Bringing governance down to the individual
OF the many “small” initiatives the Army leadership decided to undertake under the Army Transformation Roadmap (ATR), perhaps none would come anywhere near its insistence that governance has to be brought down to the individual, personal level. Behind such insistence, at least two considerations may be cited, since they were often articulated.
The first was practical: Many Army officers out in the field have observed that many of their personnel problems can be traced to the personal lifestyle of the individual soldiers. Many find themselves in complicated situations due to family related problems, let alone personal problems arising from their inability to take good care of their financial and behavioral issues
The second was more conceptual: if the Philippine Army (PA) were to become a “world-class Army,” it will have to do so through Army personnel personally becoming world-class as well. In terms of motivation, training, equipment, and support as well as personal value systems, they will need to be benchmarked against the other Army personnel in the world. Indeed, how can the PA even think of it becoming “world-class” if our Army personnel would not come anywhere close to their counterparts in other Armies in the world. They should be able to hold their heads up high when standing beside these others.
There may have been a good number of other reasons; but the above two were enough to get the Commanding General of the Philippine Army (CGPA) to insist that every individual Army person should have a personal scorecard. Work-related perspectives would need to have pride of place. But other personal perspectives such as educational and professional training advancement, let alone physical fitness and cultural broadening will have to be included, just as social, financial, and moral perspectives should be. The AGSMO got to work on the adaptation of the work-life balance materials from the Institute for Solidarity in Asia, so these could be adapted to the culture and language of the PA.
Using the format adapted to the Army’s own culture and language, AGSMO went through the process of cascading the personal scorecard initiative. Army personnel at all levels, from the CGPA down to the last Army private, had to formulate their own individual version of the personal scorecard. An intensive and extensive internal communication and instructional program had to be undertaken and sustained: Handbooks, pamphlets, and other paraphernalia had to be produced and distributed throughout the Army organization. In the end, a breakthrough result was committed by the PA, of having as many as 60,000 Army personnel — not counting Army officers, who each had to do their own — come up with their own personal scorecard. By August, 2015, the number who submitted their own version of a personal scorecard, again excluding the officers — came to more than 65,000. Target exceeded!
The external auditors who were sent out to the field to check the existence of such submitted scorecards readily verified — and certified — the number of submissions. Many were for real, i.e., they were convincing enough about the understanding of the content placed in the personal scorecard and of the individual soldier’s commitment to deliver performance according to the targets set. But given the huge number involved, the auditors noted several exceptions: A few were exact copies of the others’ scorecards; a handful showed no understanding of what they put into their scorecard; and in many instances, personal scorecards were submitted for the sake of compliance rather than out of deep knowledge and conviction that this would be a tool for personal improvement. The auditors thus made several suggestions on the need for regular updating as well as a review and quality check process. Indeed, continuing follow-up would be key to the success of this initiative. On a score of from 1 to 10, with ten being the highest, the auditors gave the PA a rating of “8.”
However, the auditors noted that the impact from the individual solider having to formulate and submit a personal scorecard has been overwhelmingly positive. Of the sample of Army enlisted personnel actually interviewed by the external auditors, virtually all of them — 99% — agreed with the statement that “the Scorecard provides me the direction, guide, and motivation in pursuing my goals in life.” Even more positive was the feedback from the other stakeholders, e.g. the wife, the immediate supervisor, or member of a local multi-sector governance coalition of the Army. Comments such as: “personal scorecards helped in transforming the negative perception of soldiers”; “the scorecard helped my subordinate become more responsible in performing her duties”; and “my husband became more goal-oriented” were common. These and similar comments poured in to encourage the PA to keep going until this initiative becomes a transformative result for the Army. The impact the external auditors noted on the stakeholders was so overwhelmingly positive that they gave the PA a score of “10” out of ten for the impact of the personal scorecard initiative on PA stakeholdeers.
The Army will need to more fully institutionalize and embed the personal scorecard system such that it becomes a tool for every individual Army person to become a worldclass asset for a world-class Army that the PA is aiming to become by 2028. This program will have to be deepened in the heart and mind of every Army person; it has to become part of their personal DNA.