Public vs. Private Sector: Two Entirely Different Animals
Unraveling the Complexities: A Comprehensive Exploration of the Public vs. Private Sector Performance Evaluation Landscape in India.
Complex Web of Performance Appraisal of Public Sector in India
The bureaucratic structure, both at the central and state levels in India, forms an intricate web of departments and ministries, interweaving to steer policy-making and its execution. Alongside this lies the network of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), public limited companies operating with a profit-centric organizational focus. Although their operations are distinct, these two elements co-exist, if not coalesce, to form the administrative engine driving the instrumentalities of the state in the country.
Challenging Simplistic Comparisons
It's not uncommon in India for comparisons to be drawn between the public and private sectors, often fostering a narrative that highlights the efficiency of private sector MBAs versus their public sector counterparts, including Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers. This juxtaposition implicitly portrays IAS officers as less efficient, risk-averse, and potentially corrupt, with career advancements perceived to hinge more on political patronage than genuine performance. Critics suggest that while the private sector quickly weeds out non-performers, the public sector seemingly lacks robust mechanisms to ensure accountability. However, such simplistic comparisons fail to acknowledge the unique challenges and dynamics each sector operates within.
The Inherent Constraints of the Public Sector
Public sector organizations, encompassing Government Departments or Commercial Enterprises including Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), are recognized as the "State" under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. In this context, the Constitution imposes certain statutory, even constitutional obligations on these entities. Articles 14 and 16, for example, do not apply to the private sector, implying the public sector is inherently bound by these constitutional provisions.
These constraints manifest in areas like recruitment and promotion (including reservations for SC/STs), and granting performance-based pay or bonuses to exceptional employees. Consider the scenario in the start-ups or established private firms where granting sweat-equity is commonplace to attract and retain talent. In contrast, in the public sector, where the government owns either all or the majority of the equity, such a proposition is a non-starter.
The limitations extend to firing and retrenchment, where the public sector is restricted by Articles 310 and 311 of the Constitution. In effect, non-performing employees often remain with the organization until their retirement. Even in routine administrative matters such as transfers and postings, bureaucrats are subjected to formal and informal pressures of the political executive, leading to a sub-optimal and inefficient level of human-resource management. This is apart from the limited judicial review.
The Profit Paradigm in the Private Sector
Despite varying perspectives, the ultimate motive in the private sector is profit. It is an unapologetic reality since maximizing shareholder value is the key objective, even if lip service is paid to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). In the public sector, the objectives are more diverse and often at odds with each other.
Take the case of State Transport Undertakings. While there's an effort to maximize profits, they also aim to provide free and concessional travel to certain passenger categories. Non-preferential and loss-making rural routes might be operated out of social obligation. At times, there could be unstated objectives by which the top management is evaluated by the political executive. In some cases, the stated objectives could merely be rhetoric, known only to be included in the Citizens’ Charter without serious implications. Thus, evaluating the performance of a public sector enterprise is more complex and multifaceted, unlike in the private sector where the mission is clearer and driven by profitability.
The Decision-Making Matrix
The private sector has well-defined levels of decision-making with clear delegation of managerial and financial powers. Everyone within the organization is familiar with these structures. In the public sector, while similar policies and procedures may exist, often there is a requirement for concurrence from independent units and Departments such as Finance, Law, or Personnel. The decision-making matrix is not only more complex but also very often quite fuzzy.
The decision-making process in the public sector undergoes persistent scrutiny from multiple layers of governance and oversight, including the political executive and Parliamentary and Legislature Committees. The integral role of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) further imposes a sense of caution, often resulting in conservative decision-making. Influences extend beyond governmental structures to encompass external pressure groups, political parties, and media, while judicial intervention, through the High Court's Writ jurisdiction, further complicates the landscape. This complex framework often results in slower and more restrained decisions. In stark contrast, the private sector, free from such extensive checks and influences, can achieve a pace and quality in decision-making not mirrored in the public sector.
Passing the buck?
Furthermore, in the private sector, those making policies or decisions are usually accountable for their implementation. In the Government, policies are often formulated at higher levels, sometimes neglecting the concerns and constraints of on-the-ground staff or stakeholders. Failure in policy can be easily attributed to poor implementation, seldom questioning the framers of the faulty policies1.
Summing up: In Search of a Fair Comparison and a Progressive Path
Comparing the performance of IAS officers and other civil servants within the governmental framework to professionals in the private sector is a comparison fraught with unfairness as well as potential fallacies. Indeed, it can be likened to juxtaposing apples with oranges. Advocating a simplistic and somewhat naive solution, such as transplanting private sector policies and practices directly into the public sector, will not serve as a cure-all for the current performance issues plaguing the public sector2. It's not to suggest that the performance of IAS officers is beyond reproach or that there isn't any room for enhancement. There is always scope for improvement, and such improvement can be realized incrementally if all stakeholders, including the bureaucracy and the political executive, address it as a pragmatic priority, in good faith.
Moving forward
It is crucial for policymakers, civil servants, public-sector managers, business leaders, press and media, and citizens to be cognizant of these inherent differences between the sectors. A collective effort needs to be made to navigate these complexities and find a middle ground. Only through a collaborative and comprehensive understanding of the unique challenges that public sector faces can we truly work towards achieving shared socio-economic goals, strengthening both the sectors in their unique ways and fostering a more equitable and efficient society.
======================
REQUEST: If you enjoyed this article from 'The KBS Chronicle', we encourage you to share it with others who might also find it valuable.
Click the link below to access easy sharing options for Twitter, Facebook, and Email. The same link also generates a web-link that can be shared via messaging apps like WhatsApp, Telegram, or Signal, in both individual and group settings.
Thank you for your support.
