ARmy Rumour SErvice

Sorry, I can't accept that. The British Army is a reservoir of excellence that has nothing to be taught by anyone, surely?

reservoir? dank, smelly and stagnant?

Originally Posted by Stonker

With the greatest respect to Bill Slim, and indeed to all those who have posted on this thread so far, the simple fact is that Leading calls for different talents, and different techniques, at various levels, and in different contexts.

If you apply one approach to leadership at all levels, things get fucked up.

One requirement, and only one, is constant at all levels: selection and maintenance of the aim.

Try and run the MoD procurement system in the same way that you might run a rifle company, and you are toast.

Our so-called senior 'Leaders' are familiar with the former, but institutionalised into thinking in terms of 30-month appointments as the way to the stars, they incapable of thinking (let alone acting) in the long-term interests of the UK.

In essence, strategic 'leadership' in the MoD is exercised by folk who have spent their whole lives NOT learning how to do the jobs to which (as Generals) they have been apointed.

Jobs in which management thinking is as critical as strategic leadership skills, which (as this thread clearly demonstrates) our 21st Century Army simply doesn't value.

I suggest that (thanks to the yanks) we see the semantics around the word 'leadership' being all screwed up.

Bill Slim spoke of the difference between 'management' and 'leadership' and that was way back then. He was correct.

When you speak of "strategic 'leadership' in the MoD" I don't whether to laugh or cry. Has it not dawned on serving soldiers that the source of their problems lies in the MoD (meaning that obscenely large group of - civilian - civil servants and a handful of captive - but willing - soldiers who get to mess with things beyond their capabilities with most often catastrophic results).

Where is a Cromwell when he is so desperately needed?

Sandhurst is staffing leadership doctrine (and has be doing so for a very long time), but has suffered repeated reviews as every member of the Army Board has a slightly different view. Until they produce the accepted Army product, I find the value based leadership stuff coming out of the Infantry Training Centre very useful. It is certainly an improvement on Adair's team/task/individual and reflects the benefits of the core values: fundamentally leadership in the Army is comparatively easy as those 'being led' support the whole process (unlike the Civil Service).

WG

Originally Posted by Once_a_soldier

I suggest that (thanks to the yanks) we see the semantics around the word 'leadership' being all screwed up.

Bill Slim spoke of the difference between 'management' and 'leadership' and that was way back then. He was correct.[snip]

If our military cannot understand contemporary theory on leadership and management, it is not because it is incomprehensible (my wife has recently completed a module on Leadership and Management for her studies toward a nursing degree, and had no difficulty understanding any of it), it is more likely that they do not make the effort to understand anything that does not conform with their current opinion, even if that opinion cannot be clearly articulated by them.

As for management - as I remember our Army, the expression "we don't need any of that management bollox" was a commonplace. Officers would rather 'crack on' with even the most complex challenge, without having the first idea of how to deal with it, rather than look outside and import an appropriately structured, proven approach from another environment.

I'd characterise that as intellectual laziness and a distinct lack of imagination.

But that's just me: mebbe.

Originally Posted by WildGoose

Sandhurst is staffing leadership doctrine (and has be doing so for a very long time), but has suffered repeated reviews as every member of the Army Board has a slightly different view. Until they produce the accepted Army product, I find the value based leadership stuff coming out of the Infantry Training Centre very useful. It is certainly an improvement on Adair's team/task/individual and reflects the benefits of the core values: fundamentally leadership in the Army is comparatively easy as those 'being led' support the whole process (unlike the Civil Service).

WG

Are you really suggesting that training in (the latest civilian fad) 'value based leadership' will improve the quality of military leadership in battle?

