In New Zealand, the inflation rate, based on Consumer Price Index (CPI), has averaged around 2.7 per cent since 2000. In the 1990s, the average had been 2.4 per cent. This is in stark contrast with the average rate in the two decades before that, when it was over 11 per cent. Ever wondered what pulled the numbers down so dramatically?
The slide, of course, is a result of many complex factors. But of those, one clearly stands out. The salary of the governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand is inversely linked to inflation. He is also subject to regular, rigorous appraisals. This may have resulted in the country squeezing in low inflation numbers in the last 18 years.
| HOW THE FILE IS MOVING The progress of the new performance appraisal system 2009-10 Fifty-nine departments signed Results Framework Documents (RFDs) 2010-11 The National Authority for Chemical Weapons Convention (NACWC) got the ISO 9001:2008 certificate in recognition of the highly successful performa ISO 9001 standard of quality. It became the first government department to get this certification 2010-11 The number of departments that had signed RFDs went up to sixty two 2011-12 Eighty departments committed themselves to RFDs Seventy-four RFDs already with the government |
Certain elements of that kind of accountability are finding their way into the Indian bureaucracy too. It began with the constitution of a Performance Management Division (PMD) in the Cabinet Secretariat soon after the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) first came to power. PMD has now put in place a scheme of performance appraisal of government officials. This will radically rework the current practice of appraising the individual rather than her/his ‘performance’. The prevalent system tends to make the assessment almost personality-oriented, and not function-related. In the absence of a mechanism to link individual performance with organisational goals and achievements, the focus of appraisals is reduced in the larger context of performance management.
But all that is set to change.
PMD’s work has been slow but steady, an exercise of gentle persuasion. This ranges from merely holding workshops to introducing new practices of performance management on par with some of the best practices of performance evaluation in the private sector. Most government departments (barring a few like the intelligence agencies, the ministries of home, defence, finance and external affairs, the Department of Atomic Energy, besides half a dozen others) have now signed Results Framework Documents (RFDs) that pin them down to achieving in a financial year targets they set themselves. It is not just the individual secretary or joint secretary setting targets. It’s the department as a whole. Mechanical task-setting has been replaced with a more flexible system, laying stress on a number of tasks that a bureaucrat will perform as the leader of a team. In turn, he has to set weighted targets for his team. A minister concerned signs an RFD before it is sent to the Cabinet Secretary. In many cases, RFDs can be reviewed by third parties too.
“This will be akin to a Bill of Rights for government functionaries. It will liberate the bureaucracy from vagaries of ad-hocism, subjectivity and uncertainty,” says a bureaucrat closely associated with the exercise.
The RFDs are rated against performance. Ratings range from ‘excellent’ to ‘poor’. All ministries have been instructed to implement strategic planning for the next five years to ensure they are moving in the right direction. This means, they must not only do things right but also do the right thing. Performance results will determine promotions as well as post-retirement appointments.
Later this month, based on the new system of performance appraisal, ratings will be announced for senior administrators. Among the inputs that will help give ratings will be whether his department fully met the target it had set and how much money it saved from non-plan expenditure allocation.
On the basis of these ratings, for the first time in the history of independent India, performance-linked bonuses will be disbursed among government officials. These could be as much as 40 per cent of the salary of every member of the department.
The new system of performance appraisal will gradually replace the current system of Annual Confidential Report (ACR), the document that communicates only adverse remarks on the person being evaluated and is completely opaque. A much more effective system is the one that has reputational consequences for the individual concerned. Accordingly, on June 1, the cabinet secretary wrote a letter to every secretary in the government explaining what grade he had got and why. These grades would be made public in a few days and bonuses will be announced soon after.
But this is about accountability and performance. What about lack of performance and shifting of responsibility?
Based on a cooperative exercise of pooling the best among the serving and retired bureaucratic brains in the country, the government has made a list of seven excuses for not performing. The committee had given a list of 34.
If performance has to be the criterion for elevation in the government ranks, it also means that the principle of seniority in promotions is abandoned. Theoretically, this means that a 45-year-old with a proven performance record could become cabinet secretary in the middle of his career. The government is cautious about making any commitment on this just yet.
So what is the new mantra for getting ahead in the government? You have to be able to say yes, resoundingly, to the following: Are you implementing the administrative agenda? Are you keeping deadlines? Are you showing results? If not, why not?
The bottom line is: No more excuses.
