Manekshaw had not pulled the date out of his hat (not withstanding it was a brass one :-). It was a commitment made after due study by field commanders, and their staff; the people who would be tasked to meet the commitment. Manekshaw listened to their professionally argued case.
If the Indira Gandhi and Manekshaw did not behave as they did, 1971 would, most likely, have been a disaster.
Compare that to 1962. Nehru had not listened to his Generals; had not listened for many years. The army hierarchy was disrupted, thanks to Nehru's Defence Minister. The army lacked the capability for which it was tasked. Yet shortly before hostilities broke out, while boarding a flight to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) he told the press, that he had asked the Army to throw throw the Chinese out. He had obviously not asked - or asked, and not listened to - the commanders who would have to do the job. 1962 still rankles.
The two episodes from modern Indian history demonstrate how to - and how not to - make a commitment. Commitment
- Cannot be dictated. It is bottom-up.
- Needs a trained team. Some factors.
- Building a trained team takes time. In the case of Manekshaw and his commanders, decades.
- Training means formal accumulation - and dissemination - of lessons learnt from actual experience. The armed forces have many mechanisms for this.
- Teams must be sustainable. People leave. New members have to be inducted.
- Teams need Leadership. Management is needed. Leadership is essential.
- Needs organizational culture; a culture where reasoned dissent is encouraged; not penalized. And "Chamcha-giri" bears no fruit.
Software schedules too need commitment. Organizations that have software projects should adopt the culture of 1971. Sadly, many software companies operate with a 1962 culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment