Personnel policies…Indian Navy’s Promotion system

Americans love baseball. For a country as advanced as the US, it is one more of those incomprehensible things that Americans seem to love doing which defies my understanding. However, like many of us, I too find much to admire about that great nation, it’s people and it’s institutions…none more so than it’s criminal justice system.

            Baseball and the criminal justice system have something in common other than OJ Simpson…the expression “three strikes and you are out”. Basically, a batter against whom three strikes are recorded strikes out. The “three-strikes laws” were first implemented in the 1990s and are part of the US Justice Department’s Anti-Violence Strategy. The basic purpose of these laws seems to be to drastically increase the punishment of those convicted of more than two serious crimes.

            The Indian Navy seems to follow a similar system to select it’s officers for the ranks of Captain and above. It is a system of culling which to me is quite incomprehensible since I find it a wasteful and illogical exercise. Let me elaborate.

            In an earlier article regarding our ACR system I had mentioned that officers face their first selection board to the rank of Captain, in absentia of course, while in their late thirties/ early forties. Those who are not promoted in the “first look” are ostensibly considered by two subsequent promotion boards over the next two years. So, two years after having been considered by the first promotion board the officers not selected for promotion are hit with the “three strikes and you are out” policy. These officers are not considered for further promotion anymore. Period.

            Considering the steepness of the pyramidal command structure of the Navy, which again varies from one branch/ sub-branch to the other, it therefore comes as no surprise that the vast majority are not selected to the rank of Captain. Informed sources indicate that the difference between someone who is selected for promotion and one who isn’t is decided by the third/ fourth decimal value of the cumulative points in their respective ACRs, such is the miniscule difference in overall performance between the top officers in the putative merit list. As I had discussed in my last article, with the ACR system hardly being an “objective” system of assessment, the Navy chooses to lose officers with excellent track records for the higher echelons at the flick of a pen and due to a system of assessments and promotions which simply refuses to evolve and change.

            So, at age 42, when everyone else in their age group in the corporate world are firing on all cylinders, switching jobs, upgrading pay scales and generally looking to make the most of their prime professional years our “three strikes and you are out” Commanders are told that come what may, they will never be selected to the rank of Captain. What’s more, unlike the corporate world where professional stagnation is generally overcome by switching from one company to another, in the Navy you are quite literally in the soup with nowhere to go. Those who counter by saying that such “passed over” Commanders should quit and move to the corporate world are being naive. The corporate structure, ethos, environment, etc. continues to remain more or less the same across businesses in the corporate world and it is therefore relatively easy for someone to shift jobs there. It is however very unfair to expect someone who has spent his entire professional life in the armed forces to shift to the completely different environment of the corporate world at the age of 42. That many still choose to fall on the sword as it were and move out is a sign of their courage and mettle rather than any expectation of corporate glory on their part.

            The Navy spends millions in the training of each officer, with a large number joining as teenagers. Each officer spends years in training, commencing with basic training at the Naval Academy/ National Defence Academy and ending with specialised training in different Training Schools and Institutes within the Navy. Some academically brilliant officers also undergo higher studies for award of M Tech and PhD. Some others are selected to undergo professional courses abroad at foreign military training institutes like the famous school for test pilots in the US or staff colleges at different countries around the world. All this goes on throughout an officer’s life in the Navy at an immense expense to the taxpayer. However, at every rank commencing with the rank of Commander, the “three strikes and you are out” policy continues to remain operative. The Navy thus insists on discarding officers on whom millions have been spent without a second thought. As a country we are indeed very profligate with the expenditure of our resources.

            Looking at it from a different perspective, each officer superannuates at an age commensurate with his rank. It starts at the age of 54 for Commanders and ends in the early 60s for an Admiral. So for 12 years, if a Commander chooses not to retire prematurely at 42, he remains stuck in a groove with no selection available for him to the rank of Captain (let’s leave the fig leaf of “staff stream” and “time scale” Captains out of this discussion for the moment since they are really quite meaningless ranks in the overall scheme of things). And here’s the kicker, even if those officers junior to him who come up for promotion subsequently are nowhere near as good as him, he himself is never going to be considered for promotion because of the “three strikes and you are out” policy, come what may. And this is the system which is followed for officers in every subsequent rank. How’s that for motivation? How’s that for giving the taxpayer the biggest bang for his buck?

            Quite literally, capability and merit take a backseat once the “three strikes and you are out” policy becomes operative at whichever rank Commander, Captain, Commodore or, Rear Admiral.

            I know that HR experts will blanch at the slant of my comments because they do not come from any manual or seem to fit into any of the usual laws of personnel management. Most however, would understand by now the direction of my thoughts. Instead of positive encouragement symbolised by hope, faith and confidence in the future, why do we indulge in the propagation of negative thoughts of stagnation and hopelessness? Why not have a system based purely on merit? Why not have in place a system where no officer is ever “struck out” from the possibility of further promotion till the age of superannuation for that rank? For a Commander it would mean availability for selection to the rank of Captain from age 40 till age 53 and so on for each rank till the age of superannuation for a Rear Admiral.

            All over the world, be it the field of business, politics, sports, etc. it is increasingly being proved that physical and mental faculties being intact, age is just a number. So, instead of barring officers from the possibility of promotion due to age shouldn’t we be looking at their physical and mental fitness? What about merit & competency? Why should we restrict ourselves to a smaller pool of officers for promotion to the next rank instead of considering everyone who meets the criteria for that promotion? Is it because of the inherent limitations of the Personnel branch? Is it because the Personnel branch is unable or unwilling to adopt technology to sift through the personal records of hundreds of officers and would therefore consider such a proposal unviable?

            I think it is time for us to stop sacrificing pure merit and ability on the bogey of a younger age profile for Captains and Commodores. After all, what would change? The retirement age for each rank would still remain the same. The number of officers selected to the next higher rank would still be dictated by the needs and requirements of the service. Only, the pool of officers available for selection at each rank would increase.

            Yes, adoption of such a policy would mean that, theoretically speaking, we might get a newly minted Captain at age 53. But, while that officer would have had to be incredibly unlucky for being overlooked over the past 13 years, the service would have already benefitted during the same 13 years from the drive and determination of a highly motivated Commander. Such an officer would have to be a driven soul and it would be well worth the Navy’s cause to at least have him as a Captain/ Commodore till superannuation at 56, in case there isn’t time for him to fulfil the other mandatory criteria for promotion to Rear Admiral!

            I also believe it is time to abolish the “time scale” and “staff stream” promotions and instead introduce a system where merit and competency alone reign supreme. Why set aside experienced officers in the rank of Commander permanently? Instead, let pure merit of the young Commanders be pitted against that of the older ones for promotion to Captain. Let fitness for each rank from Captain onwards be decided on merit and not on age.

            In the present system of “three strikes and you are out”, natural selection of the best and most worthy is being superseded by a kind of perverse reservation system designed to permanently overlook merit for age. Discarding it for a pure merit based system would engender a sharp and motivated officer cadre on the one hand while subtly encouraging the presumed “deadwood” to leave.