A RESEARCH METHOE‘: FSR THE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL GOAL-SETTING AND ACTION IN THE PAKISTAN ACADEMY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT Thesis for the Degree of Master of Arts MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JAHANGIR KHAN 1969 THESIs LIBRAR Y Michigan Ste-Se Univeisity uéymfihfi (\n ABSTRACT A RESEARCH METHOD FOR THE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL GOAL-SETTING AND ACTION IN THE PAKISTAN ACADEMY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT By Jahangir Khan The study, reported in the following pages, is an attempt to identi- fy the goal selection and goal action processes of a development organiza- tion, namely the Pakistan Academy for Rural Development at Peshawar. A review of the Academy's Annual Reports seems to indicate that the organi- zation lacks consensus about its goal, as well as individual and group roles affecting the achievement of the perceived organizational goal. In as much as the management of these processes of goal selection and goal action is done through a complex of role relationships and expectations, the problem that the study focuses attention on is the investigation of the differences or likenesses in goal and role definition of the various component parts of the organization. In conducting the study of the problem proposed above, three meth- odological techniques are used. The first one is the Nopinionnaire", which may be referred to as an open-ended question device. This opinion- naire is constructed with the view kept in mind of the different set of .perceptions the various segments may have regarding the goal Of the or- ganization and their own segmented role. The second technique used in the study is "the depth interviews", designed primarily to get the views of one of the components of the organization, i.e. the advisors. The study of the Academy's literature was the third technique used in the study. The review and analysis of this literature was attempted with the Jahangir Khan View of illustrating the sources of disagreement within the organization under study, and their possible affects. The data used in the study is primarily based on the opinions given by the faculty and the advisors in reply to the questions in the opinionnaire as well as the responses of the advisors during the course of the depth interviews. The major findings of the study are; 1. The various components have a dissimilar estimation of and orientation to the Academy's goals. 2. There are differences in the components' assessment of the organizational goal achievement. I 3. The individual components differ in the definition of their respective roles in relation to the organizational goal. 4. The various components differ in their estimation of the fulfillment of role expectations about each other. \ A RESEARCH METHOD FOR THE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL GOAL-SETTING AND ACTION IN THE PAKISTAN ACADEMY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT BY Jahangir Khan A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of ' MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology 1969 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In completing this thesis, I gratefully acknowledge the valuable help, guidance and encouragement from Drs. Christopher Sower, William Faunce and Cole Brembeck. Without their continued interest, it would not have been possible to present this study in its present form. I am grateful to Barbara Khandelwal for her immense help in proof reading the original draft. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION...................... Introduction Theory of Development Organizations ' Basic Principles CHAPTER II. POSTIJLATE OF CONSENSUSOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.I Role Consensus as a Variable in "Development Organization" Theory CHAPTER III. PAKISTAN ACADEMY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT: A DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONOO0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOO Part I The Organization The Academy: A Description Dilemma of Goals Part II Methodology The Construction of an Opinionnaire The Depth Interviews The Study of the Academy's Literature Hypotheses CI-IAPTER Iv PRESENTATION OF DATAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.0.00.0000... Academy's Goal: Faculty and Advisors' Perception Role Definition of the Respondents The Board Interpretation and Conclusions Further Concerns BIBLIOGRAPIi-YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0...00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO APPENDIXOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000...0.00.00.00.00.OOOOOOOOOOOOOO Opinionnaire iii 16 30 48 51 Table 1. 2. 4. LIST OF TABLES Page Comparative Distribution of the Respondents in Relation to Their Views About the Goal of the Academy.................... 31 Comparative Distribution of the Respondents in Relation to Their Agreement on Goal Definition and the Extent of Achieve- mentOO000......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 33 Comparative Distribution of the Respondents in Relation to Definition of Respondents' Role in the Academy............... 36 Comparative Distribution of the Respondents in Relation to Agreement on the Role Definition and the Extent of Effective R013 Performance EXpeCted by OtherSoooooooooooooooooooooooooo 38 iv CHAPTER 1 THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION Introduction A special feature of the industrial urban order is the establish- ment of small and large scale bureaucratic organizations within which the major functions of the society are performed and channelized. Not only have the developed nations recognized the important role of these formal structures, but the developing nations have also realized that their efforts of progress must be carried out within these organizations. As a consequence, the study of organization and the behavior of these in- volved in their operation has received considerable attention from soci- ologists. From.Max Weber to Blau, March and Simon, organiZational be- havior analysis has become an important topic of study in sociology. It is beyond the scope of the present study to present the point of view of the various bureaucratic analysts.’ In this chapter, therefore, an effort is made to present at some length a special point of view and theory about large scale organization, i.e. the theory of development 'organization. This is done because of its special application to the present study endeavor. Theory of Development Organizations The idea of "Development Organization" as a theoretical model for organizational analysis and predicting organizational behavior has been 2 developed from within the broad framework of the "positive social organi- zation" concept first used by Parsons. Whereas the term 'social organi- zation' in its social anthropological meaning and context has been used for quite a number of years, Parsons was the first to formulate it during the course of his discussion and criticism of the assumptions underlying C. Wright Mills' analysis of power. In Mills} scheme of thinking, power appears to be essentially a negative phenomenon which, in effect, is ex- ercised by the holder for the preservation of his power to the detriment of others. In redefining the role of power in modern society, Parsons suggested that " . . . power, while of course subject to abuses and in. need of many controls, is an essential and desirable component of a highly organized society."1 In fact what Parsons suggested is that whether power is misused is an empirical question and not definitional. Definitionally speaking, power can be positively exercised for exhancing the objectives which the individual and the society have set forth. Hence, the concept of "positive social organization." Sower and Miller in offering an explanation for the vast agriculture organizational es- tablishments during the last century used this concept and as a result evolved a new set of organizational principles which, they contend, can predictably affect the achievement of goals desired by the society. In place of "positive social organization" they use the concept of "develop- ment organization," a discussion about which follows.2 1Talcott Parsons, Structure and Process in Modern Societies (Illinois: Free Press, 1960), p. 220. 