Man Management in the Indian Army: A Colonel's views

    This is an article that I'd written while commanding my unit sometime back. Views are entirely personal, and references are not made to any person within or outside the Indian Army. Views and comments are welcome!

Future articles will not be in this military format!

Introduction

Command of troops has probably become even more challenging than ever before due to various intrinsic and extrinsic reasons, many that are beyond the control of the Army. Yet, there are many other issues that are waiting to be addressed, once they are acknowledged as challenges. Command of a unit is essentially leading a body of men to do what is difficult by any standards, and impossible by many. The achievement of the operational aim and completing operational tasks must be the ultimate aim of all units. This requires good leadership, well-trained and motivated soldiers and well maintained and adequate equipment. For soldiers to be well trained and motivated, a large number of factors have to be addressed wherein training is only a part. Setting a good example, maintaining iron discipline, providing equal opportunities to all ranks for progress, genuine care for the soldiers and their families’ problems is a certain road to victory in war. There is a need to identify and address peculiar issues of man management to ensure that all units are effective in the event of war, or in ‘less than war’ conditions.

Man Management Environment

All military units have two human elements, officers and JCO (warrant officers)/ Other Ranks, who in the past were clearly differentiated by the background and status that they belonged to. In the changing environment in the country and society, the difference in background and social status of men and officers is blurring. More and more troops have better economic standing and, relatively, a greater number of officers are from the middle and lower middle strata of society.  All of them are subject to the social environment prevalent in the country. A few of the influences that affect both officers and soldiers are:-

       

Indifferent Civil Society And Government. 

The army, though respected by the common man, does not have a very high status in the overall government  organisation that is dominated by the Indian Administrative Service. The relative   standing of the army in the ‘pecking order’ has been degraded since independence. As a result, the respect and response that an ordinary soldier used to experience earlier has been degraded. Many other civilian jobs that are mundane and routine are considered more ‘useful’ with the added perk of being able to ‘pull strings’ in petty matters. The government, on its part has over a period of time neglected and lowered the status of military officers and the service due to various reasons. Civil administration in the states, which used to respond to the soldiers’ problems efficiently and quickly, not does not effectively do so.
      

Corruption And Nepotism. 

All pervasive corruption in matters related to the government and daily life for ordinary citizens does not spare even soldiers. In addition, corruption has crept into the military as well. Corruption in terms of professional honesty towards operational responsibility and training cannot be quantified in the classic sense, but affects the operational readiness of units and  formations, with the ultimate responsibility resting on commanders.

Effectiveness of System of Education. 

The existing education system does not enable capabilities and skills among high school/matriculation graduates that are employable. Most recruits are not able to meet standards of reading, writing or comprehension on reaching the units. As a result, in spite of meeting educational requirements on paper, soldiers are not able to cope up with their responsibilities of maintaining documents, clerical work and training. This leads to lowering of minimum passing standards during training and testing within the army.

Culture Of ‘Making It’ Through Shortcuts And Using Illegitimate Means.  

Society in general has deteriorated values where cheating in exams, producing fake  certificates and qualifications are common during recruitment and among the soldiers' peer group. There are numerous cases of petty ‘success’ being achieved in civil society by resorting to such means. These influences leave a mark on officers and soldiers who tend to be enamoured by such a value system, especially when reinforced by seniors who ‘gold plate’ their achievements and reports.

      

Increasing Religious Intolerance And The Tendency To Impose Own Beliefs On Others. With increasing religious intolerance in society, religious intolerance is slowly creeping into military organisation as well, though it has manifested itself in different forms. The concept of religion not being a consideration in military matters is slowly eroding, especially among officers. Official sanction for an increasing number of events with religious/superstitious bases and imposing religion of the majority/seniors are showing an rising trend. Religious events are on the increase in official / semi-official calendars and officers’ messes.

      

Exposure To Technology And Better Worldview. 

In the age of media and technology awareness among officers and soldiers is at an all-time high. They are comfortable with technology and new ideas. Many are breaking stereotypes and traditions and questioning existing norms and social traditions. Awareness of happenings around the world creates grounds for inquisitiveness and questioning the absolute authority of those in power. The officer class has to make itself accountable to its subordinates in areas which were otherwise considered inviolable.

