Two Havildars and Ten Days to the Competition
You take over a platoon of 34 all ranks, organised in three sections. Havildar A has 14 years' service, is technically the best section commander in the unit, and is informally the man the jawans take their problems to. Havildar B was promoted six months ago after a competitive exam; he is methodical, quieter, and correct on paper. In the last month A has begun mocking B's promotion in front of the men - 'some people get rank from books' - and B has responded by supervising his section minute by minute, re-checking every task, and giving instructions through the section second-in-command instead of directly. Drill scores in B's section have dropped in two of the last three parades. Yesterday a recruit told your platoon havildar-major, informally, that he was made to repeat a drill movement 11 times while the section laughed, and that he does not want to make a formal complaint. The battalion competition is in 10 days and you have entered two teams; you need both A and B performing. One experienced jawan begins two weeks' leave tomorrow and two replacements arrive in three days.
1. Diagnose what is driving A's and B's behaviour, and explain why the drill scores are a symptom rather than the problem.
Read the worked answer
This is a status collision, not a discipline problem. A is an experienced NCO whose authority has always rested on being the man who knows; a younger man's promotion earned by examination implies that knowledge can be acquired without years, which threatens A's standing. Mockery in front of the men is the cheapest way to restore that standing, and it is being rewarded by laughter, so it continues.
B's reaction is the classic response to a public challenge: he cannot win a contest of informal authority, so he substitutes formal control. Supervising minute by minute, re-checking work and routing instructions through a second-in-command all signal 'I do not trust you', which the section reads as distrust of them, not of A. That is why drill scores fall: the section is being asked to perform for a commander who treats them as suspects.
The scores are a lagging indicator. Fix the NCO relationship and they recover; punish the section for the scores and you drive the split deeper. The recruitment of two new men in three days matters too: new joiners adopt whatever norm exists on arrival, so the norm about public ridicule has to change before they arrive, not after.
2. Set out your actions in the first 72 hours, in order, with what you say to each person and what you deliberately do not do.
Read the worked answer
Hour 0-2. A, privately. Not in front of the men, not during a parade. State observed behaviour and its cost without accusation: 'In the last month I have heard you comment on Havildar B's rank three times in front of the section. It is making his job impossible and it is teaching the recruits that rank is a joke.' Ask for his read of the situation and listen. Then the standard, once: disagreements go to me; rank is not discussed in front of the men. Give him something that uses his experience - competition marksmanship coaching - so his status is rebuilt on competence, not on B's expense.
Hour 2-6. B, privately. Build one winnable task with clear, written authority: he owns the section's weapon-handling serial for the competition, and I will judge it, not re-check it behind him. Tell him plainly I will not allow him to be undermined, and that over-supervising is now the bigger risk to his section.
Day 1. All ranks, two minutes. Standards, no names: corrections are made to the person, not to an audience; anyone who has a problem with a decision brings it up the chain.
Day 1. The recruit, privately. Confirm no reprisal, hear him out, and record the conversation. Do not stage a public apology.
Do not: announce the incident to the platoon, humiliate A in return, or trade the complaint away for competition results.
3. How do you build a platoon that performs in 10 days, and what is your duty regarding the recruit's informal complaint?
Read the worked answer
Structure forces cooperation where exhortation will not. Over the next 72 hours:
- Give A and B one event to co-plan with divided ownership: A sets the standard, B runs the serial and reports. Both names go on the result.
- Score by section, never by individual, so helping a struggling man is in everyone's interest.
- Institute a 10-minute after-action after every parade: what worked, what did not, one fix. A speaks first, B second, and neither comments on the other.
- On arrival, the two replacements are placed one per section with a named buddy for the first two weeks.
- At the competition, credit B publicly for method and A publicly for standards. One-sided credit restarts the collision.
On the complaint: the fact that it is informal does not make it optional. An assisting officer's duty is to see the matter handled under the applicable procedure, not to trade it for competition performance or to decide that the recruit's reluctance settles it. Record it, tell the recruit what happens next, protect him from reprisal, and tell the subedar-major and company commander. If you suppress it now, it resurfaces later with a broken recruit attached.