The bureaucracy is on tenterhooks these days, abuzz with how uncertain the lives and careers of bureaucrats have become under this government. There is almost no formulaic solution at sight to either appease them or make them feel secure enough in their assignments.GoI’s latest move to shortlist a bench strength of secretary-equivalent officers, alongside the empanelment of new secretaries , has further unsettled the assured pitch that usually comes with such appointments.Masked behind all this unpredictability is one of the big shifts that has taken place under this government, of which little has been revealed or said. But in a quiet and definitive way, it has changed the rules of bureaucratic play.At the core of this shift is the 360-degree review or appraisal system to select, promote and even indirectly admonish officials. This essentially reduces the reliance on annual confidential reports as the key basis for shortlisting and empanelment. This, in turn, has a significant bearing on the final selection of a bureaucrat to a top job.As a result, over the past three years, this new system has slowly unhinged certain basic assumptions in a bureaucrat’s zone of maneuverability. Like lobbying the minister concerned for a job in his department, or even other senior bureaucrats in key positions.This is not to say that any of these methods have turned obsolete. But their effectiveness, or 'rate of return', has sharply dropped. While some of it has to do with the erosion of coalition era multiple power centres, the simple fact is that new rules have replaced old rules.It’s said that so devoted is the prime minister to the 360-degree system that he doesn’t even grant himself to be exempted. He has reportedly chosen to drop names forwarded from his office if they don’t pass the 360-degree test.Three questions arise: What is this review? How is it done? And why is it so important to GoI?Let’s start with the last question first. A way had to be found to counter a decade of Congress rule in which the bureaucracy held sway, allowing for long-lasting loyalties to be cultivated across services and beyond retirement barriers. For new equations to be built, old ones had to be disrupted.But how? After all, lines and rows of batches-cum-cadres seemed well sorted with a string of ‘outstanding’ reports and recommendations. There was no way that they would fail the existing evaluation and selection system, unless there was outright political high-handedness, which would have invited avoidable bureaucratic opprobrium.Then there was the mandate against corruption. This provided the perfect setting for a systemic overhaul by a newly elected political leadership. This is also the reason why GoI could carry out more senior bureaucratic reshuffles than usual in the past three years.It was in this context that the 360-degree system was put in place. What does it mean? Quite literally, like in many corporates, it amounts to conducting a holistic evaluation across talent, skills, social and personal parameters instead of simply looking at filework. In bureaucracy, this meant don’t go by confidential reports alone. GoI’s highest echelons were convinced that this system had been rigged, and that many officers were not making it to the shortlist because they had one ‘outstanding’ less than the other. Few important calls were made.One, all eligible candidates, regardless of their average performance on their appraisals, will be considered for this assessment. Two, the minister’s recommendation of the post being filled will not override the outcome of the 360-degree process. And three, integrity will also be assessed by way of reputation, not just by a Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) clearance.So how is the process conducted? The exercise is a tightly held secret conducted by three retired secretary-level officials. They have been appointed for a two-year period, subject to health considerations, and their identities are supposed to be classified.This group is expected to work pretty much independently, collecting information from myriad sources in an unsuspecting, unassuming manner, figuring out the general reputation of the officer among subordinate staff, paint an overall perception picture on integrity, besides making any other relevant observations.It’s quite possible that this group wouldn’t be made aware of the job an officer is being considered for.Now, whom they talk to, and whose views count is still more or less a grey area. But what we know is that this report is placed before a panel headed by the Cabinet secretary in case of secretary-level appointments, and the establishment officer, who heads the panel for joint secretaries. Both panels have PMO representations.All other inputs, including intelligence reports and ministerial recommendations, are on the table. But the contents and conclusion of this report have a definitive bearing. The recommendation of this panel is largely final. In other words, the measure of perception and reputation has come to matter more, regardless of what appraisal reports say. And while that may give a second chance to many who have lost out in their careers for the wrong reasons, the system has also introduced new variables, including subjective elements, that have drastically altered the field of play.