With these widespread influences in society, the value system is eroding. A certain level of dishonesty is considered ‘acceptable’ and ‘fooling the system’ is considered the path to success by many. Many recruits and officers are joining the service for employment and not soldiering. Military service is considered by many as ‘just another government job’ with an attempt to superimpose alien values on military culture from within. Under the circumstances, it is essential that the military value system be implemented ruthlessly in the day to day functioning of units.

Poor value system prevalent in society is manifested in the following ways among officers and men:

    There is a tendency to avoid training in favour of more ‘glamorous’ pursuits like organising numerous events that give immediate returns in the form of appreciation from superiors. Flawless conduct of these social and administrative events is given undue importance at the cost of training and maintaining military routine. Due to short command tenures of brigade, divisional and corps commanders, there is perpetual pressure on units and formations to repeatedly perform, usually in conduct of events thought up to highlight and project commanders.

    Due to increased commitments in military stations on account of events, training is neglected. Officers resort to reflecting inflated results for tests related to professional competence and physical fitness, weapon handling, and technical capability. As an example, most units will not be able to match up to their own stated physical fitness standards, should they be audited impartially. The chain of command tends to turn a blind eye to inflated reports of training, as improvements are not prominently visible and pale in comparison to conduct of high profile events. Under the circumstances, the certificate of ‘fitness for war’ being issued to units may not be a true reflection of the state of things.

    Culture of promoting seniority over merit among Junior Commissioned Officers (JCO)/ other ranks (OR) to avoid complaints has long been the cause of poor standards of the troops. As a large number of ‘grey’ activities are being carried out under orders of ambitious officers, usually to please their superiors or for their own comfort, these officers find it morally difficult to assess their juniors without bias and in a fair manner. As NCOs and JCOs work on ground and are privy to mismanagement, they are ‘bought off’ by being awarded inflated CRs and being allowed to skip training standards. These actions are then justified as man management tools to keep men motivated! Selecting good men for higher ranks among NCOs and JCOs would imply that some will get superseded, but that is more than balanced by the fact that effective personnel will supervise the troops, not those who’ve merely put in more time.

    Avoidance of accountability and shirking of responsibility by JCOs and NCOs is on the increase. As a direct fallout of the culture of promoting seniority, soldiers are quick to calculate their future prospects of promotion purely on their date of enrolment and seniority, since their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) are inflated and place everyone on the same plane of eligibility for promotion, irrespective of their motivation or capability. Once it is established that promotion is assured (or otherwise), these NCOs and JCOs display absolute lack of interest and shirk responsibility. This void in supervisors is therefore filled up by officers who are under pressure to complete tasks in a zero error environment, and resort to micro management. As the task is now supervised by officers, the NCOs and JCOs are not accountable to anyone; this vicious cycle continues in most units and formations.

    Selective/false reporting of activities and standards achieved to present a ‘good image’ has become the norm and needs to be curbed ruthlessly. Repeated and extended rehearsals prior to the visit by a senior officer to present perfectly coordinated operational activity has resulted in officers and men  willing to undergo only ‘rehearsals’, not realistic training. As a result, no time is allotted to actual training and a ‘Well Done’ by a commander is taken as authentication of operational readiness.

    Encouraging sycophancy and playing favourites by promoting those ‘closer’ to the commander irrespective of capability and suitability.

    There is lack of interest and sincerity among officers and unwillingness to stand up for what is right. Facilitating improper ‘requirements’ of the seniors is taken as a positive trait and such an officer is called ‘resourceful’. An officer who does not agree to bend rules, whether it is use of transport, manpower, generators, or funds being ‘adjusted’, often blatantly violating rules and policies, is side-lined.

    The fast pace of events in field formations due to short tenures of formation commanders is taking a toll on the routine functioning of units, and, indirectly on the human resource available. Events, both training and administrative are planned and executed for short term gains and reflecting achievement of ‘aim plus’. Less glamorous command and staff functions like individual training, administration and documentation, staff work, and investing in efforts to improve the quality of human resource is given short shrift. These are side-lined in favour of numerous high visibility events that promise ‘instant’ solutions and gratify seniors, often at the cost of basic requirements.

    Junior officers are impressionable and are looking to their seniors for cues on day to day functioning. A combination of societal influences and poor functional ethos in the units demotivates them and at times forces them to ‘flow with the tide’. In turn, JCOs/OR, who are looking at officers as role models feel encouraged to follow an unprofessional career path where military culture and ethos takes a backseat. The shortage of officers with 5-10 years’ service has led to a shortage of ‘working hands’ at subunit level and gaps in grooming of young officers. Without hands on oversight, maintenance of standards and completion of tasks are largely left to the wisdom of JCOs and NCOs.

