Generalists Vs. Specialists : In perspective with COVID–19

Why in News

The administrative response Covid-19 has been dealt with over the last six months has resurfaced the debate of Generalists Vs Specialists in public policy and implementation.

Administrative Requirements

The generalists and specialists are two broad functional categories in the government. They play a very important role in rendering advice to the political executives, policy making and in implementation of policies. The present day administration has become more specialized in nature and hence requires different types of personnel with necessary skills, knowledge and qualities to discharge its functions. The controversy between these two groups of functionaries, both of whom are necessary in modem organizations, is however age old, and still one of the fiercely fought-out issues of Public Administration.

Concept of Generalist and Specialist

Generalists secure their entry in administration on the basis of their university degree, irrespective of the subjects in it. Their having attained a certain level of education indicates the essential minimum extent of intellectual and mental development. Also the posting of a generalist civil servant in any department of the government has nothing to do with his/ her education or any administrative experience. For example, a generalist entrant with commerce background can be posted in irrigation department.

In British, generalist means an amateur administrator who has had education in linguistics or classics with a liberal education augmented by certain personal qualities of character, poise and leadership, good intuitive judgment, right feelings, and a broad background rather than narrowly specialised knowledge and skills.

Whereas the USA school of thought says that a generalist is a highly experienced administrative specialist or career executive who are available for flexible assignments and capable of furnishing essential administrative advice and necessary policy support.

Specialist is one who has special knowledge in some particular field. Specialists in government, are, therefore, those who are recruited to posts for which professional, scientific, technical or other specialist qualifications are essential and includes engineers, scientists, doctors, lawyers, statisticians, economists and other technical people. To qualify as a specialist, the basic requirement should be an 'institutional' speciality, that is to say, one must have a pre-employment spell of either techno-professional academic education and/or pre-entry vocational or occupational training. The hallmark of a specialist is, thus, said to be devotion to the discipline, continued commitment to his / her professional cause and practice and pursuit of a speciality.

Role in Governance

Role of Generalists: Generalists have a supreme role in the formulation of policy i.e. in assisting the political executives to evolve it with all the requisite data and advice as to the strong and weak points of a projected policy. It is the generalist, who functioning generally as Secretary or Head of Department, does the coordinating job and takes the necessary measures, even in specialised matters, before they are put up to the ministers who often are not specialists in those fields. The role of generalists in such cases is one of the conveyor belt which funnels right kind of data and advice in such a manner that it can be used by top policy makers for action. The 'balancing' role i.e. performing reconciliatory function between conflicting viewpoints, is also played by the generalists. This is possible because of their capacity to view things in an overall perspective, generated on account of their non-specialist background and exposure to wider fields of experience and administrative reality.

Role of Specialists: Due to the multiplication of developmental activities, there is a rising demand to induct specialist like the technocrats, the scientists, the engineers, technicians and doctors, etc in the Governance. 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. Specialist has learnt the subject from the trenches, hence can provide competent leadership in a functional area. As economic reforms deepened and the state started yielding to the market, the nature of administration changed, demanding domain knowledge, especially at the policy level.

Controversy between the Two

The genesis of the 'generalist and specialist' controversy in India can largely be traced to the concept of 'nearness' or 'remoteness' from the area of top policy making. It is more post-centred rather than person-oriented, and the tussle between the two is in reality for holding certain positions. The real debate should be around formulating a satisfactory and adequate staffing policy or better still, evolving a progressive, constructive and objective-oriented, egalitarian personnel philosophy.

The suitability of the generalist for all policy making positions is questioned by specialists on the ground that the change in the functions of government in present times calls for certain professionalism which is not possessed to such an extent by the generalists. Also by reserving all senior managerial positions to the generalists especially to the IAS, a government is deprived of the expert advice and specialized knowledge of the specialists.

However it is generally argued by the pro-generalists that the field experience gained by them at the district and state levels in the initial years of their career helps them in the task of decision making. But the specialists feel that this field experience is not sufficient to discharge the multi-varied tasks of the government which requires special or expert knowledge.

Another point of contention between the generalists and specialists comes from their being organised into separate hierarchies. This leads to situations where the expert advice rendered by the specialist is submitted to the generalist for his / her approval.

India's Second Five Year Plan mentions that 'distinction between administrators and technical personnel exercising administrative functions, and / or between officials in different grades and cadres which are sometimes drawn, are already out of place'. The Fourth Five Year Plan is even more forthright in making a commitment for altering the structure of administration so that specialists, technicians and experts may be enabled to make their contribution in a reasonable manner at all levels of administration.

Administrative Response to the COVID–19 Pandemic

The lessons learnt from the manner in which Covid-19 has been handled over the last six months to reflect on the formulation and implementation of public policy are worth noting. Covid-19 caught every public official by surprise. No one was prepared for the speed of its spread, the dimensions of its impact, the uncertain nature of its duration, and the ethical dilemma between saving ‘lives’ and ‘livelihoods’. The initial response of the Indian authorities was swift and surgical, a national lockdown following a four-hour notice but thereafter the policies were made with raging speed due to the nature of the raging virus.

Governments cannot, on their own, manage such a crisis. They do not have the tools—technical, scientific, even institutional—to tackle such ‘invisible’ dangers. They need the support of denizens. The paradox is that at a time when populist leaders are hiding behind protectionist walls, corporates are decoupling their supply chains and nationalism has become the byword of global geopolitics, Covid-19 has demanded collaboration and partnerships.

Conclusion

Policy formulation requires an understanding of the nature of the problem, the development of options, the risks associated with each option, and then a decision on the preferred pathway. Policy implementation, on the other hand, must get into the weeds. It requires a comprehension of the local context, the evaluation of the capacity to deliver, the identification of the obstacles, and the steps needed to remove them. Given the diversity of India, a policy formulated in Delhi will seldom be fit for purpose for implementation across the country. At most, it can provide a framework for other administrators to use in crafting a contextualized implementation plan.

The generalist with enormous value they bring to public policy is worth seeing in these testing times. It is not to suggest that professional qualifications of the civil servants are to be first tested and then put to use. In fact, an increasing number in the civil servants are doctors, lawyers, scientists, accountants and engineers. It is merely to make the point that, during the course of their career, civil servants are seldom required to draw on their professional expertise and so, to that extent, they can be regarded as ‘generalists’.

Take an example of an MNC energy company where the majority of the employees could be categorized as ‘talented specialists’. They are the people who spend most of their working life focused on their particular domain of expertise. How they use their professional qualifications to implement the public policy is beyond any doubt. Hence public policy platforms should now be built on the pillars of institutionalized collaboration between the ‘gifted generalist’ and the ‘talented specialist’.

Connecting the Article

Question for Prelims

With reference to public policy, consider the following statements :

1. Unlike generalists, the specialists show high success rates in administration.
2. Unlike generalists, the specialists follow best approach in limited resources.

Which of the statements given above is/ are correct ?

(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Question for Mains

Discuss the generalist and specialist perspectives from the view of Public Administration. How both, in participation, can fulfill the demands of the good governance ?