving end'. This will compelthe latter to be more understanding and accomrhodating of the peopie'sneeds than in a system where the civil servant is at the giving end. Design-

l6t


ing administrative systems of this type is no easy task and 'rvill take some

ingenuity. Fortunately, in the developmental sector, thc effort 'rvould be

relatively easy and meaningful. Tools like training r,vhich have an effect olreducing 'impersonality' could be more effectively used.

Lastly, on rule-orientation, similar corrective action is necessary. Rule-orientation is the norrnal and oft-decried propensity of bureacracies all ovcr

- no less in India. Its negative relationship lvith key developmental l,ariables has similar policy consequences. Horv to develop a culture in whichrule-orientation gets diluted and bureaucracy becomes more responsive tothe tasks to be performcd is the basic problem of administrative policy. Asthe findings of the study shorv, higher education can help in reducing thcrigid rule-orientation of the bureaucrats. The too could be used to a

greater degree so that end-goals and not the rules can once again becomethe central foci in bureaucratic oDeration.

In broader perspecti\c. rheretirc. hierarchy. impersonalitj and rulcorientation are the three critical characteristics of bureaucratic organisation and behaviour which appear to run counter to the administrativepolicy needs of development administration. There is almost a certaiulevel of contradiction betlveen these three characteristics and de'l,elopmentorientation. Each of them, therefore, suggests policy measures to obviateavoiddble adverse impact. Such measures are obviously available to a lisscror greater extent and they need to be adopted. Without such a consciouseffort, there would be many hurdles in the pcrformancb of der.elopmenialfunctions in the countrv. More detailed conclusions are available in theindividual chapters.

Issur.s rN Trlronv Rurr.lrNc

The study has thrown up issues irr theorl building both on hurcaucracr'and development aclministration. Bureaucratic thcory is, of coursc. of zr

much older vintage, and despite several recent criticisms, still remains usefulespecially in developing countries like India rvhere the burcaucratic orga-nisation is the principal instrument of public administration. Holvever, as

the study shorts. thc structural and behlr ioulal chalacteristics arc nol neccssarily related and that the actual bchavioural propensities begin to altelthe structural characteristics to .an inrnortant extent. A static theorv ofbureaucracv. therefore. tloes not adcquaielv leflcct the actual rnoclificationsthat come in or the true character of buleaucracy which etnerges. Hence,a single bureaucratic model appcars to be difficult to sustain. though ebroadly generalisable framework perhaps can still be built. From the prac-tical point of view it rvould be far better to develop a l'ange of models inwhich many factors rvhich have been listed in chapter 4 could be pro-vided for.

The various constructs presented in the study perhaps. need to heexamined in greater detail both in relation to traditional bureaucracv as

rrell as the developmental one. This. rvill thror,v up more data on the hypo-

An Oteruiew 163

theses suggested by the present study and help us build better theoreticalframeworks.

The building of further bureaucraric theory is indeed very crucial espe-cially to the developing counffies where bureaucracy of one hue or anotherrvill remain important for quite some time to come. Even in the deve-loped world this lvould be no less important. Experience has shown tharbureaucracics tend to proliferate in both the capitalist and socialist counr"ricsof the west. In the developing countries, even if some of the alternativessuggested above are tried, there rvill still be a large and important bureau-cratic sector. Hence appropriate theory building witl be an importantchallenge rvhich the academia and the professional bureaucracy rvill haveto face.

On the other hand, the theory of development administration used hereis more beset with problems. Neither national nor international literaturecovers adequatcly these theoretical issues. To the extent that change-orientation, result-orientation and citizen participative-orientation are sigii-ficantly relatecl to each other, they do suggest a theoretically useful modelfo' building further framer,r'orks as rvell as testing them in other. situ-ations. Perhaps other attempts at conceptualization will bring out othel.constructs which will help build the theory of development administrationfurther. Special efiorts need to be promoted in this direction.

These issues are stressed here because they are important to both aca-demic and policy purposes. To an extent the first step has been taken torelate bureaucratic theory directly to development adhinistration ancl totest their neutral congruity or otherwise. That there is a theoretical in-congruity which is borne out by the present study is an important milestonefor theor,y building and for policy purprxes. This should ipur future rvorkin new directions.

Finally the study of bureaucracy as an administrative institution needsto be further examincd in relationship to bureaucracy as a political insti-tution. \,vhat _is its political role especially in d.eveloping countries like-India rvith a bureaucracy of imperial traditions? Is it- poisible ordinarilyto have democracy at the central or state levels and bureiucracv elsewhereiBoth theoretically and in policy terms this does not look like a feasibleproposition. The present study does not warrant ,ny conclusion on thistopic. It only urges attention to this crucial issue.

APPENDICES

I Basic Tables on Bureaucratic

Tanu A

Profiles

AGE

Age Gtou.p Number ofRespondents Per cent

2l-25 years

26-30 vears

. 3l-35 ,veats

36-40 years

41-45 vears

46-50 -vcars

Over 50 years

Not rePorted

6.8

L9 .9

25 .2

t7 .7

11.9

9.09.3

0.2

49

144

182

128

86

65

67

2

Torar- 723 1oo.o%

Tesra B

RURAL/URBAN BACKGROUND

Number Reponing

Number Reporting

R ur al I Urb an B rtchground By Place oJ Btuth By Place Liuetlup to Age 18

Numbs Pcr cent Nunber Per cent

llural 432 59.8 352 48 "7Semi-urban 171 16.'1 144 19 .9

Urban 10ti 14.9 123 17 .O

Metropolitan 52 7 .2 96 13 .3

Not feported 10 1.4 8 1.1

Nore: Rural : Up to population of 10,000.

Semi-Urbar.r : rffith population of 10,000-1,00,000.Urbau. : With population of i to l0lakhs.Metropolilan : -With

population over 10lakhs.

168 BUREAUCRACY AND DBVBLOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

Tanrs C

PARENTAL OCCUPA1IONS

Patental Otupations Nunfier Repotting Per rcflt

Govemment sefvice

Agriculturist

Business: self+mployed or employed by others

In<lependent professional

reacrung

Otler occupations

Not reporfed

202

:

203

198

41

49

4

27.9

.28.1

n.4

J. /

6.8

0.5

3.6

tzt 100.0%

TABLE D

ECONOMIC CLASS ORIGIN

Parental Class Reported Nunber Reporting Per rcnt

Upper

Upper-middle

Middle

Middle-lower

Lower

Not reported

26

56

221

229

153

38

3.6

7.1

30.6

31.7

2l .l

5.3

Torar 10o.07;

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

Uppcr-rniddle .- Rs. 751-1,500 p. m. :

Rs. 151-250 p. m.; and Lower : Less

Basic Tables t69

Term E

LEVELS OF EDUCATION

Leuels of Eilucation Attdincd Numbu Reporting Per cefit

High School

Intermediate and equivalent

Diploma

Bachelor's Degrec

Master's Degree

Doctdrate

Not Reported

294

2tt

225

129

t3

2

4A.7

3.9

4.4

31 .1

17. I

1.8

0.3

ToTAL 723 1oo.o%

Tenn F

LENGTH OF SERVICE

Yeat of Joining Number Reporting Pet cent

Before 1938

Between 193M3

Between 194-49

Between 1950-55

Between 1956-61

Between 1962-67

h{ter 1967

Not Reported

81

101

135

246

120

l3

o

2.9

lt')

14.0

18.7

34.0

16.6

1.8

0,8

Torar, 100.07;

170 BUREAUCRACY AND DE\ ELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIO]\ '

TABIE ,G

.MODE OF ENTRY :

Mode o;f Extry Nrntber Reporthtg, Per cent

Through Employment Exchange plus Intervicrv

Direct by Ollice through Advcrtisemcnt and

Interview

Through a Single Interview by thc

UPSC/State PSC

Through Conrpetitive Examination ofUPSC/State PSC

Otller Methods

Not Reported

221

89

20

4

50.6

30.6

12.3

3.?

v.8

0.5

Toral 100.0%

Tasrs H

C]LASS ]NITIALLY JOINED

Class Initially Joined Nuufter Reportlng Pet tutt

Class I

Class II

Class III

Class I\.

Not Rdported

39

58

579

24

5.4

8.0

80.1

s:i "':'

ToTAI, 1oo.o%

Basic Tables t7r

Tasrr tr

UP.WARD MOBILITY

Numbet of Pronrctions Received Nunber Rep-orthrg Per ccnt

Nil

\ rnc

Two

t nree

Four

Over Four

Not Reported

256

215

139

67

35

7

4

35.4

29 .8

19 .2

9.3

. 4.8

1 .0. .

