Page

ASPECTS

PETRIFIED BUREAUCRACY SOME

OF STRUCTURAL CONTINUITIES AND
FUNCTIONAL
DISCONTINUITIES*
Dr. C.S.RANGARAJAN
_________________________________________________________________
Dr.C.S.Rangarajan, Department of Sociology, University of
Madras, presents the
results of an empirical study on thirty-two executives drawn from
five departments of a Company in Madras. An attempt is made to
map out the contours of petrified bureaucracy by analyzing the
attitudes and orientations of the executives towards all those who
are directly involved in the production process under their care. In
the process the pervading low levels of job satisfaction apparent
at all levels of the bureaucratic machinery is explained.
__________________________________________________________________
Writers have called attention to the compelling need for the
organization to expend efforts toward overcoming management
problems through manipulation of work group and supervisorial
practices (Blauner 1969). The manner in which the decisions and
behaviour of the operative employees are influenced within and
by the organization becomes the barometer to measure the
success or otherwise of the structure ( Simons 1945).Seen in this
perspective, first rate managers have to orchestrate through and
with their own behaviour the behaviour of aggregations of
personnel, some motivated, but many obtuse and recalcitrant.
The nimble and complex behaviour patterns of these managers is
a delight to behold as they move to motivate, integrate, and
modify the structure and personnel that surround them (Sayles
1979). It therefore becomes crystal clear that the complex human
relations vis--vis power relations system impose on its executive
the need to take initiative constantly and to be creative ( Dalton
1959),
keeping in view the primacy of orientation to the
attainment of specific goals (Parsons 1969).

Page

The theme of this article is being developed on the premise that

adoption of strategies by an organization to help realize the selfactualization needs of the workers at work is heavily skewed
toward the ability of the executives in achieving the task of
establishing the workers motivation to work. Since the executives
are charged with the task of responding to the challenges and in
shaping the courses of events themselves, they may be taken to
be making the future today. Unrealistic expectations in a scheme
of career advancement where the executive themselves have a
stake engender demotivation. In such a situation, the executives
find that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more
doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate
a new order of things (Machiavelli 1955). An earnest attempt is
made to map out the contours of a petrified bureaucracy by
analyzing the attitudes and orientations of the executives toward
all those who are directly involved in the production process
under their care.
SETTING AND METHODOLOGY
The subject of the study were 32 executives drawn from five
departments of the same Company situated in the heart of the
city of Madras. The study attempts to explain the low level of job
satisfaction apparent at all levels, pervading the bureaucratic
machinery. Data were collected from a sample of executives
belonging to the management at the production level, to whom a
pre-tested interview schedule was administered, applying a
randomized sampling procedure.
FINDINGS
In a sociological investigation, the study of subjective
characteristics may be considered as an important element, and
keeping this in view, in an effort to know the satisfaction the
executives position affords them in relation to other positions
within the system of management, the following eight brief
questions impinging on satisfaction were addressed to the
executives through the interview schedule:

Page

1. The personal influence of managerial staff in the smooth

working of the company.
2. The encouragement ensured to every employee to use his
special abilities and the system of rewards for special
achievements.
3. Recruitment policy of the Company.
4. Long term planning of productivity.
5. The extent to which the executives own personal skills and
abilities are used.
6. The status and power accorded commensurate with the
executives position.
7. The encouragement given to employees with leadership
qualities or
propensities through investing them with greater
responsibilities.
8. The overall functional organization of the Company.
The responses to these questions are scored 1 to a favourable
response and 0 to an unfavourable response. The maximum and
minimum scores to all questions put together are 8 and 0
respectively. While adopting a scheme of classification to
distinguish two categories of executives satisfaction, namely,
high and low, the distribution of high and low shows that a
high percentage (71.4) of the executives exhibit low level
satisfaction. In an effort to measure the attitudes and orientation
of the executives 9i) toward various aspects of the industrial
environment and (ii) toward the unions, eighteen questions
converging on the respective themes were addressed. The
maximum and minimum scores to the responses put together are
as follows:
Aspect of Industrial
Attitude
towards
Environment
Union
---------------------------------------------Maximum
10
8
Minimum
0
0

Page

Based on the frequency of cumulative scores worked out to

measure the attitudes of the executives (i) toward various aspects
of the industrial environment and (ii) toward the Union, the
distribution of high and low under a two-way bclassification
shows the following results:
Attitude toward

Attitude

toward
Industrial environment
--------------------Number
Percent
High
43.75
Low
56.25
Total
100.00

