Military Short Service Commission (SSC) – A Raw Deal...?

Musings of a Veteran on a Military Career in the Army Navy and Air Force 
Do Short Service Commission (SSC) Officers get a Raw Deal...?


This morning – I read a news report: 

Defence Ministry Denies Medical Facilities to Retired Short Service Commission Officers 

After reading this news report – I remembered an article I had written long ago on the topic of how Short Service Commission (SSC) Officers get a raw deal as compared to Permanent Commission (PC) Officers.

Dear Reader: Here is the article – once more, for your perusal and comments.

SHORT SERVICE COMMISSION (SSC) – A Raw Deal...?

Musings of a Veteran on a Military Career in the Army Navy and Air Force

By
VIKRAM KARVE

“CRUSH-AND-SQUEEZE” HUMAN RESOURCE (HR) MANAGEMENT 

Do you like sugarcane juice...? 

They say sugarcane juice is healthy. 

Sugarcane juice strengthens your organs like your brain, heart, stomach, kidneys, eyes and sex organs.

Sugarcane juice has plenty of protein and iron, prevents sore throat, cold and flu, and is a panacea for many ills.

Besides, sugarcane juice is a most refreshing drink.

I just love a tall cool restorative glass of sugarcane juice on a hot dry afternoon to quench my thirst and beat the heat. 

Have you seen the way in which they extract sugarcane juice?

The sugarcane juice stall owner squeezes stalks of sugarcane through the roller crusher. 

First he pushes through the entire sugarcane stalk, at least twice, to squeeze the juice out. 

Then he folds the sugarcane stalk into halves and crushes it again and squeezes the juice out.

Then he repeats this crush and squeeze technique again and again till there is no juice left till and the crushed remains, the fibrous waste bagasse, is absolutely dry. 

Now the man knows that there is not a drop of juice left in the crushed sugarcane bagasse.

But still he will push the totally crushed sugarcane through the roller crusher once more just to make sure that he has extracted the juice till the very last drop. 

SUGARCANE JUICE STYLE CRUSH-AND-SQUEEZE HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OF SHORT SERVICE COMMISSION (SSC) OFFICERS

I narrated this metaphorical example of “crush and squeeze” style of Human Resource (HR) Management at the farewell party of a Navy Short Service Commission (SSC) Officer.

His permanent commission “hard taskmaster” boss wanted to extract the “last drop” from the hapless SSC Officer by “crushing and squeezing” him and making him slog even on the last day of his service till there was no “juice” left in the poor young man.

As I talked to the SSC Officer – I felt sad for him.

He was being released after 7 years service (those days SSC was for 7 years - and the SSC tenure keeps varying from 5, 7, 10 or 14 years from time to time as per requirements of the service)

The SSC Officer was still in his late 20’s – he was married and had a small child.

He was feeling quite insecure about his future.

The 7 years he had slogged in the navy had passed in a jiffy and suddenly he was thrown out on the “civvy” street and left to fend for himself.

You may say that I am generalizing, but I have observed that Short Service Commission (SSC) Officers get a raw deal.

I have seen many Permanent Commission (PC) Officers who consider themselves prima donnas and have a “superiority complex” vis-à-vis Short Service Commission (SSC) Officers.

Many PC Officers feel that SSC Officers are merely in a “supporting role” and their role is to fill up junior vacancies at the bottom of the pyramid, and then leave, thereby improving the promotion prospects of the PC Officers. 

The yeoman’s contribution of SSC Officers is not acknowledged and hence they do not get the recognition and respect they deserve.

In a metaphorical sense, like the “sugarcane”, SSC Officers are “crushed and squeezed” till all the “juice” is extracted from them, and then they are shoved out of the defence services and left to fend for themselves in the civilian world.

The incident I narrated above happened more than 18 years ago when I was in the Naval Dockyard at Mumbai.

I observed that there were a large number of young SSC Technical Officers in the Dockyard and they were performing a stellar role.

All of them were Assistant Managers, who are the mainstay in a Dockyard, and their competence and performance were indeed praiseworthy.

It was ironical that while their Permanent Commission (PC) counterparts were busy undergoing training, doing PG Courses or enjoying cushy shore appointments following their sea tenure, the Short Service Commission (SSC) Officers were slogging it out in the field.

