7 iu ' J ^ ,

INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE DEPENDENCE-PRONENESS, RIGIDITY-FLEXIBILITY ON NEED-SATISFACTION

ABSTRACT

T H E S I S SUBMITTED FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF

IBottor of pi|tlo£iopt|p IN

PSYCHOLOGY

BY

RESHMA SIDDIQUI

Under the Supefvision of

Prof. Saeeduzzafar

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

AL IGARH M U S L I M UNIVERSITY

ALIGARH ( INDIA)

2002

INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, DEPENDENCE PRONENESS / ^ R iGlDITY -

FLEXIBILITY ON NEED-S ACTION

The present study was undertaken to in., -^Ac the influence of

organizational culture, dependence proneness and Riii,idity flexibility on

Need-satisfaction. More specifically the objective of the present

investigation is to answer the following question.

1. Does organizational culture influence need-satisfaction?

2. Does dependence-proneness influence need-satisfact.ion?

3. Does rigidity flexibility influence need satisfaction?

4. Is there any interactional effect of organizatiunai culture and

dependence proneness on need satisfaction?

5. Is there any interactional effect of organizational culture and

rigidity-flexibility on need-satisfaction?

6. Is there any interactional effect of dependence proneness and

rigidity flexibility on need-satisfaction?

7. Is there any interactional effect of organizational culture,

dependence proneness and rigidity-flexibility on need-satisfaction.

In order to answer the above questions, a 2x2x2 factoral

design, in which two personality variables (i.e. dependence proneness

and rigidity-flexibility) and one environmental variable (i.e.

organizational culture) each varying in two ways was used in the present

study. The two values of one personality variable i.e. rigidity-flexibility

were (a) rigid and (b) flexible and the two values of dependence-

proneness were (a) dependent prone and (b) independent. The

organizational culture was varied in two ways by having (a) healthy

culture and (b) poor culture. Thus there were eight groups of subjects.

There were forty subjects in each group. The eight groups are given

below.

1. Rigid dependent prone under healthy organizational culture.

2. Rigid dependent prone under poor organizational culture.

3. Rigid independent under healthy organizational culture.

4. Rigid independent under poor organizational culture.

5. Flexible dependent prone under healthy organizational culture.

6. Flexible dependent prone under poor organizational culture.

7. Flexible independent prone under healthy organizational

culture.

8. Flexible independent prone under poor organizational culture.

In order to form above mentioned eight groups of subjects

Hindi version of G.S.R. (Gaugh-Sanford Rigidity) Scale (1952) was

administered on 600 bank employees who were selected randomly from

different nationalized banks of Gorakhpur.

On the basis of their scores on Hindi version of G.S.R. scale,

two groups namely rigid and flexible were formed. The subjects whose

scores on G.S.R. scale fell on or above median were considered as rigid

subjects. The subjects whose scores on the G.S.R. scale fell on or below

median were considered as flexible subjects.

Organisational culture scale (OCS) was then administered on

the two groups just formed. In each group, the subjects whose scores on

organizational culture scale(OCS) fell on or below median were

categorised as working under poor culture and the subjects whose scores

fell on or above median were categorised as working under healthy

culture. In this way four groups were formed namely. Rigid healthy

organizational culture, rigid poor organizational culture, flexible healthy

organizational culture, and flexible poor organizational culture.

Dependence proneness scale (D.P.S.) developed by Sinha

(1968) was administered on each of the four groups just formed. Tlie

subjects whose scores fell on or above median were considered as

dependent prone subjects and the subjects whose scores fell on or below

median were considered as independent subjects. On the basis of their

scores on Dependence Proneness Scales (D.P.S.) each groups were sub­

divided into two groups to form eight groups. Thus eight groups namely-

rigid dependent prone under healthy organizational culture, rigid

dependent prone under poor organizational culture, rigid independent

under healthy organizational culture, rigid independent under poor

organizational culture, flexible dependent prone under healthy

organizational culture, flexible dependent prone under poor

organizational culture, flexible independent under healthy organizational

culture, flexible independent under poor organizational culture were

formed.

Need-satisfaction scale developed by Porter (1961) was

administered on all the eight groups mentioned above.

The data, thus obtained were tabulated groups wise and were

statistically analysed to draw necessary inferences.

The main findings of the present research were •• (1) subjects

working under healthy organizational culture and poor organizational

culture differ with respect to their need-satisfaction; (2) dependent prone

and independent prone subjects do not differ with respect to their need-

satisfaction; (3) rigid and flexible subjects do not differ with respect to

their need-satisfaction; (4) there is no interactional effect of

organizational culture and dependence proneness on degree of need

satisfaction; (5) there is an interactional effect of organizational culture

and rigidity flexibility on the degree of need satisfaction; (6) there is an

interactional effect of dependence proneness and rigidity-flexibility on

the degree of need-satisfaction and (7) there is no interactional effect

among organizational culture, dependence proneness and rigidity-

flexibility on the degree of need satisfaction. Different alternative

explanations of the findings were offered and some suggestions were

made.

i-tt

T^5S53 V

F ^ ia Computer

;v^n8^Az.wT;T:r^ frX

' • . l , A 6..

'•'M

0 8 JUN 20C5

T5833

^^ULIS

INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE DEPENDENCE-PRONENESS, RIGIDITY-FLEXIBILITY ON NEED-SATISFACTION

T H E S I S SUBMITTED FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF

IBoctor of ${)ilos;opt|p IN

PSYCHOLOGY

BY

RESHMA SIDDIQUI

Under the Supervision of

Prof. Saeeduzzafar

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

AL IGARH M U S L I M UNIVERSITY

AL IGARH ( INOlA l

2002

^

&^^o£. ,9a.€^4t.^^fiAi^ / ^ ^ m I>EPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY M.A., M.PhiI., Ph a ( f f i ^ B ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY

ALIGARH-202002 (INDIA)

Dated.

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the work entitled "Influence of Organizational Culture,

Dependence-Proneness, Rigidity-Flexibility on Need-Satisfaction", has

been completed under my supervision by Mrs. Reshma Siddiqui. The

work is original and has been Independently pursued by the candidate. It

reports some interesting findings and contributes to the existing knowledge

of the subject. - , _ j . ' ~

I permit the candidate to submit the work for the award of the degree

of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology of the Aligarh Muslim University,

Aligarh.

(Saeeduzzafar)

CONTENTS

Page No.

Acknowledgement

List of Tables

List of Figures

Chapter-I Introduction

Chapter-II Review of Literature

Chapter-Ill Methodology

Chapter-IV Analysis of Data and

Interpretation of the Results

Chapter-V Discussion and Conclusion

Summary

References

APPENDICES

Appendix-A Organizational Culture Scale

Appendix-B Need Satisfaction Scale

Appendix-C Dependence Proneness Scale

Appendix-D Rigidity-Flexibility Scale

i - i i

HI

IV

1 - 37

38 - 64

65 - 71

72 - 90

91 - 102

103 - 135

136 - 155

156 - 169

•k-k-k-k

•k ii :k

•k*

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am indebted to many of my teachers, friends and

colleagues for the help they have given me in the completion of

this work and I take this opportunity of expressing to them ray

very grateful thanks . I mention in particular -

: Prof. Sayeeduzzafar, my supervisor and former

chai rman, Department of Psychology, whose able guidance and

benevolent at t i tude have been a constant source of

encouragement to me. In fact this work would not have been

unde r t aken at all had it not been for the encouragement and

suppor t that I received from him. His expert comments,

constructive criticism, valuable suggestions and many editorial

efforts enabled me to accomplish this work.

: Prof. Qamar Hasan, former chairman. Department of

Psychology, AMU who took keen interest in my research work

and always encouraged me during the course of this study.

: Prof. Shamim Ahmad Ansari, presently chairman.

Depar tment of Psychology, AMU who very patiently advised me

from time to time in the organisation of this vi/ ork. I a]ii

indebted to him for the valuable help he so willingly -extended

to me all through my research work.

: Ms. Jabbal and Mr. Gupta, officers of the State Bank

of India, Gorakhpur, who took personal interest and helped me

a lot in the data collection process. My very grateful thanks to

them.

11

Azeem, Najmi, Nasir, Zaki, Shabana. Huma,

Deepshikha, Iram and Nazli, my colleagues who always stood

by me. I am grateful to them for their affection; co-operation

and sincere help at every stage of m.y research.

: Dr. R.U. Khan, Dr. Haseeb and Dr. Qazi Shoeb of the

Department of Statistics and Operation Research, AMU who

very patiently and sincerely helped me in the statistical

analysis of the data. My grateful thanks to all of them.

: Farozan, Emad and Qubad, my children, and my

family, who bore the most during the course of my work. I fully

appreciate the difficulties my children have faced while I was

away from home for long hours in order to finish the thesis. A

big sorry to them.

Mr. H.K. Sharma for a very nice and patient typing.

But it is difficult to make proper acknowledgements to

the host of persons who at sometime or the other helped me by

their inspiring att i tude and kindly acts and have rendered

many diverse and valuable services. To all those v/ho deserve

such thanks , my apologies for the omission and the inadequacy

of these written words.

^ ^ c u K

(RESHMA SIDDIQUI)

I l l

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page No.

I Showing raw scores obtained by eight groups 73-74 of subjects on Need-Satisfaction Scale

11(a),(b) and (c) Showing mean scores obtained by 75 eight groups of subjects on Need-satisfaction Scale

III Showing F-ratios 76

IV(a) Showing mean scores on need-satisfaction 80 scale obtained by healthy organisational culture independent group, healthy organi­sational culture dependent group, poor organisational culture independent group and poor organisational culture dependent group

lV(b) Showing mean scores on need-satisfaction 83 scale obtained by rigid under healthy organisational culture, rigid under poor organisational culture, flexible under healthy organisational culture and flexible under poor organisational culture

IV(c) Showing mean score on need-satisfaction 86 scale obtained by dependent prone rigid group, dependent prone flexible group, independent rigid group and independent flexible group.

IV(d) Two way table of means for rigidity-flexibility and organisational culture for each type of subjects i.e. dependent prone and independent prone.

87

IV

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure Page No.

Showing Interactional Effects

1.0 Org. culture X Dependence proneness 79

1.1 Org. culture X Rigidity-flexibility 82

1.2 Dependence-Proneness X Rigidity- 85 flexibility

1.3 Org. culture X Dependence Proneness X 88 Rigidity flexibility (Dependent Prone)

1.4 Org. culture X Dependence Proneness X 89 Rigidity flexibility (Independent Prone)

1.5 How organisational culture affects 100 satisfaction.

Ch r

INTRODUCTION

Advent of Industrial Revolution that started from England in the

year 1750 and thereafter, gradually travelled almost around the world

changed working pattern as well as socio-technical environment. In the

beginning the worker condition at work was quite inhuman but some

progress was gradually witnessed in the working conditions of the

workers. As a consequence of the concept of man-production under

industrial revolution great Robert Owen, a young Welsh factory owner in

the year 1800 was one of the first visionary to emphasize human needs of

employees at work. He taught his workers cleanliness and temperance and

tried to improve their working conditions. Andrew Ure incorporated humain

factors which is emphasized in his book entitled, "The Philosophy of

Manufactures", published in 1835. He recognized the significance of

mechanical and commercial parts of manufacturing to improve productive

efficiency.

After Industrial Revolution series of approaches appeared

highlighting the interests in improving production but Frederick W. Taylor

was first to think about increasing human efficiency in the late 19th and

early 20th century. He is called to be the "father of scientific

management". Taylor who had started his career as a mechanic and by

virtue of his skill and capabilities he reached the position of an engineer

and retired as a consulting engineer in the Bethlehm Steel Plant, U.S.A.

During the end of the last decade of 19th century Taylor

formulated certain principles viz., scientific management principles and he

was confident that if these principles are applied then human efficiency at

work can be tremendously increased. However, after the successful

experimentation,he established the fact that human efficiency can be

increased if the scientific management principles could have been properly

taken care of Taylor's approach to enhance human efficiency at work was

management centered. Later, Elton Mayo on the basis of his observation

and findings led a movement in association with Roethilisberg and

Dickson, called 'Human Relation Movement' focusing on the cravings for

the satisfaction of social needs of people at work. This movement started

in the mid I920's and was at its peak during 1930's to 1950's and as a

result the history of industrial psychology took turn from management

oriented approach (Taylor, 1903) to employee oriented approach (Mayo,

Roethilisberg, Dickson, 1930s).

Work on human motivation started from the early 1940's though

job satisfaction studies started in 1935. Hoppock (1935) coined the term

job satisfaction and hence he was considered as pioneer of job satisfaction

studies. Usually, people use the term satisfaction and motivation

interchangeably, however, there is an operational difference between these

two concepts.

After the pioneering work of Hoppock a number of job

satisfaction theories appeared. Among these theories Maslowian need

hierarchy theory of motivation and satisfaction is one of the early theories

which was propounded in 1943 as a general theory of human motivation

and was, later on, applied as the theory of job motivation and satisfaction

in 1954. Although a number of other job satisfaction and motivation

theories have been proposed by different researchers but Maslow's need

hierarchy theory occupied prime importance among the various theories of

motivation. The study of motivation is pre-requisite for understanding

human behaviour as motivation is one of the most important factor

affecting human behaviour. In fact the level of performance of an

individual is a function of motivation, hence, motivation or will to work is

a significant aspect determining work related behaviour and outcome.

Motivation is a widely used term, especially, in the work context.

The term motivation can be defined in terms of some out-ward

behaviour.People who are motivated exert greater effort to perform than

those who are not motivated. Thus, in order to understand human, behaviour

as a whole, motivational process must be analysed and understood. It is

necessary to mention here that motivated behaviour is goal-directed i.e.

our behaviour is generally motivated by a desire to attain some goal.

A motive is defined as an inner state that energizes, activates and

directs the behaviour of individuals to ward certain goals (Berelson &

Steiner 1964). Though some authors make a difference between motives

and needs, we can conceptualize motives as certain critical needs in human

beings that have varying degrees of potency or strength. The strong

motives or needs make the individual restless until the needs are fulfilled

or satisfied. Hence, motives are energizers of action while motivation is

the actual action.

Many scholars have defined motivation in various ways.

Motivation is the process which impel employees to strive and to attain

company goals. Lillis (1958) observes, "it is the stimulation of any

emotion or desire operating upon one's will and prompting or driving it to

action". Tolman (1958) observes, "more specifically the term motivation

has been called an intervening variable". In view of Young (1961)

motivation is the process of arousing action, sustaining activity in

progress and regulating the pattern of activity.

Psychologist generally agree that motivation is a goal directed

behaviour which revolves around the desire for need satisfaction.

Motivation consists of the three interacting and interdependent elements

namely needs, drives and goals. Needs are defined as something that

individual do not have and which creates a state of dissonance or tension

in the individual. As it is not a pleasant feeling which one wants to reduce.

Need, thus, becomes the drive force for human action. Krech, Crutchfield

and Ballachy (1962) defined need as "the initiating and sustaining force of

behaviour". According to Norman Maire (1959) a need may be defined as

"a condition requiring the supply of relief, the lack of anything requisite,

desired or useful". In the opinion of Kolasa (1978) "A need is a lack or

deficit of something within the system or organism". Need c^n also be

defined as a personal, unfulfilled vacancy that determines and organises all

mental processes and all behaviour in the direction of its attainment.

Need Satisfaction

There are various ways to classify needs. According to one

system needs may be classified into following classes :

(1) Basic physiological needs called primary needs.

(2) Social and psychological needs called secondary needs.

Physiological needs include food, water, sex, sleep, air. These

needs arise from the basic physiology of life hence are important for

survival, therefore, these are common among all living organisms.

However, it may vary in intensity from one person to another. For exmaple,

a child needs much sleep than an older person. Whereas, secondary needs

are more vague as they represent needs of the mind and spirit instead of

physical body. Examples are rivalry, self esteem, sense of duty, self-

assertion, sense of belongingness, social needs, etc. Secondary needs

complicate the motivational process of managers.

In the light of the above contentions and descriptions, it is

imperative to point out that need-fulfillment is necessary for good

performance and effective human actions as needs create tension in human

organism and in order to reduce tension individual's take action to achieve

desired goal. Hence, motivation is considered to be the goal-directed

behaviour. It is also important to mention here that motivation is an

outcome of need deficiency, hence, intensity of needs determines

motivational level. It is, indeed, true that satisfaction of needs which are

of significant importance are likely to develop positive attitude towards

work and thus reveals greater satisfaction with it. However, the

phenomenon of satisfaction with work can only be understood in its

totality. An individual constantly makes adjustment to satisfy his needs.

Therefore it is essential to study his needs both in and outside the work

situations, for satisfaction or dissatisfaction of which leads to the

development of certain attitudes to life and work, and are "carried over"

from life to work and vice versa.

Thus, the study of total situation is very important in order to

understand the phenomenon of satisfaction with work. Mikesell and

Hanson (1953) state that "the attitude with which we shoulder our

responsibility determines to a great extent how we feel in the future

towards any work situation. Satisfaction is cumulative. A satisfaction

feeling in one situation tends to make for satisfaction in the next jobs."

According to Blum (1968) "His motives experiences and social

interaction with his family. Company and community must always be

considered. Work has an economic aspect and a mechanical aspect as well."

More or less the same views have been expressed by Shaffer and Shoben

(1956) who thought that it is not possible to separate the economic self

from other aspects of human personality.

Satisfaction or non-satisfaction is equally important for making

adjustments at the work situation. Commenting upon this phenomenon

Lehner and Kube (1956) observes, "People who come to vocational

counselling problems often have difficulties that lie primarily in other

7

areas of living but which manifest themselves also in work." However,

overall satisfaction in life is associated with the satisfaction of individuals

need pattern. The satisfaction of human needs may be blocked by certain

factors both at work situation as well as outside it creating a state of

tension in the individual hence he constantly makes efforts to satisfy these

needs. If the individual feels that the efforts made by him led to desired

reward, he feel satisfied. But when the individual feels that his efforts to

satisfy his needs have been blocked, then a state of disequilibrium will

prevail and he will feel dissatisfied.

Thus it may be stated that gratification of human needs generate

satisfaction and non-gratification generates dissatisfaction for the

individual. In the work situation satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the job

will depend upon the extent to which individual needs are satisfied in an

outside work situation.

Since motivation is a complex phenomenon, major motivational

theories have been developed which are categorised as:

(1) Content of need theories

(2) Cognitive or process theories

(3) Reinforcement theories

The content theories basically look at the motives or needs in

individuals that influence behaviour. Maslow, Aldeofer, Murray,

McClelland and White are some of the scholars who have made significant

contributions to this approach. Attempts have been made in cognitive

8

theories to concentrate on individuals thinking which is used to decide

whether or not to behave in a certain way. There are three major cognitive

theories namely expectancy, equity and goal setting theories that explain

work motivation, Adams, Vroom and Porter & Lawler have made some

important contribution in the development of these theories.

Reinforcement theories emphasises that behaviour of an individual can be

moulded, shaped, changed or eliminated by changing the stimuli in people's

environment.

Among these theories Maslowvian need hierarchy theory of

motivation and satisfaction is one of the early theories which was

propounded in 1943 as a general theory of human motivation and this was

later applied as the theory of job motivation and satisfaction in 1954.

Although a number of other job satisfaction and motivation theories have

been proposed by different researches, however, Maslow's need hierarchy

theory occupies prime importance among the various theories. Maslow

developed five level of need hierarchy.

(1) Physiological Needs

(2) Security Needs

(3) Social Needs

(4) Ego Need or Self-esteem

(5) Self-actualization Needs

Physiological needs are the most basic level in the need

hierarchy. This level includes hunger, thirst, sleep and sex. An individual

works in order to provide basic necessities of life to himself as well as to

his family. One desires to provide adequate medical care and education for

members of his family, for this purpose he needs money. The amount one

earns depend on the position one occupies in the organizational hierarchy.

The higher the occupational level, the higher is the income and greater the

satisfaction of biogenic needs. For example, the satisfaction of biogenic

needs of a foreman is expected to be less than that of managers.

Security needs is one of the important human needs. According

to Maslow security need is one of the two most propellant needs in human

beings. Security has an economic dimension as well as a psychological

dimension. An individual who has a steady income develops a sense of

psychological satisfaction which in turn leads to the development of a

sense of security.

In Indian culture, security needs seem to be dominant. It gets

deeply ingrained in us and affect our actions. The need for security, though

is a global phenomenon but is more relevant in people belonging of

different sectors of society, belonging to different religious communities

and caste and occupying different levels of occupation having strong need

for security. The satisfaction of security needs is important for managers,

foreman and workers is evident from the research works of Lahiri and

Ganguli(1964).

Lahiri discussed the issue of motivation of Indian managers and

observed that for managerial jobs, except the need for security and self-

10

actualization, the other needs are of low importance.

Similarly, Ganguli (1964) has shown that security is an important

need both for supervisors and workers. Managers are comparatively in a

much better position to satisfy their security needs in comparison to

foremen, as they know that not only their jobs are secure they also have

greater opportunity of moving up in the hierarchy than workers security

need is, therefore, positively associated with job satisfaction.

Social need, there is an inner urge in every human being to

belong to a group and have pleasant relations with one's group members. A

group may be his family, relatives or friend circle. He likes to share joys

and sorrows with his family members. He seeks their help in the struggle

of life and in turn tries to help his family members. He usually likes to

live with his family, and provide all comforts to them, he may even

sacrifice certain personal comforts for the sake of his famil} . In return he

expects to be taken care of and loved by his family members. An individual

often securing a job away from one's native place desires to bring his

family to workplace but due to economic as well as social and cultural

factors the worker is unable to be so.

As one moves up in the organisational hierarchy, one becomes

secure economically and the earnings are usually such that the individual

may be able to hire an independent accommodation for himself and his

family members. Living away from families, and only means during greater

physical hardships but also satisfaction of social needs is frustrated to a

11

greater extent. An individual is more likely to be satisfied with his job if

he is living with his family as this gives him great opportunity to satisfy

his social and emotional needs. It is therefore logical to suggest that

greater satisfaction of one's social needs may be associated positively with

the job satisfaction of the individual.

A large number of researchers have argued that social relations

within and outside the organisation are related with the satisfaction one

derives from one's job. Edmnund E. Dudeck (1953) while writing about

job discontentment, states, that the factors responsible for it may be

present both within and outside the organisation. Among factors that may

contribute to job discontentment, the social environment within the

organization cannot be neglected. He further pointed out that social

factors outside the organization such as relationship with neighbours,

participation in community activities and neighbourhood could affect that

satisfaction one derives from the job.

Ego need or Self-esteem needs are concerned with self-respect,

self-confidence, feeling of being unique and recognition. Satisfaction of

these needs produce feeling of self-confidence, prestige, power and

control. An individual continues to do many things to satisfy his ego. He

works harder so as to be able to provide better amenities to his family

member. If he succeeds in doing so he gets a lot of ego satisfaction,

otherwise his ego is hurt. A job usually is the source for achieving goals

for a working man. The achievement is greater at higher occupational level

12

than at the lower occupational level. At higher occupational levels the

financial and other resources available to an individual are much more than

at lower levels and hence is able to achieve goals.

Besides this, the type of job one holds appears to be associated

with egosatisfaction of an individual. Different jobs enjoy different status

and prestige in society. Some jobs are considered more important,

dignified and prestigious than others. The nature of job itself may satisfy

or hurt the ego of an individual. At work, an individual tries to seek

autonomy, more authority and decision making powers. An individual

would like to control his job and be independent rather than constantly

seeking orders from his superiors. In an industrial setup there is a system

of pyramidical hierarchy where superiors have more authority, autonomy

and decision-making powers, where as the workers at lower levels have no

decision making powers even about the way he has to perform his job. In

this context Brown (1962) say "you are not paid to think but do exactly

what you are told." Thus it is logical to suggest that ego-satisfying

opportunities are present more at higher occupational levels than at lower

occupational levels. Similarly jobs are ranked in every society. A

managerial job has usually a higher status, than a supervisory job, which in

turn has higher status than a blue collared job.

Since an individual is so conscious of the satisfaction of his ego

needs, which have been called higher order needs by Maslow (1960), it

may be argued that greater is the satisfaction of ego needs the greater will

13

be the job satisfaction. As job is usually an important means of

satisfaction various needs for those who are not self-employed, ego need

satisfaction will also depend upon the occupational level and nature of job.

Self-actualization needs is the need to maximise one's potential,

this is related with the development of intrinsic capabilities which lead

people to seek situations that can be utilised in their potential. According

to Maslow (1954) "this need might be phrased as the desire to become

more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of

becoming."