0.5

'Iorar 723 100.0%

, Teln J

FORA4AL TRAINING RECEIVSD

Length. o f Tr aniry Rece i u e d Nwrber Report[ttg Pet eflt

Nil

Upto 3 months

3-6 months

6-12 months

12-24 months

Over 24 months

Not Reported

491

111

6t

z5

29

4

2

67 .9

15.4

,8.4

3.5

4.O

0.5

0.3

Torar 723 l oo. o?b


Talr's K

PROFSSSIONAL INTERESTS OF THE RESPONDENTS

Type of Professional Interest Number Reponing Pet &xt

Read professional j ournals only

Member of professional society only

Read profcsionaljournals and member ofprotessronal socrety

Neither tead profersionnljournals nor nrember ofany professional society

Not Repotted

115

75

44

.188

I

16.0

t0. 4

6.0

67 .5

0.1

Torar, loo.o%

il Questionnaire

PART I: INDUSTRY

fioN-srDER tllc t ol,r-owtltci STTIIATION:

To mect the increasing export demand for Indian made shoes and other foot-wcarlrom foreign counfies, the Govetrrment is offering various facilities to thc makerr

of foot-wear especially in the cottage indusry to increase their prodrction, .

In f)istrict A of U.P. foot-$'ear. manufacrure is the traditional occupatioD of ir

large nunrtrel of pcoplc. While preparing l)istrict's development plans, the poteltiaiof the Districi is estimated at l,6tr,00tr pairs of shoes and otler foot.wear in thc

District. For the attainment of this target the resporlsibility is placed on the DistricrIndustlies Oflicer, Shri Shyamlal.

In organising his programme, Shyamlal finds that to attain the target more people

have t,r he per:iuaded to ioin rhe industry. sincc lhe existing units, cven afte' expan

.ion, crnnot ploduce l.6o,ooo pairs.Holi,ever, while persuading- people he soon tliscovers that thorrgh lltcLc arc.marrr'

people in difierer.ri communities who have the fin:rn< ial aud otlx'r crprtrilities to

itoti 1"* gnits, they iue general lV unwilliug to take to busilre^rs t-areeis in loot'weltintiustrv. becanse of ttaditional taboo against lcafher connerted industlies'

r. A. lrr rhe existirrg set-up do you tllink it is

Shyamlal to be concerne<l lvith changingpotentially good cntrepleneur-s?

(a) To a vely great extent

1b) To a considerable extent(c) To some extent(d) Little1e) Not at all

exoected of Indusrrier Officels likethi attitudes of the unwillinE brrt

r. B. If you were the Inclustries Oflicer in place of Shyamlal, wotrld vou consider

ir io be yorrr rnnin iolt to change the attitudes of these people?

(a) 'Io a very great extent(lr) To a considerable extent(c) To some extent(d) Linle(e) Not at all

Now suppose that Sh'amlal concentrates his efforts on the PeoPle hlr,eady in thiroccupation'and provides them with all the possible assistance to mo{ernise their

174 BUREAUCRACY AND DNVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

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

:. A. In the present set-up do you think the superiors of officers would expectvery much more done than what Shvamlal did in the above case?

(a) Very much(b) Somewhat more(c) Iust right(d) ,Someu'hat less

(c) No, not at all

:. B. If yol 'r!'ere thc superior of Shyamlal would you also agrcc with him thatthe progmmme was over-ambitiorts?

(a) Entirely agree' (b) Somewhat agr"ec

(t) Do riot knou'-(d) Somewhat disagrec(c) Entire\ disagree

'Now suppose for a while that another Disffict 1l]' of U.P. has similar programmr'

of foot-weai manufacturing with similar targct as itr the case of Distdct A' abovc.

I{owever', the Industries OfficeI of District B. Shri Ram Dayal, finds that practicalll'norie of the potential cutreptetreurs are willing to take to thiis industry. Neverthelessanthusiastic ^, Le was about thc plogramme and thc target set for the districl. Ra,?I)alal (tppronches man\t ol rhe prospectiae entrcPreneurs persona-lly nnd" tl i?\

,t.orcmote ii"ir traditional bias rLga.inst shoe-ntakirtg as n.l,so crt:ate in them. rL fntouraltle

'desire fol' mnking.a. career in this indrtstry by intlic ing its profitability, etc.; u{timat€l}-., .hor'ever, n ith the help . of.: ner.v entrants into the foot.wear industrr

nnd the people l{ho u'ere already in this occ pation, Ram Dayal is ablc to achieve

nrore or jess^ the same srlccess as Shyamlal in achieving about 60% of the target'

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

facts?

3. rl.

(a) Certainll/1b) Perhaps(c) Not sure(d) Perhaps not(e) Certainlv not

If ,vou wele ttrre superior officer of Shyamlalcorisider thern both as equally capable officers

ald Ram Dayal would Yorron the basis of above facts?

(a) Yes, verY much so

' (b) Yes, more or less equalr (.) .Not .sure: -:.. - .: (d). Somewhat.,unequal

(e) Very much unequal

Queslionnaire

4. A. If Indusrdes o{ficers personally approach the people. undertake manufactnre of foot-wear do vou think inIrighel officerr will aplrrcr iarc such rn.orlk ?

r75

and persuade them tothe present set-up thcir

Officers would 1'ou appreciatepersuading them to undertake

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

I3. If yorr were the superior of thc Inclustr-iesthcir: personally approachilg the people andthe manufacture of foot-wear?

(a) Alwaysrb\ Generallr(c) Sometimes(d) Rarelv(e) Never, it is unnecessary

(JONSIDI]R NO\{ ANOTHIIR SIfUATION

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

The decision of the Government was based upon the recommendation oI thcDirector <.rf Industries who felt thar rhe location of all these indusrries in the propbsedindustrial estate will make possible production of these components in an integrate{lfaslrion.so that finished goods could'.be rnade available through this, single estarc.

'fhe entrepiene rs in each of these fields apply to rhe State Financial Corporatirurto give them loans to sbt up their factoties in the new industrial area. Accordilg tothe rules of the Corporation, loans are not generally available for service type ofirldustries. IThile scrtfiittizing the. applirations, the ofNicer.s i.n the Corltoration feel thatthere is consideruble dor.Lbt zthether lhe.last three type.t of industries, uiz., electricalu,ire harness itu.nrifo:tturo's, automobile mechanics and, spray painters, &re not moresetaice type rither than manulacttoing type ol industries.

5. A. I{ow clo yorr think these olficers coulcl rleal with thc app.lications of thesethree types of industries?

(a) Certainly reject(b) Probably reject(c) Don't know(d) Probably grant(e) Certainly grant

))

)-)

)

(

(

(((

((

((

(

176 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMTNISTRATION

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

(a) Certainly reject them(b) Probably reiect them(c) Uncertain(d) Probably grant them(e) Certainly grant them

Noa) suppose these t,hree applieations are reiected. Follouing the rejaction, therematning entrepreneurs to uhom loans rcu,ld, be granted deciile not lo set up Lheirinilnstries because they feel that unless all the categorics ol ind.ustries are lotated inthe indu.irinl estate nrea, it tuortld, not be possible to ?nanufacture the finisheil gootls.

ti. A. Do yon think that in the existing set-up the officers dealing with the appli-catinns would leconsider their interpretation?

(a) CertainlY1b) Probably(c) Don't know(d) Probablv not(e) Certainly not

6. B. If you wele lhc conccrned offieerconsider your interpretation of the

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

inarules

situation likeapplicable to

this would you re-these cases?

Nous sttpftrt.st: thftl. the olficers in the altoue use arc diaided ahou.t dealing with theapplicatioiti ol the nltote th.re( lypes ol intluslries.

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

(ii) On the other hand, thc second group of ollicers feel thet handling o[the applications in this manner would lead to confusion and also opert

endleiJ possibilities of Govetnmental assistance to industries. Tlrev, therc-fore, feel it necessary to have clearly prescribed criteria and rules todistinguish between persons who are and are not eligible for Goverrr'mental assistance so that there is a minimum ueed for valiation oradaptation'to deal with individual cases

r. A, Which of the above two versions dir you think comes closest to describing thccrurent poliw of your Office?

