There is a need to study the issues pertaining to management of transformation and towards realising the need for joint capabilities in the Indian armed forces. In the first part of this article, we have examined some of the organisational theories that primarily came up in the face of international business competition and are relevant to the military, as also the catalysts and theories for military transformation.

There has been much talk of transformation of the military in India especially after the Kargil conflict. A dispassionate analysis, however, would indicate that ground level translation of the many recommendations for transformation has largely been cosmetic or at best marginal despite so many years having elapsed. We do not appear to be making a holistic effort to learn from the transformation of militaries in countries like the US, UK, Germany and even China. The same ambivalence relates to revamping the national security architecture notwithstanding the current study under way and headed by the Chairman National Security Advisory Board, recommendations of which may also be only partially implemented and that too over a prolonged period going by earlier experiences. The profound changes in the last two decades of the 20th century should have radically altered our perceptions towards the nature of future conflict and mechanics of its resolution including the ensuing sea change in the way nations perceive themselves and each other in the overall international system. Whatever the future, with comprehensive security getting more and more complex coupled with technological advances, the military will continue to be an important and critical element of national power. To that end, India must acknowledge that the Indian military establishment requires creative adaptation, fundamental changes and determinism to be able to respond effectively to the nation.

There is a need to study the issues pertaining to management of transformation and towards realising joint capabilities in the Indian armed forces. In this context, there is a need to draw upon both the organisational theories and military theories being refined and practised by others. This then should lead us to the change management required for transformation of the Indian armed forces and thereon to a roadmap to affect the same.

Theories

Organisational and Business Oriented: Advances in information technology and accelerating foreign competition had started emerging as challenges as early as the late 1970s and the 1980s. The most affected being the business world, they started looking for ways and means to meet these challenges in order to regain and retain competitive advantage in respective businesses. As a result, a multitude of theories, strategies and techniques of management emerged throughout this period. All these theories sought to describe the appropriate steps necessary to renew and re-energise the basic business organisation. Take the example of John P. Kotter, a Professor of Leadership at the Harvard Business School, who authored a book titled Leading Change. In this book, he propounded eight steps required to transform an organisation (termed as Kotter’s Theory).

These steps have been elucidated as: one, to establish a sense of urgency, contending the failure to instil a sense of urgency is the biggest mistake leaders make when trying to transform an organisation and that establishing a sense of urgency and eliminating complacency are crucial to gaining the cooperation needed to drive the transformation process; two, to form a powerful guiding coalition of the right people who enjoy a great deal of trust and share a common objective since transformation requires a powerful force to sustain the process and no individual regardless of formal or informal power or weak committees can lead or manage transformation by himself; three, to create a vision, since a vision performs the triple tasks of providing general direction of transformation simplifying the number of decisions a business needs to make, provides motivation to the people and coordinates all actions; four, to communicate the vision since communications are essential in ensuring that people within the organisation have a common understanding and shared a sense of commitment to the future; five, to empower others to act on the vision since effectively empowering subordinates results in the four-fold advantage of removing structural barriers, provision of required training, aligning the organisational system to the vision and in dealing with troublesome supervisors; six, to plan and create short-term successes since short-term success provides credibility to the transformation and helps sustain it over the duration of the process; seven, to consolidate and produce further changes/transformation optimising on credibility afforded by short-term victories to tackle bigger problems within the plan; eight, to institutionalise new approaches where leaders need to anchor change within the organisation’s culture to ensure long-term success of the transformation effort.

A second example can be taken from Robert Miles, an academician and professional consultant on change and transformation, who authored the book, Leading Corporate Transformation. He defines in his book, referred to as Miles Theory, four fundamental attributes associated with successful transformation are as follows: first, the ability to thrive on energy with direction; second, a total system perspective; third, a comprehensive implementation plan; fourth, a demanding transformational leader. Thereon, he continues by describing three vital leadership tasks that support these attributes. They are generating energy for transformation; developing a vision of the future, the vision identifying a purpose and mission for the organisation, creating an emotional view for the future organisational state and providing direction to get to the vision state; aligning the organisation with culture. Overall, the leadership task is creating transformation process architecture. The transformation architecture enables the transformation leader to orchestrate the transformation process. The leadership must deliberately orchestrate all the elements of the organisation’s total system in order to maintain dynamic alignment and facilitate human development and organisational learning that allow forward movement without excessive risk. Failure in any one of these tasks will result in failure to transform. More importantly, these organisational theories are relevant to military institutions because they are based upon the human and institutional dynamics associated with resistance, control and power, present during periods of change or transformation as well as other types of institutions.

Catalysts and Theories of Military Transformation: The catalyst for strategic military transformations has invariably been visionaries at the national apex that have provided the necessary impetus. In the US, the catalyst for the transformation process commenced with former Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld. The US Department of Defense (DoD) created US Joint Forces Command (JFC) as the transformation laboratory of the US Military to force the US Armed Forces into jointness. The Goldwater Nichols Act brought about revolutionary changes in the US armed forces, accelerating synergy and boosting transformation. In China, change was ushered in by Jiang Zemin and its implementation overseen by the Central Military Commission (CMC) and Chief of General Staff (CGS) of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

In Germany, the transformation process was initiated by the Berlin Decree which aimed to integrate the armed forces, ensuring and reaping full benefits of ongoing technological advancements. The German Chief of the Defence Forces is overseeing the transformation of the armed forces. As for theories, we may examine what General Donn A., a former commander of US Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) identified when faced with the challenge of developing a doctrine to enable the US Army to defeat a much larger Soviet land force. He identified following seven general requirements for efficient military change: the military leader or coalition must identify an institution or mechanism to manage change and the newly appointed institution or mechanism then must define the need for change, describing what must be done and how it differs from the present; ensure the principal staff and command personalities responsible for change possess an educational background sufficiently rigorous, demanding and relevant to bring a common cultural bias to problem solving; appoint a spokesman or institution to be the champion for change; build consensus for change that will give the new ideas and the need to adopt them a wider audience of converts and believers; maintenance of continuity of leadership since continuity is needed among the architects of change and so that consistency of effort is brought in the process; gain support from the top or near the top of the organisation on the premise that the supporter must be willing to hear out arguments for change, agree to the need, embrace the new concepts and become at least a supporter or champion for change; conduct field trials and experiments. The relevance of the proposed change must be convincingly demonstrated to a wide audience through the use of open, challenging and realistic experiments.