Percent

Union
-----------------------------Number

16

50.00

14

16

50.00

18

--------------------------32
100.00

--------------------32

It is evident from the above that the attitudes of the executives

toward the industrial environment as well as toward the unions do
not seem to be encouraging. Satisfaction derived from the
ongoings in work situations motivate the executives to exert
greater efforts in their work. If it is a truism to say that an
organization itself is the outcome of the interaction of motivated
people attempting to resolve their own problems (Silverman
1970), it may be presumed that demotivated people are prone
to refrain from making any contribution toward the continued
existence of an organizational need being effective and efficient.
Collective bargaining represents institutionalization of industrial
conflict and it provides drainage channel for workers
dissatisfaction. Considered to be a machinery conducive to
efficiency ( Donovans Report 1965 -1968), the frozen fruits of
industrial conflict are not only thawed (Dahrendorf 1959), but
also aids rationality-knowledge ( Kerr 1954) apart from forcing
the organization into decision-making (Cottschalk 1973). Since it
4

Page

is collective bargaining rather than participation that holds the

key to industrial democracy, it calls for greater attention being
bestowed upon in order to reshape the attitudes of the executives
toward the unions.
In emphasizing the role of the executives, it is relevant to ask
what extent they have freedom to effect alterations in work
setting. For instance, in response to the question whether they
are empowered to assume more powers than what is associated
with their office under extra-ordinary circumstances, a majority of
them, constituting 84.38 percent report in the negative. In a
situation where the employers ends and employees ends are
at loggerheads, the executives have to assume more and more
responsibilities with a view to coping with areas of uncertainty.
With the weakening of a sense of initiative, of freedom, a loss of
purpose envelops the hierarchical grading. It is to be appreciated
that management devoid of constraints may be the answer not
only to keep conflict at bay, but also to help create social skills
(Chester Bowles 1963) among the executives.
In response to another question whether they are satisfied with
the autonomy that goes with their position in the fulfilment of
their managerial functions, 24 executives accounting for 75
percent of the sample report that they are not satisfied, while the
report show indifference. It is evident that the executives are not
vested with authority to provide solutions to problems, whose
origin and implications remain far beyond their control, but whose
solutions have consequences for them.

DISCRETIONARY POWERS
The shape of an organizations structure may be obtained by
mapping its decision-making apparatus. Complicated by
professionalism, organization engenders abrasive interaction
between bureaucrats and professionals, the consequences of
which cannot be made opaque. In the response to the question as
to which of the items for which discretionary powers are most
5

Page

unsatisfactory, the executives constituting 90.6 percent state that

discretionary powers relating to personnel (transfer, promotion
etc.) and discretionary powers concerning disciplinary action
against the subordinates are the most unsatisfactory ones. Since
such powers fall within the domain of the bureaucrats and as a
consequence remain out of the reach of the professionals, a
petrified authority structure seems to have emerged with very
little freedom and discretionary powers vested in the middle and
junior management.
The data relating to the conception of attitudes, which the
executives seem to have toward the employee in a subordinate
position, show the following results. The response is in the agreedisagree form. The question item and the pattern of responses
are indicated below:
A worker left to himself is reasonable and cooperative.
AGREE
DISAGREE
15.6
84.3 percent

percent

The responses of a majority of the executives may be the

outcome of their orientation toward one of two sets of
assumptions, namely Theory X propounded by Douglas McGregor
(1960). The executives do not seem to subscribe to Theory Y,
considered to be more appropriate by McGregor for growth,
learning and improved performance. Nurturing a view contrary to
Theory Y will have consequences for the organization.
Another question relates to the quality of work of the workers. In
response to the question How would you assess the quality of
work that most of the workers in your plant are able to accomplish
at the present time?, 50 percent of the executives opine that the
workers could do something better than what they are doing now,
but still they are doing pretty well. As against 46.9 percent of
executives who state that the workers could do quite a lot better,
only 3.1 percent of the sample of executives consider that the
workers are doing extremely good work and they could do no
6