1a; lnterpretation of the first gr:ouP of officers ( )(b) lnterpretation of the second group

of officers ( )

Que.rtionnaire n7

7. R, Which of thern best describes your own idea of what the policy of your.office ought to be?

(a) Interpleration of the first groupof officers

(b) I'ltetpretttion of the seconti gToupof olficers

()()

"oll#:f:, !l,x'ii:"?i'Ji'::,0:l,,lil"H:"";,;"Ji'J:irinlT'i#t:il:"11.":'d:ffi:I,o*fl;'f .i:in:',.:,T,illj;"J:'::#'+.#l"i:iff ;,o

be or,"'.ui.",vp., "ffi

itil:*ilnlf" #i,:t:"' "o the industriar *'^'"' )'r'i,t iloii::ri:;:i:;::"*

{:;:r,i!":iji"it,,"lii,i"xil",T"!:o;:oi:L,,:i,,,1,!:#,f ;o1,?,!:;'i;:::#{";

8. A, Do lorr rlrirrk that irr tlrc cxisting ret-rrn Govclnrso much r"r"r"u i.rl,flif,;;t:H*.,:;j;lt,9"x',""":ment

scrvanb seneraliv rake

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

8. B. If you were in the. ro go so much outabove.s-irrratiorr rvoukl 1ou corrsider it vour. responsilrilirvto gurdc lhe people wirh whom you deal?

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

(]ONSIDER NOI{ ANOTHI:R SII'UATION:

When he mates a review six mon x larer Shri ilIanohar Lal findssmall percentage of the industrialists in the District have switcherl on

-ol" "t" rh.c rccu'ren r _ prolrlems facirrg lhc agricrrltrr'al indrrstry is lhe acute shortsupply ot prg iror sed in,the ma'ufa-cr.ring

,p.ocess. As a reiult the agricurturalimplements, prod.ction has been serio.slv retairle<t. The Government feel."that ironscraps u'lrich are available in ah.nda'ce can be used by the above incl,strialists as asubstiture for pig ir.on for manufacturing agriculturrl 'implementi.

Tlre District rnd'stlies officer sh'i r,lanohar LaI of Distr-ict ,A', r,hich is facedr,t'ith. the- short_

_suppl1. of pig iron is perturbcd about the situation orld **rrt,to solve the problem. He fincls, horrever. drat the concerned indusrialisrs or" e"rr"rnlli,Lrnwillirrg to

-use iron scraps as they fear drat this will increase ,h"it -u",.Fu.i.,.iricosts arrd reduce profits and also cause other difficulties. To tesolue the Oroiiei.he arranges a lormal meeti,g ui z rha industria.rist.r in uthich rr" tuHt tir*iio;1;;t:: Goa:rnm.c!.t already k.nous their prohlems bttt it is not possible to d,o aer"9 iuci.

I tte utdu.\trtult.tl.t tntrsl. lh"relorr, ttsc irort srrups itt the et islitrp circumstntttis. tTheGoaern.ment utould lte able to he.lp. thent in solahtg their pro|lerns il th€y g}l)i ;operatiort b), tahirtg to tha use of iron srrnps as rliired bi the Got,ernmeitj

that only ato the use ofiron scraps in the manufacturing process.

178 BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELoPMENT ADMINISTRATIoN

g. A. Do you think in the existing set-up the District Indusffies Officer has doneas much as is expected of him?

(a) Entirely so

(b) Largely so

(c) Somewhat so

(d) Largely not(e)'Entirely not

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

(a) Very much adequate(b) Quite adequate(c) Somewhat adecluate(d) Quite inadequate(e) Very much inadequate

1'ou also approach rhe indus'

There is another District 'B' which also faces with the similar problem. The Dis-. trict Industries Officer of that District Shri Sagar Chand finds that practically rone

of the industrialists are prepai'ed to use iron scraps for the manufactule of agricrrl-

tural implemen ts. He, therifore, approaches the ind,ustrialists personally and.spends

consider;ble arnount of time witi- them, explaining hou iron scraps can. !.9 usld'

a,ithout aduersely afleciing the production of finisheil .gooils or their_ profitability' He

also tries to un'deriiand, t-heir dil|iculties and solve them. On behalf of the Gotterrt'

ient, he assures the inilustrialists that all possible help would.-be accord,ed to them

to oiercome the uarious d,ifficulties. This process, however, takes enormous amou'tof shri sugu, chanil,s time as a r',esult of which much 0f his routine work at the

District Ofrce sufiers.-ii" -o"tfrr later when Shri Sagar Chand makes a review he also finds that a small

o;;;;; of the iodost.ialists iave switched on to the .se of scraps for manttfac-

iuring agricultural implements'

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

out for the Programme as in the above case?

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

rc. B. If you were the Distlict lttdu:tlies Officer' would

triilists personallv in the above manner?

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

. (e) Npver

Now suoDose the Drrector of Industries of the State Proposes to change the existing

,"i;;';;t;;;ruiL", to. rhe allotment of difierent caregorjes of iron for rnanu-

i;;ti; "gti?"ltural implements. The proposed changes would automatically ensrtt'c

)))))

Questionnaire r79

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

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

r r. B. If you are the Districr Industries officer. what would yo. think of the abovesuggestion?

(a) Very much favourable(b) Largely favourable(c) Sonewhat favourablc(d) Largely unfavourableG) Very much unfayourable

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

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

(a) Extrernely distressed and unhappv1b) Quite distressed and rrnhappr(c) Somewhat unhappy(d) Feel little unhappy(e) Do not feel unhappy because

you have done your job

How do you feel when your colleagues criticize your rvork ?

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

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

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

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

(a) Extemely happy(b) Quite a bit happv(c) Somewhat happy(d) Generally indifierent(e) Do not care

(

(((

r3.

t4.

)

)))

)

PART II: AGRICULTURE

IMAGINE THE FOLI.OWINC STTTJATION :

The high yielding varieties programme of Block of a Disrrict envisaged coverageof about lboo acres with I.R.8 variety paddy. The job of ensuring this coverage 1splaced on Agricultural Extension Olficer, Ram Singh, a graduate in agricrrlture.

In trying to fulfil his responsibility Ram Singh discovers that although itleal condi-tlons for growing I.R. 8 exist in the Bloct, out of roo farmers involved onlv about roere willing to sow their fields u'ith I.R.S. covering about r5o ecres.

For this purpose Ram Singh calls a nreeting of all the farmers and impresses uponthem the advantages of the new I.R. 8 seed. He also tells them that the Governmentis fully prepared to, give them all the neccssarv assistance. With that Ram Singhinsffucts the concemed V.L.Ws. and ret lns to the Rlock Headquarters.

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

r. A. In the present set-up do lou rliink it is expected of officers like Ram Singh- to be concerned with changing the attitudes of the people)

(a) To a very great extent(b) To a considerable extent(c) To some extent(d) Litte(e) Not at all

r. B. If you werc the Agricultural Extension Ofiicer in piace of Ram Siugh, wouitlvou consider it to be your m.ain iob to change the attitudes of the cultivatorsto son' the rew seeds?

(a) To a very great exteDr(b) To a considsrable extent(c) To some extent(d) Little(e) Not at all

Suppose nouJ &llel tr:lurning to his hcadquat ters Ram Singh narrates his experienreLo ttii superior and rlso .Tzrgg?rt.t to him to reduce the coaerage, of acres und'er thepTograrnme to about 2oo ocrcs Ior the next season as the attitud,es of tlrc ntltil&torsit,eri not faaottrable lor it und th.e progrnmme ua.s ouerambitiorts

?. A. In the present set-up, do you think the supel'iors o[ officers woultl expect

very muih more done than what Ram Singh did in the above case?

)))))

(u)(b).(c)(d)(e)

Very muchSomewhat more

Just rightSomewhat less

No, not at all

Questionnai,re

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

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

Norv suppose for a while that

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

3. B. If you were the superior officer of Ram Singhconsider them both as equally capahle officers

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

rnd Gopal Singh worrld 1ouon the basis of above facts?

l8l

prog"amme with similar target. However, the Agrimlt.ral extension Oflicer of theBlock, one Gopal Singh, finds that pracrically none of rhe farmers in the Block iswillirrg to sow his field with improved seecls. Neuerthele.ss, enthusiastit tts he uas aboutlhe _programme, Gopal Singh stays in the village, approaches the far.mers personall"pt rd.. trie:; to cleate in them a luaouahle desire for adoptirtg the im prbuert seedpt ogramme. With that he returls to his headquarters after giving necesiary instruc_tio-ns to V.L.Ws. Ultimate\, however, Gopal Singh is disappointed to find ihat onlya few cultivators covering a total of 9oo acres actuallv sowed the improved varietvof seeds.

