Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Generalist S Vs Specialists Intra Profes
Generalist S Vs Specialists Intra Profes
Dr.Shrimanth.B.Holkar*& Dr.MaruthikumarR**
Abstract
The present paper is divided in to four sections introducing the 'generalist' means an amateur
administrator who had education in linguistics or classics and is a highly intelligent man with
certain personal qualities of character and 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. In the second section will be
concentrated the profession of administration in India since from the British administration to 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 Indian Administrative Service (IAS)& State administrators in states. The third
section will focusses on growing intricacies and complexities in Indian administration between
generalists and specialist who are professionals in Indian Hierarchical system. Finally the fourth
section will bring out the professional role of generalists and specialists in administration and
suggest the some reforms towards the professional development of civil servants and with the
eluding part, an attempt will be made to assess the relevance of these professionals within their
profession in three spheres of the Indian administrative system.
**Faculty, Dept of Political Science, Govt. First Grade Degree College, RAICHUR-584102,
KARNATAKA.
Introduction
In 1964, one the world's leading theorists of public administration, Robert Presthus
(1917-2001), published the results of his investigation into problems in British European
Airways (BEA), British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) and the United Kingdom
Ministry of Aviation. The problems were that BEA and BOAC were required by the Ministry of
Aviation to purchase unsuitable equipment causing, among other problems, a deficit of $250
million for BOAC. Another major issue was the failure of the Ministry of Aviation to prevent
excessive profits for a private missile company producing the guidance system for the
Bloodhound missile. Presthus quoted one aerospace manager who stated that "...the whole
Ministry is necessarily incompetent, because I fail to see how they can keep up with scientific
and technical advances without being involved in them." (Presthus, 1964: 215).The conclusion
was, therefore, not that the role of the specialist had been downgraded, but rather that the
In the four decades since Presthus wrote, the specialist-generalist debate has more or less
accepted that the role of the specialist must be paramount. However, the debate has not entirely
gone away. What has happened is that as new domains have developed, and the need for new
types of generalist has become apparent. The concept was well expressed by Leahy when she
wrote of the need to work in these new areas. "The new generalism is one way to circumvent
arbitrary assumptions and closed bodies of knowledge not by eliminating distinctions but by
crossing over the boundaries and even connecting seemingly separate categories and people."
(Leahy, 2001: 39).The generalist who works in this type of new area can be called a
"specializing generalist", and is very much in contrast with the earlier type of generalist.A
bureaucratic [government] tradition is a set of inherited beliefs about the institutions and history
of government (Bevir and Rhodes, 2003; Davis 1998, p. 158). Bevir and Rhodes (2003) also
argued, elite actors‟ beliefs about their governmental traditions shape public sector reform;
traditions are embedded in the social contexts in which individuals exercise their reason and
acting.
Amitabh Thakur (2013) who is an IAS Officer from UP cadre said in a journal that it is
well-known that the Imperial Civil Service, which was also popularly known as Indian Civil
Service (ICS) or British India Civil Service was the precursor of the IAS. It was the élite higher
civil service of the British Empire in South Asia during their rule in the period between 1858-
1947. Historians often rate the ICS, together with the railway system, the legal system and the
army, as among the most important legacies of the British rule in India. But what also needs to
be understood and accepted is that with the passage of time, these services seem to be fast losing
malpractices, inefficiency, callousness, partisan behaviour, and political servility have come
forth making it now a much reduced force than it used to be in the British period. Other than this,
a new problem also seems to be emerging with the passage of time. While the 19th and early
20th Century were the age of Generalists, where a person could be considered an expert in so
many subjects, today is the age of the Specialists. In such circumstances, an IAS officer, who is a
Today while an IPS officer knows about policing, a Forest officer knows about
environment and forest, a Railway officer knows about Indian Railways, an officer of Indian
Foreign Service knows about Diplomacy, a Power Engineer knows about electricity, a Nuclear
Engineer knows about Nuclear sciences, an Educationist knows about Education, a Doctor
knows about Medicine and Health, a Jurist and a lawyer know about law, a Transport officer
knows about Transport system and so on, an IAS officer does not have a sound/thorough
knowledge about any of these areas. As far as his training is concerned, he is mostly taught
revenue law along with the basics of management and Public Administration. After this cursory
knowledge about so many different departments, this IAS officer is made in-charge of almost
every Department and Ministry in India- both at the Central and the State level. Thus, we have
the Education Secretary, the Health Secretary, the Power Secretary, the Transport Secretary, the
Home/Police Secretary, the Finance Secretary, the Forest Secretary, the Industry Secretary and
so on and so forth. While on one hand, we see this trend in governance, in today‟s times, as
against the previous days, super-specialization seems to rule the roost and the need is to have
Technical Department is not a specialist but a Generalist, who is the jack of all trades and master
of none, there is always a great possibility of his coming in the way of better functioning. He
would certainly find it very difficult to understand the nitty-gritty and niceties of the Department
and Ministry.