Page

better. From the above responses of the executives who assess

the quality of the work of workers, it is observed that 50 percent
of the executives do express some satisfaction about the work
performance of the workers. But at the same time, the
significance of the response of 46.9 percent of the executives
cannot be ignored. It expresses a certain amount of
dissatisfaction with the workers performance.
A question item is included in the interview schedule to elicit
information about the extent to which the executive visualized the
objective of the Company. In response to the question What are
the objectives of the Company that you feel you can fully
endorse?, only 12.5 percent of the executives endorse the
workers welfare as one of the objectives of the Company. The
overall objective of the Company needs to center around
contributing to improved labour-management relations through
the development of knowledge and its dissemination to the
community (Dalton 1959).
Unless executives realize that
managerial techniques are designed to maximize the material
and psychological security of the individual workers (Dubin 1960),
industrial harmony will continue to be elusive and group conflicts
cannot be wished away.
Another question in the schedule refers to the grievance activity
of the workers. 21.9 percent of the executives, in response to the
question Do you think that the workman is almost always right
when he represents his grievance? report that the worker is
almost always right when he comes up with a grievance. The
pattern of responses to the grievance activity of the workers seem
to suggest that a majority of the executives are somewhat
unfavourably disposed toward such activities.
In response to the question-For a person with your qualification
and abilities, do you think this Company is a good place as there
is work, or do you think there are other places that are better?only 4 executives state that the Company is as good a place as
any other; while obviously the other 28 executives do not think
this Company is as good a place as any other. This indicates that
a fairly good majority of the executives are not quite satisfied with
7

Page

the conditions obtaining in the Company. In fact, several of them

have given expression to the view that very little promotional
chances are there in the Company. One of the junior executives
states that he joined the services of the Company as a junior
executive, continues as a junior executive even after having put in
a service of over 20 years, and may reach the age of
superannuation in the same position as a junior executive, though
he is being called upon to assume more and more responsibilities.
The available line of career advancement for the executives
remains foreclosed. With very little turnover in the ranks of the
executives, there is reason to believe that the executives
disinterested approach resulting in inaction indicates that a kind
of bureaucratic sabotage is in the offing. The career plans of the
executives bear testimony to the loss of hopes of retrieving the
situation to a minimum level of confidence.
PAPER TIGERS
We seldom come across organizations without bureaucratic
features. The task of bureaucratic organizations are distributed
among various positions. These positions organized hierarchically
are built around specialization, formally established rules, and
regulations intended to guide decisions and actions. Since pushes
and pulls cloud their roles, executives have to perform their tasks
with utmost caution and with greater grace and without indecent
haste. In the absence of any risk taking proclivities on the part of
the organization to underwrite the proposals of the executives,
there is likely to be a tendency on the part of the executives to
avoid taking decisions. The first decision, it is said, that an
executive would take in such a situation, is to avoid taking
decisions. Even if decisions are taken and remain without being
communicated, such a situation provides the recipe for
administrative paralysis. The functions of the executives, as
brought out by Barnard (1948) include devising strategies and
determining priorities, enforcing compliance by persuasion that
would help enlist the workers identification with the
organizational objectives, integration through communication,
and emotional maintenance. In the absence of communication,
coordination, which is the synchronization of group effort to
8

Page

produce unitary action in the pursuit of common objectives,

becomes a casualty.
In response to the question -Are there grievances of workmen
that are referred to you for resolution?- 77.5 percent of the
executives state that the workers grievances are not referred to
them for resolution. It shows that decreased flow of
communication is associated with increases in the proportion of
responses indicating the areas where discretionary power is low.
The very fact that the executives take the course of referring the
grievances of the workers to the higher authorities in the absence
of such powers for resolution residing in them is indicative of the
fact that there are constraints in the form of restriction on the
freedom of the executives unilateral action. A direct comparison
between the cases being referred to higher authorities and the
areas where discretionary powers are considered low indicates
that the sources of dealing with the workers grievances appear to
be anchored in arrangements outside the executives domain.
Brain-drain, an aspect of migration, is also applicable in the case
of these executives to the extent a check on the free flow of airing
views is in existence.
There are activities in the work place for which the executives are
directly responsible. Decision making within the complex of
constraints include various other organizations and it becomes
evident that an organization has a triple personality (Drucker
1951). The formal accountability to customers, shareholders, and
a host of others not only serve as a safeguard, but is also
intended to ensure delegation of powers. Accountability in that
way can be seen as a friend as well as a foe to delegation.
Industrial enterprises in all public sector undertakings suffer from
constraints in the way of delegation. In such undertakings, the
Government exercises its prerogative to appoint the Chairmancum-Managing Director and the board of directors. But the
Government does not seem to leave them to perform their
functions, since the authority is centralized and the Government
is accountable to Parliament. There appears to be constant
interferences or pressures on the board. The Chairman-cumManaging Director finds himself under the control of the directors
9