A little latet-a promorional vacancy arises in the Department.

1. A. Under the existing ser-up, do you tldnk Gopal Singh will be rated highetthan Ram Singh on the basis of above facts?

another Block B of the same District has similar

l l)( culti\irturs arrd persuadepre\ent :\cl-up their higher

4. A. If thc Extcnsiorr Officep personally approachfheni to sow the seeds, do you think in theofficers will appreciate such work?

(a) Always(b) Generallv(c) Sometimes(d) Rarely(e) Never

4. Ii. If vou were the superior of the Extcrrsion Officers would you appreciatetheir personally approaching the cultivators and persuading them to sowimoroved seeds?

AlwaysGenerallySometimesRare\Never, it is unnecessary

(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)


CONSIDER AGAI^' ANOTHER SITUATION

In the agricultural development programme, one of dre key Iacrors is rhc cetri.necessary for cultivators to purchase all the requiretl inp.ts, especialll, fertilizers.seeds, pesticides, implemen$, etc.

In Block A there are two groups of cultivators. cultivators yad singh, Laxmarrsingh and five others who are other-wise progressive farmers, do not hi,e sufficie'rmeans of their own, whereas curtivators Tejpal, Jiwan ancl fo'r others, rvho arenot as progressive, are well to do farmers.

Because of the anticipated benefits, all these farmers are inter-ested to Dar.riciDarein the high yielding varieries programme started in the Block. The Extetnsion ofrcer-(Agriculture) is fully satisfied that most of them are potentially good participants inthe programme.

since these cultivators have known of the various credit facilities ofiered to our-chase the required inputs, they approach the Extension Oficer (Cooperation) 'a'dthe appropriate a-gency for a shorl term loan. In verifying the applicatioJ. the .

concemed officers find that while the second lroup of cultivators consiiting of reipaland others meet all the secur-ity a'd other i-equirementr .nder the rulJs, the iirstgroup consisting of Yad singh and others are not r.ble to meet all of the require-ments adequately.

b. A. Eoy do ,yon think Governmenr officers will deal with the. applications ofYad Singh. Laxrnan Singh and others in their group?

r B. What 1,ou would have done in the above case? Wouid you also reiect theapplications of Yad Sirrgh, Laxman Singh aud others'ir-r their gtoup?

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

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

(a) Yes indeed(b) Yes perhaps(c) Not sure(d) Perhaps not(e) Certainly not

6. A. Do you think that in the existing set-up the snperior officers r.r'ill approve ofthe rejection of the applicatior-rs of Yad Singh and others?

6. B. If you were the superiol of thc officers niid hud thc ,discretion, woultl youconsider waiving some of the secnrity and other requirements in thc cascof Yad Sinqh and others?

(a) Certainly(b) Perhaps so

(c) Undecided(d) Perhaps not(e) Certainly not

))))

)

Questionnaire 183

Nou suppose that the ollicers d,ealing with the application in the aboae f,ase areditid,ed, in their opinion about the nature ol their uork.

(r) One group of officers feel that Yad Singh's and Laxman Singh's applicationsshould be granted because one's ideas and potential are what really count.Hence if in the judgement of the ofrcer a cultivator is good potential parti-cipant in the programme he should be glanted loan even by relaxing someof the rules,

(*) On the other hand, the second group of officers feel that such handling of thecases would only lead to confusion. It is necessary to have regular proceduresand clearly prescribed criteria for distinguishing good cases from bad cases.

Only those fulfilling these conditions should be consideted.

7.'A. Which one of the above two opinions do you think comes closest to thatheld by most of the Government servants in the existing set-up?

(a) Opinion of the first group of oficers ( )(b) Opinion of the second group of officers ( )

7. B. Which one of the two opinions comes closest to your ideas about howthings should be done?

.)

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

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

In the meantime the District faces with the acute problem of drought bur necessarysteps have beerr initiated by the Government to overcome the same. Consideringthat Yad Singh and others are highly progressive as compared to Tejpal Singh andothers and anticipatin€i that the problem of drought would be solved, the officersgrant loan to Yad Singh and others rather than Tejpal Singh and others. However"due to uiravoidable circumstances the drought condition could r.rot be preventedanrl Yad Singh and others could not repay the loan.

8. A. Do you think that in the existing set-up the superiors of these officers willblame them for taking unnecessary risk by not having the Government loanadequately covered by secrrrity from farmers like Tejpal Singh?

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

ll. l]. lf yorr were I lre buperioltaking the risk like this?

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

of the officers would vou also blame tbem for

(]ONSII}ER THE FOI-LOWING SITUANON

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

In Block A. the Block Developmint orliccr Krisha. Vcrma. crurine his field rourrdraws the atte'tion of the cultivato's in the affected areas to tlr. .,rg.'rr.y of;Jop;ir;the soil conservatiol programme for the Brock. [rr: nr.to atturtges a- nrcitirtg h"i."rihtm (along with his Block staff) a'd some of trre crltivators i'volved, in"whirfi h"appeals to the cultivators to cooperate rvith the officials i' implementing th;;;o;;pr-o8Tamme.

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

9. A. Po yo' think that in the existing set-up Krishan Yerma a'd hir stafl lrrvedone as much as is expectcd of Block

-offi.iolrl

1A BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPT{ENT ADI{INISTRATION

(a) Entirely so(b) Quite so(c) Somewhat so(d) Not quite(e) Not at all

q. R. U you are thc Bkrck Development officer, r"ould yon consitier it adequat€to do all that Krishan verma rritl to secure the cooper:rl.io' of cuitir.aiors?

(a) Very much adequ:rrc(b) Quite adequate(c) Somewhat adequatc(d) quite inadequate(e) Verl much inadequare

As against Block A, in ]llock B, t],.'e Block f)eaeloftment officer Birender sharmatries to.achieae implementntiott of the soil conse,tation progi.anmte in his Block byft_erso.n-olly approaching tht c;ul.tiaators i n t he ullntecl -areis.

rf e spend; a consi-t.ltruble omount of his tintr: ttit"h them e.xpl.aining the purpose and' desirability olthe programme ancl tries to und,er,stantl thiir tliffiultie' -

anil solae them. on behalrof the Government he irlso assures all the neccssarv help to tlre c.ltivators who maysuffer irrconvenience ol be :rdversely al{ected by thei pro{ramme. lrr rhis proccss whilcsccurirrg meny promises of cooperatio', Birender ,sha'ma finds that inuch of hisroutine rvork at the Block lras sufiered.

six morrths lat.r. however. likg Krishan Verma. Ilircndei. sharma also lirrtls thathe was not able to bring morc than 4o,"i, of the land irr thesc rrTccted ar.ear un<ler"the programme.

ro. A. Do. you think that in the cxistiDg ser-up Block Developmcnt Officers goso much or.rt for the pr.ogramme as Birendcr. Sharma did iir the above casic?

(a) Always(b) Generally(c) Sometimes(d) Seldom(e) Never

)))))

)

)

)))

Questionnaire

r o. ll. If ,yorr werc thc Block l)evelopment Ofllcercultivators personally?

(a) Alwa yr(b) Generallv(c) Sometimcs(d) Seldom1e) Ncver

il) Ilosr Iould welconte it(b) L[any rr,ould rvelcorne it(c) Some n,ould welcome it1d) Few would lyslq6rnp i1

(e) No one rvould rrelcome it

rr. l]. If you were the Block l)evelopment.vou prefer to see that the existingthc.oil cor:servation pr ogrunrmc is

rvould ,von

185

also approach the

Nou tupp,se thar the heatl of the Di.strict itt u:rtich Btoch.; A ;;1" B are lrcatedl't oposes -to rhange rhe existing.rurcs and regu.rariorts to rnnke it compulsory yor ithe inaol,trcd_ r ttl,tittulrtr.t to .paiticipate in thi' srtil K)n.\eruatron .pt.ogrutnntt. FIe asks

:T*l1Ti I)c\cto?mcnt Ofticer.s .if -thel rvould pr.cler this to enrrir_e ldequate im-plemenlattoll ol tlle ptogt.ammc irr frrture.

t r' B If yorr -were

the Block Development oflice' rvhat would you prefer? wo'ldthe officers?