In my opinion, SSC Technical Officers, most of whom were engineering graduates from premier institutions (like IIT, NIT etc) were better suited for technical work on the “production floors” than the  “in-house engineers” being produced by the navy.

There a few Women SSC Naval Officers too.

I distinctly remember a couple of Lady Naval Architects in the Naval Construction Branch who were giving an excellent account of themselves working shoulder-to-shoulder with their male colleagues on the dock-floor and in workshops. They were highly technically proficient and it was openly acknowledged that they were as good as, if not better than, their male counterparts.

I also remember two accomplished Computer Engineers who were engineering graduates from prestigious Regional Engineering Colleges or RECs (now called NITs – in 2003 – all RECs became NITs or National Institutes of Technology).

Just because they were women, they were being employed as Education Officers though their talents could have been better utilized in the Technical Branches of the Navy.

These technically gifted ladies had joined the Education Branch because, in the Navy, Women could not join the Sea Going Technical Branches (those days, women officers did not serve on ships – I wonder whether this policy has changed and whether women serve on ships now).

It was a sad waste of the finest human resource – a waste for the Navy – and a waste for the officers themselves.

In fact, this is what I feel about Short Service Commission (SSC):

From a long term perspective, isn’t short service commission a waste of expertise for the navy and for the officers themselves?

I do not understand the rationale behind having Short Service Commission (SSC).

Are SSC Officers supposed to be like the Contractual Employees in the Industry?

More than that, I wonder why young people want to join as Short Service Commission (SSC) Officers when the option of directly joining as a Permanent Commission (PC) Officer is available.

DOES SSC PREPARE YOU FOR A SECOND CAREER...?

It is a myth that Short Service Commission prepares you for a second career.

Let me give you two reasons.

1. Firstly, if you are already thinking of a second career even before joining the armed forces, then why join the armed forces?

You might as well join your preferred civilian career directly from campus placement.

2. Secondly, it is a fact that “industry specific experience” is valued more in the civilian world rather than the “jack of all trades” experience you get in the armed forces (army and navy).

So what is the point of dabbling with something which will not add as much value to your CV (career value) as compared to specialized experience in the industry that you wish to finally join...?

I have seen that after leaving the armed forces, most SSC Officers land up in the ubiquitous “HR” appointments rather than in specialized technical front-line appointments in the industry.

I have met many SSC Officers who are doing well in the industry, but all of them agree that they would have done much better had they directly joined the industry after college instead of taking a career detour via a short service commission in the services.

If you interested in a career in the civilian world and ultimately want to join the industry then why waste your best years slogging in the armed forces as a Short Service Commission (SSC) Officer...?

And if you are really interested in a lifelong military career then why not join as a Permanent Commissioned (PC) Officer...?

Short Service Commission (SSC) versus Permanent Commission (PC)

I am not sure – but in the 1970’s – when I joined the Navy – there was no such thing as Short Service Commission (SSC).

I do not recall any SSC Officer undergoing training with us.

Officers joined either via the National Defence Academy (NDA) Khadakwasla Pune – or via the Naval Academy (NAVAC) Cochin (Kochi) – and both entries were for Permanent Commission (PC).

An old Sea-Dog once told me that after the 1962 war – Short Service Commission (SSC) had been started in the Navy for some years – but then – it was discontinued in the early 1970’s with the advent of the Naval Academy. 

However – SSC seems to have been restarted once again – since later – in the late 1980’s – I did come across a young Short Service Commission (SSC) Engineer Officer on my ship while serving on a frontline destroyer.

I think Short Service Commission (SSC) proliferated in the 1990’s – and thereafter – especially due to the induction of women officers in the navy.

I have heard of various durations of short service commission – 5 years, 7 years, 10 years and 14 years.

These tenure periods keep changing from time to time.

Someone told me that, at present, the tenure (or engagement period) of short service commission is 10 years.

Like I said earlier, if you are really interested in a lifelong military career then it is best to join as a permanent commissioned officer.

But if you are interested in a civilian career, it just makes no sense of wasting 5, 7 or 10 years of the prime of your life in the army or navy.

You don’t agree with me...?

Let me give you two examples.

Suppose you a male and you take short service commission (say 5, 7 or 10 years).

You will be never able to settle down and enjoy your military life as the “Sword of Damocles” will be constantly hanging over your head as time ticks away.

I have seen many Male SSC Officers postpone their marriage till they settle down in their second innings in the civilian world.