2Christopher Sower and Paul A. Miller, "The Changing Power Struc- ture in Agriculture," Our Changipg Rural Society: Perspectives and Trends, ed. by James H. Copp (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, 1964). Basic Principles Two sets of organizational principles originate in Sower's ”develop- mentorganization" theory. These are, the principle of inter-organiza- tional structure and the principle of intra-organizational situations. We would be concerned here only with the second set of principles and not the first. This is because the present study is based only on the intra-organizational variables. As such, a discussion of inter-organ- izational structure and linkages seems to be unnecessary. Furthermore, the first set of principles in Sower's theory are readily available for' anybody interested in studying them.3 However, the intra-organizational aspect of Sower's theory which forms the primary theoretical basis for the present study is still in skeletal form and therefore needs explanation. The "development organization theory" stated in terms of intra-or- ganizational principles holds that any organization is only something in the minds of people.* An organization is a collectivity of various in- dividuals drawn together for achieving some goals. These individuals form a network of both formal and informal relationships among themselves. They act and relate to each other in terms of the values and sentiments which each one of them brings into the organization. In this sense then, we can perceive an organization as not only containing the 'most immedi- ' individuals involved in the operation of an organization, but we ate can also recognize the distant and the far off 'relevant others' associ- ated in varying degrees of involvement with the organization. In other *The author is primarily following Sower henceforth. 3Christopher Sower, et al., Community Involvement (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957). 4 words, if we regard an organization as an 'environmental manipulative system' then we can recognize not only the very immediate actors as im- portant, but also the outside and distant, but yet related, set of office holders as necessary components of organizational behavior. Some people tend to make a pseudo-distinction between the 'variables' and 'parame- ters' on the basis of difference in the environmental position of various factors.4 Sower resolves this dilemma by offering the concept of 'organ- ization anchor points of legitimation' which he has taken from Parsons' "three levels in the hierarchical structure of the organization."5 In essence, this concept states that an organization is composed of three parts or levels which legitimately exercise control over its actors. These three are examined below.1 (a) The Resource Input System: An organization must obtain resources, and for that purpose it must have an appropriate body that can offer these resources. These re- source allocations are made with a degree of respect to norms and values that constitute the social system of the appropriating body.' (b) The Resource Receiving System: The resources receiving system tends to develop some standards in the shape of rules and regulations which determine the allocation of resources within the sub-structure. 4For example, see: Gwen Andrew, "An Analytical System Model for 0r- ganization Theory," (unpublished paper, East Lansing: Michigan Department of Mental Health, 1963). STalcott Parsons, "Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organization," Part I and II, Administrative Science Qparterly, Vol. I and II (June and September 1956), pp. 63—65 and 225-239. (c) The Product Using_System: This level represents those people in the organization who use the product of the organization and who place evaluation on the product in terms of the product's utility in meeting their needs. Sower suggests that goal selection and goal action are managed through the complex of work relationships. These three components hold expectations for and about the organization. The problem then is how groups in these various levels ”within an area of interdependence” select a common goal perceived as desirable by these sub-structures. In fact, the selection of a goal for the organization is seen as one of the pri- mary variables in the analysis of organizations. Anderson suggests a proposition based on the principle of "anchor points of legitimation"; namely that: "the nature of the goals of an organization, and how these goals are arrived at and set, is one of the most predictive variables for ex- plaining other organizational variables...."6 The tri-structual legitimation model offers a theoretical basis of explanation of organizational goal setting in the beginning, as well as during the subsequent stages, of its growth. This is indeed an important point, in as much as it points to the fact that organizational goal set- ting and organizational goal achievement are not static phenomena. It is rather a dynamic arrangement of expectations which each sub-structure or level holds as basically important to its existence. If it is so, then the legitimation principle offers two benefits for research experi- mentation. An obvious benefit is that, in this model, we tend to recog- nize the strength of structural analysis as we focus our major attention 6Robert Anderson, "A Method and Instrument for Predicting the Con- sequences of Intra-organizational Action," (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, 1961), p. 45. 6 on each level and its role relationship in organizational affairs. We, in effect, admit that individuals operate and show their strength as mem- bers of these various sub-structures. If, therefore, we can change the sub-unitary perception, we can affect changes in organizational behavior to advantage. This is a departure in Sower's theory from its counter- part 1ine and staff theoretical models, in that it places emphasis on 'whole' or a 'sub-whole' rather than an individual. “It is sufficient to say here that functions of each of these . . . types of sub-structures within a large organization are important to developing the models neces- sary for predicting such processes as goal achievement."7 The other aspects of intra-organizational principles in Sower's theory relate to role expectations, role behavior, and the important con- cept of role consensus, in as much as they offer scope for looking at or- ganizational behavior and relationships. Since this is an important area not only in Sower's theory but also for the present study, we wish to dis- cuss it in some detail in the chapter which follows. 7Christopher Sower, "Working Papers: The Role of Organizations in Achieving Development Goals: The Case of Ceylon,” (unpublished U. N. Technical Mission Report, 1962). See also: Christopher Sower, et al., "The Role of Organizations in Achieving the Goals of Planned Change," ‘Highway Change and Locality Change, Part IV, (unpublished Michigan State University Report, 1961). ' CHAPTER II POSTULATE or CONSENSUS As early as 1924, Park and Burgess were giving thought to the pro- blem of consensus. In their writing about society, descriptive state- ments about consensus can be found in explicit and implicit forms. They suggested that, "Society viewed . . . concretely . . . is a complex of organized habits,sentiments and social attitudes -- in short, consensus."8 These thoughts reflect a theme -- consensus -- whidh permeates a variety of sociological writing. Anthropology draws our attention to it in using the term 'charter' and by stating that a society is built around a set of mutually agreed upon patterns of behavior.