OfEcer lvhat would _r'ou prefer? \\.'oulrllnles and r-egulationi arJ changetl arr<lmade compulsoly irr tlrc Blockil

(a) Would delinitely(b) Would probably(c) Not sure(d) \Vould probably(e) \{ould definitely

Pr''irerpr efer

not prefer'not preler'

I :1. l{ tic rv.rk yotr do docr rr't -vickr t.lre desired results, horr. <lo rrrr fr:cri

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

(c) Somewhat unhappvtd) Feel litrlc rtrr happr(e) Ilc! not feel unhappr bctarrrc lorr have

vour job

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

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

done(

13.

186 BUREAUCRACY AND DEI'ELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

14. If there are any problems in the work remaining unsolved at the end olthe day how do you feel about these even aftet ofice hours? Do they botherand worry you j

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

lb. If the n'ork you do achieves expected resultr how do you feel:

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

"There can be little action taken in this ofiice until a suoelior officerapproves a decision". How accumtely does this statement describe rhe da\.-to-day work of yorrr office?

PART IIIn your work do you have a chance to take decisions on yoru own rvithoutasking anyone higher in your office?

(a) Nlostly(b) Often(c) Sometimes(d) Seldom(e) Never

(a) Ilostly accurate(b) Largely accurate(c) Fairly accumte(d) Largely inaccurare(e) Mostly inaccurate

How much say do youand your work?

think your superior has in matters thai afiect you

(a) A very great deal of sav(b) Considerable say(c) Some say(d) Little say(e) None at all

lfow often do you meet for official reasons ofrcers above you who are notvorrr immediate sunetior?

Very oftenOftenSometimesRarelyNever

(a)(b)(c)(d)

G)

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

(a) Almost all the things(b) Many things(c) Some things

. (d) Few things(e) Practically none

(a) At all times(b) Most of the time(c) Sometimes(d) Rarely(e) . Never

I)o you find yourself doing the type of wolk similar to that done by mostother people in your office at your level?

)

)

(((((

r88

7'

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADI,TINISTRATION

If vorr arc hiring a p€rson to do the rvork of vouithirrk lre rhorrld hlve the edrrcarirn rnd expr.r.ience

Horv will you describe rhe .work rhar you do

(a) All repetitive(b) Largely repeiitive(c) Somewhat reperitive1d) Mostly non-repetirive(e) -Entirely non-repetitivc

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

In handling your official duties do youand regulations whicl.r give you a fairlywork ?

(a)"Rather excessive

1b) More than enough(c) About enough.(d) Little(e) Too little

in your present position? Is ir

pi'esent position, do vtxrthat ynu possess?

feel that there are enouEh lulerclcar direction for handliirg vour

ofrice foldisaglee

(

((((

I)oes your work require vorr to devise new wa).s

(a) To a Yery great extent(h) To a considerable extent(c) To some extent(d) Little(e) None at all

and means o{ doing things?

\Vould you aglee that most of your da,v-to-dav work consists o{ the applica-tion of prescribed rules and procedures with little need for variation oradaptation in their application to the cases that you deal with?

(a) Entirely agree(b) Largely agrec(c) Somewhat ap;ree

(d) Largely disagree(c) Entirely disagree

Herc irre certain staternenti about the people who come to vourwork. Speaking about yoursel{, please check whether vou agree orwith each . statement.

rg. A. 'To me one person is just more or Iess the same as every other person'.

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

Questionnaire

te. C.

rq. I).

to rhe people'.

189

rq. B. 'Even when I come to know certain people r,r,ell, I find that I treat rhem thesame way as I feat any one else,. -

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

'I often become quite personallv close

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

;li}::,l:T;l"l"i.L'x'i'11#""::x.11,ff;,nilolL:.1;#'#,::ix";

)))))

f ]\IAGINE THI FOLLO\A'ING SITUAI'ION

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

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

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

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

rq. ll. If -you were the officer, would you.also have appointed the relation oI 'ourcolleague ?

(a) Certainly1b) Quite likelv(c) Probably(d) Probably not(e) Certainly not


A businessman is going abroad to attend an important meeting- r-egarding finalisa-

,i^; ;i ; lurn .*p6rt drder. About a fortnight before his scheduled departure he

i,'i-lt. r,r.liUica'tion au5 completed in all iespects .to an appropliate .Government

"-"".t"i.t- i["t.r."* .r f6reign' exchange to.meet his expenditure du-ring his'visit'

T;;ak';;,;; *hen the businds.un go"i ro the office to iollect his .elease orde' of

;;t;d ;;;""g;, -he

is informed thit .they have to check from within their own

i"r".:rarr"i .e-ctio,]. ubo.,t the bonalitle 'and .prima-facie of the - purpose of his

,;r;; ;;;.1 and that the completion of I he,! for m:rlities would take more than a

fortnight urtdel the normal rules and procedttrer'

The businessman requests the ofrcer ionce"ted to release the foreign 9xch1Lee

", i#.';;;-;; iu..rr,"d i" his application and the intental f ormalities ol the off ice

cottld be expeclited pr,,onott;-'-tr)' itt telephone^ instead o-f folloûittg.lhe routine

n'lriarrr".r. i"-"it. .l,prt"'it"i the importance of timelv release of foreign exchange

ls rhe schedtrled meeting rtas o{ great importancc'

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

immediatelY?

r q. c. suppose now for a while the stenotypist in the_ above instarce tulns out to-' -' b"'6r'" of the best the officer has had. Looking back do you think the officer

did the right thing in agreeing .ll ith the request of his colleague?

(a) Yes, indegd(b) Yes, PethaPs(c) Doubtful(d) PerhaPs not(e) CertainlY not

I\|ACINE h-OW ANOTHnR SITUATION

(a) Very often(b) GenerallY(c) Somettmes(d) Rare\(e) Never

rr. R. If vott wel'e the omcel' toncetnctl rtottld tort rake personal ,i,nteresr

irr cxpe-'' .'

ai,ittu the case and releatittg tlte foreigrr cxchange immedialehl

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

r+. C. If the civil servants do not follow the plocedures rigidlv in harrdling the

cases, do vou think tttî i"- tf," ""fting sJt-up theil superiors will reprimand

them?

(a) CertainlY1b) Quite likelv(c) PerhaPs(d) PerhaPs not(e) Certainly not

((

(

((

Questionnaire

r4. D. In the above situationofficer for not going by

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

do you think the superior should reprimandrhe prescribed procedures?

l9l

thc

PART III

help you to learn more to assume higherDo your superior officersresponsibilities?

(a) Always(b) Usually(c) Sometimes(d). Rarely(e) Never

Which ol the following statements wouldopinion alnut vour superior officers?

(a) They delegate a great deal of authoritv tot heir su l-rordina tes

(b) They delegate enough authority to theirsubordinates

(c) They delegate some but nor enouglrauthodry to their subordinates

(d) They delegate very little aurhor:iry rotheir subordinates

(e) They do not delegate any aurhorirv rotheir subord inates

Which of the following staremen$ wouldopinion about 1'our superior officers?

(a) They like to take a great deal ofresponsibility

(b) They like to take a little more thanenough responsibility

say is the closest to yorrr

vou say is the cltlsest 111 y911y

and yourlork

(

(.) I!.y like to take enough responsibility(d).They do not like to take anv responsibiiity

you

Do you feel free to discusswith your superiors?

(a) Very free(b) Quite free(c) .Just srrfEciently free(d) Not sufficiently free(e) Nor free at all

important things abou t yourself

192

l-r '

(i.

7.

v.

I)oto

(a)(b)(c)(d)( e)

In

(a)(b)(.)(d)

.(e)

BUREAUCRACY

I-Iolr lrould you \av yorrr .rrpcriors

(a) \rery friendly(b) Somewhat friendlv(c) Indifierent(d) Somewhat unfriendly(e) Quite unfriendl-r'

you think youl srrperiors speucltlo diffinrlt things?

I\lole th;rn enouglr

Quite enoughsome, l)ut not enoughHardly anyNone at rll

general do you think lolrf ilrperiors

Yes, ail tlrc subordinatc:As marrv oI them as possibleOnlv some of them

Just a few of themNo. none of them

AND DI]VELOPMBNT ADMINTSTRATTON

rttiltt(le i\ toward,. you ?

enorrgh time to cxplain to you horu

like to meet their subordinatcs?

If yorr huve :rny srrbordinates, wlrich of tlrcro vorrr feelings abott vour suhordinates?

