In a bureaucratic set-up, one cannot choose one's boss or one's subordinates. Very rarely is one allowed to pick a team, and even then only for a specific purpose. That is the exception. As a rule, a bureaucrat is expected to deliver with the people already in place.
That would be fine if the system encouraged good work. Often it does the opposite.
Take the supervisory cadre. Over the years, in the name of upgradation and parity of scales, the levels of pay have been squeezed together. The in-charge supervisor has a great deal to deliver and is the backbone of the system. Yet others drawing the same pay are able to do much less, and enjoy the same benefits.
Nor can an officer do much to make the extra effort worthwhile. In the non-gazetted cadre, one cannot give an out-of-turn promotion, cannot grant out-of-turn leave, and cannot offer any other benefit to a hard worker. So people are happy to work less and get more. The system simply does not reward sincere employees who go out of their way to deliver.
The Confidential Report should have been the answer. It is an important document, meant to separate the outstanding from the ordinary. Yet in practice, everyone graded "good" is due for promotion, and most staff are graded "good." The organisation is then expected to give outstanding performance with these "good" people. This is the dichotomy.
Within these limits, some officers still manage to get more out of their teams through personal example. But that depends on the individual, not on the system. As long as the sincere and the indifferent are paid alike, promoted alike and graded alike, the organisation will keep asking for outstanding work from people it has only ever called good.