‘ Linton presents the concept of "ideal culture patterns" to explain consensus. The concept of "real culture patterns” implies that the members of a society in actuality develop a configura- tion of behavior patterns which are " . . . learned and shared."9 Cul- ture on the whole is seen, however, to be the binding force in regard to determining the consensus about individual and group behavior. Sociology also places emphasis on "consensus" as a variable in the process of human behavior. In Parson's analysis, for example, there is implicit reference to the fact that human interaction tends to take place 8R. E. Park and E. W. Burgess, Introduction to the Science of Man (2d ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1924), p. 163. t 9Ralph Linton, The Cultural Backggound of Personaligy (New York: D. Appleton Century Company, Inc., 1945), p. 46. 7 8 within a framework of adaptive reality. He suggests that "people inter- act in terms of a system of culturally structured and shared symbols."10 Individuals in interactive situations begin to share common assumptions and expectations regarding each other's behavior. They wish to engage in activities which are normatively upheld by the others as desirable and ’ necessary. Thus, " . . . the more frequently men interact with one an- other, the more nearly alike they become in the norms they hold, (and) . . . in their sentiments and activities.”11 These theorists do not specifically deal with the position of consensus in terms of a bureau- cratic role, for example. They merely point out the use of consensus in as much as every individual in his day to day living, makes adaptations for and agreements on a variety of actions. I In Social Psychology, more specific explanations are offered. Mead seems to be the first one to illuminate the problem, although attempts before him were made. We find in his theory of symbolic interaction, and in his concept of the "generalized other"12 a brilliant exposition of the consensus question. The basic viewpoint of symbolic interactionists is that a person evaluates and performs his actions in terms of his percept- ion of what others expect him to do. He seeks to engage in action which others can condone. Newcomb offers a psychological explanation and de- fines consensus as "the existence, on the part of two or more persons, of 10Talcott Parsons, The Social System (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1951), pp. 5-60 , 11George Homans, The Human Groups (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1950), p. 126. 12George H. Mead, Mind Self and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959), p. 154. 9 a similar orientation towards something."13 According to Newcomb, there is a psychological need in the individual to seek consensus; which rein- forces his belief in the action he intends to take, and reduces the chance of his being sanctioned by the group. Newcomb's terminology -- cognitive agreement and cathectic disagreement -- seems to be a useful psychologi- cal explanation of the need for consensus. The function of consensus, according to Newcomb, is to serve as an "instigation to communication", in short, to realize mainly cathectic agreement. Cognitively, individu- als may or may not agree on certain issues, but the cathectic agreement for human business is of paramount importance. As has been indicated above, the scheme of various authors contains the broad and general purpose of explaining humanTbehavior in terms of the appropriateness of the symbols and sentiments which people bring with them while interacting with each other. (The concern in these writings has been with the culturally prescribed behavior and role performance. Such a concern is well taken, in as much as it attempts to explain human behavior. However, the major concern here is to explain how far bureau- cratically defined role behavior and individually defined behavior pat- terns achieve a consensual state in an organization. Reisman,for example, points out several types of bureaucrats,14 and this in turn raises the following pertinent questions. Do these types point out the relative significance of consensus variables? Are there variant types of behav- ior expectations that impinge upon individual position holders in an organization? In short, what does this term ‘role' imply? If we can 13Theodore Newcomb, "The Study of Consensus," Sociology Today, ed. by Robert K. Marten, et al., (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1959), p. 277. 4Leonard Reisman, "A Study of Role Conception in Bureaucracy," Social Forces, Vol. XXVII (1949), pp. 305- 310. 10 determine that, we have a fair chance of explaining the validity of a consensus model. I The study of the school superintendent's role by Gross, g£_§l.15 is a major attempt to forge a linkage between the two sets of inter-related variables of consensus and social roles in a bureaucratic structure. The concept social role according to Gross, is made up of two component parts. Gross identifies them as 'position' and behavior expectations'. Briefly stated, the position element of social role implies that there is a formally sanctioned and prescribed place held by a position holder who, because of this incumbency, enjoys some rights and status within the structure. "The term position (is) used (therefore) to refer to the location of an actor or class of actors in a system of social re- "16 Nearly every position is within a network of other posi- lationships. tions held by other position incumbents. The second element of social role becomes relevant here. Each social role has some expectations at- \ tached to it which others trust the position holder will fulfill. Just as the element of 'right' is an important consideration for the position incumbent, what others expect him to do is also equally significant from the standpoint of performing certain roles. This then, is the normative component of social role in which a person feels bound to act according to a prescribed blue print. These expectations can be viewed as "pat- terns of evaluation"17 providing the orientation and basic framework 15Neal Gross, et al., Explorations in Role Analysis (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958). ' 16Ibid., p. 48. 17Talcott Parsons and Edward Shils, "Value Motives and System of Actions," Towards a Theory of Action, ed. by Talcott Parsons and Edward Shills (Cambridge: Harvard University PreSs, 1951), p. 180. 11 within which an individual feels obligated to perform certain roles. It may be recognized, however, that the expectations are not only determined in terms of fulfilling normative criteria, but are also used in a predic- tive sense. In other words, they help to build up predictions about the future. For example, when one says, "I am expecting him tonight," the person is making a prediction. Whereas the anticipatory or predictive element of expectations is obviously useful for the purpose of understand- ing the concept, we are nevertheless inclined to place primary emphasis on its evaluative components because of a basic assumption that much of what we do, specifically in bureaucratic role performance, is carried out with due respect to the norms. When a bureaucrat takes an action, he is not as much concerned with predicting its consequences, as he is with the question of whether or not his actions fulfill the evaluative criteria in view. To rephrase and reiterate the same point, it may be proposed that "there is a set of expectations relative to the contingently probable reactions of others”18 requiring a befitting conduct on the part of an actor. Role Consensus as a Variable in "Development Organization" Theory We have said that bureaucratic roles do not function in isolation. They are performed in relationship with a series of other roles. Organi- zational behavior, as such, is determined more by the interlocking vari- ables of role consensus rather than individual roles.. After all, an organization is nothing more than "a collectivity of positions with ac- companying behavior expectations for the incumbents of each position and 18Parsonspl‘hevSocial System, p. 38. 