Influenced by the results of Hawthorne experiments and

subsequent recognition of work groups as social organisation, another

school of thought, known as neo-human relations, emerged. The scholars

belonging to this school (Maslow 1943, 1970, Herzberg 1966, 1974,

McChelland 1996) adopted a more psychological orientation to motivation

and job satisfaction. Their focus was on making the work more

intrinsically satisfying through the process of matching the individual's

need profile with the work situation. This approach has come to be known

as "self-actualization concept of motivation". This approach attempted to

explore components of job satisfaction as envisaged by self-actualization

model.

According to Sackett, Samnel J. Career (1998), Maslowian

theory postulates a hierarchy of five inborn needs resident in all human

beings. Even if first four needs had been met, the individual would still

14

feel restless and dissatisfied. The reason for this dissatisfaction is that

there is still a fifth need, the need for self-actualization. The author

posists that there is much in the work of many career counsellors which

aid, atieast, some clients in moving towards self-actualization. Though,

Maslow's need hierarchy theory has stimulated thinking about the various

needs that individuals have, but it has some serious short comings too.

Researches suggest that needs may cluster into two or three categories,

rather than five and more over the hierarchy of needs. As a result of the

criticisms against Maslow's hierarchy of need theory, Alderfer proposed

an alternative theory known as ERG theory.

Alderfer (1969, 1972) modified Maslow's (1954, 1970) need

hierarchy theory and Identified three groups of needs - existence,

relatedness and growth. All three needs may operate simultaneously as

motivators of behaviour. He agrees with Maslow's hypothesis that the lack

of satisfaction of higher-order needs may make lower order needs more

important to people. He further argued that the importance of any need is

influenced by the satisfaction/frustration of the needs above and below it

in the hierarchy. Growth needs, which correspond with the intrinsic

component of esteem needs and various aspects of self-actualization

needs, are typically rated highest in importance by higher level managers.

This has been brought out by several studies, including an earlier survey of

American managers which was undertaken by Porter (1963) and his

associates.

5

It is imperative to mention that it is not fair to assume that for

the non-managerial personnel higher level needs will be totally

unimportant. Instead, regardless of the degree to which the existence

needs are being perceived as satisfied growth needs, may also be perceived

as important by these individuals. Thus, following the ERG theory, it can

be predicted that all the three needs would convey in terms of their

perceived importance, and this may be good for both groups of employees.

Beside ERG theory, another need hierarchy theory has been proposed by

Herzberg (1957) who conducted motivational study on about 200

accountants and engineers employed by firms in and around Pittsburgh. He

used the critical incident method for obtaining data. The subjects were

asked two questions (1) when did you feel particularly good about your job

— what turned you on, and (2) when did you feel exceptionally bad about

your job - what turned you off? Responses obtained from this critical

incident method were interesting. Good feelings that was reported were

generally associated with job experiences and job content. For example,

accounting supervisor felt good when they were given job of installing new

computer equipment. He took pride in his work and was satisfied to know

that the new equipment made a great difference in the overall functioning

of his department. On the other hand bad feelings, were generally

associated with the surrounding of the job - the job context. jFor example,

these feelings were related to an engineer whose first job was to keep

tabulation sheets and manage the office when the boss was gone. It is

because his boss was always too busy to train him and become annoyed

16

when he tried to ask questions. The engineer said that he was frustrated in

his job context and that he felt like a flunky in a dead-end job.

Tabulating these reported good and bad feelings, Herzberg

concluded that job satisfiers are related to job content and that job

dissatisfiers are related to job context. Herzberg called the satisfiers as

motivators and dissatisfiers as hygiene factors. The term "hygiene" refers

to factors that are preventive in Herzberg's theory. The hygiene factors are

those that prevent dissatisfaction. This theory of motivation is also known

as two-factor theory.

In short, the motivation-hygiene theory suggests that the job-

content factors or the "motivators" such as achievement, recognition work

itself, responsibility, advancement, and other matters associated with

oneself and the self-actualization of the individual on the job, are likely to

produce satisfaction however, lack of these factors does not produce

dissatisfaction. On the other hand, job context factor or the "hygienes,"

such as salary, social, and human relation aspects of the job, supervision,

company policies and administrative practices, job security, working

conditions, and several other factors that are at the peripheral to the task

tend to produce job-dissatisfaction but their presence does not produce

satisfaction. In effect this theory suggests a nonlinear relationship between

job-content and job-context factors, hence, satisfaction and dissatisfaction

are not considered to be on a bipolar continuum. According to this theory

one would predict that managers will choose the job-content factors more

often than the job-context factor.

17

Although Herzberg's two-factor theory remains a very popular

explanation of work motivation but when researchers deviated from the

critical incident methodology used by Herzberg, they do not get two

factors. There seems to be job factors that lead to both satisfaction and

dissatisfaction. These findings indicate that a strict interpretation of the

two-factor theory is not warranted.

Murray (1938) developed a list of 28 needs that human beings

have among these are the needs for achievement, affiliation, dominance,

aggression, dependence, and nurturance. Marray argued that our needs are

mostly acquired in life rather than inherited, and needs can be activated or

made to manifest themselves by introduction appropriate in the

environment.

Contemporary theories - The above theories are well known but,

unfortunately they have not been help up well under close examination.

There are some contemporary theories other than the above - mentioned

theories which has a reasonable degree of valid supporting documentation.

McCelland (1951, 1961) a Harward psychologist has proposed that there

are three major relevant needs in work situation such as the need for

achievement, the need for power, and the need for affiliation.

As far as need for achievement is concerned, McClelland (1961)

pointed out the high achievers differentiate themselves from-others by

their desire to do things better. In order to solve the problem they find out

the situation so that they can gain personal responsibilities and receive

18

rapid and clear feedback on their performance so that they may set a

challenging goal. These type of people prefer challenging problem and

accept the responsibility for the success or failure.

The need for power is the desire to have an impact to influence,

and control others. Individuals who are high in need for power enjoy being

incharge, strive for influence over others, prefer competitive and status-

oriented situations and tend to be move concerned with gaining prestige

and influence over others than with effective performance.

The third need proposed by McClelland is need for affiliation.

This need has received the least attention of researchers. Affiliation can

by likened to Dale Carnegies goals-the desire to be liked and accepted by

others. Individuals with high need for Affiliation strive for friendship,

prefer co-operative situation rather than competitive ones, and desire

relationship involving a high degree of mutual understanding,

Thus needs for achievement, affiliation and power can be

harnessed to the benefit of the organisation if managers know how to

identify the needs in their subordinates though some of the characteristics

of people, who are high in these needs are known e.g. seeking

responsibility, team work, control, etc. The employees have several needs

some of which are more dominant than others. Thus, managers have to

carefully observe employees in different contexts and identify their needs.

White (1959, 1965) identified the need for effectance as a

powerful need. This concept describes our inborn drive to explore and gain

mastery over our own immediate environment. Need effectance is

manifested even in babies who constantly try to explore their small world.

They reach out for things, through crawling and take their first step and

feel happy and their explorations. Such explorations of our environment

continue throughout our lives. In interacting with the environment

constantly, human being experience both successful and failure

experiences, and gain varying degrees of mastery over the environment. A

successful experience over one's life time, offers one a sense of

confidence in his or her own competence. White considered this

confidence as a powerful motivator to interact more with the environment

so as to accumulate more success experience and feel confident about our

competence. White called this confidence as "sense of competence."

Lorsch and Mose (1975) used the concept of sense of

competence to study the motivation and performance of organisational

members. The concept of sense of competence is imporlant because

managers can easily make use of the need.

Sekaran and Wagner (1980) indicate that sense of competence is

highly correlated to motivation, job involvement and job-satisfaction of

employees at all level. Hence, motivation and a sense of competence will

mutually influence each other and offer employees intrapsychic or

intrinsic rewards.

Work is a social reality and social expectation to Ayhich men

seem to conform that provide status to the individual but also binds him to

20

the society. Several authors have stressed the significance of occupations

as a source of need satisfaction. According to Roe (1956) "Occupations as

a source of need satisfaction are of extreme importance in our culture. It

may be that occupations have become so important, in our culture just

because so many needs are so well satisfied by them."

In order to understand the problem of employees indifference to

their work, it is necessary to study the culture of organization and the

expectations that govern the relationship between the individual and the

organization.

Organizations are created to achieve certain objectives through a

collectivity termed as groups. The achievement of organizational

objectives is possible only through team effort. Work is to be

sequentialized and managed by man. In most cases these are hierarchical

arrangement of position in an organization and each position is being

managed by a human being. Organizational culture not only improves

organizational efficiency but also allows to satisfy needs at work. Hence,

work culture seems important as it may provide greater avenues for need-

fulfilment.

Organizational Culture is like the touchstone that

distinguishes the good organization from the bad ones. It usually implies

the way of life in any organization. People living in a society are very

much affected by the culture that seems to prevail in an organization. For

example, person, living in middle class family will be taught the values,

21

beliefs and expected behaviours common to that family in the same way

people working in an organization are taught to establish a firm culture

with values, beliefs and expected behaviours of that organization.

Therefore in a society there is social culture as well as, there is an

organization culture at work and the culture under above-cited conditions

dynamically influence human behaviour.

According to Herskovits, (1955) culture is the man-made part of

the environment. Since 1970's the term "culture" has been increasingly

used in studies of organizational behaviour because of the growing

realization among organizational scientists and management consultants

that the culture of an organization has much influence on organizational

effectiveness. This rises interest in researchers to study on organizational

culture.

Since, mid 1970s, researchers started taking interest to examine

the possibility that whether different national cultures have penetrated

modern corporate forms, thus obtained to find differences in

organizational culture. Several early studies gave credence to this

approach, which led to the possibility that even within a single national

culture there might be local differences in the culture of firms.

At first the concept of culture was being used mostly by

sociologists and anthropologists. Sociologists, for the most part, use

culture to describe the "ideational aspect" of social life in order to

distinguish culture from society or social structure. On the other hand, the

22

anthropological approach, was that it takes the entire subject matter as

culture. Several work that have been mostly influenced by sociologists are

the study of myth and ritual (Durkheim, 1961), symbolic interaction

(Goffman, 1959), and the study of organizations as institution.

Anthropologists like Radeliffe-Brown (1952) and Malinowski (1961)

encouraged the scholars to consider society as a whole and to see how it

practices, beliefs, and other cultural elements function to m,aintain social

structure. Geerts (1973) has focused on language and symbols. According

to Goodenough (1971) cultural descriptions require the discovery and

writing out of systematic rules or algorithms that members of the culture

implicitly use to generate acceptable behaviour.

Pettigrew (1979) expressed culture in six forms, which was

based on the concepts used by sociologists and anthropologists (1) symbol

(2) language (3) ideology (4) belief (5) ritual and (6) myth out of which,

symbol is the most important. Trice and Beyer (1984) identified 13

distinctive cultural forms: (1) rite, (2) ceremonial (3) ritual (4) myth, (5)

saga (6) legend (7) story (8) folk-tale, (9) symbol (10) language (11)

gesture (12) physical setting and (13) artifact.

Beside sociology and anthropology, social psychology has

played an important role on the development of the study of organizational

culture. Many organizational scholars e.g., Festinger (1957), Kelley

(1977) have been influenced by the tradition in psychology of studying the

disjunction between expressed intention and observed behaviour. The study

23

of cognitive dissonance, persuasion and attribution has developed

variously which has drawn attention to the non-rational features of

individual behaviour.

The second significant line of social psychology for the study of

organizational culture has been the study of organizational climate

(Forehand and Gilmer, 1964, Tangiuri, 1968). Studies on climate have been

sometimes undistinguishable from some current studies of organizational

culture.

Now-a-days, the study of organizational culture is dominated by

behavioural scientists. In 1970s, the sociologists lost the charm of

multivariate studies of organizational structure so with their curiosity and

methodologies they migrated to the study of community structure,

occupational structure, of health care, and so on. At the same time

management schools started studying business firms, to revitalize the

study of those specific institutions, thus started the study of organizational

culture.

One of the operational definition of culture given by Red-field

(1941) is that culture is "shared net-work of common understanding some

of these understanding are overt, physical and observable, but- not all of

them".

Pettigrew (1979), Deal and Kennedy (1982), Peters and

Waterman (1982) suggest that corporate culture is an accentuated

component of a corporation's culture that encourage employees to accept.

24

even embrace, the goals and values of the leaders of the corporation, along

with a sense of belongingness in all participants.

Tunstall (1983) defines corporate culture as a general

constellation of beliefs, mores, customs, value systems, behavioural norms

and way of doing business that are unique to each corporation.

According to Schein (1983) culture is the sum of what

individuals have learned of their organizational world, based on (a)

observed consequences of past action, and (b) the success or failure of

attempts to cope with needs for anxiety avoidance.

A comprehensive pragmatic definition of organizational culture

is provided by Schein (1984) as "culture is a pattern of basic assumption

invented discovered, or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with

its problems of external adaptation and internal integration - that has

worked well enough to be considered valid and therefore, to be taught to

new members as the correct way to perceive, think and fell in relation to

those problems".

According to Armstrog (1987) to some people the world culture

may seem to be no more than a fancy way of saying "this is how we operate

or this is the personality of the organization."

According to Triandis (1990) culture consists of human made

objective and subjective elements shared among those who could

communicate because they had a common language and they lived in the

25

same time and space. Within cognitive framework, culture is a system of

shared cognition or a system of knowledge and beliefs, where it seems as

a unique system for perceiving and organizing material phenomena, things,

events behaviour and emotions.

Weihrich and Koontz (1993) define organizational culture as the

general pattern of behaviour, shared beliefs, and values that members of an

organization have in common. It could be inferred from what people say,

do, and think within an organizational setting. Organizational culture also

involves the learning and transmitting of knowledge, beliefs and patterns of

behaviour over a period of time. This means an organization's culture is

fairly stable and does not change fast. It sets the tone for organization and

establishes implied rules for the way people should behave.

On the basis of the definition given by Redfield, Marguies

(1969). These are two types of culture were opined :

(a) Observable culture

(b) Inferable culture

Observable culture is the way in which work was organized, the

degree to which tasks were integrated and interchangeable, and the

resulting interaction from such arrangements. Second, there are certain

inferable cultural elements associated with a particular observable

culture-certain values and certain attitudinal and behavioural norms.

Together, then the observable culture (the organization of work, resulting

interactions, organizational structure and so on) and the inferable culture

26

(values, attitude and norms) comprise the cultural system of the

organization.

As the interest in organizational climate began to wane,

behavioural scientists began investigating organizational culture. Climate

developed primarily form the Lewinian social psychological framework,

compared with the anthropological and symbolic interactionist roots of

culture. Many issues discussed in terms of organizational climate are being

discussed by culture researches. According to Umstot (1984) one way to

measure the organizational culture, at least in part is by evaluating its

organizational climate which consists of the way people perceive their

organizational environment. Robbins (1984) proposed that culture "is a

relatively uniform perception held by the organization, it is a descriptive

concept, and it has common and stable characteristics that make it possible

to distinguish one organization from another." According to Robbins, first

organizational culture is a perception, but it exists in the organization not

in the individual. As a result, individuals with different backgrounds or at

different levels in the organization tend to describe the organization's

culture in similar terms. They perceive a unique set of characteristics that

are substantially organization-specific. Second, organizational culture is a

descriptive term. It depends on how members perceive the organization,

whether they like it or not, finally, what is culture, is a perception about

the dynamically persisting working conditions and the environment,

generally, generated by the supervisory behaviour.

27

The survey of literature reveals the fact that there are ten

primary characteristics to capture the essence of an organizations culture.

These characteristics have been highlighted by Robbins (1990) that

follows:

(1

(2

(3

(4;

(5;

(6:

(7^

(8)

(9)

) Member identity

) Group emphasis

) People focus

1 Unit integration

) Control

) Risk tolerance

Reward criteria

Conflict tolerance

Means-end orientation

(10) Open system focus

Robbins has derived these characteristics from the work of

Hofstede et. al. (1990) and O'Reilly (1991). Similarly, Luthans (1995) has

also highlighted the important characteristics of organizational culture.

These are regularities, norms, dominant values, philosophy, rules and

organizational climate.

Generally, people think that an organization that an organization

has a uniform culture. According to the concept of anthropology, it is more

accurate to treat organization "as i f they had a uniform culture. According

to Morey and Luthans (1985). "all organizations 'have' culture in the sense

28

that they are embedded in specific societal cultures and are part of them."

According to this view organizational culture is commonly perceived by

the organization members. Every one share this perception at different

degree. As a result there is dominant as well as sub-culture in an

organization. Dominant culture is a set of core values shared by a majority

of organization members. Subculture develop in large organization and its

values are shared by a minority of the organization members. Subculture

develop in an organization to show common problems, situations or

experiences that members face. If an organization has no dominant culture

and is composed of number of subculture then the value of organizational

culture as an independent variable would be lessened.

An organization may have strong as well as weak culture but it is

very difficult to differentiate between strong culture and weak culture. In

words of Wiener (1988) "a strong culture is characterized by the

organization's core values being both intensely held and widely shared".

The more members accept the core values and greater they are committed

to those values, the stronger will be the culture. Parallel to this definition

strong culture has greater influence on the behaviour of its member than

will a weak culture. The specific result of a strong culture should be low

employee turnover.

Many models were made to describe organizational culture but

most comprehensive and widely known model was made by Deal and

Kennedy (1982). Peters and Waterman (1982), they described four basic

29

types of culture profiles each is characterized by a combination of two

factors: the type of risk managers assume, and the type of feedback that

results from their decisions.

Moreover, Saffold (1988) put-forward the idea that cultural

factors may be linked to exceptional level of performance. Barney (1986)

and Gordon & Tomaso (1992) found that culture was associated with

better performance. Thus, a study of cooperate culture is a need of time

that requires a systematic enquiry of culture for any kind of organizational

analysis. As soon as the organizational culture started and'begins to

develop new employees who are not adjustable to this culture because of

their non familiarity with the organization expectations, need help to adapt

this culture. This adaptation process is called socialization. The process of

socialization is made up of three stages: Pre-arrival, encounter, and

metamorphosis. In first stage the new members pass through all the

learning process after joining the organization. In the second stage the new

employees understand about the organization and reality may diverge. In

the third stage, long lasting changes takes place. New employees become

perfect in their job, they successfully perform their new role and make

ajustments according to their norms and values. These three stages have a

great impact on the new employee's work productivity, commitment to the

organizations objectives and make decision to stay with the organization.

This means an organization's culture is fairly stable and does not change

fast. It sets the tone for organizations and establishes implied rules for the

way people should behave (Weihrich and Koontz, 1993).

30

Like organizational culture, Dependence Proneness, a

personality dimension, is also important to be studied in relation to need

satisfaction.

Rapid progress generally requires, besides capital, know-how,

and conductive institutions, a fair sized band of imaginative entrepreneurs

who may challenge the old disfunctional values and practices, and who may

explore, and accept new possibilities and actively manipulate the

environment in a pragmatic fashion and have sense of security.

Unfortunately, as observed by Rath (1965) and Sinha (1968), Indian people

do not seem to respond to measures directed to improve their living

conditions. They not only refuse to challenge the old disfunctional values

and practices, and to take the initiative to adopt new ways which are

conductive to the economic growth but also fail to utilize the

opportunities extended to them. This apathy has been a continuing worry in

the minds of planners and social scientists. To explain it, a number of

psychological constructs have been advanced. The one which seems quite

revealing is the dependence proneness. The construct of dependence

pronenss seems to be quite relevant to the growth problems of a country

such as India. Moreover, Indian social setting is predominantly

authoritarian were compliance, submission and docility are the most prized

virtues. Person who show dependence and satisfy the vanity of those who

are in authority have less adjustment problems as compared to those who

challenges the authority (Pandey & Sinha 1968). Thus, those who try to

exert and challenge the authority would incur displeasure and disapproval

31

leading to the development of feelings of insecurity. Hence, it is

reasonable to believe that the slow rate of our national development may

be due to excessive dependency and feelings of insecurity.

Dependency, of course, is a primary need of man. Dependency

of infant is a basic necessity, for infant always depends on mother and

other members of the family. The dependency of helpless infant on his/her

mother is a universal phenomenon. Later on, baby depends on his parents,

siblings and others for a variety of things. The baby's dependency is

understandable, because of his inability to deal with the world. As the baby

grows older and older, independent behaviour gradually appear. Child who

depends more than is absolutely necessary, have been labelled as

dependent children.

Dependency in children in said to be initiated at first as an

instrumental act in response to the nurturant behaviour of adults especially

the mother. If this nurturant behaviour is, however, prolonged, a positive

affect is likely to be attached to the nurturant cues leading to a condition

in which dependency may turn into a motivational tendency-ready to be

activated at the instance of the minimum of cues in situations where

dependency is not necessarily called for. A person having a large share of

this tendency may be called dependence -' prone.

Dependence proneness is operationally defined as a motivational

habit of over-dependence on others in situations in which dependence is

not necessarily called for. It is not a clever strategy to win-over a situation

32

nor a means to achieve some useful purpose rather it is a tendency or an

inner inclination to run to others without exhausting one's own resources.

It may express itself in one or more ways such as (a) to seek support,

advice and / or order from others, (b) to confide with others uncritically

(c) desires to be encouraged, helped and / or protected by others.

Negatively, it may be recognized in behaviours and inclinations such as (a)

lacking initiative (b) lacking independent judgment or weak judgement, (c)

try to avoid risk taking behaviour (d) having an escape behaviour, (e)

discouraged easily and (f) refusing or displacing responsibility for an

unfavourable outcome.

Sinha (1968) observed amount of dependency which propells a

person to seek advice, support and affection from others in situation where

it may not be necessarily required. In subsequent study, Sinha and Pandey

(1972) have reported that a high dependent-prone person hesitates, ask for

all kinds of informations and communications. He is further described as

one who is anxious, fatalist, impractical and traditional. These

characteristics of dependent prone persons suggest that they are

cognitively less developed than their counterparts.

A person who happens to have developed such a disposition

would run to others for support, suggestions, and help even if confronted

with a relatively minor problem. He would be a person who needs frequent

encouragements and emotional supports and feels reluctant to take

initiative of independent judgments and actions. Rather, demanding

33

situation make him uncomfortable so much so that be would avoid making

decisions. If somehow a decision is made he/she looks for a feedback and

if a positive one would not seem coming, then such persons would tend to

displace responsibility for the outcome to someone else. It may also be

believed by stretching the experimental evidences regarding the correlates

of dependency behaviour, that a dependence prone person is likely to be

suggestible (jakubczak & Walters, 1959) conforming (Garai, 1960),

passive (league & Jackson, 1961), weak in judgment and self concept

(Elliot, 1960). Moreover, such a person leans on heavily for emotional

support and advice, and would experience pleasure in being considered

loyal to friends and to authority. He is a person who is discouraged easily

and hence has got greater need of being encouraged, helped, and protected.

Rigidity Flexibility

Another consideration that motivated the present researcher to

undertake the present investigation is the growing importance of cognitive-

flexibility antonym of rigidity. It seems cognitive flexibility-rigidity, a

personality variable, plays crucial role in the experiences of satisfaction

of needs.

The term rigidity is a personality trait. Persons suffering form

such trait are engrossed in the interest and values primarily suited to their

own thoughts, feelings and ideas. They think about the future and adhere to

values of their own standard and plan for fiiture but hesitate to reach a final

decision. Such people suffer from lack of freedom in response and stop

34

the process from starting. They will feel discomfort when faced with

complex and uncertain situation, because they cannot understand them. In

such situation, they show the tendency to 'retreat' rather than to attempt, to

understand or cope with situations effectively. The effect of such 'retreat'

may take the form of a demand that some authority shall resolve or explain

the ambiguity, or shall simplify the situations. Such people would also

adhere to certain place, people and modes of conduct. They always keep

things in precise manner and will accept that some irrelevant things come

often and on in mind to disturb them.

According to Sheila (1959) the term rigidity has been used

widely to refer to the ways of thinking and behaving which are not

responsive enough to change in the demands. It has grown out of

experimental studies on phenomena like perseveration and mental inertia.

Rigidity has been defined by different investigators in different ways but

resistence to change or the tendency to perseverate in thinking and

responses remains the basic features of all the definitions. It is a

phenotypical concept that refers to types of behaviours and results in

classifying some behaviours as rigid and other as non-rigid according to

whether the behaviours are perseverative or non-perseverative, flexible or

inflexible stereotyped or variable, and so on. In turn person who manifests

'rigid' forms of overt behaviour are labelled as rigid person.

