IS “YES-MAN” LEADERSHIP GOOD FOR THE DEFENCE SERVICES (and the Nation)...?
For the last few days – the Media is extensively reporting on a Defence Scam – in fact – if you switch on the TV News – you are overwhelmed with “Breaking News” alleging involvement of Top Officers in the latest Defence Scam.
Some argue that the real perpetrators were politicians and bureaucrats who “forced” some defence officers to participate in the scam.
This makes one wonder whether senior defence officers are mere “Yes-Men” who will blindly do what they are told to do by their political bosses and bureaucrats – even if it is something unethical or illegal or against the national interest?
Do senior officers lack the moral courage to voice their contrarian opinion or express their dissent to something that they feel is wrong...?
Is “Yes-Man” Leadership Good For the Defence Services...?
When I talk to young and mid-level officers – they seem quite disappointed with the “top brass” – and – they say that – in today’s world – “yesmanship” sycophancy is the key to success in a military career in the army, navy and air force – and other attributes like professionalism, character and conduct come later.
This reminded me of an article I had written more than 3 years ago – so – let me delve into my “Humor in Uniform” archives – and pull out the article – once more – for you to read and ponder over...
CAN GOOD FOLLOWERS MAKE GOOD MILITARY LEADERS...?
Paradox of Military Promotion System
Ramblings of a Retired Veteran
By
VIKRAM KARVE
LEADERSHIP IN UNIFORM
THE “OFFICER LIKE QUALITIES” (OLQ) NON SEQUITUR
If you wonder why – at times – the military leadership seems clueless on taking decisions well within their purview – and seeks “guidance” from politicians and bureaucrats – maybe the answer lies in the promotion policies of the Military Human Resource (HR) Management System.
The promotion policy of the Defence Services is based on the premise:
“Good Followers make Good Leaders”
Yes – promotion in the military is based on absurd logic – a contradiction in terms – on the non sequitur:
“You have to learn how to follow in order to lead”
Is this statement not an incongruity in itself?
How can the ability to lead depend on the ability to follow ?
It is just like saying that – the ability to swim depends on the ability to sink
Good Followers carry out decisions made by others.
Good Followers are required to blindly obey orders without questioning.
Good Followers are not expected to use their own ingenuity.
Good Followers must simply “do what they are told”
Good Followers must never act on their own initiative or “make waves” or “rock the boat”.
To put it in a nutshell – Good followers are “yes-men”.
Ironically – the basic hypothesis of the military promotion system is: “good followers make good leaders”
Hence – in the military – it is mostly “yes-men” who rise up the promotion ladder – and hence – it is mostly “yes-men” who get catapulted to leadership positions in the military.
Ideally – in theory – “officer-like-qualities” – like professional competence, integrity, patriotism, honesty, straightforwardness, single-mindedness-of-purpose, brashness, and the ability to call a spade a spade, by bluntly speaking out your mind – are desirable in combat officers.
However – in practice – especially in peacetime cantonment soldiering – these very same idealistic “officer-like-qualities” may adversely affect the career prospects of an officer – in comparison to his more “tactful” morally-pliable peers – who “ego-massage” their superiors – practice “yes sir yes sir three bags full sir” yesmanship sycophancy – and such bootlicking officers grovel with sycophancy in front of their seniors.
Well – I have seen this happen in the military services – but when I see so many “yes-men” masquerading as leaders in the civilian world too – especially in politics and bureaucracy – it seems that this absurd non sequitur paradox “Good Followers make Good Leaders” is universal in nature.
“YESMANSHIP” versus LEADERSHIP
ONCE A “YES-MAN” ALWAYS A “YES-MAN”
In his book “On The Psychology of Military Incompetence” Norman Dixon quotes Liddell Hart :
“A lifetime of having to curb the expression of original thought culminates so often in there being nothing left to express”.
In his book Himalayan Blunder – a fascinating war memoir of the 1962 Conflict between India and China in which India suffered a humiliating defeat – Brigadier JP Dalvi mentions that a Corps Commander was sacked because “he refused to be as a dog in obedience and a lion in action” and was replaced by a more pliable General.
An apt metaphor:
How can the same person be expected to be an “obedient dog” and a “ferocious lion”...?