(r) Thev are not r,villilg 1o take anlrr:spousibility

(b) 'Ihc1' are rvilling lo takc vet'r' lillclesponsibility

k) Thev are lvilling to take some brrt notenough rcsponsibilitv

(rl) 'I'hey :rre willing to take enouglrresElnsitrility

(c) 'Ihey arc r,illing 1o takc :r gle:rt tlc'ul o[resp,onsibility

ln your'1.rr:esent post in telms of the qullitv

(a) N{uch more rcsponsibility(b) Somewhat more responsibilitv(c) Keep things as they are(d) Somr:rvhat less responsibiliry(c) Much less responsibility

Do you {eel that in vour present jobeducation are:

(a) Fuilv utilised1b) Moderately utilised(c) Little utilised

followinq statements is closcst

()()

()()

of. work, rvould like to have

your tlaining and your universitl'

you

Questionnaire

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

(a) Make his own decisions regarding workDroblems

(b) Make only minor decisions and refermajor ones to the superior officer

(c) Get guidance from his superior at all times

re. Speaking about your own personal impressions, which of the followingthings do you believe help the person most to advance in Governmentservice? Please put r against what do you consi{er to be ths most importantfactor; I against the next important and so on until you have put 6 againstthe least important factor.

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

higher ofr-cials(f) How well you get along with your

immediate superior

!8. If you are not very happy about any aspect ofyou feel free to talk about it to higher officials?

(a) Very free (

(b) Quite free ((c) Just sufficiently free (

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

14, A. Generally how often do you meet businessmentheir work in your office?

(a) Very often(b) Quite often(c) Sometimes(d) Rarely(e) Never

r4, B. Do you feel that these meetings could be avoided without afiecting theperformance of your job?

(a) Yes, all of them can be avoided(b) Yes, most of them can be avoided(c) Yes, about half of them can be avoided(d) No, most of them are necessary(e) No, all of them are necessary

rb. Do you like to meet these people?

(a) Yes, very much(b) Yes, like to meet them(c) Do not mind meeting them(d) Do not like to meet .them

(e) Strongly dislike having to meet them

193

))))

)

)

the work of your oftce, do

and citizens who come for

I94 BIJREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

16. A, How ri'ould you describe the attitude of the pmple who come to yourofiice for their work?

(a) ExceedinglY resPectful(b) Quite resPectful

, (c) Somewhat respectful(d) Slightly resPecttul(e) Not at all resPectful

16. B. How do these people who come tor " behave?

your office for their work generally

18. How do you feel officials of your Department behave with people who cometo your o{fice for work?

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

17, In general how would you say the Government servants behave with the

pedple who come to Government omces for their work? Are Governmentservants :

(a) Very polite(b) Quite polite: . (c) - Genenlly indifterent(d) Somewhat impolite(e) Mostly impolite

(((((

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

PART IV

Do you think you are having a job which is considered by people outsideyour ofrce as an important job?

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

If you had a chance to do the same kind of work for the same pay but inanother Office or Department would you like to leave your present wolk-group?

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

Questionnaire

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

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

(a) Very often(b) Generally(c) Sometimes(d) Rarely(e) Never

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

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

When you have done a piece of particularlyappreciated by the people in your office?

good

(a) Most of the time(b) Generally(c) Sometimes(d) Rarely(e) Never

How often do you think you are learning things on your present job thatwill be of use to you later for handling higher jobs?

Very oftenMany timesSometimesRarelyNever

In doing your work, how often do you enjoy the feeling of accomplishingsomething worthwhile towards the success of yeur office?

(a) Most often(b) Quite often(c) Sometimes(d) Seldom(e) Nev€r

195

4. Hoy_ often do, the people in yout office help one another in solving difrcultproblems of their work?

()(-)()()()

,.,

work, how often is il

(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)

8.

196

9.

SUREA'CRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

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

/a) Vefl interesting most of the time

it) Itrtit"tting moit of the time but is'' occasionallv dull{c) Onlv sometimes interesting. otherr^ ise,'

-o.i of it is dull and monotonous

(d) quite uninreresting and frequentlyinvolves dull routine

(e) Completely dull and monotonous

In your work, would you say that there is

(a) A great deal of varietY

il') qu-i." a bit of varietY(c) Some vartetyid) Little varietyiej No varietY, it is all rePetitive

How well do you gct along with your superior officer?

(a) Very weII(b) Fairlv welli.j 1".t iatisfactorilY(d) Poorly(ej very poorly

How well is the work that you do in your present position suited to your

capabilities?

(a) To a very great extent(U) f" a considerable extent(c) To some extenti.[ ro " little extent(ej Not suited at all

rg. How good are your chances of promotions in the Government service?

IIow secure do you feel atrout your job in the Government?

Most secure

Quite secureSomewhat securcLittle secureNot at all securc

(a) Very good(b) Good(c) Fair(d) Poor(e) Very poor

(.)(b)(c)(d)(e)

r4.

PART V

What is your age in complete years?

(a) Between Po - e5 years(b) ,, z6 - 30 years(c) ,, gr - 35 years(d) ,, 36 - 40 years(e) . 4r - 45 years(q ,, 46 - 50 years(g) Over 50 years

What is iour marital status?

(a) Single(b) Married(c) Others (divorced or widowed)

How many persons are dependent on you?

(a) Nil(b) rtos(c) 3to4(d) 5 or more

If you are married and if your children are employed, how many of themare in the Government service?

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

5. The place where yorr were born, would you call it

(a) A village of up to 5,ooo population(b) A town of between 5,ooo and ro,ooo

population(c) A town of between ro,ooo and r,oo,ooo

population(d) A city of between r.oo,ooo and ro,oo,ooo

population(e) A city of more than ro,oo.ooo population

Where did you live maximum amount of time up to the age of r8?

(a) A villdge or small town up to 6,000population

(b) A town of between b,ooo and ro,ooopopulation

(c) A town between ro,ooo and r,oo,ooopopulation

(d) A city between r,ooooo and ro,oo,ooopopulation

(e) A city with more rhan ro,oo,ooopopulation

198

7. A.

AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIONBUREAUCRACY

Up to what level are You educated?

(a) Mauiculationib) Bachelor's Degree

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

7. B. What are the various universities, both Indian

attended?

and foreign, that You have

A. Have you passed or are you currentlyexamination?

(a) Yes(b) No

B. If yes, please indicate the details.

preparing for

()()

any professional

Ndme of the Professiohal Examination

What is or was the main profession of your father?

Quest ionnaire

ro. What would you say your parents./guardians,you took your firsr job?

(a) Over Rs. r,5oo per month1b) Ber ween Rs. 75 i - r 5oo per month(c) Itetween Rs. z5l _ Z5o per month(d) lJetween Rs. lor - :5o per month(e) L6s than Rs. roo per month

199

total income was at the time

when you first entered ther r. A. Did yorr have any previous work exper.ience

Government service?

(a) Yes(b) No

If yes, please give below details of your previous employmenr.

re. A. Which year did you first join the Government service?

re. B. What service and what class was it?

(a) Service (if any)

(b) Clas

rZ. Through what method did you join the Government service first?

(a) Through Employment Exchangeptus tntervtew

ib) Through a single oral interviewby U.P.S.C.

,', ill?FS.S.competitive

examination held

(d) Orher methods (please specify)

200

r4. A.

()()()()(' )

()()()

14. B.

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

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

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

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

16. A, What is your present employment status in the Government service?

(((

16. B. Are you working in the Present agency on transfer by deputation from anyother Government agency?

(a) Permanent(b) quasi-permanent(c) Temporary

(a) Yes(b) No

IJave you ever received any formal in-serviceGovernment service?

(a) Yes(b) No

))

training after joining the

))

r7. A.

201Questionnaire

r7. B. If you have received any such training please indicate.

r8. A. Do you find time to read professional journals?

(a) Ycs

, (b) No

r8.. B. If yes, which ones do you read more often?

r9. A. Are you a member of any organisations (professional societies, recreationalor social clubs, etc.)?

(a) Yes(b) No

rg. B. If you are a member of any organisations, please give their names.