Rokeach (1948) defined it as "the inability to change one's set

when the objective conditions demand it." Warner, (1946) defined rigidity

35

as lack of variability of response,' However Cattell (1949) has given one

of the best definition. He described disposition rigidity as "the difficulty

with which old established habits may be changed in the presence of new

demand". A broad definition of rigidity, somewhat similar -to that of

Cattell, his been given by Shaie. According to Shaie (1955) rigidity is "a

tendency to perserverate and resist conceptual change, to resist the

acquisition of new patterns of behaviour and to refuse to relinquish old and

established patterns."

Rigidity has been classified by some investigators into different

types. Cattell (1949) distinguished it into two types: Process rigidity and

structural rigidity. The process type of rigidity refers to a tendency for an

earlier response to continue, despite a change has occurred in the stimulus

situations, while the latter types refers to the resistence in an attitude or

personality trait to forces which might be expected to change it. In other

words process rigidity is a specific response or a specific v/ay of acting,

whereas, the structural rigidity is a way of thinking or a characteristic of

personality. Goldstein (1943) identified two kinds of rigidity called

'primary' and 'secondary'. Primary rigidity is independent of an impairment

of higher mental processes. It is a basic lack of ability to change from one

'set' to another, i.e. primary rigidity refers to the inability of a person to

change from one chain of thought to another. The secondary rigidity, on the

other hand, refers to a preference of making incorrect response to making

no response at all by a person who finds himself in a difficult situation.

Rigidity here is a secondary phenomena, it is the means to escape from a

36

frustrating situation but this rigidity appears only if the task is too

difficult.

Piaget (1968) has explained rigidity in terms of his cognitive

development theory of personality. The process of adaptation which is the

basic process in his theory, consists of assimilation and accommodation as

its components. In assimilation an individual's cognitive structure does not

change as a function of experience; whereas in accommodation his

cognitive structure does change as a function of experience; Piaget has

also made a sharp distinction among rigid labile and flexible cognitive

functioning. The cognitive functioning in a rigid person is dominated by

assimilatory tendency. Such a person fmds it difficult to change himself

and to benefit from new experiences. A labile person on the other hand, is

so much changeable that it is difficult to predict any consistency in his

behaviour. A flexible individual responds to new information and new

experiences without losing his stability and identity.

Few researchers conceived rigidity as occupying the extreme

end of a dimension denoting mal-adjustments, whereas, flexibility at the

other end of the some continuum likely instrumental for adjustment. The

more a person is flexible, higher he is in his ability to adjust to

problematic life situation. The opposite is true of rigidity. It is evident

form the survey of literature that need satisfaction has not been studied so

far as a function of organizational culture, dependence proneness, and

rigidity flexibility.

37

In view of the afore-mentioned exhaustive descriptions, it is

quite clear that the present endeavour on the problem entitled, "Influence

of organization culture, dependence proneness, and rigidity-flexibility on

need satisfaction" was quite relevent as need satisfaction especially, of

people at work in an organization has always been a strong craving. The

present work in its quest, had examined the influence of predictors

(independent variables) viz. organization culture, dependence-proneness

and rigidity-flexibility on the criterion variable viz., need-satisfaction.

Thus, the aim was to explore whether or not these important variable have

any impact on need satisfaction of the employees. The findings of the

present have definitely filled the void of knowledge in the organizational

behaviour and in turn will help in giving suggestions to improve

organizational strategy for improving organizational effectiveness for its

growth and development. Moreover, this has also been very significant as

employees need satisfaction has very important role in the maximum

utilization of human resources as well as attaining overall organizational

efficiency.

• „ ^ ,

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

As mentioned in Chapter I, the present investigation was

undertaken to study the influence of organizational culture, dependence

proneness, rigidity-flexibility on need satisfaction. More specifically, the

present research investigates the influence of different degrees of these

independent variables i.e. (organization culture, dependence proneness,

and rigidity flexibility) on the dependent variable i.e. (need satisfaction).

In this chapter an attempt has been made to review some of the

relevant studies which bear directly or indirectly on the problem. The

chapter is divided into three sections.

The first section reviews those studies which focus on some of

the researches showing direct or indirect relations of organizational

culture with need-satisfaction. The second section of this chapter is

devoted to the review of those studies that demonstrate a direct or

indirect relation between dependent proneness and need-satisfaction.

The third section reviews those studies which focus on some of the

relevent investigations showing direct or indirect relationship between

rigidity flexibility and need satisfaction.

Section-I

Maier (1946) studied different groups of employees having

attitudes towards various incentives in the work situation. The findings

revealed that security was the most important incentive for all groups,

and opportunity for advancement was found second in the hierarchy of

39

relative importance of various incentives. Good hours and easy work on

the other hand has been given relatively less importance.

Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson and Capwell (1957) reviewed the

literature on a variety of variables, which they subsumed under the

heading of "job attitude" and came to the conclusion that there was a

difference in the primacy of factors, depending upon whether the

investigator was looking for things the worker liked about his job or

things he disliked. This finding suggests that there were some factors

that were "satisfiers" and others were "dissatisfiers".

Robinson and Hoppock (1951, 1952) collected data on 191

assorted studies reporting percentage of job dissatisfaction. A summary

of many previous studies on job satisfaction suggested that two-third of

the studies revealed that less than one-third of the v/orkers were

dissatisfied. This may be attributed to poor working condition, lack of

opportunity to use ideas, and to learn job.

Ganguli (1964) has compiled results from three studies on

Indian workers with the objective to determine the ranking of various

job factors, that could contribute to the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of

employees in their work. It was found that Indian workers consistently

ranked adequate earnings at number one. Job security and opportunity

for advancement were other factors which were ranked high by Indian

workers, where as job status and prestige were ranked low as motivators

in the work situation.

40

Srivastava and Pratap (1964) studied job satisfaction and

organizational climate among executives and supervisors. They reported

a significant positive relationship between the overall climate and job

satisfaction. Job satisfaction was also found related to various individual

dimensions of organizational climate such as leadership, communication

interaction influence in decision making, goal- setting and control.

Slocum (1971) Hochwarter et al. (1999) compared the need

satisfaction of first line supervisors with top and middle managers and

related need satisfaction to job-performance. The findings provided

support to Porter and Lawler's model relating need-satisfaction to

performance but partially supported the hypothesis that satisfaction of

higher order needs is more closely related to top managers performance

than satisfaction of higher order needs for lower managerial personnel.

Irris and Bartlett (1972) remarked that job satisfaction is

contributing factor for over all life satisfaction of the workers. Pritichard

and Kararick (1973) have studied job satisfaction with several

dimensions of climate. They reported co-operation, the social relations

structure, level of reward, achievement, performance-reward,

dependency flexibility, innovation and supportiveness as positively

related while status polarization and centralization of decision making

are negatively related with job satisfaction. Moreover, autonomy and

satisfaction have not been found related.

41

Pathak (1977) has observed that among public sector bank

employees' job satisfaction increased with age and education. However,

positive relationship between education and job satisfaction was

observed only among lower level employees.

Sharma and Kappoor (1978) observed that job level, age,

salary and experience were found to be positively related to job

involvement while education was negatively related with the same.

Kumar and Bohra (1979) reported higher job satisfaction

among employee who perceived the organizational climate as democratic

than those who perceived the same climate as autocratic.

Anantharaman & Subha (1980) made an attempt to find out the

relationship between job involvement and need satisfaction and also

between job-involvement and organizational climate. They found that

there is no relationship between job involvement and satisfaction of

various needs except self-actualization need. Moreover they found no

relationship between job involvement and the various dimensions of

organizational climate.

Sen's (1981) findings were different as far as job satisfaction

and climate were concerned. In his study on bank employees; he found

that climate has negative correlation with job satisfaction.

Subha & Anantharaman (1981) made an attempt to find out the

relationship between satisfaction of needs and perception of

organizational climate among 75 managers. It was found that there was

42

a feeling of deficiency in fulfilment of needs. The correlations between

need satisfaction and organizational climate variables were all negative.

This shows that when needs are not satisfied the perception of

organizational climate becomes negative.

Job satisfaction has also been studied in relation to

organizational climate. The studies reviewed revealed that autonomy and

participation have been positively related to general satisfaction and

satisfaction with work, pay, supervision, co-workers, promotion and

growth (Spector 1982).

Anantharaman & Subha (1982) investigated the influence of

personal factors such as age, education, income and tenure, on need-

satisfaction and need importance in 75 managers (27-45 yrs). The

findings revealed that there were discrepancy between perceived need-

satisfaction and need importance among subjects. Younger subjects were

more dissatisfied with security and autonomy and older subjects were

more dissatisfied with self-esteem. All subjects were dissatisfied with

self-actualization needs.

Janak and Diwani (1983) undertook a study on "satisfaction

among Bank employees". The results revealed that job-satisfaction and

official hierarchy were positively related in which managers were most

satisfied with their job, accountants came next and clerks, who were

lowest in the hierarchy were least satisfied.

43

Khandelwal (1986) measured the importance of need

satisfaclion among supervisors and managers. The findings indicated

greater deficiency in the fulfilment of all higher order needs as

compared to lower order needs for both the groups. However, significant

differences were found between these two groups regarding felt

deficiency in three needs area viz. social, esteem and autonomy. No

difference between these two groups regarding perceived need

importance in any of the need areas were found. Greatest importance

was placed on higher order needs b\' both the gorups.

Rajendra (1987) reported significant correlation between

organizational climate and job satisfaction, a public sector industry in

Tamil Nadu.

Sagar and Devender (1989) examined the relationship of

organizational climate with job satisfaction and job anxiety on groups of

50 officers and 50 sub-ordinates working in different units of an

institution. They found that organizational climate was positively related

to job satisfaction and negatively related to job anxiety in both officers

and their subordinates. Their correlations were stronger for subordinate

in the leadership and communication dimensions and stronger for

officers in the interaction influence decision making, and goal-setting

dimensions of organizational climate.

Hemalatha and Radhai (1990) in their study made an attempt

to find out the extent of job satisfaction among executive and

44

supervisors and also to identify the factors that promote job-satisfaction.

The results revealed that supervisors have greater job satisfaction than

the executives. Majority of the executives have low level of job

satisfaction while, majority of supervisors have moderate level of job

satisfaction. Salary, opportunity for advancement, security of job and

working conditions are regarded as the important factors of job

satisfaction by most of the executives while, security of job, salary,

working conditions and co-workers behaviour are the important factors

of job satisfaction for the supervisors.

Singh and Prestonjee (1990) made an investigation to assess

job satisfaction, job involvement and participation among officers and

clerical cadre of a nationalised bank. The result of their investigation

clearly indicated that occupational level has influenced the two

categories of bank employees. Clerks have shown more satisfaction in

comparison to officers of the bank. This result clearly supported the

findings obtained by Elding, King and Rogers (1979) who demonstrated

that satisfaction does not increase linearly from worker to chiefs.

Mathew (1992) identified the relative frequency of various

activities actually performed by managers in different type of

organizations, and how their satisfaction is determined by these

activities. Findings suggested that the reliability of manager's work has

significant impact on their satisfaction with job.

45

Sheridon (1992) investigated the relation rates of 904 college

graduates hired in six public accounting firms over a six-year period.

Organizational culture values varied significantly among the firms. The

variation in cultural values had a significant effect on the rates at which

the newly hired employees voluntarily terminated employment. Subjects

voluntarily stayed 14 month longer in the culture emphasising

interpersonal relationship values than in the culture emphasising work

task values. The relationship between the employees job performance

and their retention also varied significantly with organizational culture

values. The cultural effects were stronger than the combined exogenous

influences of the labour market and the new employees demographic

characteristics.

Kalliopuska (1993) studied the relationship of need

satisfaction and desire to improve need satisfaction. Ratings of

satisfaction by 275 university students of Maslow's (1954) need

correlated moderately and negatively with their rated desire to improve

need-satisfaction. These estimates confirmed earlier work by Graham

and Balloun (1973).

Hakim (1993) reported satisfaction performance relationship in

variable associated with the adjustment of worker with their colleagues

and supervisory staff

Kumar and Achamamba (1993) made a comparative study of

job satisfaction and job involvement among public and private sector

46

employees. The results suggested a positive relationship between job

satisfaction and job involvement public sector administrative staff had

greater job satisfaction than private sector administrative staff. There

were no significant differences between public and private sector

employees with regard to job involvement.

Rubaii-Barrett and Beck (1993) examined the similarities and

differences in work climate perceptions and levels of job-satisfaction

among Anglo-American and Mexican-American employees of a general

purpose local government. Mexican Americans comprised a majority of

the workforce studied, thus, the observed differences in their work

attitudes relative to the Anglo employees can be attributed to cultural

differences rather than a numerical minority status. Mexican-American

Ss on an average reported higher level of satisfaction with the personnel

department and its procedures than did Anglo employees. As a group

Mexican-American Ss viewed the quality of supervision, degree of

challenge in their job, relations with their co-workers less positive than

did the Anglos. Hence, they contended that organizational culture

dimensions are highly related to job satisfaction.

Mishra and Gupta (1994) examined the effects of motivation

and job performance among industrial workers. Job experience ranged

from 4 to 17 yrs; high and low group were identified on the basis of

median, scores obtained on each independent variable, motivation and

job involvement in a 2x2 factoral design. Results revealed that

47

motivation and job involvement both were significantly related to

performance, as mean performance scores for the high motivated group

was higher than that of the low motivated group. Performance scores

were also higher in the high job involvement group than in the low

group.

Mathur and Mehta (1994) have reported a significant

difference between organizational climate of family and non-family

controlled organisations, the former being higher on control and

affliction and the latter on achievement, extension and expert^influence.

Christopher (1994) studied the effects of work motivation and

personal control on employee job performance and satisfaction. The

results indicated that personal control moderated the effects of work

motivation on job satisfaction and performance and highly motivated Ss

were more adversely affected by low personal control.

Srivastava (1994) studied groups of executives and supervisors

and reported that overall organisational climate is positively related with

job involvement and higher order needs (self esteem, autonomy, and self

actualization) are related with job involvement.

Zamanon et al. (1994) described communication intervention

program designed to change the culture shift, and was measured through

a triangulation approach. Specially, questionnaires, interview data and

direct observation were combined to study the areas of organisation

culture scale (OCS) before the intervention and a representative sample

48

was interviewed. Then, the entire organisation participated in an

organisation development program. Two years later, subjects again

completed the OCS they were interviewed, and subjects were also

directly observed. They noted that the dimensions viz., information flow,

involvement morale and meetings are significantly important aspects of

orsanizational culture. 'to*-

Klein et al. (1995) tested a model linking and integrating the

following constituents : normative aspects of organization culture, the

distribution and the total account of control, employee performance and

perceived quality of service. They found significant relationship

between organization culture and control distribution culture and total

amount of control, culture and service quality, culture and employee

performance and total control and service quality. Results found

supported the model.

Petty et al. (1995) examined the relationship between organi­

zational culture and organizational performance. 832 employees from 12

firms of the electric utility industry completed a survey. Results

significantly related objective measure of performance. Also teamwork

was strongly associated with organizational performance.

Burke (1996) again examined the sources and level of job

satisfaction among employees of professional services firm and found

the subjects were only moderately satisfied. The men, who were at

significantly higher organisational levels than the women, reported

49

significantly greater job-satisfaction. When hierarchical level was

controlled, these differences disappeared. Women and men at higher

organizational levels were more satisfied than those at the lower level.

Burke (1997) investigated the relationship of organisational

hierarchy and aspects of cultural values within a single large

professional services firm. The importance, presence and gap between

importance and presence of ten cultural values served as dependent

variables. The highest and lowest hierarchical levels had more

favourable opinions on the importance and presence of the cultural

values.

Alam (1997) found that there was no significant difference

between private and public sectors executives on the dimensions of job-

satisfaction like management, personal adjustment and serial relation.

Singh and Priya (1997) studied the sample of bank employees

and explored that the employees who are satisfied with their job are

found to differ in certain aspect of personalities than those who are not

satisfied.

In 1998 Johnson & Mclntye studied organizational culture and

climate correlates of job satisfaction. Correlation indicated positive and

significant associations for the measures. The measure of climate most

strongly associated with scores on job-satisfaction were communicated,

followed by goals, creativity and innovation and decision making.

50

Results are discussed in terms of their practical and meaningful

relevance to organizational effectiveness.

Agarwal (1998) studied job satisfaction and job stress in three

hierarchical ranks of employees working in two private organizations. A

total of 60 employees, 20 from each rank was administered the job

satisfaction scale (Singh & Sharma, 1990). Results revealed that those

who perceived themselves to be close to management were more

satisfied and less stressed than those who did not perceive themselves to

be close to the top management.

Kristopher and Roy (1998) examined the relationship between

an organization's culture and the decision made within that organization.

The authors had 2 goals, first, to provide a theoretical link between

culture and organizational decision making, and second, to test some of

the implications of this link. The authors conducted four studies with

employees and managers from commercial organization. In .their first

study they found that different organizations have different degrees of

cultural fragmentation and that this could be measured by the

organizational culture survey designed by Beach (1993). The findings of

second study revealed that the decision of an organization's members are

influenced by the degree to which the features of the options are

compatible with the features of the organization's own culture. In their

third study they found that an organization members are more likely to

endorse a management decision if the features of the decision are

51

compatible with the features of the organization's culture. In their final

study it was found that the greater the difference between Ss

assessments of an organization's culture as they perceived it to be now

and as they thought it actually ought to be, the less satisfied they

reported themselves to be with their jobs.

Reyhan (1998) made a study on relationship between job

satisfaction and personal characteristics of 249 Turkish workers in

different occupations and job positions. The results indicated that

monthly payment was the best predictor of overall satisfaction.

Moreover, age, sex, education, number of children and different

measures of tenure were significant predictors of different aspects of job

satisfaction as measured with 2 different scales. Marital status was not

related to any of the measures of job satisfaction.

Bhatnagar and Bhandari (1998) studied perception of

organizational culture. It was argued that organizational culture is a

crucial organizational variable in facilitating or impeding the change

process. Results revealed that hierarchy was the predominant cultural

form.

Anjali (1998) made a study to see whether there is any

perceived difference in the need satisfaction of middle and lower level

executives. It was observed that deficiency in need fulfilment is more

pronounced in lower level executives than in middle level executives,

specially in the area of esteem, autonomy and self-actualization. The

52

two areas of greatest importance were a higher order need, self-

actualization and a lower-order need security. In general, both in lower

and middle management positions the most critical need hierarchy area

was observed to be the area of self-actualization both with respect to

prime importance and deficiency in need fulfilment. It was also observed

that the psychological needs are not so much adequate to predict the

managerial success of an executive.

Joshi (1998) compared private and public sector employees in

terms of job satisfaction, job involvement, and work involvement.

Results revealed that the employees of public and private sectors

differed significantly in their job satisfaction, job and work involvement.

Demographic variables such as age, length of service, monthly income,

and work experience in the present job also affected their job

satisfaction, job and work involvement. However, gender of the

employees did not influence these variables.

Bendixaen and Burger (1998) examined the influence of

management philosophy on management and organizational

effectiveness - 338 managers from 41 different countries completed

questionnaires. Results indicated that there were five different

management philosophies : rational management, entrepreneurial

management, elegant management, market-oriented management and

educated vs experienced management. These philosophies had varying

degrees of influences on management and organizational effectiveness.

53

Rational, market-oriented and enterpreneuriai management was

positively correlated to management effectiveness. Only market-oriented

management was positively correlated to organizational effectiveness.

The prevailing combinations of the way in which their philosophies

were embraced by managers. Clausmin developmental managers, tolistic

managers, free marketers and professional managers. Results s.upport the

proposition that management and organisational effectiveness are

dependent on management philosophies.

In our view the contentions of Bendixaen, et al. are, of course

very significant as organisational culture basically is determined by the

management philosophies in making strategies for running organisations

with utmost efficiency.

Patel (1999) studied the sample of bank employee and

explored that nationalized bank employees exhibited higher job

satisfaction then co-operative bank workers.

Joshi (1999) reported that employees monthly income was

found to be significantly correlated with job satisfaction. He also

explored that employees work involvement and job satisfaction were not

significantly related but they have inverse relationship.

Rastogi & Verma (1999) examined the effectiveness of

bureaucracy of organizations on need-satisfaction. Results revealed

significant difference in the mean scores of bureaucracy of teachers and

scientists. The teaching organisation was more conducive for the

54

satisfaction which was characterised by strict bureaucracy. In contrast to

the strict bureaucratic model (Weber), a less bureaucratic model

contributed to greater self-improvement.

Pradhan (1999) assessed the impact of organisational culture

on leadership and bases of power in service and industrial organizations.

The sample consisted of 120 executives, 60 each from service and

industrial sectors. The organisational culture questionnaire (Kolb,

Russin & Osland, 1991), measure for Bases of power (Singh & Sunita

1990) and the leadership style scale (Sinha, 1980, 1984, 1990) were

administered to each respondent. Findings indicated that there were

significant differences between managers of banks and industries with

regards to their perception about different styles of leadership. The

organisational climate was found to moderate the relationship between

eladership styles and power strategies. In the service sector, the leaders

were participative, bureaucratic, and task oriented whereas in the

industrial sector leadership was dominant and effective. An in-depth

analysis of the psychodynamics of the different perceptions between

organisations and different work cultures has been emphasised. The need

for further research on these variables to achieve organisational health

and personal effectiveness has been highlighted.

Bhargava and Kelkar (2000) examined the hypothesis that

organizational structure as well as corporate culture predict job

involvement, job satisfaction and empowerment. The participants were

:.' r- SS33 ^^^ ^ managers, officers, and supporting staff of suet^^^sful business

organization. Job satisfaction and empowerment were positively related

but were unrelated to job involvement, centralization was positively

related to job involvement but negatively to job satisfaction and

empowerment. Negative correlation of centralization with job

satisfaction and empowerment indicated the importance of

decentralization for managing people in organizations. The measures of

HRD could be predicted by corporate culture. This means people could

work even without having satisfaction with their job and getting a

feeling of empowerment in the organization, which showed that

motivating people at the workplace is a challenging task. Thus

organizations have to opt for the strategies that could take into account

the all-round development of their members through strategic human

resource management.

Wharton, Rotolo and Bird (2000) explored the effects of social

context on workers job-satisfaction by analyzing employees through

hierarchical linear models. Specifically, the effects of department level

sex and race heterogeneity on worker's feelings about their jobs were

examined. The results showed that satisfaction levels were lower in sex

and race heterogeneous departments. Satisfaction was higher in

departments with higher average levels of job tenure, though the

individual level effect of tenure on job satisfaction was not statistically

significant. The results provided support for a social-relational view of

56

work and demonstrated the usefulness of multilevel models as an

analytic strategy for examining these issues.

The above review of studies reveals that some studies were

undertaken to demonstrate a relationship between organizational culture

and job satisfaction. However no study has been carried out to

demonstrate relationship between organization culture and personality

variables with job satisfaction. Hence there is a gap of knowledge in this

important aspect. The present study is therefore, undertaken to fill up

this gap of knowledge. Thus another consideration that motivated the

present investigator was to explore relationship between certain

personality variables such as dependence proneness and rigidity

flexibility and need satisfaction of the workers. The next two sections

of this chapter are devoted to the review of studies on dependence

proneness and rigidity-flexibility.

Section-II

As mentioned earlier section II of this present chapter is

devoted to the review of those studies that demonstrate a direct or

indirect relation between dependence proneness and need satisfaction.

Hagen (1962) observed that under-developed countries show a

greater need of dependency. Murphy (1953), Rath (1964, 1965); Sinha

(1966) and Harper (1967) have considered long period of infancy as the

main contributory factor for the development of dependency among

Indians. According to them this longer period of infancy is probably

57

sustained even during the adulthood by the authoritarian culture, joint

family system and other Indian values.

Sinha (1969) investigated the perception of high and low

dependence prone subjects about self, sociocultural expectations and

reinforcements. Results indicated that (a) dependence proneness is a

stable disposition; (b) dependence pronness is related to only a few of

adjectives. A high dependent prone person is happy but not assertive;

not attractive and not so optimistic; (c) dependence proneness is

influenced by sociocultural expectations; and finally, (d) punishment is

more effective in deterring initiative than a comparable reward for

dependency.

