Role of Generalist and Specialist in Public Administration.

Generalist is one who has a bird’s eye-view knowledge. In the words of Dr. White,
“A generalist is a career person within the executive branch who by his experience
and the quality of his mind is competent to deal effectively with complex problems of
relationship among agencies or officials and to apply judgment of a high
discriminating character to difficult and obstinate problems.”

A generalist is not a policy-man as a rule but is concerned with the higher co-
ordination and facilitation of operations. He is in a position to command detail while
avoiding responsibility for detail and seeing far beyond it.

Generally he functions in the higher levels of middle management or in the lower

levels of top management. In Great Britain, such a class of services is called
Administrative class. So this is the legacy of our colonial masters.(India)

A specialist, on the other hand, is equipped with knowledge in depth in one particular
branch or sector. He is generally probing in depth in his limited field.

In other words, the specialist by the nature of his work is myopic. His interest lies
only in a small sector and he persistingly probes into that sector in depth.

He can see problems only from his limited angle. Unlike that of a Generalist, he
cannot go down from the whole to the part. “The specialist has been described in
somewhat derogatory terms as a man who knows more and more about less and
less.”

Background of Controversy
The controversy over the role of the generalist and the specialist in administration is
as old as administration itself. However, the generalist administrator is considered as
the legacy of the British who used to employ young men of aristocratic families
equipped with liberal education which could help them to lend wholehearted support
to the imperial rule.

The young men belonging to Indian Civil Service were thus the guardian of the
Empire in its remotest comer. They were trained to be autocrats and keep up the
dignity of their prestigious positions.

The I.C.S. (Indian Civil Services) cadre of the British days has been succeeded by
the I.A.S. (the Indian Administrative Services) in the independent India.
Due to the multiplication of developmental activities, the Government was forced to
rope into its service the technocrats Economist, the Scientists, the engineers,
technicians and doctors, etc. These technocrats made a substantial contribution to
the country’s developmental efforts but they could not attain the coveted top
positions in the Central Secretariat. (Mauritius Development Strategy post
independence )

This has led to the controversy as to why not the technocrats be allowed to hold the
highest positions in the administrative hierarchy? Why should the Administrative
services be given special weightage?

Modern complicated administrative processes require a clear cut statement of

service rules and conditions and a Specialist abreast of these written codes or rules
and regulations can do as good as a Generalist, in running modern administration.

The Specialist versus Generalist controversy has reached new heights due to
competition for senior and top management posts in public sector administration.

Mauritius---F.S ,Secretary for Foreign affairs, CTO Education, Secretary for

Energy etc.The creation of Senior Chief Executive was a PRB recommendation
2013 pl chk open to Technical Cadre but was later on taken up by
Administrators

The adherents of Generalist class of administrators strongly feel that such a theory is
not sustainable in administration today. Disparities in their pay scales and status
have become a moot question and caused a lot of heart burning.

Arguments for Generalists:

1. A Generalist is known for broad vision and capacity for leadership. He

possesses imagination, drive, initiative and enterprise for quick decisions. As such,
he alone can advise the Minister—a layman of course—on political aspects of a plan
the technical aspects of which have already been taken care of at comparatively
lower levels. On the other hand, an expert or a technocrat has myopic vision and a
stereotyped mentality.
Hence his specialized knowledge may prove as a liability rather than an asset. This
specialized knowledge may rob him of the proper perspective when envisaging the
plan. At the higher level, general rather than technical knowledge is essential for
getting things done.

In the words of R.G.S. Brown “A more demanding role for the general administration
is that of a mediator. The task of the mediator is to link the specialist to the rest of the
system by discovering what the limits are and trying to persuade him to work
specialist to within them. The good mediator can talk several languages
simultaneously and this is not a task in which the professional civil servant will easily
feel at home”.

2. A Generalist’s approach even if it is portrayed as a layman’s approach is an

asset to the administration, because it enables him to express proposals and
decisions in a way which is easily carried out by the lower administrative machinery.

3. A Generalist clears the mess created by the ministers, the legislators and the
experts and quells the mob fury which may ensue due to such a mess and prove
detrimental to the country. Thus far from suffering from inflated ego, they serve the
community in the true sense. A politician makes a promise to the people but after his
triumph in the elections he does exactly the opposite. It leads to agitation.

The Generalist bears the brunt of the mob fury. Likewise the legislators pass a law
which is detested by the people. The Generalist is again faced with a predicament. A
technocrat builds a factory which fails to function well.

