Army looking at ‘360-degree’ appraisal with inputs from peers, subordinates

Senior officials said the issue was discussed at the Army Commanders’ Conference in May. The Army is learnt to have sought comments from all its Commands on the need for such an appraisal system.

The Army, at present, follows a three-tier hierarchical model for performance appraisal of its personnel. The initiating officer (IO), who is the immediate superior of the person being assessed, writes the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) which includes the medical and disciplinary parameters as well. This report is then reviewed by two of the IO’s senior officers in the reporting structure — the reviewing officer and the senior reviewing officer.

In the case of Junior Commissioned Officers (JCOs) and Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs), the initiating officer is the company commander, the reviewing officer is the Commanding Officer of the unit, and the senior reviewing officer is the brigade commander.

For officers, it is similarly initiated and reviewed by their superiors in the chain of command. For Major Generals, the senior reviewing officer is the Chief of Army Staff.

The Indian Air Force also follows a similar three-tier appraisal system.

Under the “360-degree appraisal” system being discussed within the Army, two models are being considered. The first is a model which has already been adopted by the Navy and involves reciprocal feedback by a subordinate to his IO after the initiation of his ACR.

It also includes online feedback from “system generated random peers and subordinates” before selection boards are conducted, as well as a direct online input to Naval headquarters on the IO’s leadership qualities by the person being assessed, ahead of submission of his confidential report to the IO.

The second model being considered is the “peer group perception model”, which seeks to obtain peer group feedback on the person being assessed. This is on the lines of the current system at various training establishments of the Armed Forces, where officers get assessed by their course mates and contemporaries, from their own as well as other services.

Officials said such data collated centrally over a certain period could be used to carry out a detailed and comprehensive appraisal of a person, including on his general repute and integrity.

The Army has sought views on the viability of both models from its Commands.

While the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), in response to a petition, told the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) last year that it does not employ the “360-degree appraisal” system for civil servants, it had told a parliamentary panel in 2017 that it had revised its guidelines for empanelment, in April 2016, to include multi-source feedback (MSF) from at least five stakeholders, which could be seniors, juniors, peers, external stakeholders and serving secretaries.

A parliamentary standing committee report on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, tabled in Parliament in August 2017, had said this is known as the “360-degree review”, adding that it is the same as MSF. The committee’s report had also called the “360-degree appraisal” system “opaque, non-transparent and subjective”.