If you are a Female SSC Officer, in the Indian Social Milieu, it will be difficult for you to remain unmarried till you settle down in your second career.

Maybe you will be almost 30 years old by the time you leave the navy and stabilize in your new career.

Now 30 is considered as an “unmarriageable” age for a girl in our traditional Indian society since there will be hardly any boys left to marry.

If you marry a civilian during your service then you will have to be ready for a long distance marriage which is quite painful especially in the first inchoate days of married life.

And if you marry a fellow naval officer – well then all your problems will be solved...!!!

(If you are a woman army officer it is a great advantage to marry a fellow male army officer, and maybe it is the same for the air force too)

It is no wonder so many “sister” officers are marrying their “brother” officers and these “in-service” alliances are marriages of great convenience.

But let’s come to the moot point.

Why have a short service commission...? 

What is the need for SSC...? 

What is the solution...?

But before I propose a solution, here is a small digression. 

WILL NEW NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME (NPS) WILL MAKE PC AND SSC IRRELEVANT?

As you know, around 2004, the government introduced a New Pension System or National Pension Scheme (NPS) for all civilian government employees. 

NPS seems quite an attractive scheme due to its flexibility and its contributory nature (the government gives you a matching contribution).

One wonders why the Armed Forces were excluded from the NPS...?

Maybe, as has happened in many other cases, like the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme and Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) – the civilian bureaucrats did not want to give the benefit of NPS to the defence services.

Or possibly – the Military Top Brass did not want the NPS.

Maybe they feared an exodus of officers.

Because with the advent of the NPS, the “20 Year Syndrome” will disappear.

Also, if the New Pension Scheme (NPS) is introduced in the Armed Forces, concepts like Permanent Commission (PC) and Short Service Commission (SSC) will become irrelevant.

But that is another story.

The moot question is: 

“Do SSC Officers Get a Raw Deal...?” 

DO SSC OFFICERS GET A RAW DEAL...?

Tell me, especially if you are a Short Service Commission (SSC) Officer, did you like the “sugarcane juice story”, and do you feel that SSC officers get a raw deal...?

If you are a Permanent Commission (PC) Officer – I urge you to introspect: 

Is is fair to apply the “crush and squeeze” style of Human Resource (HR) Management to SSC Officers...?

And – instead of tinkering with tenures – why have Short Service Commission (SSC) at all...?

Why have two classes of Officers in the Defence Services...?

Why not scrap the concept of Short Service Commission (SSC) and have only the Permanent Commission (PC) for all Officers...?

Dear Readers: Comments welcome – especially from ex-SSC Officers... 

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.

Disclaimer:
1. This story is a fictional spoof, satire, pure fiction, just for fun and humor, no offence is meant to anyone, so take it with a pinch of salt and have a laugh.

2. Views expressed in the blog post above are personal.

3. All stories in this blog are a work of fiction. Events, Places, Settings and Incidents narrated in the story 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.

  

Revised Version of Article First Posted by me Vikram Karve at 6/23/2013 03:10:00 PM in my blog at url: http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2013/06/short-service-commission-ssc-raw-deal.html  and  http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2013/06/short-service-commission-ssc-raw-deal.html  and https://karvediat.blogspot.in/2014/03/humor-in-uniform-crush-and-squeeze.html  and  http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2014/07/humor-in-uniform-making-army-short.html etc and http://karvediat.blogspot.com/2017/08/do-short-service-commission-ssc.html  and https://karve.wordpress.com/2017/10/11/military-musings-short-service-commission-ssc-officers-do-they-get-a-raw-deal/ etc  

   

News Report Defence Ministry Denies Medical Facilities to Retired Short Service Commission Officers  URL https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/defence-ministry-denies-medical-facilities-to-retired-short-service-commission-officers/articleshow/66858023.cms

Do Army/Police/Civilian Officers Need Sahayaks/Batmen/Orderlies/Attendants...?

My @Quora post: 

WHY DOES ONLY AN ARMY OFFICER NEED A SAHAYAK (BATMAN)...? 

Musings on Archaic System of “SAHAYAK” aka “BATMAN” aka “ORDERLY” aka “ATTENDANT” aka “Runner”…  

Click Link Below and Read Article.

