Annual appraisals. Those organisations unfortunate enough to suffer through them know that they are an endless source of embarrassment, as individuals scratch around unhappily looking for the tiny line dividing self-promotion and low self-esteem (and the no-promotion that may result). But that’s for ordinary individuals, not the exalted twice-born that make up the Indian Administrative Service. They have a distressing tendency to mark themselves and each other as well as possible — 10 out of 10, in effect. Which worries those among us who don’t necessarily think that All is Well in the Civil List.

The Cabinet Secretariat is working to fix this, apparently — by, among other things, making “physical and verifiable details” more important (Which details? The number of files examined? Or of cups of sweet tea drunk?), as well as making it more of a “narrative”. Some of this might help; though the designers should be reminded that where “physical and verifiable details” are emphasised in appraisals, there are also local administrators that care only about those details, completely neglecting larger, but intangible, problems.

The question of who-rates-who is also a problem. IAS officers in UP a few years back chose to vote — in secret ballot — as to who was most corrupt; economists hailed this as excellent “mechanism design”, which got all the incentives right. (The government ignored their effort.) Perhaps it is best not to leave such things to the bureaucrats themselves. As memorably detailed in Yes, Prime Minister, when faced with a threat to pay or postings, truly extraordinary levels of obfuscation can be called upon. When the show’s PM asks “If there were a conflict of interests, which side will the Civil Service really be on?” his secretary answers truthfully: “The winning side, Prime Minister.”