A number of researchers investigated the relationships between

decision making and dependence proneness. It was pointed out that

highly dependent prone persons are anxious and avoid all delay in

decision making (Appleby, 1956, Murphy, 1953; Myrdal, 1968, and

Sara, 1969). Similarly, Ruch (1970) observed that people differ in their

reaction times where the element of choice or decision is involved. He

also pointed out that dependent persons beside other characteristics, has

the characteristics of not taking interest in their work, feel anxious in

making a choice and delay reactions, they do not exert for their

betterment and depend on guardians and teachers for help of judgement,

decision and guidance without exhausting their own resources, even in

situations, where dependency is not entirely essential. If such a

58

dependent prone person is put in a choice making situation, he delays

decisions and seeks more support from others. Sinha & Pandey (1972)

studied the process of decision making in dependence prone persons.

They found that higher dependent prone person needed more

informational bits, more time, and he plays safe in choosing an

alternative in a risky situation. He also experiences more anxiety and

required feedback more frequently. Similarly, Ojha (1978) investigated

the reaction time as a function of dependence proneness. The aim of this

study was to measure choice reaction time of high and low dependent

prone subjects. Results showed that mean choice reaction time of high

dependent prone subjects differed significantly from low dependence

prone subjects. The reaction time of low dependent prone subjects was

significantly less than high dependence prone subjects. The higher

dependence proneness, the more time they needed for making a choice.

Ojha (1972) investigated the relation of prestige suggestion

with rigidity and dependence proneness. The findings showed that

correlation between perstige suggestion and rigidity for male group was

negative and significant. The same negative relationship existed for

female group too, but was not significant. However, on the contrary, the

correletation between prestige suggestion and dependence proneness for

male and female groups were positive and significant. Results also

revealed significant difference between high and low groups of two

sexes with regard to rigidity. In case of male subjects the low

59

suggestible group obtained significantly higher mean score on rigidity

scale as compared to the mean scores obtained by high suggestable

group. However, in case of female subjects although the mean score of

low suggestible group as compared to the mean score of high suggestible

group was greater but the difference was not significant. Hence, it was

concluded that prestige suggestion and rigidity on the whole were

inversely related but this relationship was beyond doubt only for male

subjects. Moreover, significant difference was also found between high

and low groups with respect to dependence proneness.

Moreover, Jakubezak and Walters (1959) studied suggestibility

as a form of dependence behaviour. The result revealed marked

difference between high dependent and low-dependent subjects in their

suggestibility to adult, on the other hand, the difference between high-

dependent and low-dependent subjects in their suggestibility to peers

was much smaller and failed to reach significance.

Perrez, Kramis et al. (1982) studied independence and depen­

dence as factors in mother's educational style. Results indicated that the

children's behaviour was more controlling when independence provoking

situations. If the mothers interacted with boys other than their own sons,

the effects were more intensive.

Some investigators have studied academic performance as a

function of dependence proneness. Alam (1985), for instance, observed

that dependence proneness inhibits learning performance and impaires

60

retention. He also assumed that dependent prone persons should show

poor academic performance than their counterparts. Chadha and his

associates (1985) support this finding.

Saeeduzzafar and Alam (1987) investigated the influence of

dependence proneness and sex on academic performance. Findings

revealed that dependence proneness has detrimental effect on academic

performance. It was also found that dependence proneness has inhibitory

effect on academic performance, ignoring the dependence proneness, it

was observed that female subjects show poor academic performance than

male subjects.

A number of psychologists investigated the personality and

social correlates of dependence proneness (Heather 1955; Sinha, 1968;

Pandey and Sinha, 1968; Tripathi, 1981; 1983 and Alam, 1985).

Sinha (1968) investigated the relationship between dependence

proneness and fatalism, and need for approval. He hypothesized that (1)

subjects who have a high need for approval are more dependent prone

than subjects having weaker need for approval (ii) subjects who are

fatalists are more dependent prone (iii) subjects who are highly fatalists

and have at the same time a heightened need for approval, will show the

greatest magnitude of dependence on the external sources, because, the

two forces may operate together to intensify the desire of our

dependence. The results showed that fatalism and hightend approval

need taken together facilitated Dependence Proneness. It was also

demonstrated that a weak need for approval amounted to indifference

and insensibility to the social world that resulted into less dependency.

In another study, Pandey and Sinha (1968) investigated the

relationship between dependence proneness and perceived problems of

adjustment. The findings showed that dependence proneness was

negatively related with subjects perceived adjustment problems. It was

also found that families of high occupational groups such as doctors,

lawyers, etc. were more exposed to the forces of social change, and

therefore, the typical norms of our culture, which foster dependence

proneness were also operative in such families. Similarly instead of a

curvilinear relationship subjects from lower occupational families were

found to have more adjustment problems.

Singh and Sengupta (1997) made a replicative study. The

dependence proneness scale developed by Sinha (1968) was used to

examine the dependence proneness of the Indian students studying at

Indian Institute of Management of Calcutta. A total number of 66

students coming from different parts of the country participated in the

study. The result strikingly suggested a deviation from Sinha's findings.

Contrary to the former's conclusion. Indian youths have initiative and

independent decision making as dominant behavioural patterns. The

dependence proneness scale developed and used by Sinha (1968)

concluded that Indian youths are dependent prone. The present author

came up with a markably different set of findings after 30 years. The

62

respondents seemed to prefer individual decision making and initiative,

over the years indicating social change.

India is passing through a state of transitions. There seems to

be a fine mixture of collectivism and individualism. Indian want to grow

and develop themselves by being individualistic in their approach,

however, they still care for their family and own group members. This is

clearly manifested in the findings of the study.

The above review of studies on dependence proneness makes

it crystal clear that dependent prone individuals are anxious, cognitively

deficient, hasitate to take decisions, maladjusted and non-assertive. In

view of these characteristics of dependent prone individuals, it is highly

logical as well as reasonable to assume that persons with such

personality disposition are likely to experience less need-satisfaction in

any organisation which in turn may cause frustration and conflicts that

may be gravely detrimental for the growth and development of that

organizations. One of the objective of the present research is to address

this highly important issue.

Section III

The third section reviews those studies which focus on some

of the relevant correlates of rigidity-flexibility.

Ramamurti and Ganakannan (1972) made an attempt to relate

rigidity flexibility to feeling of security insecurity. It was hypothesised

that insecure individuals are more rigid than secure individuals. A

63

random sample of three hundred students of the total sample of an Arts

and science college of mean age 18.4 were administered the test of

Behavioural Rigidity (TBR) and Security-Insecurity (SI) in groups of

30-40. Results indicated that insecure individuals were significantly

more rigid than secure individuals with regard to personality-perceptual

rigidity component of the TBR. The secure group was not significantly

different form the insecure group in the case of Motor-cognitive rigidity

and psychomotor speed components of TBR.

Cordery, et al. (1993) correlates of employee attitude toward

functional flexibility. Public service employees completed a

questionnaire seeking information on their expectations regarding a

proposal to increase their functional flexibility. It was proposed that

beliefs concerning the unfavourability of outcomes of the intervention

would be correlated with a range of biographical, affective and job

content variables. Measures included the job diagnostic survey, skill

utilization, and job rotation. Multivariate analyses revealed that the

scope of an employee's existing job and bio-graphical variables (apart

from age) were not generally predictive of attitudes towards functional

flexibility. Rather, unfavourable attitudes were weakly associated with

low levels of extrinsic satisfaction perceived rewards equity aspiration,

organizational commitment, and age.

Deepa (1996) investigated the relationship between

behavioural rigidity and perception of job pressure and satisfaction.

64

Significant relations emerged between behavioural rigidity scores and

both job pressure and satisfaction scores. For the high rigidity group, the

mean pressure score was significantly higher while the mean satisfaction

score was significantly lower as compared to the low rigidity group.

The exhaustive review of studies on rigidity flexibility, as

discussed above, makes it crystal clear that no study has been carried out

so far to demonstrate a relationship between rigidity flexibility and need

satisfaction. In view of various different characteristics of rigid and

flexible individuals the present researcher assumed that rigid and

flexible individuals are likely to differ with respect to their need

satisfaction. The present study was carried out to test this assumption.

The findings of the present study may have far reaching implications not

only for workers of an organization but also for managerial staff of that

organization.

r "'^^^^S:^::.^

METHODOLOGY

The research design of any study is usually related to the

nature and purpose of the problem being investigated. As mentioned in

the previous chapters the purpose of the present study was to investigate

the influence of organizational culture, dependence proneness and

rigidity flexibility on need-satisfaction.

To be more specific the study was designed to answer the

following questions.

(1) Does organizational culture influence need-satisfaction ?

(2) Does dependence - proneness influence need-satisfaction ?

(3) Does rigidity-flexibility influence need-satisfaction ?

(4) Is there any interactional effect of organizational culture and

dependence-proneness on need-satisfaction ?

(5) Is there any interactional effect of organizational culture and

rigidity flexibility on need-satisfaction ?

(6) Is there any interactional effect of dependence proneness and

rigidity flexibility on need satisfaction ?

(7) Is there any interactional effect of organizational culture,

dependence proneness and rigidity-flexibility on need-

satisfaction ?

66

Design of the Study :

In order to answer the above questions, a 2x2x2 factorial

design, in which two personality variables (ie dependence proneness and

rigidity flexibility) and one environmental variable (ie organizational

culture) each varying in two ways was used in the present study. The

two values of one personality variable i.e. rigidity flexibility were (a)

rigid and (b) flexible and the two values of dependence proneness were

(a) dependent prone and (b) independent. The organizational culture was

varied in two ways by having (a) healthy culture and (b) poor culture.

Thus there were eight groups of subjects. There were forty subjects in

each group. The eight groups are given below.

(1) Rigid dependent prone under healthy organizational culture.

(2) Rigid dependent prone under poor organizational culture.

(3) Rigid independent under healthy organizational culture.

(4) Rigid independent under poor organizational culture.

(5) Flexible dependent prone under healthy organizational culture.

(6) Flexible dependent prone under poor organizational culture.

(7) Flexible independent under healthy organizational culture.

(8) Flexible independent under poor organizational culture.

Sample :

In order to form above mentioned eight groups of subjects

Hindi version of G.S.R. (Gaugh-Sanford Rigidity) scale (1952) was

67

administered on 600 bank employees who were selected randomly from

different nationalized banks of Gorakhpur.

On the basis of their scores on Hindi version of G.S.R. scale,

two groups namely rigid and flexible were formed. The subjects whose

scores on G.S.R. scale fell on or above median were considered as rigid

subjects. The subjects whose scores on the G.S.R. scale fell on or below

median were considered as flexible subjects.

Organizational culture scale (OCS) was then administered on

the two groups just formed. In each group, the subjects whose scores on

organizational culture scale (OCS) fell on or below median were

categorised as working under poor culture and the subjects whose scores

fell on or above median were categorised as working under healthy

culture. In this way four groups were formed namely - Rigid healthy

organizaitonal culture, Rigid poor organizational culture, flexible

healthy organizational culture, and flexible poor organizational culture.

Dependence proneness scale (D.RS.) developed by Sinha

(1968) was administered on each of the four groups just formed. The

subjects whose scores fell on or above median were considered as

dependent prone subjects and the subjects whose scores fell on or below

median were considered as independent subjects. On the basis of their

scores on Dependence Proneness Scales (D.RS.) each groups were sub­

divided into two groups to form eight groups. Thus eight groups namely

- rigid dependent prone under healthy organizational culture, rigid

68

dependent prone under poor orgnaizational culture, rigid independent

under healthy organizational culture, rigid independent under poor

organizational culture, flexible dependent prone under healthy

organizational culture, flexible dependent prone under poor

organizational culture, flexible independent under healthy organizational

culture, flexible independent under poor organizational culture were

formed.

Tools :

Following tools were used in the present study.

Need satisfaction Scale :

To measure employee's need-satisfaction, Porter's (1961) need-

satisfaction scale was used (see Appendix II). This scale consisted of

fifteen items based on five dimensions viz. security need, social need,

esteem needs, need for autonomy and self-actualization need. The scale

has a 5-point response category ranging from "strongly agree" (ie, 5) to

"strongly disagree" (ie. 1). It is a widely accepted and commonly used

scale, which is reported to be highly standardised as its reliability and

validity are significantly quite high.

Dependence Proneness Scale (D.P.S.):

Dependence proneness was measured with the help of a scale

developed by Sinha (1968). It is a 5 point self rating scale having 20

items, the scale ranging from quite true (ie. 5) to not at all true (ie. 1)

69

with undecided (ie. 3) in the middle. The score range is possible from

20 to 100. In this system of scoring the larger the score, the greater is

the degree of dependence proneness.

The Rigidity Scale (G.S.R.)

The Gaugh-Sanford Rigidity Scale (1952) which is a 22 items

questionnaire was used in the study for measuring rigidity. The scale is

widely used in psychological studies as a measure of rigidity and is

included in the California Psychological Inventory, where it is labelled

as Fx (flexibility) scale.

The scale was translated into simple Hindi (Appendix IV) so

that it could be understood easily by the subjects. Utmost care was taken

to ensure that the translated version reflected truely the sense present in

the original version of the scale. Translation of each item was critically

examined by three senior teachers of psychology. Besides, a senior

teacher of Hindi, who was well proficient in Urdu and English as well,

was also consulted during the process of translation of the scale where a

difficult hindi word had to be used, its Urdu equivalent written in

Devnagri script was provided within brackets. This was done to ensure

that the sense implied in each question was correctly understood by

these subjects also whose mother tongue was urdu.

The split half reliability of the translated version of the scale

was .74 (corrected, N=50), and the scale correlated significantly with

California F-scale (r = 58, N = 50) with which it was conceptually

70

related.

While scoring the rigidity scale the positive responses were

scored and the negative ones were left unscored. Thus the frequency of

positive responses on the R-scale indicated the degree of rigidity.

Organizational Culture Scale :

An organizational culture scale was developed by Nasheed

Imteyaz (2000) in order to measure the effects of organizational culture.

The scale was based on twelve dimensions namely : fairness, mutual trust,

openness, organizational climate, team spirit, organizational

environment autonomy, work values, organisational belongingness,

confrontation proaction and organizaitonal loyalty. The organizational

culture scale is a 5-point response category. To confirm the reliability/

dependability of device, split-half reliability was calculated and

reliability coefficient was r = .89 which confirms high reliability.

Further, congruent validity was calculated to check the validity of the

scale and validity coefficient was r = .76 which also indicates that the

test is highly valid. Therefore organizational culture scale was confirmed

as standardised scale.

Procedure :

Need-satisfaction scale developed by Porter (1961) was

administered on all the eight groups namely - Rigid dependent prone

under healthy organizational culture. Rigid dependent prone under poor

organizational culture, rigid independent under healthy organizational

71

culture, rigid independent under poor organizational culture, flexible

dependent prone under healthy organizational culture, flexible

dependent prone under poor organizational culture, flexible independent

under healthy organizational culture, and flexible independent under

poor organizational culture. Each groups consisted of 40 subjects.

The test was administered group wise with the following

instructions.

This scale consists of few statements each statement is

followed by five alternative responses namely (i) strong disagreement,

(ii) disagreement, (iii) neutral response, (iv) agreement, (v) strong

agreement. You are requested to read each statement carefully and

indicate the extent to which each aspect IS PRESENT in your job.

Assign "5" to the job aspect which is present in the maximum degree and

" 1 " to the aspect which is present in minimum degree in your job. So

please rate each item on 5-point scale from maximum "5" to minimum

" 1 " . It is important to note that you have to answer each statement. I

assure you that your answer would be kept secret. Please read the

instruction carefully given on the cover page of the scale. Do you

understand ?

As soon as the subjects finished their task, the test was

collected from them and scoring was done. The data, thus, obtained were

tabulated group wise and were statistically analysed to draw necessary

inferences.

r-IV

72

ANALYSIS OF DATA AND INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS

As mentioned in the preceding cliapter, 2x2x2 factorial design

of the experiment was employed in the present study. Three independent

variables i.e. organizational culture, dependence proneness and rigidity

flexibility, each varying in two ways, were used. The two type of

organizational culture were (a) Healthy work culture and (b) Poor work

culture Dependence proneness was varied by selecting (a) independent

and (b) Dependent prone subjects. The third independent variable i.e.

rigidity flexibility was varied by selecting (a) Rigid and (b) flexible

subjects. Thus there were eight groups of subjects namely: rigid

dependent prone under healthy work culture, rigid dependent prone

under poor work culture, rigid independent under healthy work culture

rigid independent under poor work culture, flexible dependent prone

under healthy work culture, flexible dependent prone under poor work

culture flexible independent under healthy work culture and flexible

independent under poor work culture. These eight groups were given

Need-Satisfaction scale (NSS) developed by Porter (1961) and scores

obtained by them were tabulated group-wise. Keeping in view the

objective of the present research, appropriate statistical technique i.e.

analysis of variance was used to draw necessary influences. Thus F-

ratios were calculated for the variation of each independent variable and

also for any possible interaction between two or more than two

independent variables.

The raw scores obtained by eight groups of subjects Need-

Satisfaction scale are given in Table-I, their mean scores in Table-II (a),

Table II (b) and Table-II (c) and F-ratios in Table-Ill.

"a

C o

C5

o

u • — 5

3

C 3 O

6X)

DX) ' o

X3

T3 u c

«

o CO

u o u Vi

C5

DX) C

c

« C

E .S C I. 3 o o S I. O 3

r^ 00 m r-- r^ ON MD m •^ rn m >o -^ m

— t^ -^ —' in • ^ ' ^ Tj- m Tt ^ o o o r - o o r ^ i o i y n r - - o o

T3 « C

E .S O R ^ t , « 3

ON OS O O <N 00 <N i n >n

C

^ <u Q. o o i :

O 3 ( N O O N V o i n m m m T r s o o N o o t ^ o o NO m m in m vo

^ ^ TT ^ ro m NO (£4 73 a a u

c

X! C 'x *• o « —

;. u 3 ( N O O - — OOOO — m ( N ( N O O O O O N O < N N O r ~ - O r ^ O O < N N O i n T f r - N O ^ r ^ i n i n i n N o i n N O r < - i m N O m i n m i n r » - , \ o - *

fe -O D, J=

C u

s

-o o.

S .5

« i: C I. 3 o o i ; L. O 3 0< D< w

N O c N ' - O N O O i n — ' O N O N i n N D i n ' ^ - - ^ t ^ - ^ — ^ O N - — ON — ^ m - ^ m r n t n - < ^ T i - r n N O r - ) N O N O ' ^ r < ^ r o m i n r N | N O ' O N O

C O)

73 C v

.— (J &X) - o

5.S O R ^ b V 3

O N O N i n r ^ - O N i n O N O o ^ O N r ^ o o r ^ N o m m o m o m N o t ^ r o N o m r o r ' - i i n i n i n i n i n i n i n m T i f N O N O - ^ T i - T j - N O ' ^ r o

O Si

E2

c

.ii « c «- 3 DX) D. O O ^

• - (U fc. O 3 K T3 a a u

O N T - i r o r - m i n r - ~ < N o o T r T t - ' ^ o o o N ' - i - ^ . — O N ( N O ( N O T j - m i n m i n i n T t i n m r o m r n - ^ m N O T f N o m i n N o i n v o

C 01

-a ^ >^ u 12 4» c i i 3 bX) Q< O R ,1^

•-- 01 u o 3 K T! a .fi u

T t r ^ r — o O ' - < i n o > ( N ^ ^ c N i o - ^ r ~ - N o o o o o o N O ( N O i n N O f ^ N o t - - r ~ r ~ - N o m i n r - - - i n N O T t m N o i n i n N O T f T t i n N O

74

-^ c a>

•o a» C

! i ^ flj C ! • ^

2 -S p o -— _, i . O 3

, j ^

c « j

•a

X '^ ^ -z: ^ — g I- o; 3

c 4- i i

— 73 Q> -C C W l -• J lU C I- 3 S Q. o o i ;

— 4< U O 3 b . -O C C. y

- ^ • ^

C

— T3 >^ 0) -Q C <u -C i -

— aj u 0) 3 t i . TJ D. J= u

C U

•o c

. _ (U C I- = (}£ - n o o ^

;3 c "- ° 3

• * - '

c w

T3

bc - n o o: — •;• s *- *• =

a .5 a J : U

-^- t

c ai

r o a» T3 C "U b

•— 41 I . O 3 D- T5 C O. o

-» C a

"U >-> w

r ; « fc. sj 3 K "O a J : w

r - - r - o o o o ^ o o v o ' ^ r ~ - T j - ^ o r ^ r ~ ~ o o ' ^ o o o r ~ -

T H

m ^ o o o N O o o ' s i - o o N O O N m f N i O ' — i o o r f O \ v o U O i y - i i y ^ v ^ ^ T j - l y - i t ^ - ^ O t n i O i n i O ^ O ' ^ m ' ^ ' T r

p n ^ ^ v o c o t - - — t ^ r ^ — o o T r r ^ ( N ( N v o r - ) > r ) ' v 0 ^ i o v O r < - i r N i ^ ( N ( N O - ^ i o i o - * i n m ' < ^ m a \

0 ^ 0 ^ r ^ 0 ^ ^ / - l ( N 0 ^ ^ ^ l ^ 0 O ^ ^ V 0 0 ^ C 0 r ^ ^ O O ^ < ^ r ^

a ^ 0 ^ r - ~ r ^ O ^ ( N — r ^ O " ^ . ( N i O ^ O v - ^ O N ^ ^ ^ O O i n m i o w o c N v - i r < ^ i r - i v o t o m v £ ) ( ^ ( N i / - ) r < i T t - * 0

Os 1 - ^

^ 0 ( ^ a \ r - i o o N o o ^ m o o o t o t ^ < o o N v o - ^ r - o

o <s

\ O r r o O r } - ( > O O N ^ ( N O N i O i O - - < , - M ( N O ( N ' * ' ^ f ^ T f T t - * v O ' ^ T f - ^ m - < ^ < j ^ u o i o v O i o v c > m r o m < — (

o ( S

• — l o o o o i o — i o o o \ C 7 \ — ^ ^ ^ c ~ - m r ~ - • o ^ ^ o ^ o ^ o

fS

75

Table-II (a), (b) and (c) showing mean scores obtained by eight

groups of subjects on Need-Satisfactin scale .

Table 11(a)

Conditions

Healthy culture

Poor culture

Dependence Dependent prone

Rigid

55.25

50.32

Flexible

53.82

44.87

-Proneness Independent

Rigid

51.25

47.70

Flexible

56.15

43.42

Mean

54.11

46.57

Table 11(b)

Conditions

Dependent prone

Independent prone

Rigidity-flexibility Rigid

Healthy culture

55.25.

51.25

Poor culture

50.32

47.70

Flexible

Healthy culture

53.82

56.15

Poor culture

44.87

43.42

Mean

51.06

49.63

Table 11(c)

Conditions

Rigid

Flexible

Organizational culture Healthy culture Depen­dent prone

55.25

53.82

Indepen­dent prone

51.25

56.15

Poor culture Depen­dent prone

50.32

44.87

Indepen­dent prone

47.70

43.42

Mean

51.13

49.56

Table III : Showing F-ratios

76

Source of variance

Organizational culture

Dependence proneness

Rigidity flexibility

Organizational culture X Dependence pronness

Organizational culture X Rigidity-flexibility

Dependence pronness X Rigidity-flexibility

Organizational culture X Dependence proneness X Rigidity-flexibility

Error

Total

Sum of square

4545.10

165.30

195.30

28.82

871.22

281.27

132.59

23249.29

29468.80

df

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

312

319

Mean square

4545.10

165.30

195.30

28.82

871.22

281.27

132.59

74.51

F

60.99

2.21

2.62

.386

11.69

3.77

1.77

•t-i - \-k\ 77

-.' r-S<93 3 '^^

The F ratio for organizational culture var-iafion is 60.99, as

shown in Table III, which is significant at .0! level. The result suggests

that subjects working under health organizational culture and poor

organizational culture differ with respect to their need satisfaction.

Disregarding dependence proneness and rigidity-flexibility variables, we

find in Table II (a) that mean of the means for healthy organizational

culture groups of subjects is 54.11 and the mean of the means for poor

organizational culture group of subjects is 46.57. Since the mean of the

means for the healthy organizational culture group of subjects (i.e.

54.11) is markedly higher than the mean of the means for poor

organizational culture group of subjects (i.e. 46.57), it can safely be

concluded that the subjects working under healthy organizational culture

are more satisfied than the Subjects working under poor organizational

culture.

The F ratio for dependence proneness variation is 2.21 which

is insignificant (Ref Table III). The result reveals that independent and

dependent subjects do not differ with respect to their need satisfaction.

Ignoring organizational culture and rigidity-flexibility variables, it is

found in Table II (b) that mean of the means for independent subjects is

49.63 and mean of the means for dependent subjects in 51.06. The

difference between these two means is too small to be statistically

significant. It is, therefore, concluded that independent and dependent

subjects do not differ with respect to their satisfaction of their needs.