Article is also posted below for your convenience...

https://www.quora.com/profile/Vikram-Karve/Writing-by-VIKRAM-KARVE/WHY-DOES-ONLY-THE-ARMY-OFFICER-NEED-A-SAHAYAK-BATMAN?srid=5Hkq&share=7a93e7d8 

“SAHAYAK” (aka “Batman” aka “Orderly” aka “Attendant” aka “Runner”) – A RELIC OF THE RAJ
A Spoof
By
VIKRAM KARVE

“SAHAYAK” (aka “Batman” aka “Orderly” aka “Attendant” aka “Runner”)

The CTC (Cost To Company) of an Army Officer is much higher than his equivalent Navy or Air Force Officer.

In addition to the pay and perks (which are roughly the same), an Army Officer gets another “perk” called a “Sahayak” (aka “Batman” or “Orderly”).

Long back, I was posted as faculty in a tri-service training institution.

On the faculty, there were officers of the Army, Navy and Air Force and all officers did exactly the same job.

We were all instructors and whether you were in the Army, Navy or Air Force, the job was identical – to teach.

But only the Army Officers had “Sahayaks”.

This was starkly evident in the evenings when we all went for long walks.

I had a pet dog.

My neighbor was a senior Air Force Group Captain who also had a dog.

We used to personally take our dogs for a walk in the evenings (and in the mornings too).

A number of Army Officers had pet dogs too.

But not a single army officer would take his dog for a walk.

“Dogwalking” was the “duty” of the “Sahayak”.

Yes, walking the Sahib’s dog was the Sahayak’s job.

Maybe it was “below the dignity” for an army officer to take his dog for a walk.

I noticed that the practice of Sahayaks walking officers’ dogs was quite a common sight in army cantonments and tri-service institutions.

In fact – some of my army friends used to leave their dogs with their sahayaks when they went home on leave or went on courses.

One army officer’s wife even commented that looking after their dog was the sahayak’s job.

And I observed that what she said was true – the “sahayak” took full care of the dog – the dog’s food, walks, grooming, bath, everything.

In fact – the “sahayak” was the de facto “Master” of the officer’s pet dog.

Every time a discussion on “sahayaks” comes up, most army officers are quick to defend this ancient practice saying that sahayaks are required for officers in the “field”.

Agreed – Army Officers require soldiers as “sahayaks” in the field.

But – how can you justify soldiers being deputed as “sahayaks” in peacetime family stations...?

Why must only Army Officers get “sahayaks” especially in inter-service establishments where you have Navy and Air Force Officers doing exactly the same job as Army Officers...?

What rankles even more in inter-service training institutions is when some resourceful “student officers” from the army manage to get their “sahayaks” and flaunt them in front of senior navy and air force officers on the staff.


WHY DOES ONLY THE ARMY OFFICER NEED A SAHAYAK (BATMAN)...?

What is the genesis of this practice – why does an army officer need a “sahayak”?

An old-timer army veteran once told me that a sahayak (batman) is not a private servant and he is not provided to an army officer to perform the duties of a domestic help.

The sahayak is not a domestic orderly.

The sahayak or batman is a combat soldier.

(The word “batman” is short form of “battle-man”)

The batman is actually a “runner” who always accompanies the officer in battle and his primary duty in combat operations is to convey the orders of the officer to his subordinates, particularly when the wireless is not functioning.

Besides his primary task as a “runner, the sahayak or batman is supposed to look after the officer’s needs, his equipment and uniform, act as a bodyguard and protect the officer and generally be his “buddy” while the officer is engaged in combat operations.

Thus the batman was the officer’s “battle-man”, his buddy in combat, and there was no question of a batman being employed on any nature of domestic work, especially in peacetime family stations and in the homes of officers.

This is what the old-timer told me.

Unfortunately the perception created in the minds of people is quite different.

It may not be entirely correct, but unfortunately, the general impression today is that the sahayak or batman is a personal servant of the army officer and his family.

Again I say that this may not be a correct picture.

But then what will be the impression created in the minds of people when they observe army officers using their sahayaks to take their dogs for walks, send them to the market for shopping, and to perform various types of domestic work, menial jobs and household chores.

This is visible to everyone in peacetime stations and cantonments, sometimes even in civilian areas where army officers live.

A recently retired army officer’s wife told me that the one thing she misses the most is her “sahayak”.

Long back I heard a bizarre story which may be apocryphal.

A “resourceful” Army Officer who was posted to a non-family field area “managed” to arrange a “sahayak” for his wife who was living in separated married quarters in a peace station.

