Peer Appraisal System in the Army: Comparative Analysis & Critique

By Brig Sarvesh Dutt Dangwal (Retd)

The Army has recently sought inputs from various Commands regarding the potential implementation of a peer appraisal system, inspired by the Navy’s model introduced in 2023. The Navy, with approximately 23.50% the number of officers compared to the Army, finds it relatively easier for its Personnel Branch to manage this system than it would be for the Military Secretary’s Branch in the Army. Despite the various considerations inherent in a peer appraisal system, which are detailed in the article below, the sheer number of officers in the Army would make managing such a system overwhelming at multiple levels, culminating at the Military Secretary’s Branch in the Integrated Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence (Army).

In the Navy, all officers being considered for promotion now undergo a peer review by their colleagues and subordinates as part of a new “transformative 360-degree appraisal mechanism”. This initiative is aimed at providing a more comprehensive and balanced assessment of officers’ performance.

Reflecting on historical perspectives, a similar concept was discussed by Lt General K Sundarji when he commanded XXXIII Corps in 1979. During his closing comments at a War Game in Kalimpong, he addressed the issue of officers becoming overly deferential to their superiors. He criticised the top-down appraisal system for fostering a culture of sycophancy, where officers would ingratiate themselves with their superiors to secure favourable reports. He famously remarked, “The Company Commander bumsucks the CO, the CO the Brigade Commander, and he the Divisional Commander, and so on.”

The Army is acutely aware of this detrimental culture and is considering experimenting with a 360-degree appraisal mechanism involving peer and subordinate feedback. However, there are significant concerns that such a system could exacerbate the problem. There is a fear that this approach might lead to seniors currying favour with their juniors to receive positive evaluations, further entrenching a culture of sycophancy.

Given these concerns, the proposal for a peer and subordinate 360-degree appraisal mechanism might ultimately be rejected for fear of worsening the existing situation. Below is a critique of the proposal based on available material.

The peer appraisal system, while offering valuable insights, presents several disadvantages:

1. Bias and Subjectivity: Personal relationships heavily influence peer reviews. Friendships, rivalries, and conflicts can lead to biased assessments, undermining the objectivity of the evaluations.
2. Groupthink and Conformity: In military environments, there is a risk of groupthink, where peers conform to dominant opinions rather than providing independent evaluations. This reduces the effectiveness of honest feedback.
3. Lack of Comprehensive Perspective: Peers may not fully understand each other’s responsibilities and contributions, leading to incomplete or inaccurate evaluations.
4. Pressure and Retaliation: There may be pressure to provide positive reviews to avoid conflict or retaliation, distorting the true picture of performance.
5. Undermining Authority and Morale: Peer evaluations can undermine the authority of superior officers, leading to confusion and reduced respect for the chain of command.
6. Administrative Burden: Managing peer appraisals requires significant resources to gather, process, and act on feedback, which can be burdensome.
7. Conflict of Interest: Peers competing for promotions may provide biased evaluations to improve their standing.
8. Impact on Team Dynamics: Negative feedback can create friction and resentment, impacting teamwork and cooperation.

Similarly, junior appraisal systems, where subordinates evaluate their superiors, also face significant challenges:

1. Lack of Experience and Perspective: Juniors may not fully understand the roles and responsibilities of their superiors, leading to evaluations that do not appreciate the complexity of higher-ranking positions.
2. Bias and Subjectivity: Personal biases can affect juniors’ evaluations, influenced by how much they like or dislike their superiors.
3. Fear of Retribution: Even with confidentiality, juniors may fear negative consequences for critical feedback, leading to overly positive evaluations.
4. Undermining Authority and Hierarchy: Allowing juniors to evaluate superiors can undermine the traditional military hierarchy and authority.
5. Inconsistent Standards: Juniors may lack awareness of the standards and criteria for evaluating superiors, resulting in unreliable appraisals.
6. Impact on Morale and Discipline: The evaluation process can strain relationships and reduce unit cohesion and morale.
7. Administrative Burden: Significant oversight is required to ensure fairness and effective use of feedback.
8. Potential for Manipulation: Superiors might try to curry favour with juniors to receive positive evaluations.
9. Limited Feedback Utility: Juniors’ feedback may not always be constructive or actionable due to their limited perspective.
10. Encouraging Negative Culture: If not managed properly, this system can foster a culture of criticism rather than constructive feedback.

While the idea of a 360-degree appraisal mechanism that includes peer and subordinate feedback is appealing for its comprehensive approach, significant challenges must be addressed. The Army must ensure that the system promotes fairness, accuracy, and transparency without exacerbating existing issues of bias and sycophancy. A balanced and well-managed implementation, possibly starting with pilot programmes and incorporating continuous improvement based on feedback, may offer the best path forward.