()()

()()

Field of Training

lndex

actuality perceprion, 22, 23, 124adaptation of civil servants to develop-

mental role, 25, l0l-24Administrative Reforms Commission.

l0lagencies studied, 69, 70, 71, 76, 95

and age of respondents, 30and bureaucratic strudture, 53and economic class origin, 35-36and family background of respondents,

t5and formal training, 43-44and levels of education, 37-39and parental occupation, 344nd professional interests, 45and rural/urban background, 32and size of organisation, 55-59and upward mobility, 42

age of respondents,and bureaucratic disposition, ff,and change-orientation, 105, 108and citizen orientation, 116, 120'and class of service, 29-30and commitment to work, 123, 129and result orientation, lll, 114

agricultural development programmes,95, 129, 130, l3l

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

dents, 120and formal training of respondents,

43. 44agriculture sector, 17, 18. 157, l6l

and bureaucratization, 54-59, 69, O7and change-orientation, 105and citizen-orientation, 116, ll8and commitment to $'ork,.120, l2land result-orientation, 11l, ll3and respondents working in, l!

background characteristics of civilservants, 20, 25, 28,72. 729-30

relationship with bureaucratic charac-teristics,6l-68

behavioural characteristics of bureau-cracy, 10, 21, 68, 70, 140, 148, 152,r53, 154

scores of respondents on, 48-49,50-52Bensman, Joseph, 5, 5n., 7nBerger, Morroe, 9, 9n, 30, 30n, 31, 35

35n,37,371].Bhambhri, C. P., 28, 28n, 3lnBlau, Peter M. 5n., 9, 9n., 73, 73n., lS7Britain, 29, 30, 35bureaucracy, 3, 4, 12, 15, L6, 17, 20, Zl,

25, 48, 70, 7r, 73adaptation to Development Adminis-

ration, 101-31and Development Administration,

t56-63hrrreaucratic theory, 5-9characteristics, 8, 9-12, 48-73concept of, 4-5definition, l0- 11Marxist concept of, 5-7Merton's ideas on, 8-9Michels' idea oI, 7Weberian concept of, /-!working climate for, 74-100

bureaucratic adaptation to DevelopmentAdministration, l0l-31

bureaucratic attitudes, l7bureaucratic behaviour, 17, 19, 20, 29,

49, 50, 5r, 52, s8, 60, 69, 136, r43,150. r51. 154, t55

bureaucratic characteristics, 9-12, 25of development administration, 48-73relationship with developmental

characteristics, 132-55bureaucratic disposition, 7l

and age, 66and economic class origin, f zt

and educational attainment. 62and formal training 68and levels of education, 63and parental occupation, f,Jand type of personnel, 61

- and upward mobility, 67bnreaucratic organisation, 48, 49bureaucratic structure, 48, 49,, 50, 51,

52, 58, 59, 60, 69, 70, 72, t32, t36,r50, 151, t54

bureaucratic system, 4, 10

204

bureaucratic theory, 5-9, 10, 17, 68,71,162-63

bureaucratization, 4, 8, L1-12, 25, 49,50, 5t, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,59, 60, 69,70,72, 156

change-agent, 13, 102, 149change-orienntion, 23, 707, 132, 143

I48. r49. 151. t52, t53. I6t, 163and background characteristics, 104-

10and division of labour, 136and impersonal ity, 137and perceptual adaptation, 124, 125,

t26and rationality, f40, l4land relationship with other dimen-

sions, 128" liland respondents' adaptation to, 102and rule-orientation. I44and technical civil servants, 129

' China, 3, 5Chi-sqrrare method, 26, 134citizen-administrator relationship, 23,

93-96, 97citizen attitudes. 96. 100, 115citizen clientele. 5A, 74, 93, 94, 9i, 97,

r16, r18, 719. t27, l3r, 149, 151,r50

citizen contacts, 93-96citizen orientation, 104, I15,120citizen participative-orientation, 23,

l0l, 123, 727, 728, 130, t31, t+7,148, 149. t52, t53, 157, 161, 163

and division of labour, 135and hierarchy, 133, 134and impersonality, 138, 139and perceptual adaptation, 124, 125and rationality. 142and respondents' adaptation to, 102,

103, 104and rule-orientation, 145, 146

citizen ffeatment, 96, ll5civil servants

and adaptation to developmentadministration, 102, f03

and bureaucratic disposition, 61, 62.63, 64, 65, 66

and bureaucratization, 54, 55and caoabilities. 77and chinge'orientation by age, 108and change-orientation by economic

class, 109and change-orientation by upward

mobility, 110and citizen contact. 94and citiz€n-orientation, 115. 119, l3l

BUREAUCR,ACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

and class of, 18, 19, 3L,33, 35, 59, 60and class initially joined, 4Iand delegation, 77.78, 84and development orientation, 22and in-service training, 43-44and levels of education, 36, 37, 38and marital status, 39and need-fulfilment, 89and parental occupation, 33and professional interests, 44-45and promotions, 85and rationality, 140, 142and responsibility, 75, 76and rule-orientatron, 143and rural/urban background, 31", 32and size of organisation, 50-57and upward mobility, 42inflrrence of environment on, 124, 125in U.S. & U.K., 29-30

civil service, L7, L9, 42, 46, +9, 50, 51

69, 74, 99, l0I, I10, 123, 130, 158and 'bureaucratic' character, 12, 48and class of ser-vice, 59and developmental tole, 3, 22and development process, 4and economic class origin, 35and educatronal attainment, 35and experience. 40and need fulfilment, 89and upward mobilitT, 42shift of power in favour of. l-2

class of service of respondents, 18, 19,69, 82, 104, r05, 108, lll, 114,n6, ll9, 121, 130; 131

and age distribution, 29and attitudes in personnel develop'

' ment, 85and bureaucratization, 59-60and capabilities, 77and citizen-contact, 95and class initiallv ioined, 4land delegation, 78, 79and economic class origin, 36rnd employee-orient ation. 83and formal training. 43, 44and intrinsic job satisfaction, 93and levels of educatidn. 37and need fulfilment, 90, 91, 92and parental occupation, 3], 34, 35and oromotions criteria, 88and professional interests, 45and prior experience, P0and rural/urban background, 31and responsibility, 76, 80and upward mobility. 42

commitment to work.23, f01, 102, 103,

Index .

t04. 126. 127, t3t, 147, t48, 152,161

and background characteristics, 120.121.23

and impersonality, 139, 140and rationality, 142, I43and rule-orientation, 143

.cooperative system, 160critical incidents, 22

data collection, 18, l9-20decision making, 8, 76, 77, l5ldelegation of authority, 23, 77-79, 83,

84, 97,98, 99democtacy, 157dependency responsibility, 39developed countries, 5, 12, 46developing counrries, l,2, t, i, 12, li,

14, 16,30,35, 46, t0t, 162, 163developmental activities, 156, 160developmental attitudes, 17developmental characteristics, relation-

ship with bureaucratic characteristicst32-55

developmental tole, 132, 136, l4i, 147,150, 151, t52, r53, 154, 155

development administration, 17, 22" 25,26

and bureaucracy, 156-63bureaucratic adaptation to, l0l -31bureaucratic characteristics of, 48-73comDarison with traditional ad-

ministration,3concept of, 12-14essential characteristics, 101working climate in, 74-100

development bureaucracy, 77, 19, 30, 46,73, 74, 126

development management, 156,158

development orientation, 4, 17, 20,25, r00, r3r, 140, r47, t49,151. 153, 154, 16l

development persorrnel, 2E-47, 126,age, 29-30class initiallv ioined, 4leconomic cliss origin, 35-36levels of education, 36-39in-service training, 43-44marital status, 39parental occupation, 32-35prior experience. 40-41professional interests, 44-45profiIe of, 45-47.rural / urban background, 30-32upward mobilitv, 41-43

lJ /,

22,150,

127

205

development process, l, 2, j,4, lg, lOZ,to3, t26, t56

development programmes, lg, 19, 31,32, 45, 53, 76, 85, 93

development sector, 53-5j, 5gDiamanr. Alfred. 9n., l3division of labour, 10, Zl, 49, 50, 51,

58, 60, 69, 70, 748, 149, 150, 16land bureaucratization, 54and change-orientation, 134, 136and citizen-orientadon, 134, 135and class of respondents, 59and result-orientarion, 134, 135and size of organisation, 56, 57

economic class origin of respondents,and bureaucratic disposition. 63-64and change orientation, f06, f09

_ and citizeniorientadon, ll7and class of service, 35-36and commitment to $,ork, 122and result-orientation, 106, 109

educational attainment, 106, l2g, l3O,r3t

and bureaucratic disposition, 62-63and change-orientation, 106, l0g,109

and citizen-orientation, ll7, Il9and class of service, 3d-39and commitment to work, l2O, lzLand result-oricntation, ll2, ll4

efficienry, 10, 8lemoluments, 90-91'employee-centred' supewision, gl, gl,

83, 97employee orienration, 25, 82, 83, 84,

98Egypt, 30, 31, 3r, 37, 15, 46employee supervision, 8l-94, 97experience of respondents, 40, 47