The minister is put in the dock on that account at the hands of the parliamentarians.
It is the Generalist who comes to the rescue of the ministers by supplying the
ministers cogent and palatable answers. Meeting of such situations requires
tactfulness, a broader angle of vision and flexibility which the specialists generally
lack.

4.  It is contended that a Generalist is comparatively more suited for the

Secretariat and departmental posts in the States and at the Centre, as he has to play
the role of adviser to the elected Government. An adviser must be acquainted with
the whole spread of problem before he renders advice to the Government on
important policy matters.
In the words of Siva Raman, “Unless the adviser has the experience and the
knowledge of the field at grass roots and at the same time has a broad grasp of
administration as a whole in the State, his advice is valueless. It is emphasized that
there are many specialist fields in the State where the adviser knows only his field of
specialization and none others. The Generalist comprehending the inter-play and
political forces in the various parts of the State, having varied experience in the
Generalist field of work in the State, serves as a better adviser than a Specialist in
the state. In the words of Asoka Chandra ….If a specialist is placed in the Ministry
controlling his department the chances are that he will continue to be more in the
same narrow departmental groove and fail to rise above departmental prejudices.

5. A Generalist who is supposed to work in any part of the Public Service

possesses a a wide knowledge of the several ministyries. Hence he will be able to
cater to procure advice more properly.

In a paper in conference at IIP A, it was also stated “Another justification for the
predominance in the higher administrative position of services primarily recruited for
the general administration is the facility which the system seems to provide for
contact with grass roots of administration”.

It is, however, admitted that in certain fields the Specialist may prove a better adviser
because of his expertise and specialized knowledge. Such fields are generally
limited and the Specialists in these fields have already been given due recognition.

6. The Generalist alone is competent enough to hold management positions in

public administration. He is more committed than a private sector entrant on a term
contract. The manager in a public sector, in fact, has to make use of only part of
administrative art of which Generalist is the embodiment.

7. The Generalist is apt to prove better than non-technical Specialist as the field of
the vision of the latter is narrower than the former. Moreover, in-service training can
enable the Generalist to be in tune with the times and cope with the ever-increasing
field of operation.

8. The Generalist suits a democratic set-up. He is open to convictions. As such, he

will not have the tendency of aggrandizement. He will be more co-operative with the
ministers and accept the superiority of the political boss un-reluctantly.
The Specialist, on the other hand, will be less co-operative and have the tendency to
assert as he suffers from inflated ego of expertise he is equipped with. It may affect
efficiency of administration as the political bosses may remain at loggers-head with
the specialists as the heads of the departments won’t budge an inch from the
position they have adopted.

Arguments for Specialists:

1. It is contended that appointing Generalist as the Secretary of a Government
department concerned with the technical subjects to assist a minister who himself is
a layman is like the blind leading the blind for instance.

It looks anomalous that the Minister for Energy or Environment for example is
advised by a Secretary who is a layman—a Generalist—while technologists
equipped with specialized knowledge of the subject play a second fiddle. It is apt to
affect adversely working of the Department.

2 It is wrong to presume that the Generalist has a monopoly of good sense and
he alone can evaluate and co-ordinate plans and projects and understand their
economic and political implications. Further, it is a myth promoted by the Generalist
that he alone can make things intelligible to the people.

The Specialist on account of their technical accomplishments and rigorous and

intensive training which the Generalists owing to their constant mobility from one de-
partment to the other cannot get, are in fact, more capable of handling the plans and
projects and dealing with the masses who are affected by such projects and
benefitted by such plans.

3. It is further asserted that our public sector administration headed by the

Generalists have become breeding centres of gross mismanagement. It has resulted
in heavy losses and consequently a big drain on the public finances.

4. The critics do not accept the version that the Generalists alone can look to
financial and political aspects of problems. The political aspect of a problem is not
the concern of administrative leadership. It is to fall in the domain of political
leadership, i.e., the ministers, who will never like the administrative heads to poke
their noses as they alone are responsible to the masses and accountable to the High
Commands of the party. The financial aspect can be looked into better by a financial
expert rather than a layman—a Generalist—whose only claim to expertise is inflated
ego.

5. It is pointed out that due to emergence of concept of welfare state the role of
administrator has undergone a change. He is no longer concerned simply with the
maintenance of law and order and supervising those working under him. He is to
perform welfare functions on behalf of the Government.

As such, he has to manage the economic life of the country as well. This has
resulted in inflating his superiority complex and adding to his arrogance. Hence he
stands alienated from the people. Thus the gap between the people and the
Government which is a relic of the alien’s rule is yawning too wide to be abridged.