Hence, this person who was appointed as the Secretary of the Ministry and Department
only yesterday will be presumed to know everything about the Department that the other
Departmental Officers (the Specialists) would be working at for years. This new Secretary, with
hardly any experience in that field, would start dictating the terms and may change, overrule or
amend the decision coming from beneath from a person who had been doing his job as a
specialist for years. This certainly seems to be dangerous for the current day administrative
system and the time has possibly come when a fresh and newer look seems to be needed in this
International Research Journal of Commerce Arts and Science
http://www.casirj.com Page 199
CASIRJ Volume 5 Issue 5 [Year - 2014] ISSN 2319 – 9202
respect. It also needs to be understood that much has changed in this world since 1800 and 1900
and a service that was useful in those days in the pre-independence British days, might have lost
its relevance in the present days. Other than this aspect of specialist vs generalist, there is
another aspect of the IAS. It is their role as a Coordinator. Thus, we find the Sub-Divisional
District and Divisional level who act as the coordinator for various Departments. These officers,
other than being Revenue officials, are also the coordinators of various Departments and act as
the common bridge for coordinated and concerted functioning of District Administration. There
is also the Chief Secretary at the State level and the Cabinet Secretary at the National level who
primarily play exactly the same role of coordination on behalf of the various Departments and
Ministries of their respective Government and with other Governments. It cannot be denied that
there is a need for a coordinator at each level of administration and if the IAS officers are
undertaking this role, there is nothing wrong with it. Since the IAS officers are generalists by
nature and profession, they also seem to suit this role of coordination. But even as coordinator,
there is one serious problem that is coming in the way. It is a fact that an IAS officer is given this
extremely important role at a very early stage of his service. Thus, we find someone posted as
SDM after 2 years of service, directing, dictating and coordinating officers from 40-45
Departments, who are very senior and experienced to him. Similarly, we find a DM after 4-6
years of experience in the IAS, working as the coordinator for the Chief Medical Officer of 50
years age, Executive Engineer 40-45 years age, Basic Education Officer 40 years of age and so
on, who have been working in their Departments as specialists for decades.