Five Year Plans, ,i0, 101formal training 84, A5, 99, IZO

and bureaucratic disposition, 67-6gand change-orierrtation 107, 110and citizen-orientation, ll8and commitment to work, 123and result-orientation, 113see also in-service training

Gerth, Hans H., 4n, 7n, 8nGouldner, Alvin, 8graduates and non-graduatcs, 62, 63,

106, 108, t09, ttz, l1/t, 117, tt9.r2l, t28, t30

cujarat, f59, 150

206

Hall, R. H., 48nHeady, Ferrel, 9, 9n., 71, 7Lnhierarchy, 10, 21, 22, 26, 49, 50, 91,

60, 68, 69. 70, L47, 148, 149, r57,16r, 162

and bureaucratization, 54and citizen-orientation, 133, 134and class of respondents, J!and result-orientation, 132, 133and size of organization, 55-58

idealistic perception, 22, 23, 127impersonality, I0, 20, 21, 26, 67, 70,

72, 148. 150, 151, r52, 154, r57,16l, 162

and age, 66and bureaucratic charactedstics, 49-

52and bureaucratization, 54and change-orientation, 137and citizen-orientation, 139and class of resbondents, 59-60and commitment to work, 140and economic class origin, 63-64and educational attainment, 62, 63and formal training, 68and parental occupation, 64,65, 66and result-orientatiol, 138and size of organization,55-59and type of personnel, 61

and upward mobility. 57industrial development programmes,

95, r29, 130, l3l-and asencies studied, 32, 35and commitment to work of resPon-

dents, 120and formal raining of respondents,' 104

industry sector, 17, 18, 45,and bureaucratization, 54-59, 69, 70and chanEe-orientation, 105and citizen-orientation, 116, ll8and commitment to work, l2O' l2land result-orientation, 1l l, l13

. respondents working in, 19India, l, 2,3, 4,5, 17, 18, 19' 25' 26'

30,35, 45, 46, 48, 49' 50' 69' 73'74. 101, 149, 156, 157, 158, 150'16l, 162, 163

Indian administrative system, 2, 13' 68'. 69,72Indian bureaucracl, 17, 28,3l' 48' 73'

r32, 158, I61Indian bureaucratic system, 10, 21, 48in-service training, 43-44, 47, 67'68' 84'

r31

BUREAUCRACY AND DTVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

intrinsic job satisfaction, 25,89, 90, 92,93,97,98

job security, 90, 92

Kelsall, R. K., 29n., 35n

lengrh of service. 40-41. 77.86. 107,lO9,ll3, 118, 120, r22

levels of education, 36-39, 46, 62-6t

I\{aharashtra, 15, 159, I60Marxist concepf of. bnreaucracy, 5-7\{alx, Karl, 5-7merit in promotion, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89,

97, 99, rO0, l5tMerton, Robert K, 8-9, 9n, 48, 48n,

r53, l53nmethodology of research, 17-27

administration of questionnaire, 23-24construction of questionnaire, 20-23follow up study, 24nature of study, 17scoring and treatment of dara, 25-27selection of agencies, 17-19tvDe of data collected, 19, 20

Miihels' concept of bureauaacY, 7Michels, Robert, 5, 7, 157Mouzelis, Nicos P. 6n

need-fulfilment, 89-93

organisation size, 55-59, 7lorganisation theory of development, 13

pai panandiker V A 13, l3n, 29, 2gn,32. 32n, 36, 36n, 38, 39n

Pakistan, 30, 35, 37, 45, 46Panchayat institutions, 159narental occuDation, 32-35, 45-46, 130' and bureaucratic disposition, 64-66

and change-orientation, 106, 109and citizen orientation, ll7

" and commitment to work, 122and result-orientation, 112, l14by class, 33by offices, 34

personnel development, 84-85' 97' 99planned change, 13plannins, 1. 12, 156policy implications of the study. 158-62political apparatus, 1, 159politicization of bureaucracy, 159professional interests, 44-'15

Index

oromotions, 23, 42, 67, 85-89, 90' 92'' 97, 99, 100, 110, 113, ll5, ll8,1r9, 128, 129. r]0, r53

public administration, l, Il, 12, 15' 25'28, 74, l0l, 162

Questionnaire, 14, 18, 20-23, 23'27, 5l

Rao, D. N. 28, 28nrationality, lo, 21, 70, 140, 148, 150,

t5tand age, 66and bureaucratic characteristics, 49-5Iand bureaucratization, 54-55and change-orientation, l4land citizerr-orientation, 142and class of service, 39, 60and commitment to work, 143and economic. class origin, f{and educational attainment, 62, 63and formal training, 68and parental occupation, 65and result orientation, l4land size of organisation, 56'58and type of personnel, .51and upward mobility. 57

recruitment, l0iesearch metl:'odology, 17-27responsibility, 23,75-81,84, 85, 97, 98,

99resrrlt-orientation, 23, l0l, 123, 125,

726, 127. 128, 129, 130, 131, 140.142, r43, 144. 147, 148, 150,t52, t60

and adaptation to developmentadministration, 102, 103, f04,

and backgt'6und characteristics. 110- 15and division of labour. I35and hierarchy, 133, 134and impersonality, I35and rationality, l4land rule-orientation, 145 .

and perceptual adaptation, 124, 125Rosenberg. Bernard, t, 5rl, 7nrule-orientation, 10, 21, 68, 143, 148,

150, 153, 154, 157,162and backEround characteristics, 5 5-68and bureiucratic characteristics, 49-51and bureaucratiz tior., 54, 55and change-orientation, 144and citizen-orientation, 146and commitment to work, 146and result-orientation, 145

rural/urban background, 45, 64, 130and change-orientation, 106, 108and citizen-orientation, 117, 120and commitment to work, 122

and result-orientation, 112, 114by agencies, 32by class. 3I

sample, selection of, 17 -I9Selznick, Philip, 8seniority in promotions, 85, 86, 87, 88,

89, 97, r00Singh, Tarlok, 13size of organisation, 55-59, 7l'skills. utilization of, 23social change. 2, 3. 9, 14social desirability, 22socialist pattern of society, Isocial theory of development, 13Stanley, David T., 29n, 37, 37n., 42nState Public Service Commission, 40structural bariers to development, 2structural characteristics of bureaucracy,

10, 21, 48, 49, 50, 5t, 52, 68, 69,70, 132, 136, t47, t48, t62

study methods, 14-15subordinates, 10,50,77,79, 80, 81, 82,

84, 98, 99, 147, t48, r49Subramanian V, 28, 28n, 34, 34nsrrperior-subordinate relationship, 23, 74,

82, 83, 84system of rrrles, 10, 21, 68, 136, 147,

t)tand bureaucratic characteristics, 49-51and bureaucratization, 54, 56, 57,58,

59

'task-cenffed' supervision, 81, 83technical and non-technical personnel,

61, 62, 105, 107, r08, rl1, ll3,ll4, 116, tl9, 120, l2l, 128, 129,130

theory building, 162-63traditional administration, 3, 13, 14,

72, 127, 162Trivedi R K, 28, 28ntype of agency, 104, 105, tll, 114, 115,

u8, 121tvpe of personnel, 6l-62, 105, 11l, 115,

il9. r2l. l3l

Union Public Service Commission(UPSC), 40

United Kingdom, sea BritainUnited States, 29, 30, 37, 42upward mobiliry, 4l-43,.46, 77, 104,

129, t3land bureaucratic disposition, 67and change-orientation, 107, 110and citizen-orientation, ll8, ll9

207

20E

commirmenr ro work, 120, l2lresult orientation, 113, ll5

village level workers, 24voluntary organisations, 159- 160

Weberian concept of bureaucracy, /-g,9, tt, 49, 68,70, 157

Weber, Max, 4, 4n., J,7,8, 11, 151working climate, 20, 23, Zj, 74-100

assumption of responsibility, 79-81attitude to responsibiliry, 75-77

BURE.AUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

citizen-administrator relationship, 93-96

criteria of promotions, 85-89delegation by superiors, 77-79employee-supervision, 8l-84

andand

irs importance, 74-75need-fulfilment, 89-93personnel development,promotions, E5-E9

work, commitment to, s?e. to workWright Mills C, 4n, 7n,

84-85

commitment

8n

Date post:	29-Nov-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	pramod-malik
View:	4,014 times
Download:	1 times

Bureaucracy and Development Administration

Documents