What is the difference between a Generalist and specialist?

A ‘generalist’ means an amateur administrator who had education in linguistics or classics and is a highly intelligent man with certain personal qualities of character.

The Indian Institute of Public Administration conference on Public Administration defined generalist officer as a bright young man who has received a liberal college education in any subject.

He is appointed at the middle level supervisory post for which no educational qualification in technical or professional subjects is prescribed. He receives some initial training in the field and in due course of time is appointed to higher administrative positions irrespective of his previous experience and training.

A ‘specialist’ is an expert who has devoted time and studies to a special branch of learning and has acquired specialized experience in tackling problems of particular subjects or areas. He is excluded from posting in areas where his specialized knowledge or training does not find direct application.

The present administrative system in India, as in Britain, is by and large generalist dominated in which policy-making and top administrative posts are occupied by generalist administrators belonging to IAS & State administrators in states.

The specialists work within their specialized area or department and man the technical posts. They give the technical advice to the generalist administrators at the top.

The major arguments in favour of generalists are:

· The philosophy of Macaulay Report (1854) and Northcote-Trevelyn Report (1853) states that a person with liberal education and varied multifunctional experience is much better than the specialist who has deep knowledge of a very narrow field

· It comes in direct contact with grassroots administration.

· Administration in India is organized on area basis and it requires a generalist administrator to coordinate the activities of various departments.

· By their education, training and experience, generalists have a broad view of problems facing the society; which the specialists lack.

· In a parliamentary democracy, ministers need a generalist to advice in policy matters as he is responsible to parliament and has to work for party.

· In USA, the specialists in their administration are facing the need for generalist coordinator.

· At higher level of administration, very little technical knowledge is required.

· When the specialists are required to do the job of a generalist, they lost both worlds. They neither remain specialists nor do they become good generalists.

· In any decision making process, technical inputs are taken from only a small part. Other matters like financial, administrative, political, legal etc. are more important. Generalists having a broad background of working in various departments are better suited to these jobs.

· In India, generalists are woven in entire fabric of administration and provide the necessary extension to its working.

The arguments in favour of specialist are: (i) in the colonial period or even during early independence period the administrative tasks were relatively simple. But now it has become complex and cannot be comprehended by generalists, (ii) Specialists feel that generalist subjects not required to intervene between them and minister.

In fact specialists have better knowledge of t subjects and can explain it better to the minister, (iii) Generalists always depend on advice of t specialists, (iv) The ARC of India (1969) recommended that the senior posts in functional areas should be held by specialist and non-functional posts should be thrown to all the cadres including specialism and generalists.

Way Out

The most important question is: what is the way out of this situation? No country can afford such a w between generalists and specialists. Some solutions are may be as follows:

(i) Better status may be ensured for specialists by creating more All India Services and Class-I cent services;

(ii) Appointment to top posts should be denied to specialists,

(iii) Creation of parallel hierarchy (as in Australia) where both enjoy similar pay scales and status,

(iv) Creation of unified civil service. In this system, at lower level the services should be organized technical lines. Entry to the top position should be opened for everyone by the process of selecting such a change has already been affected in Pakistan.

Relations with Political Executive

The principal functions of political executives are planning, policy formulation, decision making in important matters, supervision and evaluation of the implementation of policies, structuring the organization, direction, budgeting and public relations.

They also make appointments to top posts. In brief, they shoulder the burden of the government and perform the tasks of chief executive. The Minister who is a part of the Parliament and is jointly and individually responsible to the parliament, but not to the bureaucrats

In these functions, political executives are assisted by permanent executive (bureaucracy) headed by the secretary. The secretary provides necessary information and analysis to enable the minister to formulate the policy. Therefore, the policy formulation is a collective process between these two.

The minister is a professional politician who brings to his office knowledge of what the people expect from the government and what they would not stand. The secretary, on the other hand, is a permanent Civil Servant, who possesses the wide administrative experiences.

There are three important differences: Indian model and Western Model of ministerial responsibility, (i) Unlike Britain, in India the doors of civil service at the high levels are not open to all irrespective of; considerations other than merit, (ii) The British Civil Servants acted under the control and subordination of elected representatives of the people; in India bureaucrats reigned supreme, (iii) In Britain the responsibility for both the formulation and implementation of policy is vested in the hands of the political executive, which “decides, orders and authenticates”, but in India, there is a dichotomy in the matter.

In Britain a minister cannot turn around and blame his Civil Servants for the failure of the policy implementations; and the minister listens with care the advice of Civil servants. But in India, there is a growing tendency to either discourage or ignore civil servants from giving advice.

The Weberian model established by the British government in India has broken down in actual practice and there is hardly any use in chanting the virtue of this model now.

During the early days of independence some of the officers had entertained somewhat strange views about their own position in the newly emerging administrative set up and found it difficult to act in complete harmony and cooperation with the political elements in the government. The then Finance Minister T.T.Krishnamachari had to resign though he had no knowledge about LIC miss-appropriation case. Sardar Patel sought voluntary retirement.

The then Home Minister Gulzari Lai Nanda complained to Nehru that he was not getting full cooperation from his secretary L.P. Singh. But the Prime Minister did not change the secretary and Nanda resigned. Reason

The most important reason for such conflict is that either one or both of them wish to transgress their limits. Minister being a political figure cannot give detailed attention to the government work and on the other hand, did not give full freedom to secretary on policy and decision making matters.

The secretary should ideally be left free to express himself. The final decision has to be taken by the minister, as he is responsible to the Parliament but not the secretary. Another reason is minister’s lack of technical knowledge or mind to accept the reality of the matter.

Minister wants to interfere in day to day working of the department, even in petty transfers and postings, bypassing the secretary and head of the department. Today ministers desire that the advice of the secretary should be according to their liking so that they can be held responsible for every decision.

Being political persons, many ministers want their secretaries to take decisions, which are contrary to rules, regulations and laws. Even many secretaries do not coordinate with their ministers and do not comply with the orders lawfully passed by him.

In coalition government or even in one party government where factionalism prevails, some secretaries tend to play one minister against the other and some secretaries often adopt a very rigid attitude and do not take a human view of various situations. They tend to follow rules and regulations strictly.

Some people hold the view that the bureaucrats should keep fighting against questionable decisions, irrespective of consequences.

They argue that the bureaucracy is required to act in accordance with the constitution and the laws of the land and that they must not go by such orders if their ministers or high officers which, in their view, run counter to the constitution and spirit of these enactments.

In this context what will happen to a bureaucrat who gets thrown around because of controversies with political executives and what kind of stability would his family enjoy? One can give a thought to Ram Jethmalani’s idea of establishing transparency by making all files except those pertaining to defence strategy and criminal intelligence, open to public view.

To pull the bureaucracy out of its supineness, let us set up some procedures and forums, which would afford relief to a bureaucrat who seeks justice and compensation for having been unfairly discharged and penalized for expressing his views fairly and frankly without thinking of whether or not those would find favour with his seniors or political masters.