In India the Government of independent India is described as a government of the

bureaucracy, by the bureaucracy and for the bureaucracy. It has failed to adapt itself
to the evolving welfare society of ours. Hence, it is strongly felt that a Generalist
must be replaced by a Specialist who alone can keep pace with the challenges of the
fast moving technological world.

Fulton Committee in its report held a similar view. They opined that to meet the
increasing demands of people in the modern state, the civil services must be far-
sighted and must make use of their accumulated knowledge and experience and
must be able to take initiative in analyzing the needs of the future and meeting them
adequately.

Criticizing the prevalent Generalist concept, the Committee said, “The concept has
most damaging consequences. It cannot make for the efficient dispatch of public
business, when keymen rarely stay in one job longer than two or three years before
being moved to some other post, often in a very different area of government
activity…The cult (Generalist cult) is obsolete at all levels and in all parts of the
service.’ Hence, the Committee recommended that “a wide and more important role
must be opened up for specialists trained and equipped for it.”

6. The adherents of ‘cult of specialists’ contend that a specialist who trains

himself to deal with his specialization in depth and has more knowledge in the art of
analysis and synthesis should not be relegated to the position of comparative
inferiority in the policy making hierarchy. He should be assigned a role
commensurate with his capability and technical expertise.
7. The critics are not prepared to accept the theory of Generalist having
comprehensive grasp of the entire field of administration. Such administrators are
rarely born. They can never be so built up by any known method of administrative
development. Hence it is better to bring experts in varied sectors together in order to
analyze administrative problems and evolve a solution.

8. A specialist as an adviser to a lay politician may prove better. He may not be

a suppliant tool and a mere yes-man as is the case with most generalists. On
account of his expertise and professional training, he may more easily succeed in
convincing the political boss and thus a correct line of action may be adopted. Such
an ideal combination of layman and experts is apt to result in the efficient functioning
of democracy.

India Administrative Reforms Commission’s View:

The Administrative Reforms Commission (Govt., of India) appraised the problem of
Generalist vs. Specialist in its report on Personnel Administration. It realized the
necessity of the change in the role of the Government and keeping in view the great
diversification of its functions called for induction of a variety of skills in the higher
administration.

The ARC made following observations in this direction:

(a) A rational system of filling policy advice positions with men possessing the
required qualification and competence needs to be devised. This will mean a fuller
use of different services for secretariat work.

(b) Senior management posts may be selected from all the relevant sources—the
Generalist and the Specialists. The talent needs to be discovered and developed in
all the cadres specially among those who have not hitherto been inducted into the
higher administration to any significant degree.

(c) A rational pay structure should be adopted so as to reflect actual responsibilities

borne in each job.

(d) In order to tone up morale throughout the personnel system, much greater scope
than now exists needs to be created for talent in the lower ranks to move up to
higher positions in the civil service on the basis of competence and performance.
(e) The Commission broadly classified the higher services into two categories:
(a) Posts in the field;

(b) Posts at headquarters.

Posts in the field should be occupied by functional services which comprises not only
technical services equipped with pre-entry vocational education like Engineering
services but also those which specialize after entry in a particular area of
administration (such as the Accounts, Income Tax, etc.).

The Commission recommended that a functional field pertaining to Land Revenue

Administration, exercise of magisterial functions and regulatory work in the states in
fields other than those looked after by other functional services recently created and
relating to specific functions should be filled by the professionals like engineers,
scientists, doctors and economists who possess subject-matter competence.

The Commission concluded, “The Generalist has his place and an important one at
that, in the scheme of things; so has the Specialist, the scientist and the technologist.
In a growing democracy, committed to rapid socio-economic development, the
administration has to be good no less than it has to be effective, if a good
administration is imperative for the happiness and welfare of the people, an effective
administration is a pre-requisite for the strength and propriety of the country. This
twin purpose needs the devoted services of the specialists no less than those of the
generalists…

The Commission went to the extent of suggesting that, “preference for the

generalist…should give place to a preference for those who have acquired
competence in the concerned field.”
It is heartening that some substantial steps have been taken in inducting specialists
into higher administrative positions at the centre as well as in the various states.

The UGC, the Planning Commission, the department of Atomic Energy, the
department of Space and Electronics e.g. are being controlled in the capacity of
heads by the scientists and the professionals as secretaries and chairmen. Likewise
members of Railway Board who happen to be heads of operating department are ex-
officio secretaries in the Railway Ministry.
In its report on March, 2002 the Constitution Review Committee opined “Above a
certain level say this joint secretary level – all posts should be open for recruitment
from a wide variety of sources including the open market. We would specialize some
of the generalists and generalize some of the specialists through proper career
management which has to be freed from day today political manipulation and
influences peddling.” The commission was also of the view that the specialists
should not be required to play second fiddle to the generalist at the top.