78

The F ratio for rigidity-flexibility variation, an shown in Table

III, is 2.62 which is also insignificant indicating that rigid and flexible

subjects do not differ with respect to their need satisfaction.

Disregarding organizational culture and dependence proneness variable,

we find in Table II (c) that mean of the means for rigid subjects is 51.13

and the mean of the means for flexible subjects is 49.56. Again we

observe that the difference between these two means is not large enough

to make the difference statistically significant. Hence we have no option

except to conclude that rigid and flexible subjects do not differ with

respect to need satisfaction.

F-ratio for interaction between organizational culture and

dependence proneness, as shown in Table III, is 0.38 which is

statistically insignificant. The result suggests that there is no

interactional effect of organizational culture and dependence pronness

on the degree of need-satisfaction as shown in Figure 1.0. In Figure 1,0,

the two types of organizational cultures (i.e. healthy organizational

culture and poor organizational culture) are shown on the horizontal

axis. The data points represent means of the four conditions: Point 1 is

the mean for healthy organizational culture independent group; Point 2

is for healthy organizational culture dependent group; Point 3 is for poor

organizational culture independent group and Point 4 is for poor

organizational culture dependent group. The line that connects points 1

and 3 represents the mean need-satisfaction score of independent

subjects half of them were working under healthy organizational culture

79

Org. Culture X Dependence Proneness

60

50 -

p o o

en r ^

O 'ZZ o

,w C/}

* G: 00 •6 o (U 2: r ^

c5 U

40

30

20

10 -

Dependent

Independent

Healthy Poor

Fig. 1.0

80

and half were working under poor organizational culture. On the other

hand, the line that connects Points 2 and 4 represents the mean need

satisfaction score of dependent prone subjects half of them were

working under healthy organizational culture and half were working

under poor organizational culture. Since these two lines are not

intersecting each other, it is safely concluded that there is no

interactional effect of organizational culture and dependent proneness on

the degree of need-satisfaction. Same conclusion may also be drawn by

turning our attention to Table IV(a).

Table IV(a) : Showing mean scores on need-satisfaction scale obtained by healthy organizational culture independent group, healthy organizational culture dependent group, poor organizational culture independent group and poor organizational culture dependent group.

Conditions

Independent

Dependent

Difference

Healthy organizational culture

53.70

54.53

0.83

Poor organizational culture

45.56

47.59

2.03

Difference

8.14

6.94

In Table IV (a), we fmd that the difference between mean need-

satisfaction scores obtained by independent prone under health

organizational culture and independent prone under poor organizational

culture in 8.14 where as the difference between mean need-satisfaction

scores obtained by dependent prone under healthy organizational culture

81

and dependent prone under poor organizational culture is 6.94. The

difference between these, two differences (i.e. 8.14 and 6.94) is not

higher enough to make the interactional effect significant. The same

results are obtained when the differences in the other direction are

compared, i.e. difference between independent prone under healthy

organizational culture and dependent prone under healthy organizational

culture is 0.83 which is not smaller enough than the difference between

independent prone poor organizational culture and dependent prone poor

organizational culture (i.e. 2.03) to make the interactional effect

statistically significant. These results clearly indicate the non-existence

of an interactional effect of organizational culture and dependence

proneness on need-satisfaction.

F-ratio for interaction between organizational culture and

rigidity-flexibility, as shown in Table III, is 11.69 which is statistically

significant at .01 level. The results reveal that there is an interactional

effect of organizational culture and rigidity-flexibility on the degree of

need-satisfaction. A perusal of Figure 1.1 makes it crystal clear that the

interaction between these two variables does exists. In Figure 1.1 the

two types of organizational culture (i.e. healthy culture and poor

culture) are shown on the horizontal axis. The data points represents

mean score on need satisfaction scale obtained under four conditions:

Point 1 is the mean score obtained by rigid subjects under healthy

organizational culture, Point 2 is the mean score obtained by flexible

subjects under healthy organizational culture, Point 3 is the mean score

60

82

Org.cuItureX Rigidity flexibility

50 -

o u 40

1 30 I

-a CD

Z

S 20

10 -

•Rigidity

•Flexibility

Healthy Poor

Fig. 1.1

83

obtained by rigid subjects under poor organizational culture and Point 4 is

the mean score obtained by flexible subjects under poor organizational

culture. The line that connects point 1 and 3 represents the mean need-

satisfaction score of the rigid subjects, half of them were under healthy

organizational culture and half of them were under poor organizational

culture. The line that connects points 2 and 4 represents the mean need-

satisfaction score of the flexible subjects, half of them were under

healthy organizational culture and the remaining half were under poor

organizational culture. As is evident from Figure 1.1. The horizontal lines

are not parallel rather they cross each other. The figure, therefore reveals

that rigid subjects under healthy organizational culture are less satisfied

than flexible subjects under healthy organizational culture but flexible

subjects under poor organizational culture are less satisfied than rigid

subjects under poor organizational culture. Thus it is established beyond

doubt that an interactional effect of organizational culture and rigidity

flexibility on need-satisfaction exists. Same conclusion may also be

drawn by turning our attention to Table IV (b).

Table IV(b) : Showing mean scores on need-satisfaction scale obtained by rigid under healthy organizational culture, rigid under poor organizational culture, flexible under healthy organizational culture and flexible under poor organizational culture.

Conditions

Rigid

Flexible

Difference

Healthy organizational culture

53.25

54.98

1.73

Poor organizational culture

49.01

44.14

4.87

Difference

4.24

10.84

84

In Table IV(b) we find that the difference between mean need-

satisfaction score obtained by rigid under healthy organizational culture

and under poor organizational culture is 4.24 which is markedly lower

than the difference between mean need-satisfaction score obtained by

flexible subjects under healthy organizational culture and under poor

organizational culture i.e. 10.84. Since these two differences (i.e. 4.24

and 10.84) are markedly different, the interaction between two variables

cannot be ruled out. The same conclusion can be drawn by comparing

difference in the other direction. Again the differences as given in Table

IV(b), are markedly different (i.e. 1.73 and 4.87).

F ratio for interaction between dependent proneness and rigidity-

flexibility is 3.77 which is nearly statistically significant at .05 level (Ref.

Table III). The result suggests that there is an interactional effect of

dependence - Proneness and rigidity-flexibility on the degree of need-

satisfaction, as shown in Figure 1.2.

In Figure 1.2 the two values of dependence proneness (i.e.

dependent and independent) are shown on the horizontal axis. The data

points represent means of the four conditions. Point 1 is the mean for

the dependent rigid group; Point 2 is for the dependent flexible group;

Point 3 is for the independent rigid group; and Point 4 is for the

independent flexible group. The line that connects points 1 and 3

represents the mean need satisfaction score of rigid subjects half of them

were dependent prone and half were independent. On the other hand, the

60

85

Dependence Proneness X Rigidity Flexibility

50 -

1 ^ 0 c o

03

• a

<u Z

30

§ 20

10

•Rigidity

Flexiblity

Dep. Ind.

Fig 1.2

86

line that connects points 2 and 4 represents the mean need-satisfaction

score of flexible subjects, half of them were dependent prone and half

were independent. Since these two lines are intersecting each other, it is

safely concluded that there is an interactional effect of dependent

proneness and rigidity-flexibility on the degree of need-satisfaction. As

a counter check we turn our attention to Table IVc.

Table IV(c) : Showing mean scores on need-satisfaction scale obtained by dependent prone rigid group, dependent prone flexible group, independent rigid group and independent flexible group.

Conditions

Rigid

Flexible

Difference

Dependent prone

52.78

49.34

3.44

Independent prone

49.47

49.78

-0.31

Difference

3.31

-0.44

In Table IV(c) the difference between dependent .rigid and

independent rigid is 3.31, whereas the difference between dependent

flexible and independent flexible is -0.44. Since the difference between

these two differences is quite high the interactional effect can not be

ruled out. The same results are obtained when differences in the other

direction are compared i.e. the difference between dependent rigid and

dependent flexible is 3.44 whereas the difference between independent

rigid and independent flexible is -0.31 (Ref Table IVc).

Again these two differences are quite large and' therefore

interactional effect is confirmed. The figure reveals that dependent prone

87

rigid subjects are more satisfied than their counterpart dependent prone

flexible subjects, whereas independent flexible subjects are more

satisfied than independent rigid subjects. Thus there remain no doubt

that an interactional effect exists.

F-ratio for interaction among organisational culture, dependence

proneness and rigidity-flexibility, as given in Table III, is 1.77 which is

insignificant. To examine the nature of organizational culture, dependence

proneness and rigidity-flexibility interaction, we consider organizational

culture and dependence proneness interaction separately for rigidity and

flexibility separately as shown in Table IV(d).

Table IV(d) : Two way table of means for rigidity flexibility and organizational culture for each type of subjects i.e. dependent prone and independent prone.

Conditions

Rigid

Flexible

Dependent prone Health culture

55.25

53.82

Poor culture

50.32

44.87

Independent prone Health culture

51.25

56.15

Poor culture

47.70

43.42

The graph for rigidity and flexibility against organizational

culture for dependence proneness is shown in Figure 1.3 and the graph

for rigidity and flexibility against organizational culture for independent

proneness is shown in Figure 1.4. When we examine rigidity-flexibility

X organization culture interactions separately for each type of subjects

(i.e. Dependent prone and independent prone) we find that these

interactions are almost of the same form for each type of subjects (i.e.

88

Org culture x Dep. proneness x rigidity flexibility

60

50 •]

o 40 00

u

••= 3 0

•a o Z

J 20 4

-•--1 lealthy cullurc

-•— Poor cullurc

Rigid Icxibic

Fig 1.3

89

Org-culture x Dep. proneness x regidity-flexibility

60

50 -

Cl

o

C o

u C/1

"3 C/5

-a aj (ij

Z r. (U

40

30

20

-•— I lealthy Culture

-•— Poor Culture

Rigid lexible

Fi£i. 1.4

90

dependent prone and independent prone). It can be, therefore, concluded

that the organizational culture x dependence pronness x rigidity

flexibility interaction is not significant. Furthermore, it may also be

noted that the forms of the graphs in Figures 1.3 and 1.4 are more or

less similar. This finding also leads us to conclude that there is no

interactional effect of organizational culture x dependence proneness x

rigidity-flexibility on the degree of need-satisfaction.

« ^^^^^^'•-•s

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The main findings of the present research are : (1) subject

working under healthy organizational culture and poor organizational

culture differ with respect to their need satisfaction; (2) dependent prone

and independent prone subjects do not differ with respect to their need

satisfaction; (3) rigid and flexible subjects do not differ with respect to

their need satisfaction; (4) There is no interactional effect of

organizational culture and dependence proneness on degree of need

satisfaction; (5) there is an interactional effect of organizational culture

and rigidity flexibility on the degree of need satisfaction; (6) there is an

interactional effect of dependence proneness and rigidity flexibility on

the degree of need-satisfaction and (7) there is no interactional effect

among organizational culture, dependence proneness and rigidity-

flexibility on the degree of need-satisfaction.

The first finding of the present study, i.e. subject working

under healthy and poor organizational cultures differ with respect to

their need-satisfaction, is too obvious to explain. This finding of the

present research is what the researcher expect it. Numerous studies have

shown that organizational culture infiuences need satisfaction or job

satisfaction. It has been observed that employees differ with respect to

their job-satisfaction depending on whether organizational climate of

any organization is democratic or is autocratic.Kumar and Bohra (1979),

for instance, have demonstrated that employees who perceived the

92

organizational climate as democratic, they reported higher job

satisfaction than those employees who perceived organizational climate

as autocratic.

Instead of using the terms healthy and poor culture, Wiener

(1988) has used the terms strong culture and weak culture. According to

Wiener (1988) a strong culture is characterised by the organizations core

values being both intensely held and widely shared. The more members

accept the core values and greater they are commited to those values, the

stronger will be the culture. He has argued that strong culture has greater

influence on the behaviour of its members than a weak culture. The first

finding of our research provides empirical support to the view point

expressed by Wiener. Moreover the author of the present research firmly

believes that healthy organizational culture is one in which(l)

employees interact with each other, use common language; (2) standards

of behaviour exists; (3) employees share major values advocated by the

organization; (4) there are clearcut policies to deal with employees and

customers; (5) rules of the organization are strictly adhered to and(6)

there is a democratic atmopshere in the organization. A poor

organizational culture, on the otherhand, is one which has opposite

characteristics of a healthy organizational culture as mentioned above.

In view of these contrasting characteristics of healthy and poor

organizational cultures, it is reasonable and logical to assume that

employees working under healthy organisational culture are likely to be

more satisfied than those who are working under poor organizational

93

culture. The first finding of our research provides emperical evidence to

this assumption. The first finding of the present research i.e.

organizational culture has significant effect on need satisfaction,

received indirect support from numerous researchers. It has been

demonstrated by large number of investigators that there is negative co-

relation between organizational climate and need-satisfaction. In other

words it has been shown that when needs are deprived of, the perception of

organizational climate becomes negative (Subha & Anantharaman, 1981;

Sen, 1981; Rajendran, 1987; Srivastava, 1994; Petty et al, 1995).

Srivastava & Pratap (1984) reported a significant positive

relationship between the overall organizational climate and job

satisfaction. Job satisfaction was also found related to various individual

dimensions of organizational climate such as leadership, communication,

interaction influence in decision making, goal-setting and control.

Spector (1982), (1986), observed that autonomy and

participation are positively related to general satisfaction and

satisfaction with work, pay, supervision, co-workers, promotion, and

growth. In one of their studies Weatherly & Beach (1998)found that the

greater the difference between S's assessments of an organization's

culture as they perceived it to be now and as they thought it actually

ought to be, the less satisfied they reported themselves to be with their

jobs. Most recently Patel (1999) reported that employees of nationalized

bank exhibited higher job satisfaction than employees of co-operative

94

bank. These findings, obtained by numerous researchers,are in

agreement either directly or indirectly with the first finding of the

present study.

A survey of literature has revealed that three models have been

developed to explain the relationship between job perception and job

satisfaction. First model, based on job characteristics theory and

developed by Hackman and Lawler (1971), asserts that job perception

leads to job satisfaction. Second model based on social information

theory and developed by Salanick and Pfeffer (1978), on the other hand,

advocates that job satisfaction leads to job perception.Third model

specifies a reciprocal relationship between perception and satisfaction was

developed by Mathien, Hofman and Farr (1993). The first finding of the

present research fits in the third model. Our finding under discussion

provides emperical support to this model of job satisfaction.

The second finding of the present study i.e. independent and

dependent prone subjects do not differ with respect to their need

satisfaction, is not in expected direction. Keeping in view of the

personality characteristics of dependent prone individuals it was

assumed that dependent prone subjects would show greater need

satisfaction than independent subjects. As mentioned elsewhere

dependence proneness is a motivational habit of over dependence on

others in situations in which dependence is not necessarily called for. It

is a tendency or an inner inclination to run to others without exhausting

95

one's own resources. It may express itself in one or more ways such as (a)

to seek support, advice, and/or order from otliers, (b) to confide with

others uncritically, (c) desires to be encouraged, helped and/or protected

by others. Negatively, it may be recognised in behaviours and inclination

such as (a) lacking initiative(b) lacking independent judgement or weak

judgement, (c) try to avoid risk taking behaviour(d) having an escape

behaviour, (e) discouraged easily and (f) refusing or displacing

responsibility for an unfavourable outcome. Moreover it has been, found

that a dependence prone person is likely to be suggestible (Jakubezak &

Walters, 1959) conforming (Garai, 1960), passive (League & Jackson,

1961), weak in judgement and self-concept (Elliot, 1960). Individuals

having these characteristics are likely to perceive greater need

satisfaction as compared to those who do not have these characteristics.

The second finding of the present research does not confirm this

assumption.

Though dependent prone and Independent subjects do not

differ significantly, there is however a trend showing greater need

satisfaction among dependent prone subjects than among independent

subjects. This trend is not statistically significant but provides

confirmation, though a weak one, to our assumption.Looking at the data

of our research it may be extracted that if the study is carried out on

much larger sample the existing trend may become statistically

significant. However at present no convincing explanation maybe

96

provided except that the present finding is in consonance with the

findings obtained by Singh & Sengupta (1997). These researchers

admifiistered Sinha's(1968) dependence proneness scale on Indian

students studying at Indian Institute of Management of Calcutta with the

objective to examine the dependence proneness of these subjects. They

found that their subjects have initiativeness and independent decision

making behavioural patterns. Thus the second finding of the present

research leaves no option except to assume that the sample of the

present study might not be fairly catagorized into dependent prone and

independent subjects.

The third finding of the present research i.e. Rigid and flexible

subjects do not differ with respect to need satisfaction, is not consistent

with the existing findings (Pritichard and Karasick, 1973; Deepa, 1996).

Pritichard and Karasick (1973) reported a positive corelation between

flexibility and job-satisfaction. Where as Deepa (1996) found lower

satisfaction among rigid group. Turning our attention to Table II C, it

may be observed that rigid group of subject obtained slightly higher

mean score on need-satisfaction scale than their counterpart flexible

group of subjects. Though the difference is not statistically significant,

there is, however, a trend to the effect that rigid subjects- are more

satisfied than flexible subject. This trend of the present research is

contrary to what other researchers have found. However this trend

throws a light on new personality dimension of rigid subjects. We

believe rigid subjects are insecure individuals (Ramamurti and

97

Gnanakannan, 1972) and therefore they are more likely to be satisfied

easily with smallest amount of incentive. This assumption is fully

endorsed by existing trend of the present research. This trend motivates

the authors of the present research to undertake a more comprehensive

study in this area of knowledge using a much larger sample of subjects

sothat a new theoretical framework may be worked out.

Turning our attention to other findings of the present research,

to find that two interacdonal effects i.e. interaction between

organizational culture and dependence proneness, and among

organizational culture, dependence proneness and rigidity flexibility are

insignificant, whereas interaction between organizational culture and

rigidity-flexibility, and interaction between dependence proneness and

rigidity flexibility are significant.

The first insignificant interactional effect of organizational

culture and dependence proneness suggests that the need-satisfaction

scores under healthy and poor organizational culture are independent of

dependence proneness — independent proneness of the subjects. The

findings reveals that though organizational culture influences the degree

of need-satisfaction in a significant way when considered separately but

when it is combined with dependence proneness, its interaction becomes

insignificant.

Similarly the second ingnificant interactional effect of

organizational culture, dependence proneness and rigidity-flexibility

98

makes it crystal clear that need-satisfaction score under healthy and poor

culture are independent of dependence proneness and rigity-flexibility of

the subjects. The finding leads us to conclude that though organizational

culture influences degree of need satisfaction in a significant way when

considered separately, but when it is combined with dependence

proneness and rigidity flexibility, its interaction becomes insignificant.

So far as significant interactional effect of organizational

culture and rigidity-flexibility is concerned, it suggests that the need

satisfaction scores under healthy and poor culture are not independent

of the personality dimensions i.e. rigid flexible, of the subjects rather

than need-satisfaction scores of the subjects are the product of the

organizational culture and rigidity flexibility.

Similarly second significant interactional effect of

dependence- proneness and rigidity flexibility suggests that the need

satisfaction scores of dependent prone and independent prone subjects

are not independent of their rigidity flexibility type rather the need

satisfaction score of the subjects are the product of dependence

proneness and rigidity flexibility.

The overall findings of the present research revealed that

among three independent variables namely organizational culture,

dependence - proneness, and rigidity flexibility, only organizational

culture was found to have an influence on need satisfaction of

employees.

99

So far as impact of organizational culture is concerned it is

well documented that organization culture has a strong influence on

employee's behaviour. It has been shown that employees develop

subjective perception of the organization based on such factors as degree

of group emphasis, support of people, risk tolerence, and management's

willingness to tolerate conflict. This overall perception infact constitute

what we called organization's culture. Thus employee's satisfaction or

dissatisfaction depends to a larger extent whether they have formed

favourable or unfavourable perceptions of the organization. According to

Hellriegel and Slocum (1974) there is strong relationship between

culture and satisfaction but this relationship is moderated by individual

differences. It has been demonstrated that there will be highest

satisfaction if there is congruence between employee's needs and culture

for instance if employees have a high need for achievement and

autonomy, they will derive maximum satisfaction in those organisations

which emphasize individual tasks, have loose supervision and reward

people for high achievement. The entire phenomena occurs as in

Figure 1.5.

The subjects of the present study who were having favourable

perception of the organization were found satisfied whereas those having

unfavourable perception of their organizational culture were found

dissatisfied. However the influence of organizational culture on need

satisfaction was moderated by individual differences in the dimension of

dependence proneness and rigidity flexibility. Our conclusion, therefore.

.2 o

en • » - >

03 00

a o

4-»

o C/2

03 c/2 CO

• ^ u

100

^

0) d

1-2 03 •<-> is DH 5 <i O o

rt <u [i(P-(

>4v

a>

5 ci, > (U

DCL,

/

M d o L^

C/3

^

^ 03

..<1J

^

/ •,

•-M

03 C o

- * - » 03 N ,, . - 1 D n l i 08 d bJ) X

O o

o

o

w

• I—<

00 o

03

<U i-i 3 +->

o

o •*->

03 N 'S 03 00

o K i n

CO

O O

_>

o

o

ti-M

•rt i-i

CD

C/3

CO 03

XI a a <D

a o 0

CO

o

"EH

o

c! O

t ^ tli j

<->

OJ '

o

114

l-l

o U

V

D

03

s

03

O

03

o

03 (D

O

-•->

o

o U

.2 03

Ui

O c/3

-o 1

CO

d 03 1)

CO

3 o

^ S (L) t/3

C/)

c

O

00

101

is that job satisfaction often varies as a result of employee's perception

of the organization culture.

The findings of the present research do not show any

differential effect of dependence proneness and rigidity-flexibility on

need satisfaction. However these personality variables may play crucial

role in cultivating a ground for a change in a organization's culture.

As a matter of fact once an organization is well established its

dominant culture too becomes stable and permanent. In other words

strong cultures are particularly resistant to change because employees of

that organization become so committed to them. However if a given

culture, overtime, becomes inappropriate to an organization and a

handicap to management, there may be little that management can do to

change it.

In such situations the management is confronted with the

critical question what would those favourable conditions be that might

facilitate changing a culture? Kilmann, Saxton, Serpa (1985) have cited

evidence to the effect that cultural change is most likely to occur when

four conditions namely dramatic crises, turnover in leadership, young

and small organization, and weak culture exist. However in the light of

the findings of the present research it is suggested that fifth condtion

namely personality variables (i.e. dependence proneness and rigidity-

flexibility) may also be included.We firmly believe that dependence

pronenness and rigidity-flexibility may also facilitate a change in culture

102

whenever such a change is required in any organization. This contention

is based on the personality characteristics of dependent-independent

prone individuals as well as personality characteristics of.rigid and

flexible individuals. The personality characteristics of dependent -

independent and rigid-flexible individuals as mentioned in chapter I,

lead us to suggest that management of the organization should take care

of personality traits of the employees at the time of personal selection.

More specifically it is suggested that only those employees should be

selected who are independent prone and flexible. This task may easily

be accomplished by administering certain personality test at the time of

selection. By selecting independent prone and flexible employees, we

believe it would become easier for the management to bring out a change

in culture whenever it is required for the welfare of the organization.

SUMMARY

After Industrial Revolution series of approaches appeared

highlighting the interest in improving production but Frederick W. Taylor

was first to think about increasing human efficiency in the late 19th and

20th century. He is called to be the "father of scientific management".

Taylor who had started his career as a mechanic and by virtue of his skill

and capabilities he reached the position of an engineer and retired as a

consulting engineer in the Bethlehm Steel Plant U.S.A.

During the end of the last decade of 19th century Taylor

formulated certain principles viz., scientific management principles and he

was confident that if these principles are applied then human efficiency at

work can be tremendously increased. However, after the successful

experimentation,he established the fact that human efficiency can be

increased if the scientific management principles could have been properly

taken care of Taylor's approach to enhance human efficiency at work was

management centered. Later, Elton Mayo on the basis of his observation

and findings led a movement in association with Roetilisberg and Dickson,

called 'Human Relation Movement' focusing on the cravings for the

satisfaction of social needs of people at work. This movement started in

the mid 1920's and was at its peak during 1930's to I950's and as a result

the history of industrial psychology took turn from management oriented

approach (Taylor, 1903) to employee oriented approach (Mayo,

Roethilisberg, Dickson, 1930s).

