MANDARIN MATTERS | civil services survey | ac nielsen org-marg findings
India’s maiden Civil Services Survey has opened up a new avenue for administrative reforms, with the Centre attempting to put its finger on the pulse of members of three All-India Services and seven Central services
India’s maiden Civil Services Survey has opened up a new avenue for administrative reforms, with the Centre attempting to put its finger on the pulse of members of three All-India Services and seven Central services
by NARESH MINOCHA
THE feedback is certainly pulsating: As many as 85 per cent of respondents take pride in being civil servants; 81 per cent believe that political corruption takes place because there are always some civil servants willing to collaborate in it. “A majority of respondents felt that corrupt officers get away without being punished,” says the Civil Services Survey (CSS), confirming public perception at large. Apart from the IAS, the IPS and the Indian Forest Service (IFoS) are All-India Services. The Central services included in CSS are: Indian Audit & Accounts Service (IA&AS), Indian Foreign Service (IFS), Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax) or IRS (IT), Indian Revenue Service (Customs & Central Excise) or IRS (C&CE), Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPS), Indian Railway Traffic Service (IRTS) and Indian Postal Service (IPoS). Commissioned by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG), CSS was carried out by Hyderabad-based Centre for Good Governance and AC Nielsen ORG-MARG.
It has boldly dealt with the subject of corruption and the politician-bureaucrat nexus. Additional credibility stems from the freedom given to respondents.
The latter also prepared the report, released by DARPG in April. CSS is credible because it forthrightly mentions glitches encountered in eliciting responses in the survey of 18,432 officials. It also identifies the potential risk of errors as well as limitations of responses to specific questions. Moreover, it has boldly dealt with the subject of corruption and the politician bureaucrat nexus. Additional credibility stems from the freedom given to respondents in this voluntary survey to speak their minds fearlessly on all these and related administrative issues in 300 words. The diverse entries in this “comment box” of the questionnaire are an eye-opener for reformers and the public. CSS constitutes a bottom-up approach in understanding the requirements for reforms. It ratifies as well as enriches several recommendations and observations made by administrative reforms committees that constitute a top-down approach to reforms.
The bottom-up approach would acquire more depth and yield better insight into administrative challenges as and when such surveys extend to all government employees – as is the practice in the US and Canada. Such a survey of 64 lakh Central and State government employees, if ever attempted, would be a huge challenge in itself. CSS differs in concept and methodology from the Census of Central Government Employees (CCGE) that is periodically undertaken by the Ministry of Labour and Employment. The last such Census, the 31st in its series, covered 31.16 lakh regular employees and was released in October 2009. CSS is a questionnaire-based study in which each employee is requested to respond, whereas CCGE is based on data submitted by 7,352 employing agencies in the standardized format. CCGE also incorporates secondary data collected from various government entities. It is thus more of a statistical exercise that does not collect information directly from the staff.Of the 18,432 officials who were sent the questionnaire by post and e-mail, only 4,808 or 26 per cent responded. This in itself is a finding, reflecting the indifference and propensity to avoid risk. CSS, however, contended that a response rate of 26 per cent is, statistically, a “significantly large proportion” of the “universe” of civil servants. The propensity to avoid risk or the fear of taking a decision that can prove wrong is further confirmed by the finding that only 2,300 out of the 4,808 respondents availed of the “comment box”. Only 12.47 per cent of the 18,432 officials, the brain of the Indian bureaucracy, had the courage to speak their minds even when fully assured of confidentiality!
The propensity to avoid risk or the fear of taking a decision that can prove wrong is confirmed by the finding that only 50% availed of the ‘comment box’.
THE point is, if officials exhibit such aversion to taking risks even in answering a questionnaire they will certainly shy away from taking innovative, bold and fast decisions independently in their work. CSS, however, observes that the output and efficiency of an organization depends on the fact that officers should feel confident about speaking their minds or challenging the way things are done in the interest of better results. It said: “In this regard, 65 per cent respondents feel confident speaking their mind or challenging the way things are done without fear.”
