Urvashi Prasad
How does lateral entry, in news recently, in GOI pan out? A former Niti Aayog officer argues the system needs to be much more welcoming of outside experts.
I recently concluded an eight-year tenure at Niti Aayog- as the only lateral entrant to have worked directly with all three vice chairpersons. During my time, I acquired a deep understanding of the policymaking process and had the privilege of engaging with a diverse array of stake-holders.
My greatest source of pride lies in the fact that I managed to influence policy decisions while enduring a personally challenging time.
I was fortunate to work alongside true advocates of lateral entry like Arvind Panagariya, Rajiv Kumar, Amitabh Kant and Sekhar Bonu, who valued expertise and specialised talent. Yet, I must acknowledge that there remains a scarcity of advocates for lateral entry within bureaucracy, often resulting in a strained relationship marked by a fundamental lack of trust.
System tilted
The Flexipool initiative at Niti Aayog was established to incorporate external expertise and facilitate various projects and studies. Positions within this framework could be filled through deputation or direct contractual recruitment. Significantly, officers contractually appointed under this initiative do not receive allowances and benefits afforded to government employees.
Moreover, the presence of a glass ceiling hinders career progression, and it seems that the system is not particularly conducive to such advancement of lateral entrants either. Sustaining a career in this context is difficult due to unrealistic compensation and restrictive policies, such as the provision of just eight days of paid leave annually on a pro-rata basis under Flexipool scheme, which has only recently been increased to 18 days per year.
Additionally, there is a noticeable absence of recognition or incentives for high performance. I drew the same salary for the last three years, a situation government officials never face. As a result, only intrinsically driven and committed professionals can survive in such an environment over time.
A clear and consistent human resource policy for lateral entrants is also lacking. For instance, while Niti Aayog has authority to terminate a lateral entrant’s contract at any stage without providing any justification or notice, the latter is required to give a notice period. Consequently, conduct and service regulations are applied selectively to lateral entrants, often to their detriment.
Lack of acceptance
Furthermore, the general administration’s frequently unfavourable stance towards lateral entrants is apparent; for example, I was informed earlier this year that there was no budget available for an air purifier and heater to be provided to me, while other directors from govt services had access to all necessary amenities. This situation exemplifies how lateral hires are often regarded as ‘second-class citizens’ by many within the government.
It’s common for bureaucrats to harbour an underlying suspicion regarding the motivations of lateral entrants. I recall an incident from my early days at Aayog when an official who had been at the institution since Planning Commission days sent an email to the entire organisation, referring to individuals like himself as ‘diamonds’ and labelling lateral entrants as ‘stones’, who are recruited into the institution through the ‘backdoor’.
Many govt officials view lateral entrants as individuals primarily interested in bolstering their resumes. While this perception may apply to those in early stages of their careers, it overlooks the fact that seasoned professionals, who have devoted a substantial part of their prime years to public service, regard their work as a long-term commitment rather than a temporary pursuit.
What needs to be done
Our bureaucracy, which largely adheres to a framework established in the 20th century, faces certain limitations today. Within this framework, institutionalised lateral entry emerges as a vital tool to enhance bureaucracy’s capacity to provide governance that meets demands of a rapidly changing environment.
But to ensure that lateral entry becomes an integral aspect of govt workforce, and to attract high-calibre talent, it is imperative to transform existing mindsets, cultivate trust, and implement a strong, merit-based recruitment framework for lateral entrants. This approach will help dispel any uncertainties regarding their ‘motivations’ for joining the public sector. Moreover, creating pathways for career progression is vital for retaining exceptional talent.
The concept of lateral entry as a governance reform has gained traction globally, with several countries adopting it. The US has embraced a revolving door policy, facilitating transition of academics and private sector experts into public service. The Singaporean govt has consistently achieved high efficiency ratings, largely due to its success in bridging the gap between technocrats and bureaucrats.
It is essential for govt to clarify its intentions regarding lateral entry, including the levels and institutions involved. Besides, fair human resource policies must be established for lateral entrants, ensuring that all aspects from recruitment to career progression and exit are managed with professionalism. In absence of this, lateral entry risks remaining an irregular or ad hoc initiative.
Urvashi Prasad is Director at NITI Aayog.
The article was first published in Times of India as Ex-lateral entrant recounts her days working for sarkar.
Disclaimer: All views expressed in the article belong solely to the author and not necessarily to the organisation.
Read more at IMPRI:
Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, 2023: Withdrawn or Revised?
Women, Climate Change, and Adaptation: Bridging Gender Gaps in Environmental Policy
Acknowledgment: This article was posted by Meenu Mohan, a research intern and Reetwika Mallick, visiting researcher and assistant editor at IMPRI.