104

Work on human motivation started from the early 1940's though

job satisfaction studies started in 1935. Hoppock coined the term job

satisfaction and hence he was considered as pioneer of job satisfaction

studies. Usually, people use the term satisfaction and motivation

interchangeable, however, there is an operational difference between these

two concepts.

After the pioneering work of Hoppock a number of job

satisfaction theories appeared. Among these theories Maslowian need

hierarchy theory of motivation and satisfaction is one of the early theories

which was propounded in 1943 as a general theory of human oiotivation

and was, later on, applied as the theory of job motivation and satisfaction

in 1954. Although a number of other job satisfaction and motivation

theories have been proposed by different researchers but Maslow's need

hierarchy theory occupied prime importance among the various theories of

motivation. The study of motivation is pre-requisite for understanding

human behaviour as motivation is one of the most important factor

affecting human behaviour. In fact the level of performance of an

individual is a function of motivation, hence, motivation or will'to work is

a significant aspect determining work related behaviour and outcome.

Psychologist generally agree that motivation is a goal directed

behaviour which revolves around the desire for need satisfaction.

Motivation consists of the three interacting and interdependent elements

namely needs, drives and goals. Needs are defined as something that

105

individual do not have and whicli creates a state of dissonance or tension

in the individual. As it is not a pleasant feeling which one wants to reduce.

Need, thus, becomes the drive force for human action. Krech, Crutchfield

and Ballachy (1962) defined need as "the initiating and sustaining force of

behaviour". According to Norman Maire (1959) a need may be defined as

"a condition requiring the supply of relief, the lack of anything requisite,

desired or useful". In the opinion of Kolasa (1978) "A need is a lack or

deficit of something within the system or organism. Need can also be

defined as a personal, unfulfilled vacancy that determines and organises all

mental processes and all behaviour in the direction of its attainment.

There are various ways to classify needs. According to one

system needs may be classified into following classes :

(1) Basic physiological needs called primary needs.

(2) Social and psychological needs called secondary needs.

In the light of the above contentions and descriptions, it is

imperative to point out that need-fulfilment is necessary for good

performance and effective human actions as needs create tension in human

organism and in order to reduce tension individuals' take action to achieve

desired goal. Hence, motivation is considered to be the goal-directed

behaviour. It is also important to mention here that motivation is an

outcome of need deficiency, hence, intensity of needs determines

motivational level. It is, indeed, true that satisfaction of needs which are

of significant importance are likely to develop positive attitude towards

106

work and thus reveals greater satisfaction with it. However, the

phenomenon of satisfaction with work can only be understood in its

totality. An individual constantly makes adjustment to satisfy his needs.

Therefore it is essential to study his needs both in and outside the work

situations, for satisfaction or dissatisfaction of which leads to the

development of certain attitudes to life and work, and are "carried over"

from life to work and vice-versa.

Satisfaction or non-satisfaction is equally important for making

adjustments at the work situation. Commenting upon this phenomenon

Lehner and Kube (1956) observes, "People who come to vocational

counselling problems often have difficulties that lie primarily in other

areas of living but which manifest themselves also in work." However,

overall satisfaction in life is associated with the satisfaction of individuals

need pattern. The satisfaction of human needs may be blocked by certain

factors both at work situation as well as outside it creating a state of

tension in the individual hence he constantly makes efforts to satisfy these

needs. If the individual feels that the efforts made by him led to desired

reward, he feel satisfied. But when the individual feels that his efforts to

satisfy his needs have been blocked, then a state of disequilibrium will

prevail and he will feel dissatisfied.

Thus it may be stated that gratification of human needs generate

satisfaction and non-gratification generates dissatisfaction for the

individual. Since motivation is a complex phenomenon, major motivational

107

theories have been developed which are categorised as :

(1) Content of need theories

(2) Cognitive or process theories

(3) Reinforcement theories

The content theories basically look at the motives or needs in

individuals that influence behaviour. Maslow, Aldeofer, Murray,

McClelland and White are some of the scholars who have made significant

contributions to this approach. Attempts have been made in cognitive

theories to concentrate on individuals thinking which is used to decide

whether or not to behave in a certain way. There are three major cognitive

theories namely expectance, equity and goal setting theories that explain

work motivation, Adams, Vroom and Porter & Lawler have made some

important contribution in the development of these theories.

Reinforcement theories emphasized that behaviour of an individual can be

moulded, shaped, changed or eliminated by changing the stimuli in people's

environment.

Among these theories Maslowvian need hierarchy theory of

motivation and satisfaction is one of the early theories which was

propounded in (1943) as a general theory of human motivation and this was

later applied as the theory of job motivation and satisfaction in (1954).

Although a number of other job satisfaction and motivation theories have

been proposed by different researches, however, Maslow's need hierarchy

theory occupies prime importance among the various theories. Maslow

108

developed five level of need hierarchy.

(1) Physiological Needs

(2) Security Needs

(3) Social Needs

(4) Ego Need or self Esteem

(5) Self-actualization Needs

Though, Maslow's need hierarchy theory has stimulated thinking

about the various needs that individuals have, but it has some serious short

comings too. Researches suggest that needs may cluster into two or three

categories, rather than five and more over the hierarchy of needs. As a

result of the criticisms against Maslow's hierarchy of need theory,

Alderfer proposed an alternative theory known as ERG theory, identifying

three groups of needs-existence, relatedness and growth. Thus following

the ERG theory, it can be predicted that all the three needs would convey

in terms of their perceived importance, and this may be good for both

groups of employees. Beside ERG theory another need hierarchy theory

has been proposed by Herzberg (1957) who conducted motivational study

on about 200 accountants and engineers employed by firms in and around

Pittsburgh. He used the critical incident method for obtaining data. The

subjects were asked two question (1) when did you feel particularly good

about your job - what turned you on, and (2) when did you feel

exceptionally bad about your job - what turned you off?

109

Tabulating these reported good and bad feelings, Herzberg

concluded that job satisfiers are related to job content and that job

dissatisfiers are related to job context. Herzberg called the satisfiers as

motivators and dissatisfiers as hygiene factors. This theory of motivation

is also known as two-factor theory.

Although Herzberg's two-factor theory remains a very popular

explanation of worl< motivation but when researchers deviated from the

critical incident methodology used by Herzberg, they do not get two

factors. There seems to be job factors that lead to both satisfaction and

dissatisfaction. These findings indicate that a strict interpretation of the

two-factor theory is not warranted.

Murray (1938) developed a list of 28 needs that hunfian beings

have among these are the needs for achievement, affiliation, dominance,

aggression, dependence, and nurturance. Murray argued that our needs are

mostly acquired in life rather than inherited, and needs can be activated or

made to manifest themselves by introduction appropriate in the

environment.

The above theories are well known but, unfortunately they have

not been help up well under close examination. There are some

contemporary theories other than the above - mentioned theories.

McCelland (1951, 1961) a Harward psychologist has proposed that there

are three major relevant needs in work situation such as the need for

achievement, the need for power, and the need for affiliation.

110

White (1959, 1965) identified the need for effectance as a

powerful need. This concept describes our inborn drive to explore and gain

mastery over our own immediate environment. Need effectance is

manifestel even in babies who constantly try to explore their small world.

They reach out for things, through crawling and take their first step and

feel happy and their explorations. Such explorations of our environment

continue throughout our lives. In interacting with the environment

constantly, human being experience both successful and failure

experiences, and gain varying degrees of mastery over the environment. A

successful experience over one's life time, offers one a sense of

confidence in his or her own competence. White considered this

confidence as a powerful motivator to interact more with the environment

so as to accumulate more success experience and feel confident about our

competence. White called this confidence as "sense of competence."

Work is a social reality and social expectation to which men

seem to conform that provide status to the individual but also binds him to

the society. Several authors have stressed the significance of occupations

as a source of need satisfaction. According to Roe (1956) "Occupations as

a source of need satisfaction are of extreme importance in our culture. It

may be that occupations have become so important in our culture just

because so many needs are so well satisfied by them."

In order to understand the problem of employees indifference to

their work, it is necessary to study the culture of organization and the

I l l

expectations that govern the relationship between the individual and the

organization.

Organizations are created to achieve certain objectives through a

collectivity termed as groups. The achievement of organizational

objectives is possible only through team effort. Work is to be

sequentialized and managed by man. In most cases these are hierarchical

arrangement of position in an organization and each position is being

managed by a human being.

According to Herskovits, (1955) culture is the man-made part of

the environment. Since 1970's the term "culture" has been increasingly

used in studies of organizational behaviour because of the growing

realization among organizational scientists and management consultants

that the culture of an organization has much influence or organizational

effectiveness. This rises interest in researchers to study on organizational

culture.

Beside sociology and anthropology, social psychology has

played an important role on the development of the study of organizational

culture. Many organizational scholars e.g. Festinger (1957), Kelley (1977)

have been influenced by the tradition in psychology of studying the

disjunction between expressed intention and observed behaviour. The

second significant line of social psychology for he study of organizational

culture has been study or organizational climate (Forehand and Gilmer,

1964, Tangiuri, 1968). Studies on climate have been sometimes

undistinguishable from some current studies of organizational culture.

112

A comprehensive pragmatic definition of organizational culture

is provided by Schein (1984) as "culture is a pattern of basic assumption

invented discovered, or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with

its problems of external adaptation and internal integration—that has

worked well enough to be considered valid and therefore, to be taught to

new members as the correct way to perceive, think and fell in relation to

those problems."

As the interest in organizational climate began to wane,

behavioural scientists began investigating organizational culture. Many

issues discussed in terms of organizational climate are being discussed by

culture researches. According to Umstot (1984) one way to measure the

organizational culture, at least in part is by evaluating its organizational

climate which consists of the way people perceive their organizational

environment. Robbions (1984) proposed that culture "is a relatively

uniform perception held by the organization, it is a descriptive concept,

and it has common and stable characteristics that make it possible to

distinguish one organization from another." According to Robbins, first

organizational culture is a perception, but it exists in the organization not

in the individual. As a result, individuals with different backgrounds or at

different levels in the organization tend to describe the organization's

culture in similar terms. They perceive a unique set of characteristics that

are substantially organization-specific. Second, organizational culture is a

descriptive term. It depends on how members perceive the organization,

whether they like it or not, finally, what is culture, is a perception about

113

the dynamically persisting working conditions and the environment,

generally, generated by the supervisory behaviour.

To capture the essence of an organization's culture there are ten

primary characteristics highlighted by Robbins (1990). They are - (1)

Member identity, (2) Group emphasis, (3) People focus, (4) Unit

integration, (5)Control, (6) Risk tolerance, (7) Reward criteria, (8)

Conflict tolerance, (9) Means-end orientation, and (10) Open system

focus

Robbins has derived these characteristics form the work of

Hofstede et al. (1990) and O'Reilly (1991).

Generally, people think that an organization has a uniform

culture. According to the concept of anthropology, it is more accurate to

treat organization "as i f they had a uniform culture. According to Morey

and Luthans (1985). "All organizations 'have' culture in the sense that they

are embedded in specific societal cultures and are part of them."

According to this view organization culture is commonly perceived by the

organization members. Every one share this perception at different degree.

As a result, there is dominant as well as subculture in an organization. If an

organization has no dominant culture and is composed of number of

subculture then the value of organizational culture as an independent

variable would be lessened.

An organization may have strong as well as weak culture but it is

very difficult to differentiate between strong culture and weak culture. In

114

words of Wiener (1988) "a strong culture is characterized by the

organization's core values being both intensely held and widely shared".

The more members accept the core values and greater they are committed

to those values, the stronger will be the culture. Parallel to this definition

strong culture has greater influence on the behaviour of its member than

will a weak culture. The specific result of a strong culture should be low

employee turnover.

Saffold (1988) put forward the idea that cultural factors may be

linked to exceptional level of performance. Barney (1986) and Gordon &

Tomaso (1992) found that culture was associated with better performance.

As soon as the organizational culture started and begins to develop new

employees who are not adjustable to this culture because of their non

familiarity with the organization expectations, need help of adapt this

culture. This adaptation process is called socialization. The process of

socialization is made up of three stages Pre-arrival, encounter, and

metamorphosis. These three stages have a great impact on the new

employee's work productivity, commitment to the organizations objectives

and make decision to stay with the organization.

Like organizational culture, dependence proneness, a personality

dimension, is also important to be studied in relation to need satisfaction.

Rapid progress generally requires, besides capital, know-how,

and conductive institutions, a fair sized band of imaginative enterpreneurs

who may challenge the old disfunctional values and practices and who may

115

explore, and accept new possibilities and actively manipulate the

environment in a pragmatic fashion and have sense of security.

Unfortunately, as observed by Rath (1965) and Sinha (1968) Indian people

do not seem to respond to measures directed to improve their living

conditions. They not only refuse to challenge the old disfunctional values

and practices, and to take the initiative to adopt new ways which are

conductive to the economic growth but also fail to utilize the

opportunities extended to them. This apathy has been a continuing worry in

the minds of planners and social scientists. To explain it, a number of

psychological constructs have been advanced. The one which seems to

quite revealing is the dependence proneness. Person who show dependence

and satisfy the vanity of those who are in authority have less adjustment

problems as compared to those who challenges the authority (Pandey and

Sinha, 1968).

Dependence proneness is operationally defined as a motivational

habit of over dependence on others in situations in which dependence is

not necessarily called for. It is not a clever strategy to win over a situation

nor a means to acheive some useful purpose rather it is a tendency or an

inner inclination to run to others without exhausting one's own resources.

It may express itself in one or more ways such as (a) to seek support,

advice and/or order from others, (b) to confide with others uncritically (c)

desires to be encouraged, helped and/or protected by others. Negatively, it

may be recognized in behaviours and inclinations such as (a) lacking

initiative (b) lacking independent judgement or weak judgement, (c) try to

116

avoid risk taking behaviour, (d) having an escape behaviour, (e) discouraged

easily and (f) refusing or displacing responsibility for an unfavourable

outcome.

Sinha (1968) observed that dependence proneness involves

excessive amount of dependency which propells a person to seek advice,

support and affection from others in situation where it rnay not be

necessarily required. In subsequent study, Sinha and Pandey (1972) have

reported that a high dependent - prone person hesitates, askes for all kinds

of information and communications. He is further described as one who is

anxious, fatalist, impractical and traditional. These characteristics of

dependent prone persons suggest that they are cognitively less developed

than their counterparts.

A person who happens to have developed such a disposition

would run to others for support, suggestions, and help even if confronted

with a relatively minor problem. He would be a perosn who needs frequent

encouragements and emotional supports and feels reluctant to take

initiative of independent judgements and actions. Rather, demanding

situations make him uncomfortable so much so that he would avoid making

decisions. If somehow a decision is made, he looks for a feedback and if a

positive one would not seem coming, he would tend to displace

responsibility for the outcome to someone else. It may also be believed,

by stretching the experimental evidences regarding the correlates of

dependency behaviour, that a dependence prone person is likely to be

117

suggestible (Jakubczak & Walters, 1959) conforming (Garai, 1960),

Passive (League & Jackson, 1961), weak in judgement and self-concept

(Elliot, 1960). Moreover, such a person leans on heavily for emotional

support and advice, and would experience pleasure in being cnsidered loyal

to friends and to authority. He is a person who is discouraged easily, and

hence has got greater need of being encouraged, helped and protected.

Another consideration that motivated the present researcher to

undertake the present investigation is the growing importance of cognitive-

flexibility. It seems cognitive rigidity-flexibility a personality variable,

plays crucial role in the perceived satisfaction of needs.

The term rigidity is a personality trait. Persons suffering from

such trait are engrossed in the interest and values primarily suited to their

own thoughts, feelings and idea.s They think about the future and adhere to

values of their own standard and plan for future but hesitate to reach a final

decision. Such people suffer from lack of freedom in response and stop

the process form starting. They will feel discomfort when faced with

complex and uncertain situations, because they cannot understand them. In

such situation, they show the tendency to 'retreat' rather than to attempt, to

understand or cope with situations effectively.

According to Sheila (1959) the term rigidity has been used

widely to refer to the ways of thinking and behaving which are not

responsive enough to change in the demands. It has grown out of

experimental studies on phenomena like preservation and mental inertia.

118

Rigidity has been defined by dfferent investigators in different ways but

resistance to change or the tendency to perservate in thinking and

responses remains the basis features of all the definitions.

Rokeach (1948) defined it as "the in ability to change one's set

when the objective conditions demand it". Warner (1946) defined rigidity

as lack of variability of response'. However Cattell (1949) has given one

of the best definition. He described disposition rigidity as "the difficulty

with which old established habits may be changed in the presence of new

demand".

Rigidity has been classified by some investigators into different

types. Cattell (1949) distinguished it into two types : Process rigidity and

structural rigidity. Goldstein (1943) identified two kinds of rigidity called

'primary' and 'secondary'. Primary rigidity is independent of an impairment

of higher mental processes. It is a basic lack of ability to change from one

'set' to another, i.e. primary rigidity refers to the inability of a person to

change from one chain of thought to another. The secondary rigidity, on the

other hand, refers to a preference of making incorrect response-to making

no reponse at all by a person who finds himself in a difficult situation.

Rigidity here is a secondary phenomena, it is the means to escape from a

frustrating situation but this rigidity appears only if the task is too

difficult.

Piaget (1968) has explained rigidity in terms of his cognitive

development theory of personality. The process of adaptation which is the

119

basic process in his theory, consists of assimilation and accomodation as

its components. In assimilation an individual's cognitive structure does not

change as a function of experience, whereas in accommodation his

cognitive structure does not change as a function of experience; Piaget has

also made a sharp distinction among rigid, labile and flexible cognitive

functionings. The cognitive functioning in a rigid person is dominated by

assimilatory tendency. Such a person finds it difficult to change himself

and to benefit from new experiences. A labile person on the other hand, is

so much changeable that it is difficult to predict any consistency in his

behaviour. A flexible individual responses to new information and new

experiences without losing his staiblity and identity.

In view of the afore-mentioned exhaustive descriptions, it is

quite clear that the present endeavour on the problem entitled, "Influence

of organization culture, dependence proneness, and rigidity-flexibility on

need satisfaction" was quite relevent as need satisfaction especially, of

people at work in an organizaiton has always been a strong craving. The

present work in its quest, had examined the influence of -predictors

(independent variables) viz. organizational culture, dependence proneness

and rigidity-flexibility on the criterion variable viz. need-satisfaction.

Thus, the aim was to explore whether or not these important variable have

any impact on need satisfaction of the employees. The findings of the

present study have definitely filled the void of knowledge in the

organizational behaviour and in turn will help in giving suggestions to

improve organizational strategy for improving organizational effectiveness

120

for its growth and development. Moreover, this has also been very

significant as employees need satisfaction has very important role in the

maximum utilization of human resources as well as attaining overall

organizational efficiency.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the influence

of organizational culture, dependence proneness and rigidity flexibility on

need-satisfaction.

To be more specific the study was designed to answer the

following questions.

(1) Does organizational culture influence need-satisfaction ?

(2) Does dependence - proneness influence need-satisfaction ?

(3) Does rigidity-flexibility influence need-satisfaction ?

(4) Is there any interactional effect of organizational culture and

dependence-proneness on need-satisfaction ?

(5) Is there any interactional effect of organizational culture and rigidity

flexibility on need-satisfaction ?

(6) Is there any interactional effect of dependence proneness and rigidity

flexibility on need satisfaction ?

(7) Is there any interactional effect of organizational culture,

dependence proneness and rigidity-flexibility on need-satisfaction ?

121

Design of the Study :

In order to answer the above questions, a 2x2x2 factoral design,

in which two personality variables (ie dependence proneness and rigidity

flexibility) and one environmental variable (ie organizational culture) each

varying in two ways was used in the present study. The two values of one

personality variable i.e. rigidity flexibility were (a) rigid and (b) flexible

and the two values of dependence proneness were (a) dependent prone and

(b) independent. The organizational culture was varied in two ways by

having (a) healthy culture and (b) poor culture. Thus there were eight

groups of subjects. There were forty subjects in each group. The eight

groups are given below.

(1

(2

(3

(4

(5

(6

(7

(8

Rigid dependent prone under healthy organizational culture.

Rigid dependent prone under poor organizational culture.

Rigid independent under healthy organizational culture.

Rigid independent under poor organizational culture.

Flexible dependent prone under healthy organizational culture.

Flexible dependent prone under poor organizational culture.

Flexible independent under healthy organizational culture.

Flexible independent under poor organizational culture.

Following tools were used in the present study.

Need, satisfaction Scale :

To measure employee's need-satisfaction, Porter's (1961) need-

satisfaction scale was used (see Appendix II). This scale consisted of

122

fifteen items based on five dimensions viz. security need, social need,

esteem needs, need for autonomy and self-actualization need. The scale

has a 5-point response category ranging from "strongly agree" (ie, 5) to

"strongly disagree" (ie. 1). It is a widely accepted and commonly used

scale, which is reported to be highly standardised as its reliability and

validity are significantly quite high.

Dependence Proneness Scale (D.P.S.):

Dependence proneness was measured with the help of a scale

developed by Sinha (1968). It is a 5 point self rating scale having 20 items,

the scale ranging from quite true (ie. 5) to not at all true (ie. 1) with

undecided (ie. 3) in the middle. The score range is possible from 20 to

100. In this system of scoring the larger the score, the greater is the

degree of dependence proneness.

The Rigidity Scale (G.S.R.)

The Gaugh-Sanford Rigidity Scale (1952) which is a 22 items

questionnaire was used in the study for measuring rigidity. The scale is

widely used in psychological studies as a measure of rigidity and is

included in the California Psychological Inventory, where it is labelled as

Fx (flexibility) scale.

The scale was translated into simple Hindi (Appendix IV) so that

it could be understood easily by the subjects. Utmost care was taken to

ensure that the translated version reflected truely the sense present in the

123

original version of the scale. Translation of each item was critically

examined by three senior teachers of psychology. Besides, a senior

teacher of Hindi, who was well proficient in Urdu and English as well, was

also consulted during the process of translation of the scale where a

difficult hindi word had to be used, its Urdu equivalent written in Devnagri

script was provided within brackets. This was done to ensure that the sense

implied in each question was correctly understood by these subjects also

whose mother tongue was urdu.

The split half reliability of the translated version of the scale

was .74 (corrected, N=50), and the scale correlated significantly with

California F-scale (r = 58, N = 50) with which it was conceptually related.

Organizational Culture Scale :

An organizational culture scale was developed by Nasheed

Imteyaz (2000) in order to measure the effects of organizational culture.

The scale was based on twelve dimensions namely : fairness, mutual trust,

openness, organizational climate, team spirit, organizational environment

autonomy, work values, organisational belongingness, confrontation

proaction and organizaitonal loyalty. The organizational culture scale is a

5-point response category. To confirm the reliability/dependability of

device, split-half reliability was calculated and reliability coefficient was

r = .89 which confirms high reliability. Further, congruent validity was

calculated to check the validity of the scale and validity coefficient was

r = .76 which also indicate that the test is highly valid. Therefore

organizational culture scale was confirmed as standardised scale.

124

Need-satisfaction scale developed by Porter (1961) was

administered on all the eight groups namely - Rigid dependent prone under

healthy organizational culture, Rigid dependent prone under poor

organizational culture, rigid independent under healthy organizational

culture, rigid independent under poor organizational culture, flexible

dependent prone under healthy organizational culture, flexible dependent

prone under poor organizational culture, flexible independent under

healthy organizational culture, and flexible independent under poor

organizational culture. Each groups consisted of 40 subjects.

The test was administered group wise with the following

instructions.

This scale consists of few statements each statement is followed

by five alternative responses namely (i) strong disagreement, (ii)

disagreement, (iii) neutral response, (iv) agreement, (v) strong agreement.

You are requested to read each statement carefully and indicate the extent

to which each aspect IS PRESENT in your job. Assign "5" to the job aspect

which is present in the maximum degree and "1" to the aspect which is

present in minimum degree in your job. So please rate each item on 5-

point scale from maximum "5" to minimum "1". It is important to note that

you have to answer each statement. I assure you that your answer would be

kept secret. Please read the instruction carefully given on the cover page

of the scale. Do you understand ?

As soon as the subjects finished their task, the test was collected

from them and scoring was done. The data, thus, obtained were tabulated

125

group wise and were statistically analysed to draw necessary inferences.

Keeping in view the objective of the present research,

appropriate statistical technique i.e. analysis of variance was used to draw

necessary inferences. Thus F-ratios were calculated for the variation of

each independent variable and also for any possible interaction between

two or more than two independent variables.