12 for the unit as a whole."19 Roles in organizations tend to cluster around two major nexus points. The first one is personal, composed of all formal and informal positions occupied by an individual. The second is organizational, composed of all the roles in any sub-unit of the or- ganization. There may be a considerable degree of difference in what each incumbent perceives and expects his role to be and what an organiza- tion and its various sub-units anticipates and believes is the role of its members. These prescriptions and proscriptions of individual roles are problems of cognitive definitions having different meaning and value for each individual. In short, it is a problem of consensus, i.e. a lack of it. The problem of consensus20 can be seen as occurring on two levels. First, the individual is subject to behavior expectations held in value by the relevant others in the individual's immediate sub-unit of which he is a member. Secondly, he holds a poSition in the total organization structure and as such is subject to behavior expectations of a totality of other position incumbents in an organization. In addition, the actor has a self image of what he should be doing. Sower postulates that the consequence of these variant demands may be that " . . . there will not be consistency between the different 'rele- vant others' who have the legitimative right to hold behavior expecta- tions for any given position incumbent."21 The problem of variant 19Christopher Sower, et al., "The Role of Organizations in Achiev- ing the Goals of Planned Change," Highway Chang; and Localitinhangg, J Part IV, (unpublished Michigan State University Research Report, 1961), p. 10. - 20When we talk of consensus from now on, it will be used both in positive and negative sense. 1Christopher Sower, "The Land Grant University, Development Organ- ization in Transition: The Case of the Extension Service,” Proceedings of Seventh Annual Cooperative Administrative Seminar, (Madison Extension Cen- ter for Advanced Study, University of Wisconsin, 1962), p. 42. 13 behavior expectation, Sower suggests, causes the problem of consensus with two sets of consequences. The first deals with psychological con- sequences to position incumbents; the second, with the consequences of achieving organizational goals.22 It is beyond the scope of this analy- sis to present the possible ranges of psychological consequences of a lack of consensus except to suggest the possible emergence of emotional stresses in a situation of that kind. In as much as the actor's own per- ception comes into conflict with what others expect him to do, he may ex- perience detachment, strain, and stress. The second type of consequence with which we are concerned at this stage leads us into explaining the relationship between lack of opinion consensus among the various relevant segments in so far as the organiza- tional goal is concerned. It is postulated that in a complex organization, I goals may not be clearly defined so that agreement about its role among those who run it may not exist. There tends to be a degree of difference in conceptions about the role the complex organization is expected to perform. "A natural condition of a large scale organization is that there will not likely be consensus between the goal achievement patterns of sub-sections and those of the total organization."23 The problem of organizational goal consensus is, therefore, a problem of legitimation and justification of these goals, by various parts of an organization. Each sub-structure (three anchor points of legitimation) defines and jus- tifies the goals in terms of their own respective unitary objectives. This justification in part results from the norms and sentiments which are believed to be of value to the sub-unit. As a result of this process, 22Anderson, "Predicting the Consequences," p. 49. 23Sower, et al., "The Role of Organization," Part I, p. 27. 14 the members of a sub-unit may identify goals in their own minds as over- all organizational goals. A contest between the various sub-units may emerge. A large amount of development energy in these cases is spent in justifying sub-unit goals. The organization then becomes basically ori- ented to fulfill only one function, i.e. that of maintenance. In terms of consensual validity of the organizational goals, we may propose then that the extent to which the organization achieves its goals has some re- lationship to: I a) The degree of agreement the relevant segments have about organizational goals, and b) The extent to which the organization imposes upon its seg- ments patterns of behavior that are congruent with their own perceptions and expectations. The developing countries like PakiStan are establishing many of these large scale development organizations to initiate and achieve de- velopment objectives. Some of these programs cannot achieve maturity be- cause of this problem of consensus about the goal in view. The involve- ment of international agencies like U.S. AID may further confuse the is- sue because of their variant outlook on the goals of an organization. The classical example is the Community Development Program in Pakistan which died after only five years of operation because each segment of the organization held different perceptions of its goal. We propose to investiage the differences or likenesses in defini- tion of the component parts of the Pakistan Academy for Rural Development, Peshawar, about the organizational goal. This organization seems to have 'found itself lacking consensus about its goal, as may be observed by read- ing the Academy's Annual Reports. An effort will also be made to locate 15 differences in the individual goal definition of the members of various segments. CHAPTER III PAKISTAN ACADEMY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT: A DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION PART I The Organization AS indicated earlier, it is proposed to describe here the Pakistan Academy for Rural Development as a development organization, as well as analyze its five years of operation in terms of the problem of consensus. This has been done through a content analysis of the four annual reports of the Academy. Annual reports, it is assumed, are the best efforts of any organization to present itself and its activities in as honest a man- ner as it can. They contain material which is both important for the or- ganization and for analytical purposes. The Academy: A Description At the time when the village AID* program was a dominant theme of the nation's planning process at the village level, the planners felt that there was a need for establishing an institution in which the super- visory staff of the village AID organization could be-properly trained. At that time, there was no such institution competent to provide suitable training facilities to its (V-AID) officers. There were village AID *AID stands for Agriculture and Industrial Development. 16 17 institutions established for the purposes of training and preparing the village level workers for grass root community development work. It was felt by planners that these institutions were not well enough equipped to provide the training facilities for the supervisory staff of the or- 24 and as such they felt that the establishment of a separate ganization institution for training the higher level staff was needed. With these considerations in view, the government of Pakistan began negotiations with the Ford Foundation to tap its help in this project. The Foundation promised help and sent a team of advisers from the Michigan State Univer- sity College of Education, headed by Professor Floyd Reeves, to Pakistan to explore and make recommendations about the nature, purposes and scope of the institution. The team toured Pakistan and discussed the Academy and its scope with a cross section of high level government officials. At the end of these meetings, the team of advisers with Pakistani person- nel drew up the scheme of the Academy25 in August, 1956. According to \ the original unpublished scheme, "The purpose (of the Academy) will be to train administrative and supervisory personnel of the village AID and other nation-building departments as well as CSP (Civil Service of Pakis- tan) and PCS (Provincial Civil Service) officers for the village level development program." The main body of recommendations of this team are quoted by the Peshawar Academy in its 1959-60 annual report. The three 24One could legitimately raise questions on such a position on the grounds that instead of creating a new organization, it may have been more beneficial to equip the existing institutions for training the offi- cers as well. This would have resulted in a better integrated training work program for the officers and the workers. 