A study of military operations other than war (MOOTW) and human resource management (HRM) at the Ministry of Defence

Abstract

Since ancient times, military operations have been closely related with the founding and governing of the nation. The missions of the Royal Thai Armed Forces are considered to be the major source of state power and political power, with the RTAF constituting the state’s most important institution for maintaining national sovereignty. The military has participated in a wide variety of activities to create stability and security within the nation, including attempts to change the use of the state’s power. On numerous occasions, the military has been directly involved in defending the country and its territory, as well as in boosting economic conditions, which are vital to the sustained prosperity of the nation. In developing countries, it has always been rather difficult and controversial to define what types of operations belong to the armed forces and what do not. Since the establishment of the country, military leaders have not only been responsible for commanding the armed forces in protecting the country’s integrity, but also for looking after the well-being of the people. Thus, the nation’s survival, prosperity, and military operations are inextricably interwoven. Based on the security problems that emerged during the Cold War, the Ministry of Defence recruited a large number of military personnel. This archaic conception is responsible for the excessive number of personnel in the RTAF, causing not only an ever-increasing budget, but also problems pertaining to human resource management (HRM). Despite the fact that human resources are viewed as a form of capital investment and represent the most important factor in the success of the armed forces’ operations, the Ministry of Defence has no specific unit that is responsible for the designation of personnel management policy. At the same time, the armed forces do not possess a plan to deal with the personnel demands created by MOOTW. Furthermore, the armed forces have not arranged for a separate and/or special workforce unit to perform MOOTW. The recruitment and selection of military personnel to conduct MOOTW were done based on the regular field of work or core function of existing personnel. Since MOOTW are always viewed as support missions, performance evaluation and assessment at both the individual and organizational levels are conducted either in a perfunctory manner or, to make matters worse, completely overlooked. Training and development are understood to be an important factor in conducting MOOTW; however, training and development are manifested in the form of learning by doing, which is normally practiced in performing most of the army’s missions relating to MOOTW. For many decades, the development of the armed forces has focused on the “quantity” rather than on the “quality” of military personnel. Thus, if there were an improvement in the armed forces, making them more compact in terms of size, accompanied by an attempt to attract high-quality personnel, there would have to be a concomitant attempt to develop the potential of army staff, to increase their capabilities, to be able to handle various kinds of work, and to effectively work as a team. From the study, it was found that fringe benefits in the form of tools and equipment, transportation facilities, and the camaraderie of the working environment, proved to be genuine motivators in conducting MOOTW. Even though the research revealed that money was not the main motivating factor for military personnel in conducting tasks related to MOOTW, it was still important to the government to find ways to adjust military compensation that reflected the reality of an increasingly high cost of living so that military personnel could experience higher morale and lead a happy life with dignity and pride. In addition, the armed forces must enjoy the “genuine support” of the people; MOOTW will never become successful without the unfailing cooperation of the general populace. In order to gain the support of the public, it is important that MOOTW must be legitimate and responsive to public needs. Moreover, society should have a say in designing and/or shaping the type of armed forces it would most like to have.