More and more service officers are coming from middle and lower-middle-class backgrounds and have legitimate career aspirations. Most officers retire in early-to-mid-fifties and have family responsibilities. The organisational pyramid in the armed forces is quite steep and many bright and deserving officers miss out on board proceedings for higher promotions.
Choice: The absence of vertical movement avenues goads officers to move laterally.
Bhartendu Kumar Singh
Indian Defence Accounts Service
For long, we have been fed with narratives that the armed forces are suffering from a high level of attrition, where more officers are calling quits. However, recent statistics show that the number of officers who left the defence services voluntarily in the last three years is minuscule and nearly constant: 677 in 2016; 725 in 2017; and 698 in 2018. What is worrying is the continued phobia and artificial concern about the ‘ghost of attrition’ and non-recognition of its positive and dynamic relationship with India’s emerging, vibrant and mature economy.
Established narratives on attrition consider it a bad element for the individual and collective morale of the armed forces. Attrition is often propagated as a major manpower concern for the armed forces. Such narratives are, however, bereft of facts, figures and actual justifications and do not confirm to contemporary trends in normative economics. Also, the impact of the so-called attrition has not been empirically established on issues such as the operational preparedness of the armed forces.
On the other hand, modern managerial principles treat attrition as a part and parcel of the organisational culture. Attrition brings dynamism, agility and mobility to individuals. Organisations are challenged to create an attractive work culture in response. From this perspective, attrition is good since it allows the servicemen and armed forces to retain dynamism and make the best of opportunities. There are credible reasons why established perspectives on attrition amongst officers are not true.
First, the armed forces are supposed to be a reflection of larger social structure. However, the social profile of the service officers as well as the armed forces has changed in the last few decades. Unlike the old generation military elites who eschewed integration with the civil society even after retirement, the new generation of officers is uncomfortable with the garrison mindset and favours greater integration with civil society. They also detest some archival practices in services, like the overbearing and intrusive influence of the wives’ welfare associations. Some of them have working spouses who find it very difficult to adjust with frequent transfers.
Second, as Morris Janowitz rightly predicted, there has been an increasing narrowing of skill differentiation between military and civil elites; an outgrowth of increasing concentration of technical specialists in the military. Service officers who perform such technical tasks have direct civilian equivalents: engineers, signal experts, doctors, logistics experts etc. Technological developments in the last few decades have led to the ‘civilianisation’ of the military profession due to the blurring of differences with the civil side. The organisational culture that characterises civil jobs has, therefore, permeated the military side. Concurrently, military professionals perceive ‘careerism’ in the same fashion as their civilian counterparts.
Third, more and more service officers are coming from middle and lower-middle class backgrounds and have legitimate career aspirations. Most officers retire in their early-to-mid-fifties and have family responsibilities. The organisational pyramid in the armed forces is quite steep and many bright and deserving officers miss out on board proceedings for higher promotions. The absence of vertical movement avenues goads them to move laterally, as and when opportunity knocks their doors.
Fourth, attrition is a given fact in developed economies like the US and UK. The military career is transitional for young men after graduation as they settle down in different professions after putting in variable years of military service. Military experience is valued by corporates and duly rewarded. Post 1991, the private sector in India has also become vibrant, mature and, in some cases, fatally attractive. Jobs have grown in public and corporate sectors, apart from entrepreneurship opportunities. Service officers are qualified and experienced enough to handle these jobs. This makes transition through attrition possible.
Critics of attrition forget that it is a social investment where some of the best trained, physically fit and highly disciplined professionals transit to civil society. As Samuel S Huntington wrote, “military function requires high order of expertise. No individual, whatever his inherent intellectual ability and quality of character and leadership, could perform these functions efficiently without considerable training and experience.”
Regrettably, we recognise their contributions only during wars or crisis situations with neighbours and mostly remain insensitive to their continuous training and exposure to security-building exercises. We do have examples of many prominent figures in public life, strategic writings, defence journalism and commercial flying who left the armed forces midway and have done quite well in alternative careers. Attrition is, therefore, a rational choice by officers and attempted only when the scope for upward mobility or betterment in personal life is assured. The society also benefits in process.
It emerges, therefore, that attrition affects the armed forces like other organisations in the public and private sectors and we need not overtly worry about it since the proportions have not reached the alarming level and create stress for manpower planning in services. Instead of perceiving armed forces officers as mere specialists in ‘management of violence’ and suitable only for security-related jobs, we should develop the right perceptions regarding them as specialists in many other segments.
Also, despite public policy efforts like pre-retirement professional education and training, reservation and weightage in jobs etc, institutional mechanisms for facilitating transition of retiring officers into civil society have not moved beyond the public sector. The private sector is still insensitive and accords little credence to incoming military experience.
Finally, our policy discourse needs to discuss ways and means for making attrition more attractive for short-service officers who need a second career more than anyone else and are faced with an uncertain job market when they leave the services in their mid-thirties.
It is time for a paradigm change in perceptions about attrition that is in response to socio-economic changes, re-defined civil-military relations, and above all, legitimate aspirations of service officers for themselves and their families. We need more policy support to make it a win-win situation for officers and society at large.
(Views are personal)