25It may be kept in mind that the scheme involved the idea of creat- ing two academies in both the wings of the country, i.e. East and West. At present both Of them are in existence but have no administrative rela4 tionship with each other which they had at the time of their establish- ment. 18 major provisions were: 1) The Academy will be an education and research institute and will be administered by a Board of Governors under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister of Pakistan. 2) Besides the purpose of the Academy as enunciated in the Cabinet Resolution (referred to above),its particular ob- jective will be to prepare the personnel of the several government departments for the task of integrating all the village work to achieve the maximum improvement in the wel- fare of the people. ' 3) Because the scope of the training program in the Academy is to attack development problems through the coordinated efforts of several departments of central and provincial governments, the academic program must be set up at a high level, both in terms of training and execution of the pro- gram. This requires an instructional staff of highest cal- ibre. With these points in view, a faculty with the highest possible edu- cational background was selected from within the country and from those scholars studying in the United States and England. Almost all of the members of the selected faculty have had foreign training in their re- spective fields. The faculty consisted of ten positions and Covered the broad range of social science disciplines. The disciplines represented were Sociology, Anthropology, Economics, Public Administration, Education and Communication, Rural Business Management, Social Research, Community Organization and Community Development. As can be recognized from read- ing the above list of disciplines, the planners placed a great emphasis on the social sciences, which they regarded as a necessary basis for the training and orientation of the clientele-who would be coming through the Academy. This social science orientation not only subsequently per- meated the training and research program, but also made the Academy's undertaking look like a university type educational program designed to help train the government officers. Besides creating these positions, there were three more positions 19 which were thought to be an integral part of the faculty. They were Co- ordinator of Training, Librarian, and Administrative Officer. The fac- ulty was then sent to Michigan State University for nine months training. The members spent considerable time in seminars with the view of mapping out a program of the Academy to be pursued by the faculty on its return home. The Academy started its actual operation in July, 1959 at Peshawar and received its first group of trainees in September, 1959. From the very beginning, Michigan State took an active part in the program of the Academy, with two faculty members serving as advisors to the Academy. A third faculty member was located at the Central Office of the Government of Pakistan in the role of Chief Advisor. Soon after the idea of the Academy was conceived and approved by the Government, an au- tonomous Board of Governors was established. This Board consisted of top ranking government administrators from various Ministeries both at the central and the provincial level as well as the Establishment Division of \ the Cabinet Secretariat. There were also non-official representatives on the Board. Dilemma of Goals It seems safe to assume that soon after the establishment of the Academy, the faculty and its Director began to feel that somewhere along the line they were not clear about the goal of the Academy. In the words of the Director, "When the Academy started functioning the faculty was quite clear about the responsibilities."26 After a year, the Director observed in the same report, "the faculty finds that these 26Annual Report of the West Pakistan Academy_for Rural Development, .ggr the Year 1959-60 (Peshawar: Academy for Rural Development, 1960), p. 34. 20 responsibilities are no longer as clear and distinct as they were before and for that reason some of them are now being questioned by 'others'JI According to them, the Academy began as an institute where officers with sufficient field experience would come to be trained to correlate their field problems with scientific means. In advancing this notion about the goal of the Academy, the internal component stressed that, "The Academy has to help the officers . . . to find . . . reasons why departments do not work together . . . and how the efficiency of these departments can be increased."27 In the same report, the writer seems to argue against the critics who advocate the down-to-earth training theory by asserting that the faculty members thought that this (the above stated position) was a more practical and realistic method of training than laying agri- cultural demonstration plots, forming cooperative societies or setting up a cattle breeding farm at the Academy. The same report summarizes the dilemma of the lack of a clear-cut goal, and the unfulfilled expecta- \ tions thereof by saying, "If any expectations of the outsiders are at variance with those of the insiders, the difference has stemmed from the lack of a clearer definition of the (goal) of the Academy."28 The Second Annual Report of the Academy for the year 1960-61, be- gins with a definition of its goal. The report suggests that "in pur- suance of its main objective, namely, to equip the administrators with the necessary techniques, skills and attitudes of working with the peo- ple effectively, greater emphasis continued to be placed on training as the major activity of the Academy during this year as well. In fact, all other activities, some of which could be independently viewed as of 27Ibid., p. 29. 281bid. 21 equal importance, were directed towards that end."29 The rationale of- fered by the faculty and its Director for this position was that the per- sonnel comininn for training had already received specialized training and were technically skillful in their respective fields. An animal hus- bandry official, the faculty thought, had sufficient knowledge of the technical aspects of his job. But what he required was a knowledge of human relations skills to put "those skills across to people in such a way that they adopted them and through them raised the (people's) econom» ic standards."30 In an exclusive chapter on "Academy Goals" in the same report, the above position of the faculty is reiterated in many differ- ent words. The Academy is ”primarily intended to train development offi- cers and supervisors, and civil service administrative officers, such as deputy commissioners, instructors of VrAID training institutes and, offi- cers of the nation building departments who were supposed to support the V-AID officers in the Administration of rural development.”31 The Third Annual Report for the year 1962-63 begins with the same concern and position of the faculty and its Director, who stressed that, "Training continues to be the primary function of the Academy . . . ."32 However, in this report one can discern the Academy talking of another set of goals to which it had hitherto been indifferent. This relates to the problem of 'demonstration' which the Academy's well wishers had been 29Annual Report of the West Pakistan Academy for Rural Development, for the Year 1960-61 (Peshawar: Academy for Rural Development, 1961), p. 3. 3OIbid., p. 4. 3llbid., p. 62. ' 32Annual Report of the West Pakistan Academy for Rural Development, for the Year 1962- 63 (Peshawar: Academy for Rural Development, 1962), p. 3. 