Page

10

appointed by the Government. Since the locus of power is far

away from the scene where the organization functions, frequent
checks portray the Government as being depraved, and the
Chairman-cum-Managing Director is deprived of the chances to
put across his viewpoints. The presence of the bureaucrats
representing the Government serves as a constraint on the
Chairman-cum-Managing Director to act in an atmosphere of
freedom to take strategic decisions, particularly on matters
concerning new technology. The role of technology in shaping the
industrial relations of the work place in increasingly being
recognized. When technology becomes obsolete, modernization
becomes a luxury, on account of the product life-cycle (Wells
1972) affecting the organization, the skills of the personnel and
also the industrial relations. As product go through the life cycle of
introduction, maturity and decline, consumer preferences to new
product technology becomes crucial to the success. When
technology is seen as essential to the success of the organization,
key decisions concerning new technology are admittedly strategic
decisions, and may have important consequences for the workers
as well as the organization.
The executives feel that the management is not authorityoriented, and what is expected of them is accountability. The
three Es, namely, Economy, Efficiency, and Effectiveness are the
hallmark of an organization. While the first two relate to
accountability, the third one, namely, effectiveness remain far
beyond the reaches of the executives. Though the executives do
not resist accountability, accountability and authority are wedded
to one another and one divorced from the other would have the
organizational adaptation precarious (Clark 1956). The
functionaries authority is not fully legitimized whereas
accountability is insisted upon. What ensues is a dilemma of
ends (Gouldner 1955). Dilemma ends is occasioned by what is
rational and expedient for one is not considered so by the other at
the helm of affairs. While the executives are aware of their
accountability-they become increasingly uncertain about their
responsibilities in the face of erosion of authority. The anxiety
about accountability increases with the concentration of authority
lying at a point other than the one where the drama is enacted.
Since the situation does not offer pragmatic care for the
10

Page

11

recognition of professional autonomy that would lead to effective

operation, the executives exhibit an apathetic attitude towards
the ongoings in the organization. True efficiency and effectiveness
of administration can hardly be achieved without appropriate
delegation and control. This is to be seen in juxtaposition that true
integrity of power is impossible without accountability.
CONCLUSION
Since a majority of the executives is kept at an immature level,
these disgruntled prefer to adapt a strategy of disjointed
incrementalism (Brooke et al 1963). Though it cannot be said
that these executives plead calculated incompetence (Watson et
al 1965), they are not able to play even the boundary role
( Watson et al 1965) in view of the fact that they are not vested
with any powers. So long as organizations do not conceive their
responsibilities in social terms, more administrative training for
the men at the top with an eye on improving the output will prove
to be an exercise in futility.
__________________________________________________________________
_
*
Courtesy
: The Loyola Journal of Social Sciences,
Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala State, India.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REFERENCES
1.
2.

Blauner, R. (1969). Work Satisfaction and Industrial Trends

in Etzioni, A
(Ed) A Sociological Reader on Complex
Organizations, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Simons, H.A (1945). Administrative Behaviour, New York,
Macmillan.

11

Sayles, L.R (1979). Preface to his book Leadership: What

Effective Managers do.And How they do it, New York,
McGraw Hill.

4.

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

5.

Parsons,T. (1969). Suggestions for a Sociological Approach

to Theory of Organizations in Etzioni, A. (Ed) A Sociological
Reader on Complex Organizations, New York, Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.

6.

Machiavelli (1955). Quoted in Gouldner, A.W. Patterns of

Industrial Bureaucracy, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.

7.

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

Heinemann.

8.

Donovans Report. Royal Commission on Trade Unions and

Employees Associations, Her Majestys Stationery Press,
1965-1968.

9.

Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and Class Conflict in Industrial

Society, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Page

12

3.

10. Kerr, C. (1954). Industrial Conflict and Its Mediation,

American Journal of Sociology, Volume 55, pp 230 245.
11. Cottschalk,A.W. (1973). A Behavioural Analysis of
Bargaining, in Warner,M.(Ed) The Sociology of Workplace,
London,Geroge Allen and Unwin, pp 36 -81.
12. Chester Bowles, (1963). The Making of a Just Society, The
University of Delhi.

12

Page

13

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

York, McGraw Hill.
14. Dalton, H.(1959). Men Who Manage, New York, Wiley.
15. Dubin, R. (1960), Society and Union Management Relations,
in Etzioni, A. (Ed) Complex Organizations, New York, Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
16. Barnard, C.I. (1948), Functions of
Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

the

Executive.,

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

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

Cycle

and

19. Clark,B.R.(1956). Organizational Adaptation and Precarious

Values, American Sociological Review, Volume 21, pp 327
336.
20. Gouldner, A.W.,(1955), Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy,
London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
21. Brooke, B.D and Lindblom, C.E. (1963). A Strategy on
Decisions, New York, The Free Press.
22. Walton, R.E. and McKersie, R.B. (1956). A Behavioural
Theory of Labour Negotiations, Maidenhead: McGraw Hill.
23. Walton, R.E and McKersie, R.B. (1965).ibid.
****************

13

14

Page

14