The irony was that the smart “sahayak” turned out to be even more “resourceful” and was having a rolicking affair with the officer’s wife stealing her affections while the officer was slogging it out in the field.

Yes, it can be hazardous to let a sahayak get too intimate with families, especially wives and daughters.

With the advent of women officers in the army, I wonder if they too are provided male sahayaks.

Or are Lady Army Officers provided female attendants?

Do some Army Officers “manage” to get uniformed “sahayaks” even after they retire from the Army?

I do not think it is permitted, but someone once mentioned that some resourceful senior Army Officers do “manage” to get sahayaks even after retirement.

Another argument army officers use to justify the institution of “sahayak” is that even other Civilian Officers (IAS, IPS, Railways, PSUs, etc) have various government employees deputed as “attendants” in their homes for similar domestic duties.

I wonder whether other modern Armies still provide “sahayaks” (batmen) to officers...?

And do Civil Servants, Diplomatic Officers and Police Officers of modern nations get “attendants” for their domestic work...?

Due to the feudal culture of India – someone told me that even Diplomats and IFS Officers are entitled to take “attendants” and servants abroad.

Well – it seems that we still remain a feudal society with the same old colonial culture – and these “Relics of the Raj” are not going to go away in a hurry.

Since it will be impossible to get rid of this time honored feudal practice of sahayaks in the army – the best thing to do in the name of jointmanship would be to extend this facility of sahayaks to the navy and air force.

When almost everyone at officer level, all army and most civilian officers, get sahayaks and “attendants” – why leave out only the Navy and Air Force Officers...?

Yes – how about providing “sahayaks” to Navy and Air Force Officers...?

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.

Disclaimer:
1. This story is a humorous spoof, 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 story 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. 

This is a revised repost of my article posted online earlier at urls: http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2013/10/the-army-sahayak-batman-anachronism-or.html  and  http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2014/07/humor-in-uniform-sahayak-aka-batman-aka.html  and  https://www.quora.com/profile/Vikram-Karve/Writing-by-VIKRAM-KARVE/WHY-DOES-ONLY-THE-ARMY-OFFICER-NEED-A-SAHAYAK-BATMAN?srid=5Hkq&share=7a93e7d8 etc

OLQ = MORAL PLIABILITY

OLQ = MORAL PLIABILITY
Musings of a Retired Military Veteran
By
VIKRAM KARVE

Conventional Wisdom talks of many ingredients in the recipe for success like professional excellence, proficiency at work, integrity, sincerity, hard work, talent etc.

When I was a junior officer I thought that the above sterling personal qualities combined with military ethos and value system constituted what we called OLQ or OFFICER LIKE QUALITIES.

But as we grew up in service we realized that we had been wrong and our views about OLQ were rather idealistic.

We observed that the key “Officer Like Quality” (OLQ) was “Moral Pliability”.

This is true for all Officers – whether in the Defence Services or Civil Services.

If you take a moral or ethical position and stand by your principles – if you are one of those old-fashioned orthodox “man of principle” types with “unshakable integrity” – then you are destined for failure – or you may even come to grief.

We have seen so many examples of the above.

So – Dear Reader – if you intend joining the Defence Services or Civil Services – or any job for that matter – here are some musings on “Moral Pliability” – the Key “Officer Like Quality” (OLQ) for career success. 

MORAL PLIABILITY (The Key Ingredient in the Recipe for Success) 

Look around you and ask yourself:

Who is most successful in the present day world?

The answer will be clear:

The “Ethical Chameleon”.

And what is that quality that will enable you to be an Ethical Chameleon?
“Moral Pliability”.

In today’s world – it does not pay you good dividends to be honest, straightforward and outspoken. 

Concepts like moral values and ethical conduct are outmoded and have no relevance in today’s times. 

If you practice ethical conduct and take a moral stand, and stand by your principles – you will be called difficult and dogmatic – and most likely – you will be written off in your career – you will fall by the wayside and be passed over for promotion – and you may spend your professional life in wilderness.  

So – remember – if you are one of those old-fashioned orthodox “men of principle” types with “unshakable integrity” – you are destined for failure. 

The key to success is to be able to swim with times and bend with the wind – and to be able to to metamorphose yourself and change colours like a Chameleon.

Yes, you must practice “Situational Ethics” and become an “Ethical Chameleon”.