22 pushing hard to get across to the faculty and the Director. As a reSult the staff is seen talking of its "steadily moving in the direction of continuing training with demonstration."33 It even undertook some schemes on paper. The 1963-64 Annual Report of the Academy presents the same story. It reaffirms the views of the faculty and the Director about the primary goal of the organization. It states categorically that "Training has been and will continue to be the main function of the Academy. All (other) activities . . . must be such as are designed to assist in the carrying out of this main function."34 The purpose of presenting the short excerpts from the four annual reports is to identify clearly the Academy's dilemma, an area which still lurks in the mind of the organization faculty and Director -- an impor- tant part of the Academy structure. It is clear from the reading of these reports that the question of the goal of the organization still ex- ercises the minds of the various people connected with it. The problem, as can be envisaged, is not that this segment is unclear about the or- ganizational goal, but rather that this definition of the goal is at variance with the definitions offered by other relevant segments of the organization. It has seemingly put the organization on the defensive and has generated conflict as is admitted by the faculty in its very first Annual Report. It recognizes this by stating that, "The worst kind of psychological set-back to an enthusiast is to put him on the defensive. The faculty was put on the defensive even before it could 33Ibid., p. 65. 34Annual Report of the West Pakistan Academy for Rural Development, for the Year 1963- 64 (Peshawar: Academy for Rural Development, 1964), p. 69. 23 measure its (goal in view)."35 In contradistinction to this position is another school of thought offered mainly by most of the Michigan State advisors who have been in Pakistan and are now associated with the Pakistan Project on campus eith- er directly or indirectly. The major idea of this group of individuals is that, notwithstanding the training program, the Academy must have the Rural Action Program in which the officers are involved in administering and operating the program along with the village people. This, according to their point of view, will be a more practical and realistic training for the officers. This school of thought, however, does not see this as necessarily a conflict of definition about the goal of the organization, but rather a difference of definition about the means of achieving the goal. They contend that their emphasis on a rural action program should only be taken as a means towards achieving the broader goal of the Acad- emy. The underlying assumption in this view is that if the faculty and officers attain experience in rural development administration and opera- tion, the training program can become more realistic and fulfilling. According to our view, however, it is not so much a matter of a means - ends controversy as it is a controversy over the goal and scope of the institution. In our estimation, the goal of an organization is perceived to be a legitimate end toward which action is oriented; in es- sence, what it is going to do. However, the action orientation of an or- ganization towards a legitimate end cannot be seen as separate from the whole range of activities which is the scope (means) of the organization. People, as suggested by some,-may agree at a very general level about an organization's goal, but yet they may disagree to a great extent as to 35Annual Report for 1959-60, p. 28. 24 the scope of efforts or activities intended to underwrite and achieve that goal. By a process of displacement, people may begin to recognize the scope (means) of an organization, as its goal. It is a very subtle phenomenon in which the goals and scope of an organization may be viewed by relevant parts as identical.36 Human beings may not tend to identify this at a conscious level, but yet these (scope and goal) are very often taken as one and the same thing. The question as to how this can be measured quantitatively cannot be answered. There is probably no quantitative measure discovered so far. However, the degree of commitment to partial 'means' and the coun- teracting reactive behavior may give a clue to the occurrence of this phenomenon. One tentative proposition with regard to a goal - means re- lationship can be made, namely that, the greater the commitment of the person to the means, the greater the chances are that the means will be displaced as goals. Nevertheless, without considering further the 'means - goals' or goals - scope dimensions of the question, it appears safe to suggest that this lack of goal agreement has been present throughout the Academy's life. A very ostensible example of this phenomenon is found in a ninety-seven page, consolidated report of the Director of the Acad- emy based on an evaluation conducted by him in I962. The Director is- sued a questionnaire to the faculty whose responses form the basis of .this evaluation. In response to a question as to the impediments in the way of ef- fective performance of a job, the respondents indicated a "lack of clear 36Sower's theory gives due consideration to goal as a variable in organizational behavior, but does not seem to talk about its goal - scope elements. As such the above description is, perhaps, an extension of that idea. ' 25 cut direction."3'7 In another question in this report, five respondents out of the twelve indicated that the "absence of any definite goals”38 is considered as harmful to the interest of the Academy. The faculty was also asked to "describe the atmosphere in which you can work most productively and creatively."39 The respondents again observed that they could work more productively and creatively if they were provided with "Specific and prescribed institutional directions."40 One of the func- tions of the existence of a clear goal is that it legitimately clarifies and justifies the role each position incumbent plays. In the absence of an organizational goal, the activities of an individual position incume bent may be evaluated by others as useless, impertinent or even harmful to the interest of the organization. In other words, the expectation for individual actors in terms of their own perceptions of the goal of the organization may be dissimilar from others. Where the organizational goal is not clear, there tends to develop a variety of conceptions among individuals about their own role in the organization. The activities of others are then looked at and evaluated in terms of this perceived goal. A necessary corollary of this is that even the individual role may begin to be taken as non-productive and conflicting. The role of both the evaluator and the evaluatee can begin to become unclear, less determined and unwarranted by others. When asked about the defects in the Academy .administration, the respondents, during the same survey, indicated that 32Annual Report for 1962—63, Appendix E, "Questionnaire With Con- solidated Replies," p. 133. 381bid. 391bid., p. 208. 4°;bid. 26 " . . . no one (in the Academy) seems to be sure of his job."41 The Director suggests that " . . . presumably everyone (the respondents) knows what his job requirements are but feels that others don't."42 It is to explore this lack of consensus regarding organizational goal definitions and inconsistency about the roles of actors in the or- ganization, that the second part of this chapter is directed. PART II Methodology A major focus of organizational analysts relates to the construc- tion of methodological tools to be used toward the discovery of how var- ious components within the organization relate to each other. Parsons, for example, attempted to focus attention on the constituent elements of relationships, and he took their interdependence as given.43 Merton's suggestion about the degree of interdependence of organizational parts is a further attempt to give empirical importance to the constituent ele- 44 ments. For the purpose of developing a schematic model for systemati- cally determining the degree of importance of these elements, no sound tools have been developed. A significantly useful attempt has been made in that direction by Anderson. A portion of the model developed by 41Ibid., p. 173. 