The yanks learned the following the hard way:

The dictum of "good management is good leadership", itself erroneous, became perverted even more into the belief that an officer could literally manage his men to their deaths in support of a mission. - Gabriel, Richard A. and Savage, Paul A., Crisis in Command, Mismanagement in the Army, 1978

Originally Posted by Stonker

If our military cannot understand contemporary theory on leadership and management, it is not because it is incomprehensible (my wife has recently completed a module on Leadership and Management for her studies toward a nursing degree, and had no difficulty understanding any of it), it is more likely that they do not make the effort to understand anything that does not conform with their current opinion, even if that opinion cannot be clearly articulated by them.

As for management - as I remember our Army, the expression "we don't need any of that management bollox" was a commonplace. Officers would rather 'crack on' with even the most complex challenge, without having the first idea of how to deal with it, rather than look outside and import an appropriately structured, proven approach from another environment.

I'd characterise that as intellectual laziness and a distinct lack of imagination.

But that's just me: mebbe.

Can't speak for what is taught on nursing degree courses but would suggest that those who do not have leadership ability can not be taught to be military leaders. Some organisations seem to make plenty of money pretending they can (in a civilian context).

Looking at officers to illustrate this point is not helpful as all have passed an AOSB and have some degree of leadership ability.

It is better to study how promotions happen in the ranks where there is no expectation that everyone has leadership potential. What percentage of squaddies ever get promoted? Like on an AOSB (but over a much longer time) individuals with a combination of leadership skills and personal skill at arms are identified and prepared for promotion. Mistakes are made (as with officer selections) and not all make it to sergeant and beyond.

Take the example of the captain of a rugby team who rallies his exhausted team in the last minutes of a game to come from behind to win. That is the natural leadership you can't learn from a book or on a course.

Now change that scenario from a rugby team to a platoon in battle it further illustrates the point that leadership has a spiritual dimension which - as you can imagine - comes from within and not through book learning.

When you are commanding, leading men under conditions where physical exhaustion and privations must be ignored, where the lives of men may be sacrificed, then, the efficiency of your leadership will depend only to a minor degree on your tactical ability. - General George C. Marshall, speaking to the first graduating class of the Officer Candidate School, Fort Benning, Sept 1941; quoted in Roger H. Nye, The Challenge of Command, 1986

Originally Posted by Once_a_soldier

Are you really suggesting that training in (the latest civilian fad) 'value based leadership' will improve the quality of military leadership in battle?

The yanks learned the following the hard way:

Originally Posted by Once_a_soldier

[snip] of a game to come from behind to win. That is the natural leadership you can't learn from a book or on a course.

Now change that scenario from a rugby team to a platoon in battle it further illustrates the point that leadership has a spiritual dimension which - as you can imagine - comes from within and not through book learning.

You're simply presenting an example of the traditional Brit military attitudes to which referred earlier, that is to say:

(a) Management is a bad thing.

(b) Leadership is a spiritual (God-given?) thing, and cannot be taught (but playing character-building sports like rugby helps - in some unexplained way)

(c) Military leadership is 'unique' - in this instance, no comparison with Nursing, but no doubt you'd say the same for any other profession - so, no point even bothering to look over the fence.

Now, there is truth in the idea that some individuals (Slim would be an excellent example) whose innate gifts for leadership are very strong. There is also truth in the notion that leadership skills can be developed and honed - but only if the individual is inclined to reflect on their own leadership practices, in order to best understand what works well and in which scenarios. Again, Uncle Bill was more inclined to read widely than are most officers, and his tone in many parts of Defeat Into Victory well illustrates my point about reflecting on what works best, and when.

I'm not arguing by any means that book-learning alone creates leaders, but without book-learning, I'm a bit pushed to see how the individual broadens their understanding of the world beyond the confines of their narrow personal experience; the curse, I would say, of contemporary Brit leadership development is that it has commonly encouraged no more than the latter (I'm minded in particular of a CO of mine, who was universally known as "Old When-I" ),

As a consequence of this limited ability to learn, the Brit military has paid a high price in blood, treasure and credibility on operations in Eye-Rack and Afghanistan, and in treasure and credibility in just about every aspect of the peacetime management of its affairs, from size-and-shape of the military to cost and value for money in procurement.