The main findings of the present research are : (!•) subjects

working under healthy organizational culture and poor organizational

culture differ with respect to their need satisfaction; (2) dependent prone

and independent prone subjects do not differ with respect to their need

satisfaction; (3) rigid and flexible subjects do not differ v/ith respect to

their need satisfaction; (4) There is no interactional effect of

organizational culture and dependence proneness on degree of need

satisfaction; (5) there is an interactional effect of organizational culture

and rigidity flexibility on the degree of need satisfaction; (6) there is an

interactional effect of dependence proneness and rigidity flexibility on the

degree of need-satisfaction and (7) there is no interactional effect among

organizational culture, dependence proneness and rigidity flexibility on the

degree of need-satisfaction.

The first finding of the present study, i.e. subject working under

healthy and poor organizational cultures differ with respect to their need-

satisfaction, is too obvious to explain. This finding of the present research

is what the researcher expect it. Numerous studies have shown that

126

organizational culture influences need satisfaction or job satisfaction. It

has been observed that employees differ with respect to their job-

satisfaction depending on whether organizational climate of any

organization is democratic or is autocratic.Kumar and Bohra (1979), for

instance, have demonstrated that employees who perceived the

organizational climate as democratic, they reported higher job satisfaction

than those employees who perceived organizational climate as autocratic.

Instead of using the terms healthy and poor culture, Wiener

(1988) has used the terms strong culture and weak culture. The first

finding of our research provides emparical support to the view point

expressed by Wiener. More over the author of the present research firmly

believes that healthy organizational culture is one in which(l) employees

interact with each other, use common language; (2) standards of behaviour

exists; (3) employees share major values advocated bythe organization; (4)

there are clearcut policies to deal with employees and customers; (5) rules

of the organization are strictly adhered to and(6) there is a democratic

atmosphere in the organization. A poor organizational culture, on the other

hand, is one which has opposit characteristics of a healthy organizational

culture as mentioned above. In view of these contrasting characteristics of

healthy and poor organizational cultures, it is reasonable and logical to

assuine that employees working under healthy organisational culture are

likely to be more satisfied than those who are working under poor

organizational culture. The first finding of our research provides emperical

evidence to this assumption. The first finding of the present research i.e.

127

organizational culture has significant effect on need-satisfaction, received

indirect support from numourous researchers. It has been demonstrated by

large number of investigators that there is negative co-relation between

organizational climate and need-satisfaction. In other words it has been

shown that when needs are diprived of, the perception of organizational

climate becomes negative (Subha & Anantharaman, 1981; Sen, 1981;

Rajendran, 1987; Srivastava, 1994; Petty et al, 1995).

Srivastava & Pratap (1984) reported a significant positive

relationship between the overall organizational climate and job

satisfaction. Job satisfaction was also found related to various individual

dimensions of organizational climate such as leadership, communication,

interaction influence in decision making goal-setting and control.

Spector (1982), (1986), observed that antonomy and

participation are positively related to general satisfaction and satisfaction

with work, pay, supervision, co-workers, promotion, and growth. In one of

their studies Weatherly, & Beach (1998) found that the greater the

difference between S's assessments of an organization's culture as they

perceived it to be now and as they thought it actually ought to be, the less

satisfied they reported themselves to be with their jobs. Most recently

Patel (1999) reported that employees of nationalized bank exhibited

higher job satisfaction than employees of co-operative bank. These

findings, obtained by numerous researchers,are in agreement either

directly or indirectly with the first finding of the present study.

128

A survey of literature has revealed that three models have been

developed to explain the relationship between job perception and job

satisfaction. First model, based on job characteristics theory and

developed by Hackman and Lawler (1971), asserts that job perception

leads to job satisfaction. Second model based on social information theory

and developed by Salanick and Pfeffer (1978), on the other hand, advocates

that job satisfaction leads to job perception.Third model specifies a

receprocal relationship between perception and saitsfaction was developed

by Mathien, Hofman and Farr (1993). The first finding of the present

research fits in the third model. Our finding under discussion provides

emperical support to this model of job satisfaction.

The second finding of the present study i.e. independent and

dependent prone subjects do not differ with respect to their need

satisfaction, is not in expected direction. Keeping in view of the

personality characteristics of dependent prone individuals it was assumed

that dependent prone subjects would show greater need satisfaction than

independent subjects. As mentioned elsewhere dependence proneness is a

motivational habit of over dependence on others in situations in which

dependence is not necessarily called for. It is a tendency or an inner

inclination to run to others without exusting one's own resources. It may

express itself in one or more ways such as (a) to seek support, advice, and/

or order from others, (b) to confide with others uncritically, (c) desires to

be encouraged, helped and/or protected by others. Negatively, it may be

recognised in behaviours and inclination such as (a) lacking initiative(b)

129

lacking independent judgement or weak judgement, (c) try to avoid risk

taking behaviour(d) having an escape behaviour, (e) discouraged easily and

(f) refusing or displacing responsibility for an unfavourable outcome.

Moreover it has been, found that a dependence prone person is likely to be

suggestible (Jakubezak & Walters, 1959) conforming (Garai, 1960),

passive (League & Jackson, 1961), weak in judgement and self-concept

(Elliot, 1960). Individuals having these characteristics are. likely to

perceive greater need satisfaction as compared to those who do not have

these characteristics. The second finding of the present research does not

confirm this assumption.

Though dependent prone and Independent subjects do not differ

significantly, there is however a trend showing greater need satisfaction

among dependent prone subjects than among independent subjects. This

trend is not statistically significant but provides confirmation, though a

weak one, to our assumption.Looking at the data of our research it may be

extracted that if the study is carried out on much larger sample the existing

trend' may become statistically significant. However at present no

convincing explanation maybe provided except that the present finding is

in consonance with the findings obtained by Singh & Sengupta (1997).

These researchers administered Sinha's(1968) dependence proneness scale

on Indian students studying at Indian Institute of Management of Calcutta

with the objective to examine the dependence proneness of these subjects.

They found that their subjects have initiativeness and independent decision

making behavioural patterns. Thus the second finding of the present

130

research leaves no option except to assume that the sample of the present

study might not be fairly catagorized into dependent prone and

independent subjects.

The third finding of the present research i.e. Rigid and flexible

subjects do not differ with respect to need satisfaction, is not consistent

with the existing findings (Pritichard and Karasick, 1973; Deepa, 1996).

Pritichard and Karasick (1973) reported a positive corelatioh between

flexibility and job-satisfaction. Where as Deepa (1996) found lower

satisfaction among rigid group. Turning our attention toTable II C, it may

be observed that rigid group of subject obtained slightly higher mean score

on need-satisfaction scale than their counterpart flexible group of

subjects. Though the difference is not statistically significant, there is,

however, a trend to the effect that rigid subjects are more satisfied than

flexible subject. This trend of the present research is contrary to what

other researchers have found. However this trend throws a light on new

personality dimension of rigid subjects. We believe rigid subjects are

insecure individuals (Ramamurti and Gnanakannan, 1972) and therefore

they are more likely to be satisfied easily with smallest amount of

incentive. This assumption is fully endorsed by existing trend of the

present research. This trend motivates the authors of the present research

to undertake a more comprehensive study in this area of knowledge using a

much larger sample of subjects so that a new theoretical framework may

be worked out.

131

Turning our attention to other findings of the present research,

to find that two interactional effects i.e. interaction between organizational

culture and dependence proneness, and among organizational culture,

dependence proneness and rigidity flexibility are insignificant, whereas

interaction between organizational culture and rigidity-flexibility, and

interaction between dependence proneness and rigidity flexibility are

significant.

The first insignificant interactional effect of organizational

culture and dependence proneness suggests that the need-satisfaction

scores under healthy and poor organizational culture are independent of

dependence proneness - independent proneness of the subjects. The

findings reveals that though organizational culture influences the degree of

need-satisfaction in a significant way when considered separately but when

it is combined with dependence proneness, its interaction becomes

insignificant.

Similarly the second insignificant interactional effect of

organizational culture, dependence proneness and rigidity-flexibility

makes it crystal clear that need-satisfaction score under healthy and poor

culture are independent of dependence proneness and rigidity-flexibility

of thq subjects. The finding leads us to conclude that though organizational

culture influences degree of need satisfaction in a significant way when

considered separately, but when it is combined with dependence-proneness

and rigidity flexibility, its interaction becomes insignificant.

132

So far as significant interactional effect of organizational

culture and rigidity-flexibility is concerned, it suggests that the need

satisfaction scores under healthy and poor culture are not independent of

the personality dimensions i.e. rigid flexible, of the subjects rather than

need-satisfaction scores of the subjects are the product of the

organizational culture and rigidity flexibility.

Similarly second significant interactional effect of dependence-

proneness and rigidity flexibility suggests that the need satisfaction scores

of dependent prone and independent prone subjects are not independent of

their rigidity flexibility type rather the need satisfaction score of the

subjects are the product of dependence proneness and rigidity flexibility.

The overall findings of the present research revealed that among

three independent variables namely organizational culture, dependence -

proneness, and rigidity flexibility, only organizational culture was found to

have an influence on need satisfaction of employees.

So far as impact of organizational culture is concerned it is well

documented that organization culture has a strong influence on employee's

behaviour. It has been shown that employees develop subjective perception

of the organization based on such factors as degree of group emphasis

support of people, risk tolerence and management's willingness to tolerate

conflict. This overall perception infact constitute what we called

organization's culture. Thus employee's satisfaction or dissatisfaction

depends to a larger extent whether they have formed favourable or

133

unfavourable perceptions of the organization. According to Hellriegel and

Slocum (1974) there is strong relationship between culture and

satisfaction but this relationship is moderated by individual differences. It

has been demonstrated that there will be highest satisfaction if there is

congruence between employee's needs and culture. For instance if

employees have a high need for achievement and autonomy, they will

derive maximum satisfaction in those organisations which emphasise

individual tasks, have loose supervision and reward people for high

achievement.

The subjects of the present study who were having favourable

perception of the organization were found satisfied where as those having

unfavourable perception of their organizational culture were found

dissatisfied. However the influence of organizational culture on need

satisfaction was moderated by individual differences in the dimension of

dependence proneness and rigidity flexibility. Our conclusion, therefore,

is that job satisfaction often varies as a result of employee's perception of

the organization culture.

The findings of the present research do not show any differential

effect of dependence proneness and rigidity-flexibility on need

satisfaction. However these personality variables may play crucial role in

cultivating a ground for a change in a organization's culture.

As a matter of fact once an organization is Well established its

dominant culture too becomes stable and permanent. In other words strong

134

cultures are particularly resistant to change because employees of that

organization become so committed to them. However if a given culture,

overtime, becomes in appropriate to an organization and a handicap to

management, there may be little that management can do lo change it.

In such situations the management is confronted with the critical

question what would those davourable conditions be that might facilitate

changing a culture? Kilmann, Saxton, Serpa (1985) have cited evidence to

the effect that cultural change is most likely to occure when four

conditions namely dramatic crises, turnover in leadership, young and small

organization, and weak culture exist. However in the light of the findings

of the present research it is suggested that fifth condtion namely

personality variables (i.e. dependence proneness and rigidity-flexibility)

may also be included.We firmly believe that dependence pronenness and

rigidity-flexibility may also facilitate a change in culture whenever such a

change is required in any organization. This contention is based on the

personality characteristics of dependent- independent prone individuals as

well as personality characteristics of rigid and flexible individuals. The

personality characteristics of dependent - independent and rigid flexible

individuals as mentioned in chapter I, lead us to suggest that management

of the organization should take care of personality traits of the employees

at the time of personal selection. More specifically it is suggested that

only those employees should be selected who are independent.prone and

flexible. This task may easily be accomplished by administering certain

135

personality test at the time of selection. By selecting independent prone

and flexible employees, we believe, it would become easier for the

management to bring out a change in culture whenever it is required for the

welfare of the organization.

REFERENCES

Agarwal, K. (1998). Job satisfaction and occupational stress in relation

to felt proximity with top management. Indian Journal of

Psvchometrv and Education Vol. 29(2). PP. 113-114.

Alam, K (1985). Aa study of dependence proneness as related to religion

and caste. Indian Journal of Community Guidance Service, Vol.

2(1), 41-48.

Alam, K. (1997). Job satisfaction, Job involvement and organizational

stress among private and public sector executives. Paper presented

at the 3rd international and 34th lAAP conference. Technical

Teacher's Training Institute, Madras.

Alderfer, C.P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs.

Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 142-75.

Alderfer, C.P. (1972). Existence, relatedness and growth human needs in

organizational settings. New York: Free Press.

Anantharaman, R.N. and Subha, V. (1980). Job involvement,need

satisfaction and organizational climate. Indian Journal of Applied

psvchologv Vol. (17) No(2) PP. 56-59.

Ananatharaman R.N. and Subha, V. (1982). A study of influence of

• personal factors on need satisfaction and its importance. Indian

Journal of Applied Psvchologv. Vol.(19) Nod) PP. 1-6.

Andrew U. (1835). The Philosophy of Manufacturers, London: Charles

Knight .

137

Anjali, G. (1998). Perceived need satisfaction in executives of public

sector organizations. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied

Psychology. Vol.24, No. 1-2, PP. 33-36.

Appleby, P.H. (1956). Re-examination of India's administrative system

with special reference to administration of government's

industrial and commercial enterprises. New Delhi, Government of

India Press.

Armstrong, M. (1987). Human Resource Management: A case of the

emperor's new clothes? Personnel Management, August, 30-39.

Barney, J.B. (1986). Organizational Culture: Can it be source of

sustained advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11,

656-665.

Bendixaen, Mike & Burger, Bruce. (1998) Cross-cultural management

philosophies. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 42(2),

PR07-114.

Berelson, B. & Steiner G.A. (1964). Human Behaviour: An inventory of

Scientific Findings, Harcourt Brace & World, Inc., New York,

R 240.

Bhargava, S. and Kelkar, A. (2000). Prediction of job involvement, job

satisfaction and empowerment from organizational structure and

corporate culture. Psychological studies Vol. 45. Nos. (1 and 2)

2000 National Academy of Psychology, India.

Bhatnagar, D. and Bhandari,L. (1998). Organizational culture in

' changing environment. Vikalpa 23(1), 83-91.

138

Blum, M.L. (1968). Industrial Psychology - Its Theoretical and Social

Foundations, New York: Harper International, P. 328.

Breeden, Sue. A (1993). Job and occupational change as a function of

occupational correspondence and job satisfaction. Special Issue:

The theory of work Adjustment. Journal of vocational Behaviour

Vol. 43(1), 30-45.

Brown, J.A.C. (1962). Social Psychology of Industry Harmondsworth,

Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd. P. 145.

Burke R.J. (1996). Sources of Job satisfaction among employees of a

professional services firm. Psychological Reports, Vol. 78(3, pt2),

PP. 1231-1234.

Burke R.J. (1997). Organizational hierarchy and cultural values.

Psychological Reports, Vol (81) (3,P+n, 832-834.

Cattell, R.B. & Tiner, L.G. (1949). The varieties of structural rigidity.

Journal of Personality, 17, 321-341.

Christopher, 0. (1994). Interactive effects of work motivation and

personal control on employee job performance and satisfaction.

Journal of social Psychology, Vol.(134) No. (6) PR 855-856.

Cordery, J. Sevastos,R Mueller, W. and Parker, S. (1993). Correlates of

employee attitude towards functional flexibility. Human

Relations, Vol. 46(6) PR 705-723.

Davis, K. (1990). Human behaviour at work, organizational behaviour.

, Tata Mc.Graw Hill. New Delhi Sixth Edition.

139

Deal, T, & Kennedy, A.(1982) Corporate Culture: Rites and rituals of

corporate life. London: Penguin.

Deepa, M. (1996). A study of behavioural and job performance among

• managers. Journal of Personality and Clinical studies. Vol. 12

(1-2), PP. 23-27.

Dubin, R. (1970). Human Relations in Administration, P. 53.

Dudeck, E.E.(1953) in Psychology of Industrial Relations, (ed.)

' C.H.Lawshe, New York: McGraw Hill Book Company Inc., PP.

47-53.

Durkheim, E. (1961). The Elementary Forms of Religious life. Transl. J.

Swain, (1961) New York Collier (From French).

Elliot, R. (1960). Inter-relationships among measures of field

dependence ability, and personality tests. Unpublished Doctoral

Dissertation, University of Illinoic.

Festinger, L.(1957). A theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, Calif:

Stanford Univ. Press.

Forehand, G. & Gilmer, B. (1964). Environmental variation in studies of

organizational behaviour Psychological Bulletin, 22, 361-382.

Ganguli, H.C. (1964). Structure and process of organization. Bombay:

Asia Publishing House, PR 87-90.

Garai, J.E. (1960). Support of Judgement independence or conformity

pressure. Dissertation Abstract, 20, 3413.

140

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York,

Basic Books.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in Everyday Life. New

• York: Doubleday.

Goldstein,K. (1943). Concerning rigidity Character and personality,

IK 209-226.

Goodenough, W. (1971) "Culture, language and society. Reading, Mass:

Addisonwesley.

Gordon, G.G. & Tomaso, N.D. (1992) Predicting corporate performance

from organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 29,

783-798.

Hagen, E.E. (1962). On the theory of social change. Homewood,

Illionois: Dorsey.

Hakim, G.M. (1993). Influence of job satisfaction on job performance

management and labour studies. XLRI Jamshedpur, 18.

Harper, Jr. A.E. (1967) Review of J.M. Fuster's, Psychological

counselling in India. Contemporary Psychology, Vol. 12, 334-355.

Heather, G. (1955). Emotional dependence and independence in nursery

school play: Journal of Genetic Psychology, 87, 37-57.

Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, CM. (1974). "Organizational Climate:

Measures, Research, and contingencies", Academy of

Management Journal, PP. 225-80.

141

Hemalatha, N. and Radhai, K. (1990). Extent of job satisfaction among

executives and supervisors and the factors promoting job

satisfaction. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied

Psychology. Vol. (16) No.2 PP. 49-52.

Herskovits. M.J.(1955). Cultural anthropology. New York: Knopf.

Herzberg, F. Mausner, B., Peterson, R.O. and Capwell, D.F. (1957). Job

attitudes: Review of research and opinion. Psychological services

of Pittsburg, Pittsburg and as quoted by Millon L. Blum and James

C. Naylor, Industrial psychology. Its Theoretical and social

Foundation New York: Harper and Row (International edition) 1968,

PR 371-72.

Herzberg, F. (1959). The Motivation to work. New York, Wiley.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and nature of man clevland world.

Hochwarter, W.A., Perrewe, P.L., Ferris, G.R. and Brymer, R.A. (1999).

Job satisfaction and performance; The moderating effects of value

attainment and affective disposition. Journal of vocational

Behaviour Vol. 54(2), 296-313.

Hofstede G. (1990). "Measuring Organizational Cultures: A Qualitative and

Quantitative Study Across Twenty Cases, Administrative Science

Quarterly. PR 286-316.

Hoppock (1935). Job satisfaction. New York: Harper and Row.

Imteyaz, N. (2000). Unpublished Thesis, Department of Psychology,

A.M.U.

Iris, and Barrott, G.V. (1972). Some relations between Job life satisfaction

and job performance Journal of Applied Psychology, 56.

142

Jakubczak, L.F. and Walters, R.H. (1959). Suggestibility as dependence

behaviour. Journal of Abnormal and social Psychology, Vol. 59,

' 102-107.

Janak, G.S., and Diwani (1983). Study on Job satisfaction among bank

employees. Indian psychological Review, Vol. (24). PP. 22-25.

Johnson, J.J. and Mclutye, C.L. (1998). Organizational culture and

climate correlates of job satisfaction. Psychological Reports

Vol.(82) (3, Pt 1). PP. 843-850.

Joshi, G. (1998). Job satisfaction Job involvement and work involvement

, among the employees of private and public sector. Psychological

Studies 43(3). 85-90.

Joshi G. (1999). Job satisfaction, Job and work involvement. Among the

Industrial employees. A correlational studies. Journal of Indian

Academy of Applied Psychology. Vol. 25, No. 1-2, 79-82.

Kalliopuska, M. (1993). Relationship of need satisfaction and desire to

improve need satisfaction. Perceptual and Motor skills. Vol.(76)

(3, Pt 2), 1070.

Kelley, H. (1977). Attribution in social Interaction. In Attribution:

Perceiving the causes of Behaviour (ed.) Jones et al. Morristown,

NJ: General Learning.

Khandelwal, P. (1986). Perceived need satisfaction and importance

among supervisory and managerial Personnel. Indian Journal of

Applied Psychology Vol. 23(1) PP. 25-29.

143

Kilmann, R.H.; Saxton, MJ. and Serpa, R. eds.(1985) Gaining control

of the corporate culture (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).

Klein, Andrew S; Masi, Ralph J. & Weidner, C. Ken (1995).

Organisational culture, distribution and amount of control and

perceptions of quality. An empirical study of linkages. Special

, issue: Organizational studies conferences: Best papers. Group and

Organization Management, Vol. 20(2), PR 122-148.

Kolasa, B.J. (1978). Introduction to Behavioural Science for'Business,

Wiley Eastern. New Delhi, R 250.

Krech, D. Crutchfield, R.S. and Ballachy, E.L. (1962). The Individual in

Society, New York: Mc Graw Hill Book Company. R 69.

Kristopher, W.A. and Roy, B.L. (1998). Organizational culture and

decision making. In PA Vol. 85: 9984, PR 211-225.

mar, K.G. and Achamamba, B.(1993). A comparative study of job

satisfaction and job involvement among public and private sector

employees. Psychological studies Vol. (38) No. (2) PP. 69-72.

Kumar, P. and Bohra, J.S. (1979) Perceived organizational climate.

Indian Journal of social work, 40(1), 23-36.

Lahiri, D.K. (1973) "What Indian Managers Want From Their Jobs".

ASCI Journal of Management, 3(1), PR 67-79.

League, B.J. and Jackson, D.N.(1961). Activity, Passivity as correlated

of field independence. Perceptual motor skills. Vol. 12; 291-298.

144

Lehner, FJ. and Kube, E. (1956). The Dynamics of Adjustment,

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Inc. P. 318.

Lillis J.C. (1958), "What Makes Sammy Run?" In Advanced Management

Journal, July, P. 5.

Lorsch, J.W; and Morse, J.J. (1975). Organisations and their Members,

New York, Harper and Row.

Luthans, F, (1995). Organizational Behaviour (7th ed) Mc Graw. Hill. Book

Company, Singapore.

Luthans, Fred. (1998): Organizational Behaviour. Irwin Mc Graw Hill.

Eight Edition.

Maier, N.R.F.(1946). Psychology in Industry, George G. Harrays and Co.

Ltd. Table 5, R 268.

Maier, N.R.F. (1959). Psychology in Industry, George G. Harrays & Co.

Ltd., London.

Maliriowski, B. (1961) Argonants of the Western Pacific. London:

Routledge, Kegan Paul.

Mamoria C.B. (1991). Personnel Management (Management'of Human

Resources). 9h Ed. Himalaya Publishing House.

Margulies, N. (1969). Organizational culture and psychological growth. -^

Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 5, 490-498.

Maslow A.H. (1943). "A Theory of Human Motivation", Psychological

Review, 50, PR 370-396.

Maslow A.H. (1943, 1954, 1971). "A Theory of human Motivation",

Psychological Review, Vol. 50, PR 370-396, and A,H, Maslow.

Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper and Row, Publishers,

Incorporated, also A.H.Maslow, The Father Reaches of Human

Nature, New York: The Viking Press, Inc.

145

Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and Personality, New York, Harper.

Mathew, M.K. (1992). Manageiral satisfaction in relation to on the job

activities. Psychological studies, (Jul-Nov) Vol. 37(2-3) PP.

99-108.

Mathien, J.E.; Hofman, D.A. and Farr, J.L. (1993), Job perception -job

satifaction relations: An empirical comparison of three competing

theories. Organizational Behaviour & Human Decision Processes,

Vol. 56(3), 370-387.

Mathur, P and Mehta (1994). Organization climate: A study of family and

non family controlled organisations. Paper presented in Asian and

XXXII lAAP Conference at A.M.U.Aligarh. Feb. 27-29. .

Mayo, E. (1933). The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization,

Cambridge Mass: Harward University Press.

Mc Clelland, D.C. (1951). Measuring motivation in phantasy: The

achievement motive. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and

men. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.

Mc. Clelland, D.C. (1961). The Achieving society Princeton. Van Nostrand.

Reinhold.

Mikesell, W.H. and Hanson.G (1953) Psychology of Adjustment, New

York: D.Van Nostrand Company Inc. P. 279.