This was one of the factors covered under the work environment dimension. A work environment conducive to efficient working requires components such as competent staff, adequate financial and physical resources, simplified procedures and absence of outside pressures. It is critical to determine overall efficiency of the organization and the satisfaction of an officer.
The issue of maintenance of office discipline was also raised, and 45 per cent of the respondents felt that existing administrative policies and procedures are not helpful in dealing with indiscipline in the office. CSS notes that discipline in office is an essential requirements for a favourable working environment. Senior management in office needs to be fully equipped to discipline the staff. Procedures for tackling indiscipline should be quick and effective.
As regards undue outside interference, only 29 per cent feel that there is pressure owing to it. Responses reveal that undue outside pressure is a significant problem only in the case of the three All-India Services (42-48 per cent agree). The response regarding the issue and what it entailed for junior officers was analysed on the basis of seniority. Senior officers reported outside pressure more often than juniors. Dealing with the “job satisfaction and motivation” dimension, the report explained that the respondents were asked three questions. They were required to rate (on importance) the given six factors first and then to state whether they were satisfied with their current assignment. The six factors were: recognition of effort, chance for useful contribution, opportunities to use and develop skills, congenial work environment, challenging opportunities at work and right level of authority in job. In case of dissatisfaction, the respondents were further requested to indicate reasons (which referred to the same set of six factors). All six factors were seen as very important by over 60 per cent. However, chance to make a useful contribution (73 per cent) and autonomy in the job (71 per cent) were ranked higher than the other four factors.
About 73 per cent reported that they were satisfied in their current assignment, as compared to 22 per cent who expressed dissatisfaction while 6 per cent were unsure. The service-wise analysis of the responses indicates that, except for IRPS where satisfaction level is relatively lower (60 per cent), the rest of the services score high. Of the officers who expressed, mid-career bureaucrats form the largest set – 25 per cent are in the 40-49 years age group. This matches with the findings analysed on the basis of number of years in service i.e. among those reporting dissatisfaction, officers who have completed 17-25 years of service form the largest group (25 per cent). The respondents mainly pointed to lack of opportunity to contribute constructively (47 per cent) and inadequate authority and autonomy (46 per cent) as the reasons for dissatisfaction. Further analysis shows lack of appropriate autonomy is a bigger issue at the junior level.
Coming to postings and transfers or tenure policy, 52 per cent believed that postings to important posts and sought-after stations are not decided on merit while 58 per cent felt that transfer orders are not issued keeping in mind the specific needs of those concerned. However, 64 per cent were satisfied with their postings as well as tenures. Service-wise analysis indicates that officers of Central services such as Indian Postal Service, IA&AS and IFS are among those most satisfied with respect to overall postings and transfers. Satisfaction with tenures is the lowest in IAS and IPS, whereas satisfaction with stations of posting is lowest in the case of Indian Forest Service and IRS (IT). In the case of officers dissatisfied with their current station of posting, the most important reasons for dissatisfaction are related to: lack of good educational facilities (49 per cent), inability to take care of aged parents (48 per cent) and lack of healthcare facilities to cater to emergencies (42 per cent).
52 per cent believed that postings to important posts and sought-after stations are not decided on merit.
Regarding work-life balance, 45 per cent believed they had control over their time to a great extent while 50 per cent felt they had control to some extent. A gender-wise analysis indicates that women officers feel less in control of their time (40 per cent) than their male counterparts (45 per cent). Junior officers felt they have little say in deciding how to plan the use of their time. However, officers at the highest level also experience some constraint in managing their time.
SERVICE-WISE analysis shows that extent of lack of control over time has been reported more by the IAS, IPS, IRS (C&CE), IFoS, and the like, which are characterized by field duty, extensive public interface and so on, vis-à-vis the Central Services such as Postal Service, IRPS where the nature of work is typically desk-based.Affecting time management are lack of adequate support staff in terms of numbers and competence (74 per cent), heavy workload (57 per cent) and too many meetings (52 per cent). CSS observes that the existing system of performance management operates almost completely through the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) that judges officers’ performance every year in the areas of work, conduct, character and capabilities. Recently, the government has introduced a Modified Performance Appraisal System for AIS and Central services, which promises greater transparency, interactive appraisal and job specific appraisal formats.
