Prime Minister Narendra Modi was very clear in his mind when he announced the setting up of Groups of Secretaries in 2015 to discuss and come up with recommendations on a variety of subjects and issues. As an accomplished leader, he could quickly discern what was not being leveraged by the civil servants. Most of these belonged to the Indian Administrative Service. They had been selected through an examination conducted by the UPSC, many of these were brilliant and had done remarkably well in their individual capacity, they knew each other well but very rarely sat together, except during formal meetings, to assess the problems that beset various sectors and various aspects of governance. They had evolved as individuals competing with each other. It took the sharp eye of Narendra Modi to get the civil servants to collaborate as never before.
Why did it take the Prime Minister to bring the officers together in the manner in which he did?
Contrary to public perception, most of the IAS officers do not collaborate with each other as professionals. They are, more often than not, competing with each other, questioning almost everything that the other IAS officer brings to them. This is indeed strange but that is how it is. This has led to enormous delays and decision-making has suffered. Moreover, it is extremely rare that an IAS officer sticks his neck out to defend a junior colleague as quite a few of them are protecting their own backsides and/or looking at a post-retirement job in the government. The IAS could and should have evolved as a group with a distinctive ethos wherein the constituents understood and helped each other. But it hasn’t happened. Why is it so?
It is easy to understand the competition amongst those that aspire to become civil servants but unfortunately this “competitive spirit” continues to consume them as they go along in the service. It starts at the Academy where most of the training is around equipping them as individuals and not as a group. There is no conscious effort to cultivate an “esprit de corps”, so evident amongst army officers. There is indeed a personal connect and bonding that gets established amongst the officers during their stay at the Academy that is pretty useful at a personal level and lasts pretty long but this connect very rarely gets extended to their professional sphere. Even at the Academy, there is a competition as the mutual ranking can be altered on the basis of marks obtained. There is apparently a move now that will make it worse. If the Academy becomes a place where the service allocation itself is determined on the basis of evaluation at the Academy, it would lead to cut-throat competition and will further reduce the chances of comradery that is so essential for collaborative working.
The “competitive spirit’ continues to plague the service right through the career as each of them vies for posts that are considered to be better than the others. The politicians love this competition as they are able to get “convenient” officers from those that are available. There are a large number of brilliant performers yet the IAS does not have the ethos that gives the service a distinctive identity that is appreciated or recognised. An IAS officer then comes across as self-seeking, corrupt and inaccessible, feudal attributes that truly reflect those in our social fabric and not anything distinct from it.
All that happens during the career goes on to reinforce this “competition” rather than collaboration. Over a period of time, the officer soon discovers new forms of competition engineered by his own senior colleagues to roadshow their “performance” based on competitive parameters. Many of them start learning the art of “data management” rather than looking at the fundamental issues that afflict a particular sector.
What is even more tragic is that there is no conscious effort to create a distinctive ethos as each officer looks at his career as an individual, not as a part of a group. The key question, therefore, is whether this “chaos” should be replaced by an “ethos”? Can it be done? If yes, how?
There is absolutely no doubt that given the role played by the IAS in the formulation of policies and their implementation, the “chaos” should indeed be replaced by an “ethos” that enables collaboration and not competition. It can be done. PM Modi has already demonstrated some steps. What is needed is to build on these steps.
It has to begin with the manner in which recruitment of the IAS officers takes place. If the focus is only on recruiting just brilliance, it won’t work. Expertise can be outsourced but attitude can’t. Today there are tools available to assess the attitude of individuals. The exercise would be cumbersome but it is worth the effort considering the implications of recruiting those that may be bright and brilliant but do not have the right attitude as they occupy critical positions in their careers.
After having recruited those with a positive and collaborative attitude, they need to be trained in a manner that they appreciate the need to collaborate with each other. This can also be done through case studies and interaction with such officers who are not merely brilliant but have delivered through collaboration. There are many such officers who have demonstrated that collaboration works.
Mentoring of officers is critical. Officers, during the early part of their careers, should not feel “lonely” when they are exposed to the ground reality of a “big-bad-world”. Each one of them needs to be nurtured to face failures and setbacks. There are indeed a few senior officers performing this job but it needs to be institutionalized. This happens in the army and even in the private sector where the young officer is made to feel a part of the family. The British did it and this culture rubbed on to some ICS officers as well. However, over a period of time, this ethos has dissipated.
What PM Modi did in the context of Secretaries needs to be institutionalised and extended at all levels of governance. Platforms need to be created to enable the officers to interact with each other informally.
An ombudsman like institution can be created at the centre as well as in the states. This would enable officers to take up their grievances, especially in such cases where there are false allegations against them. Members of such an institution can also interact with officers against whom there is adverse feedback. This is essential to keep the officers “on track” by creating peer pressure on such “errant” officers. Informal interactions can do wonders.
A lot more will need to be done. It can be done. And, it is do-able. Institutions like ombudsman can be put in place by the respective associations. It doesn’t even require the government to intervene. A beginning can be made. It should be made.
—Anil Swarup is former Secretary, Government of India and author of the book 'Not Just A Civil Servant'. The views expressed are personal
Click to read his other columns
