LATERAL ENTRY

LATERAL ENTRY

Lateral Entry refers to the direct induction of domain experts at the middle or senior levels of administrative hierarchy, rather than only appointing regular civil servants through promotion. NITI Aayog, in its three-year Action Agenda, and the Sectoral Group of Secretaries (SGoS) on Governance in its report submitted in 2017, recommended the induction of personnel at middle and senior management levels in the central government.

Need for Lateral Entry

1. Fresh talent
   • Widens the talent pool: At the higher levels, it is necessary to have competent administrators. Lateral entry widens the options available for such people.
   • Fresh talent in policy making: People with specialized skills and domain expertise will help in policy making due to the increase in its complex nature.
   • Entry and Retention of talent in Government: Lateral entry could “ensure entry and retention of talent in the government even for those jobs that have a high demand and premium in the open market” 6th Central Pay Commission Report [2006]
2. Availability of manpower: There is a shortage of nearly 1,500 IAS officers in the country. The Baswan Committee (2016) also supported lateral entry considering the shortage of officers.
3. Better Governance
   • Efficiency: Lateral entries can induce competition to the established career bureaucracy by moving the IAS officers out of their comfort zone [NitiAayog, Three Year Action Agenda].
   • Culture of performance: It will help in bringing change in organisation culture in Government sector culture by bringing the values of economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in governance.
   • Participatory Governance: Lateral entry provides stakeholders such as the private sector and non-profits an opportunity to participate in the governance process.
   • Target-oriented: Lateral entry will induce a higher degree of professionalism and promote a target-oriented approach in governance.
4. Precedents: In the past, many private individuals from the World Bank and other sources have joined the government. Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Shankar Acharya, Arvind Virmani, and Vijay Kelkar enriched the services.

Concerns related to Lateral Entry

1. Bureaucratic Resistance:

• Lack of cooperation: Existing officials might resist functioning with outsiders, leading to tensions between both.
• Adjustment in work culture: The government sector imposes its own limitations. In such a situation:
• Demotivation: Lateral entry will bring uncertainty about career progression amongst the civil servants. This will hamper their performance.

• Lack of opportunity to gain expertise: The present system of transfers hinders gaining of relevant experience by incumbent officers. Thus, it is unfair to brand incumbents as generalists. Given a fair chance, they can emulate private sector expertise.

2. Issues in appointment:

• Reservations: It may disband the reservation policy since the government does not offer a quota in contractual appointments.
• Transparency: Political interference in the selection process may occur and it may promote nepotism and spoils system.
• Vague eligibility of candidates: The 2018 advertisement for lateral entry at joint secretary posts said that candidates should hold a PhD, which is merely a degree, without any elaboration on what expertise the candidate needs, as the openings are for highly specialised positions.

3. Governance:

• Lack of long-term stakes: Lateral entrants will have no long-term stakes which may keep them detached. They may have the motive of just enhancing their CV.
• Lack of field experience: Lateral entrants may have domain knowledge, but they may fall short on the experience of working in the “field.”
• Difficult to ensure responsibility and accountability: For the decisions taken by the private people during their service, especially given the short tenures of 3 to 5 years.
• Fundamental transition from private to public sector: Private sector approach is profit-oriented, whereas the motive of the government is public service. A private sector person may not be able to make such a transition in a small span of time.
• Narrow scope: Lateral entry at only top-level policy-making positions may have little impact on field-level implementation, given the multiple links in the chain of command from the Union Government to a rural village.
• Sharing of public information: Appointment of private persons in the government sector will lead to the divulging of secret, confidential information to the private sector.

4. Other issues:

• Promotion of vested interests: The lateral entrants may join to promote vested interests of their organization/field.
• Introduction of pro-establishment candidates: Lateral entry at the position of joint secretary could stifle good civil servants who are resisting something inadvisable that the government seeks to do.

Way forward

• Recruitment through open competition: There should be open competition for the lateral entry with transparency to ensure persons with integrity and political neutrality enter the government service.
• Training:
  • Intensive training program: For entrants from the private sector to civil services to help them understand the complex nature of work in government.
  • District immersion: The lateral entrants should, therefore, have mandatory ‘district immersion,’ serving at least five of their first ten years in field postings. This will make lateral entry self-selecting, drawing in only those with commitment and aptitude – Gulzar Natarajan and Duvvuri Subbarao (both IAS officers who have served with the Andhra Pradesh cadre).
• Reviewing performance: A system of two intensive reviews – one on completion of 14 years of service and the other on completion of 20 years of service should be established for all government officers [II ARC].
• Removing non-performers: Worst-performing civil servants must be eased out of service after 15 years based on criteria that are both transparent and accountable. This will open up space for new talent. Lateral entrants as well, leaving the IAS a little less top-heavy. Ex — The government’s decision to enforce compulsory retirement against some IRS officers was in the same direction.
• International Practices

• UK: A lot of the induction at the cabinet secretary’s level is done by a group of people that selects people after screening their CVs, through interviews, and considering their academic and related performance.

Lack of specialisation in civil services and inadequate recruitment in the early 1990s appear to have forced the need for a lateral entry system currently. Thus, this ‘revolving-door’ which is there in some countries can be adopted by us as long as we keep an open mind, and see how it functions. In the meantime, the government would do well to address the crucial issues raised by the senior bureaucrats.