Currently, the Indian Army is facing a shortage of 11,238 officers, a huge 24.1 percent of its authorization of 46,615 officers. The other two services face similar problems. The situation seems to be worsening as is evident from the fact that only 172 of the available 300 seats have been taken up for entry into the National Defence Academy (NDA) recently.

The current state of affairs is certainly a cause for major concern both for the government and the services. A number of studies have been carried out to identify reasons for under-subscription of the available vacancies. Unfortunately, most studies have concentrated on establishing linkages between tough service life and inadequate financial packages. They have concluded that the services are unable to attract suitable youth due to better emoluments offered by the corporate world. If these studies are to be believed, a massive hike in pay packets would solve the problem and attract youth in droves.

Better emoluments to the service officers are certainly justified, but the real reasons for the insufficient intake lie elsewhere. Preconceived peripheral issues should not be permitted to obscure an objective analysis of the issues involved. Corrective steps can be initiated only after the root-causes are diagnosed diligently. This article focuses on the issues related to entry into the NDA as that is the primary mode of induction of officers.

Two points are commonly made to explain lesser intake—first, insufficient numbers of candidates apply for entry into the NDA and, secondly, their standard is not up to the mark. To begin with, we must get our facts rights. Response to the NDA is not poor at all. (See accompanying box for details of applicants for the five year period 2002–2007. On an average 94221 candidates appeared for each NDA course.)

431 candidates applied for each NDA vacancy, whereas the corresponding number for the combined civil services was only 319. Therefore, it is totally incorrect to aver that the response to the NDA is inadequate.

Applicant to Post Ratio (APR) is a standard index used to indicate the number of candidates aspiring for the available posts through respective examinations. As shown in the box on Applicant to Post Ratio, 431 candidates applied for each NDA vacancy, whereas the corresponding number for the combined civil services was only 319. Therefore, it is totally incorrect to aver that the response to the NDA is inadequate.

As regards the standard of the candidates, it is inconceivable that the services can not get the required material when there are 431 candidates for each vacancy. Either the quality of Indian youth is abysmally poor or there are flaws in our selection system. One refuses to believe the first. Adequate number of bright and above average candidates still aspire for a career in the services. It is unfair to brand them unfit or riff-raff (as some senior officers tend to call them). Apparently, it is our selection system that warrants a re-look.

Infirmities of the Selection Process

After clearing the written examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission, candidates are screened by the Services Selection Boards (SSB) based on three-pronged testing system—interview, tests of psychology and group testing. The three assessors use independent techniques to test individuals. During the final conference they exchange information to define the personality of the candidate.

The whole selection process is negative in approach and is directed towards finding limitations/angularities in a candidate’s personality. Positives are ignored and negatives are highlighted.

The interview is conducted by President/Deputy President of SSB, with the objective of probing for ‘clues to behaviour’ through adroit suggestions, comments and questioning to obtain inputs regarding strengths and shortcomings of the candidate. Psychological assessment is based on projective tests. These include intelligence test, thematic appreciation test, word association test, situation reaction test and self-description. Group testing is based on the premise that a group is a man’s most natural environment and his behaviour in a group will be his natural behaviour.

Some of the major areas of concern of the SSB process have been discussed in the following sections.

Proclivity for Rejection

The whole selection process is negative in approach and is directed towards finding limitations/angularities in a candidate’s personality. Positives are ignored and negatives are highlighted. As no human is perfect, most candidates get rejected for one reason or the other. Inconsistent/incomplete evidence or inconclusive assessment also provides adequate justification for rejecting a candidate. Even during the final conference, all three assessors give out limitations that they have noticed in a candidate. The whole exercise is directed towards finding enough reasons to reject a candidate rather than carrying out an appraisal of his good traits for selection.

Some assessors suffer from ‘error of contagious bias’, in that they get biased by their own likes and dislikes and tend to judge candidates’ traits by their own standards, and by comparison, without appreciating that attitudes and ethics have changed with time. This is normally referred to as ‘error due to false assumptions’. What was considered unethical not so long ago may have come to be accepted in the society as a fact of life now.

It is an established fact that an assessor makes up to 10 value judgments on a candidate in the first 30 seconds of an interaction. It influences further course of the assessment unless an assessor exercises due caution. Unfortunately, many assessors tend to develop an attitude of their own infallibility. They believe that they have the expertise to judge suitability of a candidate in a few minutes. Such assessors tend to make up their mind at the outset, and the subsequent assessment gets reduced to a mere formality devoid of purpose and objectivity. This is the single most important reason for distortions in the whole process.

Attitude of Playing Safe

Most assessors suffer from the ‘error of central tendency’ syndrome, in that, they hesitate to give clear-cut assessments and keep most candidates as border-liners. Candidates not falling in the category of Adequate or Inadequate zones are considered border-liners. This is primarily due to their lack of confidence in their own assessment. They fear that their assessment may be at variance with the assessment of other two assessors and that they may stand out as the ‘odd-man’. Therefore, they prefer to keep a candidate as a border-liner and leave final decision making to the final conference which is attended by all the three assessors interviewers, group testing officer and psychologist. During the conference, they watch the trend of discussion and generally go with the majority opinion.

Border-liners form a whopping 36 percent of all candidates. It implies that the whole selection process is unable to determine suitability of 36 percent candidates. It is certainly a cause for concern as it reflects weaknesses of the assessors and their inability to perceive the required qualities with accuracy.

Inadequate Importance to Potentiality and Trainability

Potentiality refers to the qualities which may not be fully developed at the time of selection but the candidate shows adequate potential for their subsequent development with facilitating environment and training. On the other hand, trainability is ability to assimilate training and acquire/develop required quality traits. Although the basic attitudes do not change appreciably, there are a number of developable qualities like power of expression, emotional development, width of interest, drive and insight.

Also read: The Chinese are coming!

The present day candidates come from varied background and may not have had the opportunity to be exposed to many facilities, whereas most candidates came from public schools earlier. Therefore, potentiality and trainability have become important factors to be considered while assessing candidates. As gauging of potentiality and trainability is much more difficult than to determine current standards, there is a need to carry out an appraisal of the selection process and impart required training to the selection staff.