Forty-three per cent agreed that the performance appraisal system is fair, objective and transparent while 35 per cent did not. On whether meritorious officers are valued, recognized and rewarded, 37 per cent did not agree while 35 per cent did. More officers agreed that merit is recognized in IA&AS (53 per cent) and IRTS (52 per cent), but the feeling of lack of recognition was particularly common among the officers of IRS (IT), 48.3 per cent, and IPoS (44 per cent) and IRPS (42 per cent).
About 64 per cent felt the appraising officer had adequate understanding of their work and performance while 16 per cent disagreed. As many as 73 per cent said short-term goals were given greater weight in the appraisal as compared to long-term objectives of institution- building. The percentage who shared this perception was found to be particularly high in IRPS (82 per cent), IPS (79 per cent) and IRTS (78 per cent). It was also shared to a lesser extent by officers of IA&AS (61 per cent) and IFS (62 per cent).
Factors that can negatively impact performance can be broadly grouped into three categories – people, infrastructure and processes. The most common impediments to performance are: poor quality staff (43 per cent), inadequate support staff (35 per cent) and outdated procedures (32 per cent). In comparison, attitudinal problems are less common (20 per cent). Lack of skilled staff is perceived to be a widespread problem.
The most positive assessment of ethical standards is by IA&AS officers while that of IPS officers is least positive.
The respondents were asked to indicate whether promotions in their service took place at expected intervals. Overall, 54 per cent answered in the affirmative while 36 per cent responded negatively. Among the various services, satisfaction over timely promotions was highest in the IA&AS (85 per cent) followed by IAS (81 per cent) and IFS (72 per cent) whereas officers from IFoS (26 per cent), IRS (C&CE), 27 per cent, and IRS (IT), 43 per cent, were least satisfied. This perception is largely borne out by the threshold analysis for promotions in seven Central services. romotions in IA&AS, IAS and IFS are indeed faster as more junior batches among them have been promoted to various levels.
Sixty-six per cent agree that the performance appraisal system has been ineffective in keeping incompetent officers from reaching the top. Across the services, less than 16 per cent agree that the appraisal system has been effective; only in the case of IA&AS, the percentage exceeds 30 per cent. On fast-track promotions for high achievers being the norm, 70 per cent agreed provided adequate measures are in place for fair assessment.
Fair representation of services under the Central Staffing Scheme is a concern for civil servants across the services. The findings indicate that there is a remarkable difference of opinion between the IAS and other services. Seventyone per cent of IAS officers were satisfied with the representation of their service vis-àvis the seven services in which level of satisfaction was less than 22 per cent. The perception of non-IAS services is borne out by the secondary data which shows that the IAS has a clear domination of the Central staffing scheme posts. It occupies 69 of the 89 Secretary level posts (78 per cent) and 44 out of 68 Secretary equivalent-level posts (65 per cent). At the Additional Secretary and Joint Secretary levels as well, the IAS has a clear supremacy with 94 per cent and 75 per cent of the total posts. Other services get some representation only at Director-level or below.
While over 42 per cent felt that a majority of officers upholds ethics, rules and the like in spite of personal risk, 23 per cent felt that such officers were rare. As many as 70 per cent agreed that a majority of officers does not approach influential people or use other means to get good postings and so on. The most positive assessment of ethical standards in their service is by IA&AS officers while the assessment by IPS officers is least positive. IAS and IPS officers perceive the prevalence of unethical practices in their respective services the most. The IA&AS, IFS and IRS (C&CE) perceive officers belonging to their service/cadre as relatively more ethical.
There is agreement (81 per cent) across services that political corruption takes place because there are some civil servants willing to collaborate in it. A majority of respondents felt that corrupt officers get away without being punished. It was also felt that corrupt officers are able to get the most sought-after postings. Harassment of honest officials through baseless complaints and investigations also turns out to be a major issue (58 per cent) in several services.