Mishra, P.C. and Gupta, J. (1994). Performance as a function of

employees, motivation and job involvement. Psychological studies

Vol. (39) No. (DPP. 18-20.

146

Morey, N.C. & Luthans, F. (1985). "Refining the Displacement of

culture and the use of Sciences and Themes in Organizational

Studies", Academy of Management Review, P. 221.

Murphy, L.B. (1953). Root of tolerance and tensions in [ndian child

' development. In G. Murphy's, In the minds of Men. New York,

Basic Books.

Murray, H.A.(1938). Explorations in Personality, New York, Oxford

University Press.

Myrdal, G. (1968). Asian Drama. London: Allen Lane, The Penguin

Press.

Ojha, H. (1972) Relation of achievement motivation to parental

behaviour and certain Socio-economic variables. Unpublished

• Ph.D. Thesis, Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur.

Ojha, R.S. (1978). Reaction time as a function of dependence proneness.

Journal of Psychological Researches, Vol. 22(3), 151-1'52.

O'Reilly, Charles, A. III. (1991): Organisational Behaviour: "Where

, we've Been, where we're Going," M.R. Rosenzweig and L.W.

Porter, eds. Annual Reviews of Psychology, Vol. 42 (Palo Alto,

Ca: Annual Reviews (1991), PR 427-458.

Pandey, J. and Sinha, J.B.P.(1968). Dependence proneness and perceived

, problems of adjustments. Journal of psychological Researches,

Vol. 12. 104-110.

Pathak, R.D. (1977). A study of certain variables related to job

satisfaction among public sector employees in Shimla Prolan, 6,

205-217.

147

Patel,' V.F. (1999). An analytical study of stress as well as satisfaction in

job as experienced by bank employees in relating to some social

variables. Paper presented 4th International and 35th lAAP

Conference Anand (Guirat) May 27-29. 1999.

Perrez, M., Niggli, A. and Kramis, J. (1982). Independence and

dependence as factors in mother's educational style. Based on a

study by J.D. Qsofsky and E.J.O.' Connell. Vol. 4(4) PP. 276-286.

Peters, T.J. & Waterman, R.H.(1982). In search of excellence: Lessons

from Americas best run companies. New York: Harper & Row.

Pettigrew, A. (1979). On studying Organizational Cultures.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 570-581.

Petty M.M; Beadles, N.A., Lowery, Christopher, M. Chapman, Debrah

F. et al. (1995). Relationship organizational culture and

organizational performance. Psychological Reports, Vol. 76(2),

PR 483-492.

Piaget, J. (1968). Six Psychological Studies. New York: Random House.

Porter, L.W. (1963). Job attitudes in management II. Perceived

importance of needs as a function of Job level. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 47. 141-148.

Pradhan R.K. (1999). Impact of organisational culture on leadership and

power service and industrial organisations. Indian Journal of

Psychological Issues. 1999. 7(1), 8-13.

148

Pritchard, R.A. and Karasick,B-W. (1973). The effects of organizational

climate on managerial job performance and job satisfaction.

Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 9, 126-146.

Radcjiffe-Brown, A.R. (1952) Structure and Function in Primitive

Society, London: Oxford Univ. Press.

Rajendran, S. (1987). Job satisfaction, job involvement and perceived

organizational climate among the assistants and lower managerial

, personnel of government organization. Indian Journal of Applied

Psychology, 24(2). 58-64.

Ramamurti, P.V. and Gnankannan, I. (1972). Rigidity flexibility

characteristics of secure and insecure individuals. Journal of

Psychological researches Vol. (16) No. (2).

Rastogi, R. and Verma, N. (1999). Need satisfaction as a function of

bureaucracy of organisation. Psycho-Lingua, 29(2) PP. 165-170.

Rath, R. (1964-65). Nature of mental processes and the direction of

psychological Research Presidential address to the section f

psychology and educational science of combined 51st and 52nd

session of the Indian Science Congress, Calcutta.

Rath, R.S. (1965). Cultural deprivation index. Unpublished Manuscript,

Psychology Department, Utkal University, Bhubaneshwar.

Redfield R. (1941). The Folk Culture of Yucatan, Chicago, University of

Chicago Press.

149

Reyhan, B. (1998). The relationship between job satisfaction and personal

characteristics of Turkish workers. Journal of Psychology Vol.(132)

No. (5), PP. 549-557.

Robbins, S.P.(1984). Management: Concepts and Practices. Prentice-

Hall, Englewood cliffs. New Jersey.

Robbins, S.P.(1990).Organisation Theory, 3rd ed.. Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs. N.J., PR 456-457.

Robbins, S. P. (1991): Organizational behaviour; concepts, controversies

and Applications, Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi. Fifth

Edition.

Robbins, S.P. (1994): Essentials of Organizational behaviour. Prentice

Hall, New Delhi.

Robbins, S.P. (1994). Organizational Behaviour; Concepts controversies

and Applications, 6th ed. (Englewood) Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,

1994).

Robinson, H.A. and Hoppock, R. (1952). "Job satisfaction Resume of

1951 occupations" 30, PR 594-98.

Roe, A. (1956). Psychology of occupations, New York: Wiley, P. 33.

Roethlisberger, F.J. and Dickson, W.J. (1939). Management and the

worker. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.

Rokeach, M. (1948). Generalized rigidity as a factor of ethnocentrism -

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 43, 259-277.

150

Rubaii-Barrett, Nadia & Ann C. (1993). Minorities in the majority:

Implications for managing cultural diversity. Public Personnel

Management. Vol. 22(4). PP. 503-521.

Ruch, F.L. (1970). Psychology of life. Transpore Vok^and Sons Co.

Bombay.

Sackett, Samuel J.C. (1998). Counselling as an aid to self-actualization.

Journal of Career Development Vol. 24(3). P. 235-244.

Saeeduzzafar and Alam, K. (1987). Academic performance as a function

of dependence proveness and sex. Asian Journal of Psychology

and Education. Vol. 19 (5-6), 33-37.

Saffold, G.S. (1988). Culture traits, strengths, and organizational

performance: Moving beyond strong culture. Academy of

Management Review. 13. 564-558.

Sagar, S. and Devender, S. (1989). Organisational Climate, job

satisfaction and job anxiety. Psychological studies. Vol. (34) No.

'(1) PP. 21-27.

Sara, W. (1969). Case studies. In, D.C. Mc Cieiland and D.G. Winter's

Motivating Economic Achievement. New York: Free Press.

Schein, E.H.(1983). Organizational culture: A dynamic model. In Ouchi,

W.G. & Wilkins, A.L. Organizational Culture, Annual Review of

Sociology. 1985(11). 457-483.

Schein, E.H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational

culture. Sloan Management Review. Winter. 3-15.

151

Schein, E.H. (1988). Organizational culture and Leadership: A Dynamic

View, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Sekaran, U. and Wagner, F.R.; (1980). Sense of competence: A cross-

• cultural Analysis for -Managerial Application, Group and

organization studies: 5,3, PP. 340-352.

Sekaran, U. (1995). Organizational behaviour. Text and 'Cases, Tata Mc

Graw Hill, New Delhi.

Sen, R.C. (1981). A study of personal and organizational correclates of

role stress and copying styles in some public sector banks. Ph.D.

dissertation, Ahmedabad: Gujrat University.

Shaffer, L.F. and Shoben, E.J., Jr (1956). The Psychology of

Adjustment, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. PP. 567-73.

Shaie, K.W. (1955). A test of behavioural rigidity. Journal of abnormal

and Social Psychology, 51, 604-610.

Sharma, S. & Kapoor, V.K. (1978). A study of involvement in relations

to certain demographic variables among white collar workers.

Indian Psychological Review, 16, 11-16.

Sheila, M.C. (1959). Rigidity - a flexible concept. Psychological

Bulletin, 56, 3, 195-223.

Sheridon, John E. (1992). Organisational culture and employee

retention. Academy of Management. Journal, Vol. 35(5), PP. 1036-

1056.

152

Singh, M. and Pestonjee D.M. (1990). Job satisfaction, job involvement

and participation amongst different categories of bank employees.

Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology Vol. (16)

• No.2 PP. 37-43.

Singh, S. and Sengupta (1997). The present research is a replicative

study. Indian Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. (34) No.(l).

Singh, U.R. and Priya, M.(1997). Job satisfaction, anxiety and

adjustment An empricial study. Indian Journal of Psychological

issue. Vol. 5(22). 30-34.

Sinha, D. (1966). Psychologists on the arena of social change,

. Presidential address, 53rd convension of the Indian Science

Congress, Chandigarh.

Sinha, J.B.P. ((1968). A test of dependence proneness. Journal of

psychological Researches, Vol. 12, 66-70.

Sinha, J.B.P. (1968). Some of the concomitant and background variables

of dependence proneness in India. Journal of General and Applied

Psychology, Vol. 1(1), 44-49.

Sinha, J.B.P. (1969). Perceptual support to dependence proneness.

Journal of General and Applied Psychology, Vol. 2(1-2), 13-19.

Sinha, J.B.P. and Pandey, J. (1972). The Process of decision-making in

dependence proneness. Journal of Psychological Researches, Vol.

16(1), 35-37.

153

Journal of General and Applied Psycholoav, Vol. 2(1-2\ 13-19.

Sinha, J.B.P. and Pandey, J. (1972). The Process of decision making in

dependence proneness. Journal of Psychological Researclies, Vol.

16(1), 35-37.

Slocum, J.P. and John, W: (1971). Motivation in managerial levels:

Relationship of need satisfaction to job performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology Vol. (55) No.4, PP. 312-316.

Spector, RE. (1982). Behaviour in organization as a function of

employees, Locus of control. Psychological Bulletin, 19, 482-497.

Srivastava, A.K. (1984): Job Motivation: Manegers, Supervisors,

Workers. Deep & Deep Publications.

Srivastava, S.K. and Prataps (1964). Perception of Job satisfaction and

organizational climate. Perspectives of Psychological researches,

7, 41-43.

Srivastava, S.K. (1994). Correlational study of organizational climate

and need satisfaction with job involvement. Paper presented in

Asian and XXXII lAAP conference at A.M.U., Aligarh, Feb.

27-29.

Staw, Barry M. (1991): Psychological Dimensions of Organizational

behaviour. Maxwell Macmillen International, New York.

Subha; V and Anantharaman R.N. (1981). Organizational climate and

need satisfaction. Indian Journal of Applied Psychology vol (18)

No (1) PR 8-10.

154

Tolman, E., (1958). Behaviour and psychological Man, University of

California Press, Berkeley, pp. 115-119.

Triandis, H. (1990). Introduction to Cross-cultural psychology. Urbana -

• Champaign: University of Illinois.

Trice, H.. & Beyer, J.M. (1984) Studying organizational culture through

Rites and ceremonius Academy of Management Review 9,

653-669.

Tripathi, N.K.M. (1983). Prolonged deprivation, approval, locus of

control and dependence. Journal of psychological Researches,

Vol. 3, 157-161.

Tripathi, N.K.M. and Tripathi, L.B. (1981). Approval motive as a factor

in field dependence and social dependence. Psychological studies.

Vol. 26, 14-15.

Tunstall, W.B.(1983). Cultural transition at "AT & T", Sloan

Management Review, Fall, 15.

Umstbt, D.D. (1984) Understanding organizational Behaviour.

Minnesota: West Publishing Company.

Warner, H. (1946). The concept of rigidity: A critical evaluation.

Psychological Review, 53, 42-53.

Weihrich, H. & Koontz, H. (1993). Management: A global perspective.

New York: Mc Graw Hill.

Wharton, A.S. Rotolo, T. and Bird, S.R. (2000). Social context at work:

A multilevel analysis of job satisfaction. Sociological Forum Vol.

15(1), PR 65-90.

155

Wiener, Y. (1988). "Forms of value systems: A Focus on organizational

Effectiveness and Cultural change and Maintenance", Academy of

Management Review, P. 536.

White, R.W., (1959, 1965). "Motivation Revisited: The concept of

competence", Psychological Review, 1959, 66, PP 297-333. "Ego

and Reality in Psychoanalytic Theory". Psychological Issues,

1965, 3, R3.

Zamanon, Sonia and Glaser, Susan R., (1994). Moving towards

perception and involvement. Managing and measuring

organizational culture Group and Organizational Management Vol.

19(4), PR 475-502.

Dear Sir / Respondent

It is indeed a privilege to have this opportunity to address you.

I am doing Ph.D. in the dept. of Psychology. The accomplisrnent of my

research work is not possible without your co-operation. Your views and

opinions related to the job you are performing is of utmost importance.

Therefore, the questions/statements in the questionnaire and framed to

know, your personal views. Your frank and honest responses to each

question / statement is essential for the successful completion of this

study. I also assure you that information given by you will be kept

strictly confidential.

Thank you very much for sparing your precious time. I would

be highly obliged for your cooperation.

Reshma Siddiqi Research Scholar

Dept. of Psychology A.M.U. Aligahr

157

Before going through the questionnaire, please see the following

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Answer the questions serially i.e. as they appear in the format.

2. If some statements or questions appear to be similar, even then you

answer each of them separately.

3. It is expected that while answering, you do not consult anyone else.

We want to know your opinions, views and feelings not theirs.

4. Do not take too much time over any particular question. Whatever

answers comes first to your mind, give that.

5. Please be as honest as possible and do not hesitate. Feel free to

give your frank responses. Confidentiality of your responses is

assured.

6. It is necessary that you answer all questions / statements. Please

don't leave any question / statement unanswered.

Please do not leave any question /statement unanswered.

Section-A

(PCS)

This questionnaire is designed to find out some of the believes, values

and practices of the organization in which you are working. Below are

given no. Of statements / question and you are requested to read

carefully each to respond in the following manner.

1. Assign "1" to the statement / question when you have strong disagreement.

2. Assign "2" to the statement / question when you have disagreement.

3. Assign "3" to the statement / question when you have neutral response.

158

4. Assign "4" to the statement / question when you have agreement.

5. Assign "5" to the statement / question when you have strong agreement.

1. In our organization employee's slciiis and abilities are given due weightage in giving promotion and sanctioning any other reward, (a)

2. People generally have greater enthusiasm to take initiative at work, (k)

3. People generally follow organizational rules and regulations here, (i)

4. Employees always feel free to think, generate and apply new ideas for the productive growth of the company, (g)

5. Supervisors / Managers generally emphasize over team -work in carrying out work-responsibilities here (e)

6. Criticism and back - biting is a normal culture in this Organization, (c)

7. Employees generally take initiative to resolve the conflicts and problems at their Own level. (J)

8. Employees interact and communicate with their superiors, colleagues and subordinates in confidence and trust, (b)

9. Employees are generally being treated here as they are expecting, (h)

10. Supportive attitude are encouraged and promoted here, (d)

11. Maintaining harmony is highly valued here, (f)

12. Employees with right spirit generally hold discussions and give suggestions to help Improve organizational working and product efficiency.(k)

13. Generally employees' behavior at work are quite predictable, (h)

14. People feel proud for organizational fairness, (a)

15. Absenteeism level is very low in our company / organization, (i) ( )

159

16. Employess have greater freedom to act independently within the boundaries of their job responsibilities, (g) ( )

17. Employees generally have confidence among others that they will help them to resolve problems and if needed they would be willingly to share responsibilities at work here, (b) ( )

18. People have very open discussion with regard to all sorts of problems for better solution, (j)

19. People feel free to work here, (f)

20. People are strictly supervised here through strict organizational rules and regulations, (d)

21. People spontaneously express their feeling either pleasant or unpleasant before managers / supervisors and their feeling are well attended and cared here, (c)

22. I have the feeling of loosing my interest and commitment with my work and the organization here. (1)

23. People are action-oriented, willing to take initiative & show a high degree of Pro-organizational activity, (k)

24. People are generally productive and self-controlled here, (g)

25. The organization is well organized and has clearly defined goals, (c)

26. People try to put their best effort to work with others rather to have an individualistic effort.(e)

27. People generally do not want to work unless they are forced, (h)

28. People generally feel that they are not being trusted here, (b)

29. Nurturing & helping subordinates is encouraged in this organization, (d)

30. I am for my organization/company. (1)

31. People generally say with proud about the prestige and status of the organization/company in which they are working, (i) ( )

160

32. Work environment allows people to accomplish the tasks in their best way here; hence they do not hesitate to take up competitive and challenging tasks, (j) ( )

33. Company/organization strictly adhere very open self-appraisal system, (a) ( )

34. Performance standards are very low in the

organization, (h) ( )

35. People share responsibilities without hesitation, (e) ( )

36. People's achievement and competencies are given

more importance than hierarchical status here.(0 ( ) 37. People usually do not tolerate criticism against

the organization/company, (i) ( )

38. Suggestions and employee's grievances are welcomed here from all either seniors or juniors in cadre and are well taken for both employees quality of life and organizational development, (g) ( )

39. Work environment is very unhealthy and suffocative here, (d) ( )

40. People here are more individualistic. They only complete assigned task for which they are expected to compensated, (c) ( )

41. People are generally deeply involved in developing and working out best means for promoting organi­zation/company productive efficiency, (f) ( )

42. There is no place here for the honest and efficient employees, (a) ( )

43. I have the feeling that what I have achieved in my life it is not because of my organization/company. (1) ( )

44. Resonsibilities are allocated here without any prejudice, (a) ( )

Please, recheck that you have answered all the questions.

161

Section-B

(NSS)

Fifteen items have been listed below and you have to evaluate each

aspect on 5-point scale. Here, you are requested to indicate the extent to

which each aspect IS PRERSENT in your job. Assign "5" to the job

aspect which is present in the maximum degree and " 1 " to the aspect

which is present in minimum degree in your job. So please rate each

item on 5-point scale from maximum "5" to minimum " 1 " .

I. The opportunity for persona! growth and development.

2 The pay for my job.

3. The prestige of my job in the department.

4. The opportunity in my job for participating in setting of goals.

5. The feeling of worthwhile acocmplishment in my job.

6. The opportunity in my job for participating in determination of method and procedures.

7. The feeling of self-fulfillment a person gets from being in my job.

8. The prestige of my job outside the department.

9. The feeling of security in my job.

10. The opportunity in my job to help other people.

II . The opportunity for idnependent thought and action in my job.

12. The opportunity to develop close friendship in my job.

162

13. The feeling of being-in - the know in my job. ( )

14. The authority connected with my job. ( )

1.5.' The feeling of self-esteem a person gets from being in my job. ( )

Please recheck that you have answered all the questions.

163

^oifo T^

I ? ?RT: ^ f^^^ ^ oi c ^K fJeT ^ w t H ^ TRT ^ Tl^nH I f^ 3TN^

^f^r^RR t l ^RT 37m ^ « H ^ t ^ c T ^ W t "fTR^ t "^ (s) ' ^ ^ 3FR

Rd^t l^ ^McT m=I^ t ^ (1) ^ ^ I 3FK ^z^ ^^^ t "eft (3) ^ ^

IT ^ « n ^ ?3TH ^ ^ I ^ f ^ t ^ qF«n ^ " '51^^ ^ s KT

164

r^lcrl^id ^Trra" ^TeRT itf ?^ W\ r^d^id ^

^ IR Hr^HH

3.

4. ^ ^ f f ^ ^ ^ w ^ 3 7 ^ i i ^ ^ 375"q^

? f H ^ TFT ^ ^ ^fTttlT

6.

7. 3?TT 1^ ^ ^ TMT^ W^RT 3fh: ^ ^ TMT?'

8. ."RTcTT-tWT ^ ^ ^ ^ T R cT^ ^ ^=n:cIT ^3R "cT^

• g ^ 7 | ^ ^ '^TFf 3T^T H cT^ I

9. ^R cT^ ^ 7 p " EfTf t ^ ^ ^ ^ "qr '^ ^

10. " ^ R I ^ TFT " ^3?n^ Tf^ ^

11 . '^ 3 T ^ ^ ^^ft t ^ ^ "4 ^ 3Tc^ ^

165

12. r=hdN W\ ^ "TcT 3FR ^BW " " ^ "^ ^TRT

13. ^ ^RM-tW fR?f^ ^ ^ ^^R :5Tc# t I

14. " 3Tq^ " W T ^ WT^ '^f\m t 1

15. ^ at r ^:1I ^ ^ ^rwt ^ W?T ^TZ^

16. Smt 'SfJ^ "^^ ^ % ^ " ^ ^ W T ^ "Rtcf ^

17. "trr ^ ^Mt d<+=hl ' ^ "5©? "^^K^ %rT3ft ^

rTNWTFt t I

18. t ? T ^ ^ W f l ^ % ^ ^ ^ W^ ^ cTT^

19. ^ f ^ a j ^ ^ F ^ ^ 31fHR oHdi^li TTTTT

20. ^^eira ^ 3Tq^ ^Tcf 5f?fT ^ 31^51 t t ^ ^

f KT efm ^ ^ f ^ ^5M I

166

wfo WO 3mo T^

^ "q^ ^ ^ f l ? ^ ^ ^TM t t ^ ^ ^ T ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^TR STFRTt

o^Pc -dc , " N W T ^ ^«TT ^rm ^ ^ ^ ^ W t 3I TZ TTcTT t I ' 3FK ^ ? n

3fk ^ ^ « n ^qf^RTc^ ^ s^^R H ^ eft ^ ^ iiT^ 4 -^m ^ t mPT

3CTR 3 T ^ ^ ^ 3Tk ^Tc^ ^TTR t ^ ^ TRr! qfT I FT 3TRTT ^TTt t f ^ 3TR

• ^ "^ t M ^ 1 ^ Tfe ^ t ^ ( ) ^ ( )

2. '37m ^ ^ SrtaRT TRFTT3TI ^ fc^ ^ ^

^^eT TT^ ^ ^oTH ^^R liRTT t I ^ ( ) ^ ( )

3. ^ ^ ^ ^ « ^ W ^ t f ^ ^ PclWK 3T2M

cPRftc T( ?;zTPT t ^ 3M?M t I F ( ) ^ ( )

1 ^ <PF^ 3 7 t "qrC «2TPT " ^ t WTT I ' ^ ( ) ^ ( )

5. t ^ ^ ^ 3^^^T ^ ^ ^ ^T^ ^ ^ ^ •

^TF^ Wt I ^ ( ) " ^ ( )

167

7.

8.

: " ^ T t M ^ TFT "ferM ^ ^TN^ f ^ # TcT

^ 5T^ t ^ ^ "qr ^m jm f ^ 3T^ e M ^ t^^^ ^ t uT^ f "FT ^ ^ f t 1 l f (

^ T?HT ^ %^ W^ ^ t I 1 (

10. MmT^ ^ ^ ^ 1t STRt T ^ i\ ^ 3T^

lf(

12. "^ fllHMd: (3T^^^) t ^ t 1^ t ^ OTRT ^ " f

13. ^ ^ ^ "t-Tt TTcH f i PT^ 3 ^ P oSI-dl ^

3q TR (Tgrnt^) ^Rcn f i tf{

14. ^ Wt ^ ^foHHl ^H^dl ^ f^ ^ ^ -RTK t ^ JfFT ^ cTtrft ^ ^ 3 ^ 7T ^ M<H<I (ft^M) f t I 1

15. ^ ^ v-ft rt 3TR T TTcTT f WW^ ^^ f\ -^[^

"=^

1 ^

^

^

" ^

" ^

"T^

" T ^

^

^

•=Tff

168

17. " ^ W ^ •sfk ^Tpf W^ • ^ T iF Ri^-^d ^\^9hH t

18. sfoft ^ ^ ^ «c||v^ T} CTTCTT WU^ W]\ t ^ ^

•f •% " ^ •JTF ^TPT ' ^ "feni; t ^ " ^ 1 •5T(

19. ^ ^ q t ^ ^"RH^ ^ ^^cT ^ ^ 3TH^ ^ST^

20. - Wm^ \ t^ RP d W^ m ^ ^7M

n 21. ^ 37XT ^PT?t ^ " fR?^ ^ ^IcT WTH T3cTT f I ^ (

i?(

) ^ ( )

) ^ ( )

1 ^ ( )

) ^ ( )

) ^ ( )

) ^ ( )

169

PLEASE FURNISH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATIONS

1. Age :

2. Religion :

3. Sex :

4. Rural/Urban :

5. Qualification :

6. Work experience in the present organization

7. Total work experience

8. Number of promotions earned till now

9. Present position :.

10. Experience in the :. present position

11. Marital status :.

12. Number of : • dependents

13. General health : (very good/good/neutral/poor/very poor)

14. Tamily type (Nuclear/Joint)

(ONCE AGAIN THANKS FOR YOUR COOPERATIOxN)