Performance Scorecards for Union Secretaries

 Cabinet Secretariat has initiated a new evaluation method for Union secretaries using performance scorecards, marking a significant shift in assessing senior civil servants at the Centre.

Key Features of the Scorecard

• It includes a dozen parameters with quantifiable indicators such as: 
  • File disposal rates
  • Reduction of pendency
  • Expenditure control
  • Output delivery
• Negative marks penalise lapses, while there's a discretionary component managed by the cabinet secretary.

Omissions in the Scorecard

• The scorecard overlooks critical responsibilities such as: 
  • Providing impactful policy advice
  • Ensuring proposals are administratively feasible, fiscally sustainable, and politically viable
• It does not address the hallmark responsibilities of a permanent civil service in a parliamentary system.

Implications of the Current System

• Erosion of Institutional Memory:
  • Treating initiatives as discrete projects undermines long-term policy adaptations and experiences.
• Shift in Policy Design:
  • Senior civil servants may feel sidelined as policy direction emanates from external sources, leading to a focus on compliance rather than critical engagement.
• Value of Scrutiny and Counsel:
  • Speed is prioritised over scrutiny, potentially neglecting the preventive role of bureaucracy in altering flawed proposals.
• Impact on Governance:
  • Devaluing the role of secretaries challenges the integrity of recruitment and training processes, undermining the bureaucratic framework.

Conclusion

The scorecard's corporate-style KPIs focus on speed, output, and efficiency, often ignoring the essential bureaucratic duties of judgment and dissent. This approach could weaken the foundational goals of civil services unless intentional oversight is applied by institutional watchdogs like the C&AG, CVC, Public Accounts Committee, and the Estimates Committee.