Thus, while most of the other officers, except the District SP and the District Forest
Officer, belonging to the IPS and the IFS, are quite experienced with 10-20 years of experience,
International Research Journal of Commerce Arts and Science
http://www.casirj.com Page 200
CASIRJ Volume 5 Issue 5 [Year - 2014] ISSN 2319 – 9202
here is an officer with hardly 4-6 years‟ experience, who is guiding, directing, instructing and
coordinating their works. It can be easily understood that such kind of guidance of the specialists
by a generalist with hardly any experience has all the possibilities of being harmful and counter-
productive. Thus it seems that these roles of a coordinator at Sub-Divisional and District level,
which are extremely important in the present system of Governance, need to be seen in a newer
light as per the present day situations where the officer concerned occupies these extremely vital
The administrative reform initiatives often contradict these above points. While the samaj
tradition is based on the hierarchic interpersonal relationship, family and kinship loyalty and
represents stability (Jamil, 2007), the administrative reform agenda consists of changes based on
reformers believe that flexibility and ingenuity are necessary to adjust and adapt to changes in
the environment. On the other hand samaj tradition prefers for maintaining status quo (Jamil,
2007). Bangladeshi samaj is characterised by complex kin, bangsho (family unit) and caste
society is still patrimonial in the sense that rules are applied with partiality and some citizens get
preferential treatment (Brinkerhoff and Goldsmith, 2002). In case of Bangladesh there seems to
factions with a class context. Destructive patrimonialism is against the all-round concept of
development. As in a human body, development of one limb does not automatically lead to the
development of other limbs, so in a country, development of one district does not lead to
automatic development of other districts. It can only be called a healthy body when all the limbs
International Research Journal of Commerce Arts and Science
http://www.casirj.com Page 201
CASIRJ Volume 5 Issue 5 [Year - 2014] ISSN 2319 – 9202
are developed and are proportionate to each other. Same is the case with a country. Development
of one group of people at the cost of other groups results in inequality. In Bangladesh, a variation
of destructive patrimonialism called “pork barrel” is in fashion. This slang expression refers to
publicly funded projects promoted by local MPs to bring money and jobs to their own
constituents and districts, as a political favour to local politicians or citizens (Brinkerhoff and
resources like irrigation pumps or Food for Works contracts, distribution of VGF (Vulnerable
Group Feeding) Cards or construction of bridges in the geographically targeted areas (Khan,
1989). In a patrimonial society the reaping of benefits by the elites is widespread. Hartman and
Boyce (1990, 256) showed how a deep tube well project co-financed by the World Bank and the
Swedish and Canadian governments for irrigation in northern Bangladesh ended up with the rich
people. So, there is an inherent tension between the two leading to the maximum failure of the
reform programmes. The pre-modern values contradict the modern values. Organisations are
often personalised by the top bureaucrats. Rules are often bent the way a leader wants – or rules
are framed according to the way the vested interest group wants. The patrimonial society of
Bangladesh is characterised by power maintenance where the structure is patriarchal and the
operational mode is discretionary. On the contrary, the modernisation reform programmes aim to
change the patriarchal structure to team-based and operational mode to organic. Literature
reveals that the Bangladeshi society is influenced by the Samajikbidhi (social order norms).
When a person joins the bureaucracy he tries to reproduce the samajikbidhi in the bureaucracy as
he is moulded by the culture of the samaj. Cultural theories suggest that culture serves as a social
order (Haugland, 1991). Thus, culture is the software of the mind (Hofstede, 1991). Abedin
(1973) commented that the authoritarian and paternal social values of the subcontinent partly
account for the authoritarian and the paternal behaviour of thebureaucracy. But the reformers‟
aim is the total overhaul of the patrimonial system based on transparency and accountability to
ensure a results-oriented public sector. Thus, the major conflict between the samaj and the
administrative reform measures is noted by Jamil (2007, 13): “In a bureaucracy influenced by the
samajtradition, creativity....innovation are not expected to be appreciated. New ideas and new
ways of doing things may threaten the stability system. These are foreign values. One does not
Generalist: A generalist may be defined as a public servant who does not have a specialised
A generalist has also been defined as a civil servant who belongs to the managerial class
and who is well up in rules, regulations and procedure of administration. He generally performs
reporting and budgeting. Specialist: By „specialist‟ is generally meant a person who has special
knowledge or skill in a specific field, e.g., agriculture, medicine, engineering, education, etc. The
specialist can be easily distinguished on the basis of his education and training.Expert or
specialist is a relative term. For example, the generalist medical practitioner is an expert in
relation to the patient, but is only a generalist in relation to a surgeon, dentist or opthalmologist.
