George Bernard Shaw said, “Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”
But, still, change and innovation is extremely difficult in government. The entire government system incentivises status-quo and strangulates any attempt to change.
How?
Lets see a real example of KUWSDB (Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board).
KUWSDB is a govt agency that executes water supply projects for the 214 Urban local bodies all over the state. In case of bigger cities, KUWSDB also maintains the daily water supply system. It has offices all over the state and have around 3000 employees.
I took charge as its MD (CEO) in July, 2014. Compared to many other government organisations, KUWSDB is in a fairly good shape, thanks to the earlier MDs and other officers.
However, I noticed urgent need for some changes.
1. The customer service was not professional. There were individual ‘complaint cells’ which took complaints only thru telephone and left it at the mercy of the officers to attend. I realised that we need to immediately make it efficient and professional. We discussed it with the expert advisory committee, headed by the Director of IIITB, and established a centralised, control room-cum-help line having 15 seater capacity, that would run 24x7. My experience in BESCOM made things easy. We outsourced the work to KEONICS, another government company. It now works 24x7, taken complaints from citizens thru phone, SMS, whatsapp, twitter facebook etc, tracks the complaint, calls the citizen back, confirms that the complaint is attended. It also doubles as emergency response center. If any lady works in the office beyond 6 pm, it ensures that she is dropped in office vehicle and confirms it.
2. Second change we brought was, use of ‘Telegram messenger’ for our internal communication. All the 300 odd officers and other stakeholders like the contractors, were brought in ‘telegram groups’ and it paved way for real-time communications and decisions. It broke the hierarchy to some extent and improved communication and clarity. Even some dailies published the initiative as innovation.
3. Thirdly, we delegated substantial power from the MD to the Engineers downwards. Else, files used to take weeks and months for approval. Also officers were never empowered to take decisions. So, we delegated and made them accountable. A weekly review meeting made them to commit the target and then achieve it.
Needless to say, things improved. Delays reduced and project speed improved by 41%. Many were happy. But few were unhappy too!
An anonymous complaint on me was sent to the Hon’ble CM and others, which disclosed the mindset of few (or many?!) government officials. Allegations were made.
Sample a few!
“Sri Manivannan is shirking all the responsibilities which are to be taken at his level and burdening the Chief Engineers and lower staff. He often repeats that he is not for doing routine work. After all public work is a routine work and is not a thrilling environment. We are being set weekly targets and even daily targets as though it is similar to the job of a sales executive.If everything is thrusted on the shoulders of the Chief Engineers, then why at all should a post of Managing Director be there in the Board?”
“Added to the above distress, all the Engineers are made to use the telegram mobile software compulsorily. Every Engineer is required to be glued to his / her mobile to continuously watch the postings and change his course of action. This has cause lot of diversion to the mind for our Engineers and inconsistency in day-to-day work. MD is also imposing that the communication made on the Telegram mobile application should be treated as an official order. Every person is feeling insecure and disgusted about continuing in the organization. This is the works form of dictatorship the organization has ever seen. Not even the Chief Engineers are spared.”
“Sri Manivannan has initiated action to establish a call center at a cost of about Rs. 4 crores (per year). Even in a common man’s understanding the call center type of a set up would be useful when the organization is dealing with O & M activities every day. As your kind self is aware, KUWSDB only implements new projects and handover the project to the ULB for maintenance. The board is maintaining water supply is about 10 towns and cities and from this angle, the per capital cost on the call center will be unjustifiable."
I am sharing this verbatim to show how these changes can be viewed and projected in a different way! Welcome to the government! I have such complaints made against me in BESCOM too! And it's not just with me! Many officers go thru this! It's not just IAS or IPS officers, it's same for anybody who wants to break from the status quo!
How does the private sector respond? Private sector has three clear advantages:
1. The leader has a tenure and hence he can plan well. His team members listen to him, as they know that he can’t be transferred suddenly.
2. The CEO has funds to spend on change management. He can give incentive to the champions of change.
3. Any such anonymous petition is not entertained,and the board stands by him. Any failure due to bonafide action is absorbed by the board. There is a risk absorption mechanism.
But in the government, one anonymous petition is enough to start an enquiry on the officer! So, it’s so easy create obstacles on change and innovation!
The mistrustful government system feasts on complaints. It assumes every such complaint to be true, and asks the officer to come clean. In that process so much time and energy is wasted! Indeed I had to sit and write a detailed reply to this petition! Such reply is open to acceptance or even rejection, upon which an enquiry committee will be set up!
And the media! As its a public office, everything comes to media! In these age and times, they pronounce judgment and crucify the officer even before the courts do! Public think that, ‘there can’t be a smoke without fire!’
Is this not enough to stonewall the energy and attempts by any officer to bring in change?! Every officer who wants to bring in a change or innovate, has to bear the Damocles sword on his head, held in thin thread by the CAG or CBI or Lokayukta!
If the innovation/change succeeds, then no issues! But, if that fails, as it does happen, then, it is a personal risk. How many officers will take such a risk, more so, when there is no tangible incentive for bringing in change/innovation? Maintaining status quo is easier!
So, how do we encourage innovations and change process? When an allegation is made on any officer on his work, before an FIR is booked or an audit para is made, he should be allowed to defend himself before a transparent public body (Lokpal?), which would decide if the decisions was taken bonafide or malafide. My friend Munish Moudgil, an officer known for his integrity, has been proposing this for long.
Risks taken in good faith have to be absorbed by the system. A transparent, risk absorption mechanism will encourage and protect all the bonafide decisions on change and innovation.
Can we have such a system? Can we have an ‘Innovation and Risk Absorption Act?’ Will the governments take it up, or will they expect the citizens to lobby for that too?! Who will unshackle the chains?
KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION
- Why is it difficult for government undertakings to innovate?
- How is management under a Private Company different from a government undertaking?
- If you are made MD/CEO of a Government Undertaking- what steps will you take to improve its efficiency?
- How can you leverage e-Governance and technology in public administration?
- How can you decentralize power and decision making to facilitate speed of implementation in public enterprises?
- Honest officers are often under public scrutiny for taking tough decisions- illustrate with an example and examine why is it so. Suggest some measures to tackle the pressure from citizenry and media that often delay or disincentivise such instances.
No comments:
Post a Comment