In short – you should be Morally Pliable. 

Look around you. 

See for yourself that one common quality that most “successful” individuals have – MORAL PLIABILITY. 

You may observe that Moral Pliability is the sine qua non for career advancement and success in all types of organizations – government and non-government – civilian and military – business and academic – and of course – in politics. 

Conversely – if you are not morally pliable – you may get into trouble.

CAREER SUCCESS MANTRA – Moral Pliability

Look around you, in your workplace and outside, and you will realize that the most “successful” persons are those who are morally pliable.

In the early days of my navy career – when I was young and full of idealism – I used to wonder why so many professionally competent, talented, efficient and diligent officers do not get the success they deserve in their careers.

Now it is quite clear to me – they lacked that key “Officer Like Quality” (OLQ) which is the sine qua non to reach the top of the ladder: MORAL PLIABILITY

Yes – if you are morally pliable you will develop the ability to unquestioningly obey orders from your superiors without suffering qualms of conscience. 

Your bosses will feel comfortable with you and you will go a long way in your career.

Yes, proficiency may take you to a certain level but to rise beyond that you need that decisive ingredient in the recipe for success called moral pliability.

If you are honest, straightforward and upright you may even be labelled as an “idealist”, impractical, arrogant, conceited, dogmatic etc

Even worse – if you stand by your principles you may be branded as a difficult officer – as someone who cannot get along with others – and your career may be written off and you may be cast away by the wayside.

If you flow with the tide, bend your principles as the wind blows, you will be appreciated as a “practical” person, tactful manager, a great team player.

After all – everyone loves an adaptable person with a flexible personality. 

This is true in most organizations – at work and also in personal relationships in a family.

DANGERS OF BEING MORALLY PLIABLE

Of course – there is a danger in being too “flexible”. 

Once you practice moral pliability for a long time and make it a habit to compromise your principles as the situation demands – you may reach a stage where you have no principles left to compromise.

Yes – the sustained practice of moral pliability is bound to affect your capability for creative and original thinking. 

To quote Norman Dixon:

“A lifetime of having to curb the expression of original thought culminates so often in there being nothing left to express”

I have seen this happen to so many morally pliable persons who turn into “yes sir yes sir three bags full sir” type obsequious sycophants.

So – Dear Reader – look around your workplace, observe your colleagues, especially the eager-beaver hot-shot go-getter “successful” types. 

Reflect for a while and ask yourself:

Is better to be morally rigid and ethically steadfast?

Or is it better to be morally “malleable” and ethically “ductile” and practice “situational ethics”?   

When I see the number of morally pliable people achieve great “success” – I wonder whether this African saying is relevant here:

“The wind does not break a tree that bends” 

Or maybe the Ancient Chinese Wisdom:

“The tree that does not bend with the wind will be broken by the wind”

Or should you stand by your principles as John Quincy Adams says:

“Always stand on principle, even if you stand alone”

Or is it wiser to follow the advice of Thomas Jefferson:

“In matters of style – swim with the current

  In matters of principle – stand like a rock”

Think about it – and you decide for yourself – what is right for you.

As an afterthought – let me add that there is a flip side to moral pliability too. 

As we discussed earlier – the first danger you may face if you become morally pliable is that you may lose the capacity for original thought.

There is a bigger danger as well.

Sometimes these morally pliable persons who reach the topmost positions in the hierarchy may bring disrepute to themselves and tarnish the reputation of their organizations – owing to this very quality of moral pliability that catalyzed their ascent to the top. 

Quite a paradox – isn’t it?

Dear Reader – I think now you must be quite convinced that “Moral Pliability” is the key “Officer Like Quality” (OLQ).

I have given you the mantra – the key to success. 

I have told you the pros and the cons. 

The choice is yours. 

Do you want to be a Morally Pliable Ethical Chameleon?

You have to decide:

TO BE OR NOT TO BE MORALLY PLIABLE 

Remember – your juniors and your children are observing you.

So do not blame them if they too become morally pliable – and turn into Ethical Chameleons like you!

Enjoy your work and have a great day. 

Wish you all the success in your career. 

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.

Disclaimer:

1. This is a spoof, 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.

© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Revised version of my article MORAL PLIABILITY - The Key to Success written by me 20 years ago in the 1990s and posted online in my various blogs including at url:
http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2011/11/moral-pliability-key-to-success.html