    All units are faced with man management problems related to training, administration and operations on a daily basis. Choosing the ‘best man for the job’ (that is, the same man, over and over) for routine tasks has to be weighed against the need for rotation of personnel and for all ranks to be trained for additional responsibilities. A few man management challenges in units are:-

• Selection of competent and efficient NCOs for promotion to JCOs and management of superseded NCOs till retirement.
• Conduct of training to ensure maximum participation, keeping in mind administrative   commitments.
• Instilling a sense of accountability in all ranks by a system of rewards a punishment.
• Motivating all ranks to train and work sincerely.
• Correct reporting/ feedback from appointments, especially in an operational environment.
• Following military culture and ethos by all ranks.
• Curbing the tendency of favoritism and partiality among JCOs/NCOs.

Effect of the Environment on Functioning of Units

    The man behind the machine is the key to excellence in any unit. A compromise in the management of this ‘resource’ directly affects functional efficiency, morale, equipment management and overall operational readiness. A dispassionate and unbiased audit of any unit in training standards in relation to the operational role, administrative effectiveness, and morale of all ranks including officers would indicate that much ground needs to be covered in terms of man management. 

A few effects of the environment are given below:-

• Actual training standards are much lower than that desired and reported.
• Instances of interpersonal friction based on perceived or actual grievances.
• Tendency to cover up flaws and limitations in day to day functioning among all ranks. Truthful reporting is not encouraged.
• Attempts to challenge the authority of superior officers through civilian courts/ without following correct channels.
• Large number of personnel deployed on non-essential administrative duties without dedicated time or effort for training and good administration. Additional administrative responsibilities are created to achieve short term goals resulting in diversion of manpower from training and basic unit administration.
• Cosmetic welfare being implemented without adequate consideration for the genuine well-being of all ranks and the unit.
• Officers are encouraged not to ‘rock the boat’ and follow orders without application of mind.

    With a transparent society due to the advent of electronic media, mobile telephones and the internet, all ranks are constantly being exposed to a ‘fast and successful’ civil society that is based on questionable morals and a skewed relationship between effort and result. The myth of achieving results through ‘shortcuts, or by any means’ as being the route to success percolates to officers and soldiers adversely affecting day to day functioning of units.

    Presently, the idea of empowering JCOs is being considered to overcome the shortage of officers in units. However, as JCOs are not promoted on merit alone, they are ineffective in ‘standing in’ for officers. Grooming of young officers is seriously affected due to the shortage of middle level officers. In the absence of any guidance from peer group/immediate seniors, they are left to gain knowledge and experience on their own.

Bringing in the Change

    The basic prerequisite for bringing in a change is to acknowledge that ‘CHANGE IS REQUIRED’. Since the army is officer driven at all levels, a conscious effort at all levels of command to address the root causes and environmental factors is essential. Setting examples needs to be the norm for all officers in command of troops, from Lieutenant to General. Double standards in military values and ethics need to be acknowledged as such and ruthlessly weeded out. A concerted effort in transforming the value system of the Army needs to be the focus. Some of the aspects that need transformation are given below.

Environmental Changes.  As all ranks are exposed to a society with a blurring value system during leave and interaction with civilians/government agencies for personal requirements, they must be sensitized of the need to follow the military way of life at all times. This may involve motivating them to be honest and leading the life of a ‘good citizen’ irrespective of contrary influences. A few changes in the military environment to improve quality of man management are given below.

    

• Commanders at all levels must set and maintain the highest standards of personal example, probity and fairness. Petty regimental or other affiliations, questionable financial dealings and employment of resources for personal gains must be curbed with the aim of avoiding cynicism and restoring subordinates’ faith in the chain of command. 
• Absolute fairness and transparency in all dealings are essential for all ranks to accept other tough measures to reclaim military ethos in man management.
• Unauthorized ‘perks and privileges’ are seen as a manifestation of double standards. These weaknesses interfere with effective command and need to be curbed so that troops accept tough measures in training and functioning.
• The need for extraneous activities at formation level couched as welfare and training essentials must be revisited and reduced.
• The trend of formation headquarters attaching manpower and vehicles from units for administrative requirements must be curbed as these are then not available for training. A cap of attaching not more than 10% additional strength of manpower and vehicles could be workable. of course, commanders and staff officers will have to lower their expectations.
• Demanding contributions from regimental funds for various ‘high visibility' projects must be stopped. Regimental funds in the units are meant for the welfare of troops and other unit commitments like raising days, improving day to day functioning etc. These should be left to the CO’s discretion.    