4211nm. 43Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action (New York: McGraw Hill, 1937), pp. 65-80. 44Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957), p. 25. 27 Anderson has been used in the present study.45 The Anderson method is in line with Sower's theory of development organization and the consensus model. It seems that within the frame- work of Sower's organization analysis scheme, greater emphasis is placed on the sub-structural variables which are recognized to be important con- stituents of the organization. In respect to these considerations, the following methodological tools were evolved for conducting the inquiry. The Construction of an Opinionnaire This device is close to what Anderson calls an "open-ended question device."46 The opinionnaire was constructed, keeping in view the differ- ent set of perceptions the various segments may have regarding the goal of the Academy and their own segmented.role. These were mailed to the faculty and Board members and were also administered to the advisors. The Depth Interviews These interviews were held with one segment of the population: the advisors. The attempt was made to get their views regarding the various issues involved. The Study_9f the Academy's Literature In terms of gaining some insight into the conflicts involved, it was thought a good technique to study the literature produced by the Acad- emy. This analysis was attempted with the view of illustrating the sources of disagreement within the organization under study, and its possible effects. 45Anderson, "Predicting the Consequences." 461b1d., p. 73. 28 In terms of the problem at liand, the following hypotheses were constructed. A few testable deductions were also delineated and are pre- sented below: Hypothesis I There will be a lack of agreement between various segments about the over-all goal definition of the organization. Sub-Hypothesis I There will be an intra-segmental agreement about the organization- al goal definition. Hypothesis II There will be inter-segmental non-agreement about the extent of achievement of the organizational goal. (Hypothesis III Intra-segmental definition of the organizational goal determines the individual incumbent's definition of his own role. Sub-Hypothesis I Members will have intra-segmental agreement about the role they assume for themselves. Sub-Hypothesis II Members will have inter-segmental non-agreement about the role they assume for themselves. 29 Hypothesis IV Intra-segmental agreement on role definition determines the ful- fillment of mutual expectations within that segment. Sub-Hypothesis I There will be a lack of inter-segmental fulfillment of expectations. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF DATA It appears difficult to try to quantify the preSentation and analy- sis of data here. The population consisted of a total of thirty respon- dents, out of which only seventeen replied. All members of the two sub- units -- advisors and faculty replied, except for the Director of the Academy, who is a member of the Board of Governors as well. The members of the Board of Governors did not reply at all, although they were sent two follow-up letters. The indifferent reSponse of the Board was some- what expected and was in line with the image which the counterpart group - the advisors - had about it. This suggests that the Board, as an im- portant segment of the total system of the Academy, may not have an active interest and responsibility in the program. The following presentation will be more in straight report style than in statistical form. Since the emphasis is on the differential per- ception of each group, with reSpect to the organizational goal and its effect, an effort has been made to analyze and bring these differences to the surface. 'Academy's Goal: Faculty and Advisors' Perception The first attempt made in the study was toward ascertaining the perceptions of the respondents about the goal of the Academy. "There will be a lack of agreement between various segments about over-all goal defi- nition of the organization" is the hypothesis tested for this purpose. 30 31 A testable sub-hypothesis in this case is that, ”there will be an intra- segmental agreement about the organizational goal definition". A series of responses were given which were categorized in relation to the degree of approximation to each other. These are presented below: TABLE 1 COMPARATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESPONDENTS IN RELATION TO THEIR VIEWS ABOUT THE GOAL OF THE ACADEMY Goal in View Advisor Faculty Total Action Program 5 1 6 Training 2 9 11 Total 7 10 17 The responses of the advisors represent a practical goal-oriented viewpoint with some tangible results in view. A majority of them (5 out of 7) believe that the goal of the Academy should be "a rural develop- ment program." When they were asked about the activiqzof the Academy as a training institution, they suggested that training could best be im- parted by involving the officers and faculty in development programs in villages. Some of the respondents indicated that there had existed some difference of opinion among the advisors regarding the goal of the Acad- emy in the initial stages, but that most of them now agreed upon this fundamental goal, i.e. "a viable rural development program." One of the respondents summed up these various perceptions of the advisors by saying that the real goal of the Academy was "how to enhance human development of the villagers." "Unless the Academy has a village project," they ob- served, "it cannot even train the officers." 32 A majority of the respondents in the other group, i.e. faculty (9 out of 10) suggested that the goal of the Academy was "training of the public servants and carrying out research from a social science perspec- tive." The tenth respondent mentioned ”promoting rural development" as the goal of the institution. The training, the respondents believe, should primarily contain a social science bias. The data offered above indicate that whereas members in each segment possess agreement in de- fining the organizational goal, the definition of both the groups are dissimilar from each other. As such the hypothesis, i.e. "there will be a lack of agreement between various segments about overall goal defini- ' is accepted. The sub-hypothesis was also tion of the organization,‘ tested and is to be accepted on the basis of the data presented above. Since the above responses were only a projection of the feelings of the respondents, it was considered necessary to have them assess the projects the Academy had engaged in from time to time. The question was in two parts. The respondents were first asked to list the projects they regarded as most important and then evaluate each one of them on a successful, unsuccessful score. The hypothesis examined in this regard is that "there will be inter-segmental non-agreement about the extent of achievement of the organization goal." Table 2 indicates the pattern of agreement about the goal defini- tion given by individual respondents in the two segments as well as the assessment of the respondents about the extent of achievement made by the Academy. When asked how many of the other respondents would agree with their definition of the goal of the Academy, most respondents in the advisors' group were of the opinion that others would agree. They were further asked to state the extent of the Academy's goal achievement. Most of 33 them (6 out of 7) observed that the Academy had achieved its goals only to a little extent. They felt that in terms of establishing a viable rural action program, the Academy had not been very successful. "The ' the re- Academy has been mainly concerned with research and analysis; spondent indicated, ”and not with opening the new frontiers." As such, they estimated the goal achievement as small. TABLE 2. COMPARATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESPONDENTS IN RELATION TO THEIR AGREEMENT ON GOAL DEFINITION AND THE EXTENT OF ACHIEVEMENT Agreement About The Extent of Coal Achievement Total Goal Definition Advisors Total Faculty Total Large Little Large Little Most and