There is equally a problem between the working engineer in the field and his counterpart
in the laboratory or the university. The Indian Administrative Reforms Commission has chosen
to call such specialised services as „functional services‟. „Functional services‟ include not only
„services‟ which are charged with a technical function for which pre-entry vocational education
is required (e.g., the various Engineering Services), but also those which specialise after entry in
(such as, Accounts, Income-Tax). The Commission distinguished the „functional services‟ from
„a general purpose‟ service. For example, members of IAS start their service in the districts, but
soon get dispersed to various posts which cover different functional areas. The IIPA Conference
on Personal Administration attempted a detailed definition of the term „generalist officer‟ and
A generalist officer is one who has received a liberalcollege education (in whatever
subject) and after receiving initial training in the field is appointed to a middle level supervisory
medicine, etc. has not been prescribed as compulsory. In due course, he is appointed to higher
technical officer is appointed to a middle level supervisory post for which a technical or
areas where his specialised knowledge or training may not find direct application.
Position in India: The public services in India are characterised by the superior position
of the genera-list. By and large, the „policy formulation‟ and the „consideration‟ levels in the
Central and State Secre-tariats are manned by the members of the generalist services. Although
the technical services constitute about fifty per cent of the total strength of Class I officers, they
are generally excluded from holding Secretariat appointments. A good portion of the posts (of
Deputy Secretary and above) in the Central Secretariat are held by civil servants in the IAS. In
general, positions in the field are filled by the specialists. But there are many instances of the
or even Chief Conservator of Forests in various State Governments. At the district level, there is
the generalist Collector leading a team of technical district officers who are heads of technical
departments at the district level. The Panchayati Raj administration, too, has not escaped
thisphenomenon. Thus, the Chief Executive Officer of the ZilaParishad is an IAS officer, who is
The belief that the high calibre of recruits to the Indian Administrative Services and the
wide and varied experience gained as a result of their postings to a diverse variety of jobs, equip
these services with qualities needed for the performance of the senior management level
jobs.“Another justification for the predominance in the higher administrative position of services
primarily recruited for the general administration, is the facility which this system seems to
provide for contact with the grass-roots of administration. IIPA Conference). Administration in
India has traditionally been based on the principle of area administration and the Britishers
continued this tradition. In independent India the village, the block, the tehsil, the district, the
division continues to remain the units around which the administration at that level revolves. The
case for the generalists is that there should be a manager at all levels to perform the managerial
functions of planning, directing, coordinating, etc., and that only an experienced administrator
can fulfil this role with success.The generalists emphasise the need for a Secretariat at the
the specialists in the field and the amateur Minister at the top. The generalist Secretary is
considered to be in a much better position to tender correct and proper advice to his Minister
because he usually has complete understanding of the total effect of various factors on a
particular policy decision. Generalists charge the specialists of being parochial and narrow-
minded. Specialists, according to this view, are prone to display bias and a restricted view of
matters. After all, the specialist is one who knows more and more of less and less and they quote
the authority of Paul Appleby, according to whom, “the price of specialisation of every kind is
parochialism.”