Man Management Changes in the Units. Functional ethos in units needs changes in keeping with the times. ‘How we do things’ must be more important than ‘what we need to do’. A message needs to be sent to all ranks that maintaining military ethos and culture is of paramount importance. A CO’s word is still largely followed without question. Therefore, all change in units must flow downwards from the CO. A few changes that can be implemented are given below.

• At the unit level, personal standards need to be set by the CO that withstands any level of scrutiny. No cooks and personal staff, no vehicles for family members. Under any pretext.
• Accountability of all appointments in the chain of command including NCOs and JCOs should be fixed. NCOs and JCOs must be held accountable for problems/lauded for good performance quantitatively, ie through CRs, honours, disciplinary and administrative action.
• Conduct individual training cadres focussed on training and testing, not on passing those affected for promotion. Those not meeting the standards must fail. This will ensure that only those meeting standards are fit for promotion.
• Promotion and CRs should be purely merit based and not only on seniority. Objective CRs will go a long way in ensuring that only deserving NCOs are promoted to JCOs. A fair and impartial promotion policy in all units is essential. There is nothing more demoralizing than seeing an incompetent sycophant getting promoted or rewarded!
• Physical training, weapons training and small arms firing must focus on maximum inclusion rather than on attaining KRAs in terms of percentage results. The aim should be to make everyone go through his basic training requirements every year.
• Increasing trend of low medical categories can be addressed by permitting only fit personnel to attend individual training cadres. This will discourage all ranks from shirking work and yet getting promoted. In addition, inefficient low medical categories who have reached pensionable service must be compulsorily retired, but with benefits due.
• Grievances and complaints must be treated with compassion and fairness, and strict action initiated on legitimate complaints irrespective of the rank of the accused. False complaints must also result in disciplinary action to set examples.
• The powers of a CO to dismiss a JCO/NCO for inefficiency or discipline with review by the next higher formation commander should be streamlined.
• Training and leave should not be reduced/ compromised. Good planning is essential for fulfilling station and formation responsibilities. Priority of activities must remain biased towards training without any compromise
• Focus on reducing non-essential administrative requirements and commitments. Family welfare activities that require diversion of combatants from training must be stopped. These could be conducted at station level with permanent staff hired for the purpose. Simultaneously there is a need to de-link welfare of families’ lifestyle and mental health issues, overall living standards of troops’ families and social development from the responsibilities of commanders of combat units and formations. A commander cannot be held responsible for poor social development and governance! The army needs to develop procedures and institutions to look after these needs without active involvement of the combat units and their commanders. Increasingly, the welfare of veterans, addressing problems related to pensions and issues with the civil administration are also being handled by field formations. The need of the hour is to make the organisations meant for veterans welfare such as the ‘Zilla Sainik Boards’ more effective and accountable instead of diverting the field army from their training in peace stations to such tasks.
• Identification of potential JCOs among junior NCOs and mentoring/grooming them discreetly is suggested. A system of informal  monthly/quarterly appraisal of performance for JCOs/NCOs at subunit level could also be considered.
• Taking up the cause of soldiers with civil administration to solve personal problems will help in gaining confidence of the soldiers.
• Grooming young/middle level officers to understand that following correct military culture and ethos is non-negotiable and should not be adapted according to convenience. They should also be formally trained on man management issues during courses like JC and orientation capsules for potential COs.
• Increase the strength of middle level officers (5-10 years’ service) in units. 
• User friendly automation of manpower functions, maintenance of databases for quick retrieval of information is essential to manage a large body of men. 
• All ranks need to be educated on the value system that has been the bedrock of Indian Army. This could be achieved through lectures, informal interaction, inclusion in training cadres etc, and last but not the least, in practice. There is a need to talk to officers and troops about the ethos and military culture that they are expected to follow.

Conclusion

It is necessary to integrate the tangible and intangible elements of man management and apply corrective measures at all levels. These changes are likely to be met with resistance due to human and cultural barriers within the organisation, as changes need to be implemented by those ‘in power’ and will involve a shift in work culture. Care must also be taken to ensure that time tested methods that are genuinely effective and contribute to the well-being of the organisation are not negated and changes are inclusive.