Bollox.....I always thought that I'd stumbled across a unique concept and with that, a book or 2, a PHD, maybe even a knighthood....Arrise Sir Sundog
Didn't realise that it was already an academic concept...oh well...back to working for a living
... and never forget the Peter Pyramid, which looks at hierarchies and bureaucracy. It demonstrates that organisations, given half a chance, form organisational structures based on pyramids resting on their points!
The ultimate paradox in designing a successful leadership mechanism is trying to balance the needs of the organisation against the motivation of the individual. Making a distinction between desirable and undesirable traits in the selection of leaders is extremely difficult in practice as much depends on context. History is scattered with examples of individuals who were extremely successful in one situation, but useless in another.
Much of the issue is down to the system used to "breed" and select leaders. The problem is that such systems need to be maintained for extended periods so that there is trust and belief in the system, however the longer a system exists, the more likely it will become gamed and corrupted. Everything becomes a "Game of Thrones" in the end. The Guards and the Greenjackets/Rifles have been at this forever...!
The best solution seems to be to try and keep these systems in some form of dynamic tension, so that opposing needs can interact and reach sensible short term goals without spinning the system completely off track. You can see these opposing structures all over the military.. Officers v NCOs, Teeth Arms and Services, Army v Navy (...lets leave the juniors out for the moment!). They fight cat and dog during normal jogging, but when sh1t hits rotating surfaces, just get on with it...
Regrettably, I feel much of the balance has been lost over recent decades, and that the military is in danger of spinning off uncontrollably. Some of the factors I think are at play here are:
1. Monoculturism. Working organisms consist of many cultures and specialisations. The trick is to get them to cooperate and not compete. The military has officer and nco cultures which need to dynamically co-exist for the organism to work. Centralising and imposing order from too high a level destroys such activity. Diversity is not just for inner cities you know!
2. Too much civilianisation of military functions leading to loss of corporate knowledge and experience. I have no issue with putting people into specialist roles for extended periods, however putting an individual who is subject to a separate command chain does not work.
3. Centralisation of personnel management functions. Individuals need to be led in hierarchies. Placing selection and control functions outside that hierarchy both weakens it by depriving it of the practice of wielding authority, and empowers those who would wish to undermine it. HR breaks the two golden rules of divide and conquer and separation of power and authority. Leaders must be allowed to lead, and also to lead leaders..
4. Cult of the Amateur. For some reason, we seem to hate "experts", and try to either ignore them or get rid of them. Organisations need experts to make decisions, and need to have means and strategies to grow and retain them. Some experts may be leaders, some may not. The idea that you can do without experts and buy in expertise when you need it is generally a myth!
So to my point.. Let Royal do whatever Royal want if it works for them. They are very good at what they do and it seems to work. However, let us not necessarily assume that it will work elsewhere. Do not for example, let Royal anywhere near logistics.. Like the Rocks, they are very good at screwing stuff from their rich parents! Royal is an expensive luxury.. never forget this!
There are times when making "Military Mayonnaise" has not been a good idea. I give you the Royal Logistic Corps as a prime example! Mixing the supply and transport functions may make sense from the POV of an outsider, but the reality is far from this. They have precious little in common both in culture and expertise and placing them under a unified command structure is unlikely to prove fruitful in the long term. From my perspective, it makes as much sense as amalgamating RE and RA on the basis that they are "Not Infantry".