Criticism
In the conditions prevailing in India before Independence, there were few attractive
openings for the talented, outside the higher administrative services, and so the best products of
the universities tried to get into what was then known as the „heaven-born service‟. The situation
has changed materially since 1947. With the emergence of the Welfare State with emphasis on
development administration, the demand for specialised and technical talent has been rapidly
rising and the best talent is now being attracted to these technical positions including industry,
commerce, banking, insurance, and other business. It is no longer true that IAS is the only
repository of talent and merit. There has occurred a big change in the functions of the
Government, which have not only multiplied in number but have also become very complicated
and technical. The needs of contemporary society and the aspirations of the public demand that
civil servants today have to be equipped to tackle the political, scientific, social, economic and
technical problems of our time. They have to keep up with the rapid growth of new know-ledge
and acquire new techniques to apply to it. In short, the civil service is no place for the amateur. It
must be staffed by men and women who are professionals. Questions have been asked as to
what constitutes the „district experience‟ and why should the experience in land revenue
administration, magistracy and general administration alone be regarded as field experience. The
experience at the operation „doing‟ level can as well as be acquired in other departments like
agriculture, industry, health or police.It took ordinarily eight to ten years before ICS officers
could rise to the position of the Collector and District Magistrate, and in general, an officer
worked for about fifteen years in the district before being sent to the Secretariat. However, in
independent India, in many cases, it takes only three to five years for an IAS officer to be
appointed a Collector and he is sent to the Secretariat soon after. In other words, the so called
district experience is rather limited in the case of IAS officers now. It is being increasingly
realised that „district experience‟ is really not called for in the type of activities now carried on
Ministries/ Departments calls for continuity of specialisation rather than periodic renewal
of field experience in districts. Thus, in 1939 a Finance and Commerce Pool was constituted as
„an expert cadre of officers with special knowledge, experience and outlook‟ for dealing with the
specialised needs of departments dealing with economic matters. The creation of the Central
Secretariat Service soon after independence to man a certain proportion of superior posts in the
Secretariat was another step in the direction of weakening the Tenure System (introduced by
Lord Curzon) as well as the setting up later of special cadres like the Industrial Management
Pool to fill superior positions in the management of public undertakings. The Central
Administrative Pool was also set up as reserve for manning senior administrative posts of and
above the rank of Deputy Secretary.Even though the tenure system still exists on paper, there are
many officers in the Central Secretariat who have not, for one reason or the other, gone back to
International Research Journal of Commerce Arts and Science
http://www.casirj.com Page 207
CASIRJ Volume 5 Issue 5 [Year - 2014] ISSN 2319 – 9202
their original posts in the States. The foremost grievance of the specialist service is the
discrimination in pay and allowances as between the IAS and their services, and the greater and
quicker chances of promotion for the IAS. A large majority of top posts both in the Union
Government and the State Governments are manned by the members of the IAS.
Creation of new specialist All-India and Central Services. Article 312(1) of the
Constitution authorises the Union Parliament to provide for one or more All-India services
common to the Union and the States, if the Council of States declares by a resolution supported
by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting that it is necessary or expedient in
the national interest to do so. On the eve of independence, there existed only two All-India
services the Indian Civil Service and the Indian Police Service. Of these, theIPS was retained and
the old ICS was replaced by the new IAS. Several new services have been added to the list,
namely the Indian Economic Service, the Indian Forest Service, the Indian Statistical Service,
Indian Economic Service etc. All these services aim at giving better status and emoluments to
Specialists. In the States, provision has been made in many cases to give better grades to
technical services.
The trend isvisible in most departments. Thus we have Assistant, Deputy and Joint
Advisers in the Ministry of Education working side by side with the generalist
specialists and professionals.One way of achieving the same objective is by combining the role
of the Secretary to and the head of the executive agency in one integrated office. “A composite
office will permit more specialisation in the division of work than would be possible in separate
offices, ensuring that every aspect of the work to be done is handled by persons chosen for their
competence in that aspect, reducing the dependence on „generalists‟, whether they are generalists
in the sense that their educational background and experience have no direct relevance to the
jobs given to them, or in the sense that they are utilised to perform other jobs, though their
qualifications at the time of their recruitment were relevant to the generality of the technical or
specialist jobs which they were expected to do” (Madhya Pradesh Administrative Reforms
Commission).Another way of achieving the same objective is the method of giving the specialist
Railway Board members while remaining heads of the operating departments are also ex officio
Secretaries in the Railway Ministry.Various other solutions to the problem have been offered
from time to time. Thus, Central Administrative Reforms Commission (1966 to 1970) has in its
IAS. It also recommended that senior management posts in functional areas should be filled by
References: