175 The above instances do highlight the fact that even in a bureaucratic organisational structure, Leaders can be ingenious in at least their acts of humaneness by infusing their own contagious vision into others. c) Professional Colleagues and Supervisors: It is pertinent to mention here that a number of respondents herein prefer to be evaluated by an expert from their own discipline (supra). And a majority of them feel more comfortable while working with experts from their own discipline. Related to above phenomenon are their responses to ‘Recognition’ -- which is a self-actualisation need and should, therefore, normally be the highest in Category ‘A’ Scientists/Engineers (these Categories are defined supra). Our sample supports this hypothesis so far as the aggregate score for all sub-classes of ‘recognition’ goes, viz.: A: 10/26 (38.46%), B: 14/39 (35.89%), C: 9/30 (30%). However, within the main class ‘recognition’, there are sub-classes like ‘Recognition by Professional Community’ -- this sub-class has the highest score for Category ‘B’ Scientists and Engineers than that for ‘A’, viz. A: 4/26 (15.38%), B: 8/39 (20.51%). Preference for it is the least in the last Category (C: 0/30). But in answer to another Question that was a veracity-check question, ‘Recognition by his/her Professional Community’ was chosen by 18/26 (69.23%) respondents in Category ‘A’ as one of their first three Choices; and its choice by Category ‘C’, too, was higher than that for Category ‘B’, viz. 20/30 (66.66%)
-C
24/39 (61.53%)
-B
Award in terms of ‘Recognition by his/her Superior, Membership of Professional Associations or Nomination to Seminars’ was chosen by 17/26 (i.e. 65.38%) of the respondents in Category ‘A’ as one of their first three Choices; the other scores are: 13/39 (33.33%)
-B
15/30 (50%)
-C
(Inter-Group differences appear to be significant, and the same need significancetesting by drawing a larger sample.)