O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S T R U C T U R E S. S U L T A N A K H T...
O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S T R U C T U R E
S. S U L T A N A K H T A R A N D
D. M. PESTONJEE*
A N D E M P L O Y E E S ' A D J U S T M E N T
N E L S O N ' S (1950) CLASSIFICATION OF As early as 1927, Houser in a study of
organizational climates runs into four American Executives reported that important
categories, viz., bureaucratic, autocratic, determinants of executive policy were 'ego-
idiocratic and democratic. A critical evalua-
motives of power' and 'self-expression'.
tion of these types shows that bureaucratic Authority and power, according to him,
relate to dominance over people, while 'self-
and autocratic types are similar in many assertion' compels the executive to do things
ways, while idiocratic and democratic types his own way. Both these aspects were only
resemble each other. Thus, Nelson's typology shades of autocratic attitudes. Gouldner
m a y further be reduced to two suitable (1954) points out certain defects in
categories, the reduction being brought about industrial bureaucracy in that such an
on the basis of orientation and emphasis, organization defies the existence of various
as well as for convenience of classification. strata present within each and every
T h e first two may be classified as Regimenta-
organization. And the things which are of
tion type. Regimentation type may be defined
prime importance for the workers are often
as the organization which is management-
neglected in such a set-up.
oriented, devoted to the task of execution of
management's policies, paying no attention
A bureaucratic organization further
to the reactions of those on whom the rules suffers from what Bass (1960) calls
and regulations are imposed. In short, it is 'organizational rigidity'. T h e day to day work
mainly concerned with the orders and the is to be carried out in such an organization on
extent to which they are carried out by the the basis of the policies and rules laid down
workers. Democratic type may be defined by people who are both physically and psycho-
as the organization which gives due recogni-
logically away from the work group. There is
tion to the social and psychological aspects a gross lack of adaptability because "bureau-
of work, the emphasis being either on the cracy demands reliability, predictability, and
devotion to regulations". In such organiza-
individual worker or a group of workers. It tional structures, people have just to carry-
remains employee-oriented in which enforce-
out the functions of their positions. Every-
ment of order is replaced by the ungrudging thing goes on smoothly so long as everybody
co-operation of the worker. It takes into carries on his duties according to the formal
account, to the fullest extent, the h u m a n expectations of his position.
aspect of work; workers' needs, attitudes and
satisfaction are considered to be important
T h e present study was directed to
aspects of his performance.
assess the effectiveness of Regimentational
*Dr. Sultan Akhtar is Lecturer in Psychology in the Aligarh Muslim University,
Aligarh and Mr. Pestonjee, Lecturer in Psychology in the Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi.

298
S. SULTAN A K H T A R AND D. M. P E S T O N J E E
(bureaucratic) and Democratic types of existent and, at times, the owner has to work
organizational structures in terms of job with his staff.
adjustment (satisfaction).
It may be now clear that the Roadways
are characterized by completely regimenta-
S A M P L E
tional type of organizational structure, where-
T h e sample of the present study comprises as the private bus services are representative
drivers and conductors of passenger-
of a democratic set-up.
carrying vehicles engaged by the U . P .
For the purposes of the present study
Government Roadways and private bus drivers and conductors of the Meerut Region
services. T h e U . P . Government Roadways were selected. The sample comprised
represents a giant network of fully equipped 110 employees (drivers and conductors) of
modern workshops, depots and stations Roadways and 46 employees (drivers and
spread over the whole of the State. T h e conductors) operating private bus services
drivers and conductors have to put in a in the same region. A list of employees was
stipulated "running" or "steering" duty obtained from the Station Incharge (Road-
everyday. They have to run on any "line" ways) and 20% of the cases were randomly
that is allotted to them and the two do not selected. As regards the sample of private
necessarily form a lasting "team". Matters bus services, the list was compiled by the
related to cleaning, refuelling and repairs of investigators with the help of private
vehicles are solely attended to by the work-
operators' Union and here also 2 0 % of the
shop staff. T h e drivers and conductors are cases were randomly selected. Attitude and
responsible to their respective supervisory Adjustment Inventory (Akhtar and
staff (Traffic Superintendent, Asstt. Traffic Pestonjee, 1963) was administered to each
Superintendent, as well as Senior and Junior selected driver and conductor of the two
Station Incharges) who in turn are respon-
organizations.
sible to their own superiors (General
Manager and Asstt. General M a n a g e r ) . T h e
A N A L Y S I S
workers have to follow and obey strictly
the rules and regulations of the organization.
Cumulative scoring of job and manage-
Consistent and continued conformity to the ment areas of the Inventory yields adjust-
supervisor's orders are accepted as the ment score for 'within work' situation. Cumu-
criterion of loyalty. T h e officers remain lated adjustment scores of each driver and
concerned with attaining the organizational conductor of the two organizations were
objectives.
obtained. Frequency distributions of
adjustment score of the two organizations
T h e private bus services, on the other were separately prepared with equal step
hand, breathe a different air. A private bus intervals ( i = 4 ) . T h e Null Hypothesis (Ho)
owner seldom commands the resources for t h a t "the two samples come from the same
employing more than eight to ten drivers population" was tested by the Kolmogorov-
and conductors. Matters pertaining to Smirnov (two-tailed) test. This non-
business operation are jointly looked after by parametric test, according to Siegel (1956),
the owner and his drivers and conductors. is "sensitive to any kind of difference in the
T h e owner gives complete charge of the distribution from which the two samples
vehicle to his staff who attend to all minor were drawn—differences in location (central
mechanical repairs. Supervisory staff is non-
tendency), in dispersion, in skewness, etc."

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND E M P L O Y E E S ' A D J U S T M E N T
299
T h e calculated value was found to be organizations significantly differ with regard
highly significant at 1% level and this led to adjustment to 'within work situation'.
to the rejection of the H o . Thus it was
M e a n and Standard Deviations of the two
concluded that the employees of the two organizational structures were computed.
TABLE 2
MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION
Employees of the democratic organiza-
the democratic type. It m a y be concluded
tion obtained a higher M e a n than their that the employees of the democratic
counterpart employed by the regimenta-
organizational structure are better adjusted
tional type. This suggests that, on the and there is lesser variability as compared
average, the employees of the former to the employees of the regimentational type.
organization were much better adjusted than T h e marked differences in the Means and
the employees of the latter organization. S.D's of employees adjustment of the two
Relative to their own Means the employees organizations further reinforce our earlier
under the two organizational structures show finding that the two samples bear totally
dissimilar variations. T h e S.D. of the different characteristics.
regimentational organization is higher than
the S.D. of the democratic type. This The analysis of the responses on the various
relationship is explicitly brought out by items of the Inventory brought to light
comparison of the two C.V.'s. T h e C.V. of various factors that contribute to adjustment
democratic structure indicates t h a t S.D. of or maladjustment of employees working
this series is only 2 9 . 3 % of the M e a n whereas under the democratic and regimentational
in case of regimental structure the S.D. is structures. 56.4% of the employees of the
69.6% of the corresponding M e a n . T h e democratic as compared to only 19.8% of
higher value of the S.D. of the regimenta-
the employees of the regimentational type
tional organizational structure, clearly, points have expressed the view that they are
that the employees of this organization differ 'rewarded' for good work. 71.6% and
a great deal among themselves in their 18.9% of the employees of the democratic
adjustment as compared to the employees of and regimentational types respectively,

300
S. SULTAN A K H T A R AND D. M. P E S T O N J E E
admitted that good work is given 'recogni-
Display of skill has often been considered
tion . A majority of employees (75.9%) of by psychologists (Fairchild 1930), (Harrell
the democratic organizational structure and 1958), as an important factor responsible
only a few (15.3%) of the regimentational for making employees satisfied with their job.
structure stated that their superiors invite We, too, observed t h a t the employees of the
'suggestions' from employees. Again, 6 8 . 3 % democratic structure get greater opportuni-
of the employees of the democratic as ties to display their skill and this might be
compared to 20.2% of the employees of the responsible for making them adjusted to
regimentational structure believed that their their work-situation. Display of skill as such
supervisors were 'considerate'. 6 5 . 1 % and cannot be deemed to bear fruitful results.
