The idea of customer centricity in the role of a Deputy Commissioner/ District Collector

The idea of customer centricity in the role of a Deputy Commissioner/ District Collector

The District Collector (DC hereafter) can best be defined as the “senior most representative of Government” at the district level – the 600 odd administrative units our country comprises. The institution of the DC is more than 200 years old. Like other institutions, over this period it too has undergone a sea change in the roles and responsibilities associated with it. The key watershed moments in this evolution have been India’s independence, the separation of the judiciary from the executive, the unleashing of market forces post liberalisation reforms, the rights based approach to public delivery and now finally the rise of social media and the internet age.   These changes are important to mention because with each change new stakeholders enter, bringing with them their own expectations from the institution. In other words, the question of who is the de-facto customer and how central he remains to our decision making varies from one practitioner to another thereby differentiating this job role from any traditional role in the private sector.

To understand the challenges in establishing customer centricity in this role, we must understand how it is different from a traditional private sector job role. In a traditional sales role, the most important customer is the consumer and shareholder. Others like channel partners, employees and media are important but the consumer can never be second to them. The reason for this clarity is that the consumer drives the growth of the business which is measured tangibly. The interests of all others like partners, employees and even the media is intertwined with the financial results. This clarity of customer helps align goals at various levels of the organisation, at least broadly. In other words there is a broad correlation between customer satisfaction and outcomes (shareholder value).

However, the same clarity does not exist for a DC. The biggest question confronting a DC is to decide who is the prime customer? There are  multiple stakeholders ( customers),  the main ones being the general public ( in the cloak of which vested interests shout down voices of reason ), political class, administrative bosses, traditional media, Judiciary, Civil Society groups and last but definitely not the least, social media. In his resource basket is a kitty of an amorphous entity called public money.

In a sterilised classroom scenario , it is politically correct to always put the Common man as the most important customer but the practical reality of the rough and tumble of grassroots India is far from it. The competing pulls and pressures of these stakeholders often don’t allow for any consensus to formed in form of common goals. Thus, it is for every DC to decide his own priorities vis-a-vis his decision making. In other words, lip service apart, each DC may prioritise different stakeholders as his/her main customer.

There are few aspects of work which have well defined goals. Even if they are there, they are of administrative nature – their attainment irrelevant for most stakeholders. One area which I always prioritised as a District Collector was fast disposal of revenue cases. I felt this was one very direct way of easing the lives of people – through quick dispensation of justice. It was also an area of decision making along with financial matters where I would not book interference of any kind.  However, after four years in this role, I realised in a system of time bound promotions and fixed emoluments, it matters little to most stakeholders what my disposal rate was.  So, a question which arises is why do it? This brings me to the most critical stakeholder or customer in the decision making of a DC. That is, my own conscience or myself. I might satisfy and ‘manage’ my other customers but if in the process my own conscience is not satisfied, a red flag needs to be raised. It is all together a different matter if the conscience itself goes numb after years of compromise. That too is a possibility in such a role and oft cited critique of our the institution.  

Another case in point arises in implementing outcome norms in the Public school system. Any major attempt to clamp down on errant teachers is always fraught with the risk of employees’unions which have huge political backing.  So as much it may in the interest of the future generation (general public) to enforce strict disciplinary norms on teachers, it is politically extremely difficult. It is important to mention that the DC needs to maintain a healthy, working relationship with political representatives who can, in turn, be helpful in attaining public support for administrative tasks and law and order situations.

Most importantly, these days the last word on a DC’s appointment is political even if on paper it is an administrative order. Thus this delicate act of balancing myriad competing interests in a democratic set-up often tilts the scales in favour of the most vocal stakeholder, as opposed to the most needy or genuine. This compromise in decision making leads to the playing out of the adage “one step forward, two steps back”. Thus customer centric decision making does happen but most often there is no consensus about who is the customer. This makes quick changes and decision making rare and largely the reason the bureaucracy is viewed as being supportive of the status quo.  

However, there are few occasions where a tight consensus emerges across the spectrum of stakeholders about what is to be done. A disaster situation like a flood or a road accident usually creates a situation in which there is no doubt about the de facto customer and the institution delivers fairly well. The case of the recent Kerala floods needs mentioning where the role of the bureaucracy and certain District collectors has been well appreciated and recognised. Another situation could be where the DC himself is able to create a consensus on such issues across stakeholders – a long winding process in itself.

At the end of the day, customer definition and prioritisation in this role boils down to the personality and attitude of the person. Often for this a price may need to be paid in form of a transfer and the accompanying physical and emotional turmoil for the officer and his family. A senior officer once gave his rule of thumb for decision making. “Of these five – Bosses, politicians, media, public (  vested interests) and Subordinates – don’t ruffle more than two at the same time. It’s the mantra for stability and happiness.” I couldn’t disagree with him and went back home enlightened. However, on deeper introspection, I realised the real strength of decision making comes not so much from these external forces but the most powerful internal one – the conscience.