every . - one - 6 6 8 - 8 l4 Some and none 1 - l l l 2 3 Total 1 I 6 7 9 l 10 17 The respondents were further asked to identify the most important projects the Academy had engaged in the past and how far they thought these projects had been successful. The respondents mentioned about ten projects, out of which seven related to the training projects of the Academy. Out of these, six were considered as only "somewhat successful." Another three projects relating to village level work were also mention- ed but they were also rated as only "somewhat successful." They felt that village level projects were only "half hearted" attempts of the Acad- emy. Most of these respondents clarified their rating by pointing out that the Academy's program at present was devoid of "an educational pro- .gram sensitive to the cultural needs of the people." They felt it 34 essential that the officers (coming for training) should actively do things at the village level. They were apprehensive about the projects and their success in achieving that end. A majority of the faculty respondents (8 out of 10) felt that others agreed with their definition of the Academy's goal. Two members felt that others would not agree with his definition of the goal. They were further asked to mention the extent to which they thought the goal of the Academy had been achieved. Eight reSpondents in the faculty group indicated that training and research had been the most important projects the Academy had carried out. All of them also regarded these projects as successful. Out of the two members who observed that others were not likely to agree with their definition of the goal; one felt that the Acad- emy had been largely successful in achieving the goal defined by him and the other felt that the achievement had been little. An examination of the respective responses of both the groups, i.e. advisors and faculty, indicates that there not only exists a non-agree- ment between them about goal definition, but that they also tend to dis- agree about the extent of goal achievement. The hypothesis that ”there will be inter-segmental non-agreement about the extent of achievement of the organizational goal" is accepted. Role Definition of the Respondents In the construct of Gross et al., "perceived obligation" is equiva- lent to a legitimate expectation. This obligation may be classified as, '"cherished obligation" approximating behavior which is highly valued (value), "mandatory obligation"47 covering behavior which is 47This term is drawn from the concept "mandatoriness" used in Cross .et al., Explorations. 35 authoritatively commanded or required (authority) and ”santioned obliga— tion" pertaining to behavior that symbolizes the approval of an action (approval). .According to this classification, role behavior is nothing more than a fulfillment of obligations seen as value, authority and approval.48 It is also recognized here that the goals of an organization, are taken up as cherished obligations. In other words, an actor recog- nizes the goal of an organization as his obligation and tends to place greater value on this in the performance of his role. The authority and approval dimensions of role are enacted in so far as they may change the efforts of an actor or a group of actors to fulfill valued obligations effectively. An attempt was made in the present study to”explore the individual's role definition in the Academy. The hypothesis examined in this connec- tion was that "intra-segmental definition of the organizational goal de- termines the individual incumbent's definition of his own role." In this connection, two sub-hypotheses examined were that the "members will have intra-segmental agreement about the role they assume for themselves;" and that "members will have an inter-segmental non-agreement about the role they assume for themselves." Table 3 presents respondents' opinions about their role in the Academy. The opinions of the respondents in both the groups, i.e. advi- sors and the faculty are given. A In terms of the advisor's role at the Academy, there seems to be a general agreement that his role is to "help the faculty to work with , 48The typology is a take off on classification of "moral orienta- . tion", "expedient orientation", and "moral expedient orientation" used by Gross et al., Ibid. It may be recognized that Gross' terminology is dissimilar from the one used in this study, nOt in usage but in the words. The coinage of present terminology is warranted by the simplicity of the .words used, i.e. 'cherished', 'mandatory', and 'approval'. 36 officers and villagers." All the advisors (seven) recognized that to help the faculty to work at village level was their major role. In this connection such definitions of their role as "faculty associate," or "learner of practical problems" were mostly used. None of the respon- dents identified his role as training agent. In terms of the typology used above it seems that the respondents had a "cherished obligation" for their role as "faculty associate" to help the faculty members and officers in either developing or carrying on village level work. TABLE 3 COMPARATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESPONDENTS IN RELATION TO DEFINITION OF RESPONDENT'S ROLE IN THE ACADEMY - Definition of Role Advisors .Faculty Total Instructions of rainees - 8 8 Engagement in Action Program 7 2 9 Total 7 10 17 The faculty were asked to state their own definition of their role in the Academy. Eight respondents indicated their role as teaching - the word used at times was "tutoring" - and doing research in their individual fields. It may be recognized here that the definition of their individual roles is again made within the context of the goal of the Academy, which they had identified as training. In as much as tutoring fits well into that goal,the respondents looked at teaching as their cherished obligation. The other two respondents described their role as "doing a lot of 37 practical experimentation" in as much as it enhanced the scope of train- ing the officers. In terms of typological considerations, it seems that the cherishedobligation of the major proportion of the faculty is for teaching and research. They not only perceive teaching and research as the Academy's goals, but seem to define their own role within that context. The examination of the responses of the faculty members and advi- sors indicated that their role definition as units was different from each other. Furthermore, members of the both groups defined their role in terms of their respective segmental definition of the Academy's goal. It seems, therefore, that whereas there is an intra-segmental agreement about role definition, there exists an inter-segmental non-agreement about it. Both of the sub-hypotheses posed above'are, therefore, ac- cepted. It was also hypothesized that "intra-segmental agreement on role definition determines the fulfillment of mutual expectations within that segment." In this connection the respondents were asked to relate how far they thought they had come up to the expectations that others had about them. Their responses are given in Table 4. When asked as to the expectation which others had for them, most of the advisors (6 out of 7) indicated that others expected them to en- hance the scope of achievement of the goals which they had stated, i.e. establishing a rural development program. They felt, however, that they were not successful in helping the faculty carry out practical village level work. Whereas mutual eXpectations of the advisors within their own segment were fulfilled, they indicated that they could not fulfill the expectations that-faculty members had for-them. When the advisors were asked in what ways they failed to fulfill 38 kuOH S N N o N N o o o o o m.coz a «so... 1: w m o o w e o o o maoigm .umoz %an. umuaH mHuGH umucH unuCH when uuucH wuuQHII HmuaH muuaH numm uceuxm ucmuxm nw>p< ucouxm ucmuxm HmuoH mauuwg swung HmuOH capped swung H33 Dione 38:3. 83338 30m cowuwuuumxm .wuosuo mo unmaaawmasm mo ucmuxm msfi unonw ucmfioouw< mmmmHo wm QMHommxm moZflEmommmm onm m>HHUmmmm ho HZMHNm mmH Qz< ZOHHHZHth maom mmH zo Hzmzmmmo< OH ZOHHHH