How can you have a split personality like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde...?
You can either be an “obedient dog” – or you can be a “ferocious lion” – but you cannot be both – isn’t it...?
In the military – after grovelling and bootlicking for 30 years to “earn” his promotion to high rank – how can you suddenly expect an officer to instantaneously metamorphose from a “dog in obedience” to a “lion in action”...?
With continuous dedicated practice of good “followership” – meek obedience becomes your trait – and subservient “yesmanship” becomes ingrained in your nature – which you cannot change overnight.
Once “yesmanship” becomes your natural trait – you will continue to be a good follower – irrespective of whatever rank or level of authority you attain.
There is truth in the saying:
Once a “yes-man” always a “yes-man”.
Good followers are competent at carrying out orders – while good leaders are competent at making decisions and giving orders.
Yes – a leader is required to take decisions.
And – “Yesmanship” stifles decision making ability.
Sadly – thanks to the military promotion system – in their quest for promotion at any cost – ambitious officers fall victim to the “ACR Syndrome” – since promotion is solely dependent on the all important ACR (Annual Confidential Report) – and this “ACR Syndrome” promotes “yesmanship” sycophancy in the Defence Services.
In the long term – continuous practice of “yesmanship” will kill Leadership Qualities.
With the proliferation of “yesmanship” sycophancy – it is no surprise that – instead of becoming more and more mentally forceful as they become senior – some highly ambitious officers start becoming spineless – due to their servility to the “powers-that-be” – as they crave for career-success – and even yearn for post-retirement sops.
Thus – by the time they reach high rank – long years of submissiveness severely compromises their mental robustness – and this may affect their command capability – especially in a crisis.
You cannot expect an officer to be a “dog in obedience” and a “lion in action” at the same time.
Similarly – once a junior officer who is a “lion in action” gets slowly converted into a “dog in obedience” as he gets senior – it is difficult to instantly re-convert the “dog in obedience” back into a “lion in action”.
Thus – when a yes-man is promoted to a leadership position – he cannot take decisions himself – and hence – he keeps running to his superiors for even the smallest of issues – though these decisions may well be within his purview.
Is this not visible in the senior military leadership of today – who keep running to their political and bureaucratic masters – seeking advice for decisions – which may well be within their scope or may be purely tactical or military in nature?
The “One Rank One Pension” (OROP) imbroglio is an example of this.
Do you see this lack of good decision making capability in the political and civilian leadership as well...?
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
Many of the greatest military leaders throughout history – who achieved success on the battlefield and victories in war – were notoriously poor followers – especially in peacetime soldiering.
In fact – in many cases – had it not been for war – many of them may not even have been promoted.
One such example in India is Field Marshal Manekshaw – who may have retired as a Major General – had it not been for the 1962 war.
Let me end with a quote:
Thousands of moralists have solemnly repeated the old saying that only he can command who has learnt to obey.
It would be nearer the truth to say that only he can command who has the courage and initiative to disobey.
~ William McDougall, Character and the Conduct of Life (1927)
Dear Reader:
What are your views on “YESMANSHIP” versus LEADERSHIP...?
Do you feel that “yes-men” can make good leaders – especially in the military...?
Is “Yes-Man” Leadership Good For the Defence Services (and the Nation)...?
VIKRAM KARVE
Copyright © Vikram Karve
1. If you share this post, please give due credit to the author Vikram Karve
2. Please DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Please DO NOT Cut/Copy/Paste this post
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.
1. If you share this post, please give due credit to the author Vikram Karve
2. Please DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Please DO NOT Cut/Copy/Paste this post
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.
Disclaimer:
1. This story is a spoof, satire, just for fun and humor, no offence is meant to anyone, so take it with a pinch of salt and have a laugh.
2. All stories in this blog are a work of fiction. Events, Places, Settings and Incidents narrated in the stories are a figment of my imagination. The characters do not exist and are purely imaginary. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
Copyright Notice:
No part of this Blog may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Blog Author Vikram Karve who holds the copyright.
Copyright © Vikram Karve (All Rights Reserved)
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I Write and I Blog because I want to say something.
I also want to hear what you have to say, especially about what I have written.
Please Comment.
I would love to hear your views.
I will greatly appreciate and welcome to your Feedback.