Conclusion:

The observations made by the Administrative Reforms Commission and the

Constitution Review Committee are worth consideration. The ARC and CRC have
rightly diagnosed the malady. We feel that too great a reliance on the Generalist is
detrimental to the interest of efficiency of administration and consequently insidious
to the interests of common men.

There is a dire need of inducting the specialists and technical personnel in the top
government services.

However, they may be assigned only advisory role and not be integrated into the
decision-making hierarchy as they may fail to handle men and matters involved in
relationship with other departments. We may therefore conclude that the
administrative services must no longer remain the close preserve of a handful of
Generalists—the so-called elite of the country.

A maximum utilization of all available talent necessitates the abolition of artificial

discrimination between the Generalists and the Specialists for a position of
precedence and parity of pay scales is apt to end if the Government pays adequate
attention to the recommendations of A.R.C. and accords a right place to the
Specialists which they richly deserve. Inter-service cooperation is the crying need of
the hour.

“Such a co-operation will prove much more fruitful and productive if it is

based on mutual respect and profound regard for each other rather than a
sense of superiority or inferiority. Mutual respect and reciprocity is possible if
proper status is conferred upon the hitherto neglected technical man, and the
latter does not create more irritants by resorting to agitation.”
Somehow in Indian polity, Generalists have been able to hold their ground despite
the fact that leaders like or Rajendra Prasad and Jawaharlal Nehru were fully
conscious of the superiority of intellect, expertise and knowledge of the technocrats.
Dr Prasad said “I see the reason why technical personnel should not be treated at
par with administrative personnel and the technical service should not be given the
same emoluments and advantages as the country administrative services”.

In the words of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru. “An Engineer can work as administrator but
administrator cannot work without engineer because he does not know the job at all.”

Likewise Mrs Indira Gandhi in convocation address at Roorkee in 1967 remarked

“The highest of our young-men and women choose engineering and medicine. If
they happen to go with government they are very often overtaken by general
administrator. This must change and I am trying to change it…” Despite all these
encouraging remarks generalists reign and the technocrats play the second fiddle.

The reasons are not far to seek:

(i) The Ministers are apprised of two lines of advice—that of the Generalists and the
Specialists—on a particular issue.

(ii) The Specialist is said to be over-enthusiast. As such he disqualifies himself to this

extent from arriving at a final decision.

(iii) The co-existence of the Generalists and the Specialists results in ‘constructive
tension’ which proves beneficial in matters of governmental decision-making.

However, the Generalists will have to be made more knowledgeable and more
efficient in the performance of their assigned tasks. Besides, the Administrative
services must acquire specialization by choosing an area of administration and
receiving an in-depth specialized training in that area. They should be allowed to
stay there for considerable period in order to gain requisite experience.

Their transfers too should be limited to linking fields. The future administrator should
be a blend of ‘a modest measure of technical competence’ and a high degree of
administrative skill. Efforts may also be made to choose Generalist administrators
out of Specialists who have exhibited administrative acumen.

At present efficient generalists and the all-round specialists constitute a rare

commodity in the administrative services?

While concluding our discussing on the Generalists vs. specialists we may refer to
the findings of the Pranab Mukherjee committee attached to the Ministry of Home
Affairs under Vajpayee Government. Its Report (2003) once again revived the
controversy that the civil services should be run just by generalists and not by
professional and technocrats.

The committee has strongly recommended the debarring of specialists from taking
up the civil service. Needless to say that the recommendations have stirred an
honest nest.

The recommendations of another committee named a Surrendra Nath Committee on

Bureaucracy set up in 2003 are however revealing.

The committee strongly felt the imperative of specialization in the civil service and to
this end recommended that the officials may be streamed into three out of eleven
domains of specializations, it worked out to harmonies, the concept of generalist
service with the necessity of specialization.”

In all fairness the specialists should be accorded due place in our democratic polity.
They should be kept at par with the administrative services, so far as emoluments
and other perks are concerned. They should be amply rewarded for their technical
department researches and marked achievements in their domain.

If they are heading a technical department they should not be bossed over by a
generalist of much younger age who incidentally may not be fully abreast of the
technicalities of such a department.

So is the case with the specialist heading department requiring special expertise and
vast experience. For example Education Department in Haryana state is headed by
a young IAS whereas the senior most principal may be a doctor in his subject and a
reservoir of experience in the sphere of education at his disposal plays the second
fiddle.

He is put as the Joint Director. It is an irritant and hardly in the interest of higher
education in the state, such anomalies should be removed.