The Hindu Business Line : Flush out the bureaucratic mindset

A country that takes the time and effort to clean out its systems and procedures to make it user-friendly will see greater efficiency in operations.

Rules and procedures are the weapons of choice to harass the supplicant, all with a smile and a sense of helplessness.

C. Gopinath

A friend had just visited the corporation office in his locality in an Indian city to ask that his water meter be replaced as it was defective. The clerk looked at the application and noted that it was not complete. “You have to provide the connection number,” he observed. Surely, the corporation has records of what meters they have installed in the various houses under their charge, and would have all the numbers they need. Yet, my friend now had to make anoth er trip to the office, and most likely be told that there was something else that needed to be provided.

Another had just visited a bank to redeem his ‘Fixed Deposit.’ The deposit was coming due in a couple of days and he wanted that the amount be credited to his checking account in the same bank. The account executive demurred. ‘Oh, don’t leave the receipt with me now,’ she said. “I will misplace it. Can you come back on the date it falls due and submit it then?’

We have all faced situations like these when we visit government or public sector offices. Even private companies, as this bank was, are susceptible to the virus. The disease is the bureaucratic mindset, when the individual resorts to forms, procedures, and rules to stretch out the interaction with the individual rather than execute the request and close the issue.

The disease is sustained by two factors: one is the system that has been designed in such a manner as to prevent the individual from taking the initiative to deal with the situation effectively because of rules and procedures that must be followed.

The other is the attitude of the individual, coloured over the years by the system, who refuses to go beyond the ‘call of duty’ and apply his or her mind to the problem. It is safe to hide behind the rules.

The ‘rail ticket’ context

The form for purchase of a rail ticket requires you to specify the train number and name. Fair enough. When you go to the counter at the Railways booking office, the clerk helpfully looks at the computer screen and tells you that the train of your choice is full but suggests an alternative. You agree.

But then he gives the form back to you to enter the new train name and number. You wonder why this needs to be done when he is keying in your verbal selection to print out the ticket. What audit procedure requires the railways to correspond your request with the details of the ticket that was issued? The booking clerk here has a user-friendly attitude but a questionable procedure still needs to be followed.

We live in dread of rules, procedures, and forms. When you approach the individual, you are told that you do not have the requisite documents, and these are not told to you in advance. When you go back with the documents, you are given a new set of requirements. They seem to trickle, requiring repeated visits and asking multiple people before you get a clear picture of what you need to do. Photocopies need to be certified by a Gazetted Officer. Then you need to go somewhere else to find out who is a Gazetted Officer, and then go to seek his or her favour. The form you have submitted is not enough. You now need a proof of address. And two copies of a photograph.

I visited a Bangalore One centre, a great new concept where you find a clean and pleasing environment to deal with paying property tax, assorted bills, etc. There, on the notice board, was a list of instructions for an application form. It said that there are 19 means of identification that are acceptable and the applicant can submit any three, and the name, address and date of birth on all three must be the same. Three out of thirteen is not bad, even if you suffer from a multiple identity syndrome.

These are all symptoms of the bureaucratic mindset. Here, rules and procedures are the weapons of choice to harass the supplicant, all with a smile and a sense of helplessness. It will all begin very simply. As you wait at the counter, the clerk will look gravely at the form you have submitted, pick it up and go to the section officer seated behind. They both will confer, and turn to look at you still standing at the counter, with weakening knees.

Then you will be told of your infringement — a registration number you have not provided. You do not have the courage to tell them that they should have the number in their own records since it is a number they allotted.

Measures to gauge mindset

The regular Doing Business survey of the World Bank provides league tables of countries, compared on items that represent how easy it is to start and run a business, such as the number of days it takes to accomplish the task. They may be taken as representing the bureaucratic mindset of the country. A country that takes the time and effort to clean out its systems and procedures to make it user friendly will see greater efficiency in operations and a burst of entrepreneurship.

Max Weber described bureaucracy as an efficient means of managing large systems based on its features. The rules and procedures ensured that authority corresponded to responsibility, there were checks and balances, the system provided for oversight, allowed a process of appeal to a higher level, and so on. But if he met one of our civil servants, he would quickly realise how much it can deteriorate and stifle life.

The bureaucratic mindset takes over a bureaucracy and creates rules and procedures that add multiple and unnecessary layers of checks and balances. The rules and procedures interfere with the pleasantness of an individual’s interaction with the system. Apart from the irritation, it raises doubt in the mind of the supplicant about the efficiency of the system.

The individual may be tempted to circumvent the process and that gives rise to corruption. Another major bye-product of the bureaucratic mindset is reducing the productivity of the workers. More time is spent on the process rather than on what the system was meant to achieve. Thus a lot more ‘work’ is done for the same level of output (affecting the efficiency), and the end result is often unsatisfactory (affecting the effectiveness of the system).

Designed with ‘distrust’

Most colonial systems were designed with ‘distrust’ in mind. After all, it was an alien administration that was trying to rule the country and suspected the intent of those they were dealing with. The ‘natives’ were seen as truculent, not intending to cooperate, needing to be put in their place, and having a tendency to cheat and overthrow their rulers. The rules were designed so that the chances of the officiating clerk helping his compatriot and collectively ‘cheating’ the master was prevented. Moreover, there was no desire to make the interaction a pleasant experience for the supplicant.

Even after independence, few former colonies have tried to completely revamp the basis of their systems. They are tweaked, new forms added, new lines added to the old forms, but the structure of the system remains. Trust is never introduced into the system. Thus, a supplicant’s own sworn statement is never enough. They need to be supported by documents and other evidence. The word of the citizen cannot be trusted by those he has elected to govern him.

The corrosive nature of the bureaucratic mindset is that it begins questioning and doubting everything. Rather than look upon the violator as an aberrant case that needs to be dealt with (severely, if needed), it assumes that everyone is a potential violator and has to be doubted. Thus, the mass suffers to prevent the odd one who has evil intent.

There is a crying need to regularly check systems to see if they are still efficient and effective. Every line of the form needs to be examined. Why and how is the information collected, or the procedure instituted? How will it be used? And so on.

The process of cleaning out the cobwebs of a system, apart from making it more user-friendly and efficient, will greatly increase productivity. Everyone now talks about having a global mindset. This is meant to represent an ability to think broadly and take into account the challenges of the globalised world we live in. The pre-condition is to flush out the bureaucratic mindset.

(The author is professor of international business and strategic management at Suffolk University, Boston, US. Responses to blfeedback@thehindu.co.in)

More Stories on : Management | American Periscope

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Visits to bring down walls

Flush out the bureaucratic mindset

Need for disclosure