The IIM studies discovered that most of the time government servants were overworked. They worked in difficult, unhygienic and hazardous conditions. At the senior levels there was so much multi-tasking that it was impossible to discover the core task of a person. There was far too much hierarchy and in jobs such as engineering there was so much compartmentalisation that achieving any coordination between the departments was itself a major achievement. At the same time, there were few demands on actually fulfilling any task. The absence of quantifiable results was commented upon by the IIM researchers as one of the most important lacuna in the working of the government.

One might also add that when some of the secretaries to the government were asked to report on quantifiable achievements a few months ago there was a huge hue and cry in the secretariat with the chant ‘how unfair’ ringing loud and clear. On that occasion, reporting for the period July to December 2007, 46 of the 56 secretaries to the government had scored less than five out of ten with three senior-most secretaries scoring just 1.

The IIM studies shied from examining the role of the most important supernumerary manager in any government department, the minister in-charge, and his role in ensuring the achievement of targets. While the ministers have willy nilly acquired the powers of a CEO in pushing their wishes onto their subordinates, secretary to the department downwards, it could be that they were usually the ones to create the greatest hindrance in achieving targets since their personal target — of winning the next election and a ministerial berth — may not be in consonance with their departmental targets. However, no one seems to be complaining about such structural matters that militate against the achievement of targets. Is it because all our government servants know that such reform in government is impossible and therefore their grouse gets focussed on salaries?

... contd.