16.2% of the employees of the democratic If it goes together with 'rewarding', and
and regimentational organizations, respec-
'recognising', then it is of immense help to
tively, claimed t h a t they get opportunities the employees in their job adjustment.
to display their skill, 4 1 . 2 % of the employees
of the former organization and 16.2% of the
T h e reasons why the regimentational
employees of the latter organization had no structure fails to elevate the satisfaction and
'fear of dismissal'. As regards 'nature of work,' adjustment are more than one. Apart from
'pay and prospects', 'fellow-workers' and the factor of organizational rigidity, there
'interest in the work', we did not find any is an ever hanging fear that the letter of
appreciable difference between the responses the rule may be inadvertently violated and
of the employees of the two organizations.
then there is none to protect an erring
employee. Again, rewards for conformity are
D I S C U S S I O N
few but punishments for non-conformity
are many. Job insecurity has been reported
Rupe's (1951) investigation revealed that by several investigators as having an adverse
among motivating factors utilized by success-
effect on job adjustment. Investigations and
ful executives were complimenting, thanking, comments by Hall (1934), Watson (1942),
recognising and rewarding the meritorious and Grove and Kerr (1951) have indicated
workers. Carter (1952) has reported t h a t job insecurity as a very potent factor for
outstanding civilian or military leaders making employees dissatisfied. T h e present
show 'consideration' towards employees. authors also observed t h a t the majority of
Lawshe and Nagle (1953) obtained high employees from the regimentational structure
correlation between group productivity and had a feeling of insecurity.
employees' perception of how 'considerate'
their superiors were. It is reasonable to
Another important factor adversely in-
fluencing the satisfaction and adjustment of
believe that 'recognising' and 'rewarding' employees from regimentational structures
workers and being 'considerate' towards them is the absence of ego-involvement. The
help the workers in their job adjustment. democratic structure allows the workers to
Thus, the presence of these supervisory have greater ego-involvement in their job.
practices in the democratic organizational There are no written regulations in the case
structure and their absence in the regimenta-
of the democratic structure; the worker is
tional structure may be considered to be given full responsibility to maintain and run
responsible for making the employees of the the services as efficiently as he can. He is
former organization better adjusted than virtually the owner of the vehicle when on
their counterparts in the latter organization. duty. Minor repairs, keeping to schedule and

O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L S T R U C T U R E A N D E M P L O Y E E S ' A D J U S T M E N T
301
looking after the passenger comforts are are absent in case of workers in an organiza-
directly his responsibilities. These features tion where the bureaucracy reigns supreme.
R E F E R E N C E S
1. Akhtar, S. S. and Pestonjee, D. M. (1963) "A Study of Employees Adjustment Within
and Outside Work Situation". The Indian Journal of Social Work, Vol. X X I I I , 4, p. 328.
2. Bass, B. M. (1960) Leadership, Psychology and Organizational Behavior, New York:
Harper, p. 416.
3. Carter, J. H. (1952) "Military Leadership". Military Rev., 32, pp. 14-18.
4. Fairchild, M. (1930) "Skill and Specialization". Personnel J., Vol. 9, pp. 128-175.
5. Gouldner, A. W. (1954) "Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy.." Illinois: The Free Press,
pp. 26-27.
6. Grove, E.. A., and Kerr, W. A. (1951) "Specific Evidence on Origin of Halo Effect
in Measurement of Employee Morale". J. Soc. Psych., 34, pp. 165-170.
7. Hall, Q. M. (1934) "Attitudes and Unemployment". Archiv. Psych., No. 165.
8.. Harrell, T. W. (1958) Industrial Psychology. New York: Rinehart, p. 263.
9. Houser, J. D. (1927) What the Employer Thinks. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press,
pp. 93-96.
10. Lawshe, C. H. and Nagle, B. F. (1953) "Productivity: Attitude Toward Supervision".
J. Appld. Psychol, 37 pp. 159-162.
11. Nelson, C. W. (1950) A New Approach to Leadership. Industrial Relations Center,
Univ. of Chicago. Chicago (Int. Harw. Res. Project).
12. Rupe, J. C. (1951) "When Workers Rate the Boss". Personnel Psychol., V. pp. 271-290.
13. Siegel, S. (1956) Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York:
McGraw-Hill, p. 127.
14. Watson, G. (1942) "Morale during unemployment", in G. Watson (ed.) Civilian Morale.
New York: Harper & Bros., pp. 273-348.