Lateral entry is problematic

It is not the first time that lateral entry is in the news. It is also not the first time that such initiation into the civil service is taking place.

Many, including Manmohan Singh, Jairam Ramesh and others have come into the Civil Service through the lateral route. So, why is it ruffling feathers now? It is perhaps on account of the quantum or the manner in which this recruitment is likely to take place. 

The issue at stake here is the appointment process, which should ideally go through the UPSC, whose conduct of examination has been above board. No one has ever doubted its credentials. There will be serious apprehensions if some other agency is chosen to select these entrants. The bigger question, however, is whether it will improve governance? I am not sure that it will. So far, concerted or sustained efforts have not been made to manage the senior civil service in a comprehensive manner. The steps have by and large been ad hoc in nature, and this lateral entry process is no different.

A comprehensive approach will entail looking at the manner in which recruitment takes place, in-service training, transfers, assessment of officers, incentives and disincentives by way of promotions and selection to critical posts. 

Before considering these aspects, it would be necessary to determine what is required of an officer who goes on to occupy senior positions in the civil service. From commencement of their careers — be it a sub-divisional magistrate, district magistrate or head of department — an IAS officer occupies leadership positions. Each officer has to lead a team. Hence, the aim should be to select those who have leadership qualities or have the potential to become leaders. The purpose of training should also be to enable the officer to hone his leadership skills.  

Those that get selected for the civil service are primarily brilliant individuals. On test are written communication and analytical skills and general awareness. The entrance tests assess examinees capability to ‘crack’ the exam and various coaching institutes assist them in doing so.  

Much more is required in a leader. He should be able to build a team and carry it along with him by motivating those working with him. This entails exemplary actions and, on occasions, a few personal sacrifices as well. He has to be an accomplished communicator, beyond the written word. He has to be ethical in his behaviour with a positive attitude. None of these are tested at the time of recruitment. There are tools available today to assess these and are being used in the private sector and elsewhere in the world. 

It is difficult to mould an officer, who beyond a particular age is a “hard-boiled egg”. Training assumes an important role in moulding these entrants into accomplished leaders. This process could be streamlined if the maximum age of entry is brought down to 26, as was the case a few decades ago. 

It is during training that the ethos and purpose of the service will need to be drilled. Case studies-based methodology should be adopted to drive home ideas. Given their background, officers have knowledge and are capable of acquiring more. What is required is a transformation in their attitudes as an officer and the necessity and utility of ethical behaviour.

Periodic upgrade of skills and learning from each other should be an integral part of this in-service training. This is imperative in the context of a fast-changing world, both in terms of management and technology. 

Senior officers who have done well in their careers can be asked to mentor officers who enter the service for the first few years. Some beginning has been made, but an institutional arrangement is needed. Mentoring is a key element in evolving the ethos of any organisation.

Close monitoring of inclination and aptitude of officers will help determine his postings and assignments. And, once assigned a task, he should be left to deliver. 

Frequent transfers are extremely debilitating, but in some states it has become a tool for harassing officers who don’t toe the line. Frequent transfers not only impact delivery adversely, responsibility cannot be fixed if the officer is unable to perform. This has led to politicisation of bureaucracy. The politician is happy, but governance suffers. 

Some states have experimented with Civil Services Board, but it hasn’t really worked. This will have to be given serious thought. Postings should be based on integrity and competence, not on allegiance. 

This can easily be done for critical posts to begin with. An agency, like the UPSC, can be assigned to prepare a panel from which the government can select an officer. Officers are evaluated annually through Annual Confidential Roles (ACR) and their promotions are based on these ACRs. However, the efficacy of ACRs has suffered because they have ceased to be confidential — they are communicated to the individual. It has had a demoralising impact on the civil service. 

The concept has been adopted from the private sector, but unlike the private sector, government practice is perfunctory where assessment for empanelment is made on the basis of phone calls to peer group officers. No discussion is held with the officer who is being assessed and he is not even informed about the reason for not being empanelled. 

It is a moot point whether lateral entry into the civil will harm governance per se, but there are serious doubts about its contribution to improving governance. The need of the hour is to improve governance and this can happen only if the instruments that are used for policy making and delivery of services are managed in a professional manner. A comprehensive approach is required to address issues. Just tinkering, by getting a few so-called ‘experts’ through lateral entry, will be of little help.

The author is a former Union secretary, Government of India