Leadership Doctrine

Discussion in 'Staff College and Staff Officers' started by Ozduke, Sep 27, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I'm doing some work on a tool to assist young officers out here in Oz put together their personal Leadership Philosophy. The Doctrine we have here is pretty good. I've had a read of the US FM 6-22 etc but would be interested in seeing what is the current chat in the UK. I read somewhere that Comd RMAS had been directed to revise the extant document?
    Any assistance would be gratefully received.
  2. OzDuke,

    There is no ratified Army leadership doctrine document. Shock.

    Previous Comdts tried and failed to get a key document written and published. I have a hard copy draft from 2006 which has still not seen the light of day. The reason they tried was logical: leadership is mentioned in almost every other doctrine pamphlet, but there does not appear to be a coherent doctrine from LCpl to General.

    There is a Defence Leadership Centre document "Leadership in Defence" which is aimed at Senior Civil Servants and other grownups.
  3. It doesn't help that the word 'leadership' covers a range of sins - you only have to look at the number of books on it in Amazon.co.uk to see that. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.....
  4. Plenty of resources to read. The US FM reads well and I know other armies have equally good doctrine.

    I only hope that all the work done by John Adair is not wasted. Here's the link, old I know, that talks of a Drawing up of a definitive leadership document.


    I'm also just reading Patrick Little's 2009 RUSI paper...like it.

  5. dockers

    dockers Old-Salt Book Reviewer

  6. Cheers Dockers.
  7. Does a chap still "nudge" on such a site, or do we call it some thing else now?
  8. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    1. Display the trappings, postures and gestures of dominance
    2. If challenged, threaten your subordinates aggressively
    3. Use your superior information to outwit them
    4. If that fails, do not shrink from forcibly overpowering them
    5. Stamp out their silly squabbles
    6. Buy off your immediate subordinates with status symbols
    7. Do not let anybody else persecute the weak
    8. Direct group choice of social activities
    9. Occasionally jolly the bottom ones along
    10. Be seen to defend the Empire
    Liberally paraphrased from the 'Ten Commandments of Dominance'
    (Desmond Morris, 'The Human Zoo')
  9. We do have a doctrine (of sorts) for ORs; it's called CLM. 'Command, Leadership and Management' abilities and skills must therefore be assumed for officers, as it's not a formally recorded TO on any career courses afaik (other than the CC). Hmm.
  10. Maybe the original request has expired but anyway...

    Don't know if you down in Oz have also suffered from the American tinkering with the semantics of leadership?

    Being old school, I stick with how Bill Slim saw it:

    That said, the good old Sandhurst publication 'Serve to Lead' (new version) is still IMHO essential reading for cadets/subbies. Maybe someone around here can provide a link if it is online (otherwise message me and I'll email you a copy - 240KB)

    You may also find the RAF - Leadership 2nd Edition useful.

    Oh yes, and if I may add that I am also in agreement with German Captain Adolf Von Schell when he states in the book 'Battle Leadership':

    That's what the AOSB is supposed to be about. Selecting those with the gift of leadership. If you ain't got it ...
  11. Well, based on the dismal performance of our Army in AFG and Eye-Rack, as well as in Procurement in the last 30 years, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the folks we've been busy promoting to the top haven't got "It".

    Brit Army doesn't have a coherent Leadership doctrine: of course it doesn't - to have such a thing would inevitably point up the massive differences between battalions, let alone capbadges, in the way 'leadership' is exercised.

    There's also the scary prospect that - looked at critically - what is approved of as 'leadership' in some units might turn out to be something less impressive?
  12. Observing from out here in the colonies we have observed with horror/shock/confusion/disappointment. Can't tell what exactly has gone wrong but perhaps one needs to return to the beginning.

    Hugh Murray was involved with the early 'more formal' WOSB from 1940 and his document Transformation of Selection Procedures is probably the place to start.

    If I recall correctly there were substantial changes made to the Sandhurst system in the 70s the effect of which would only impact on the greater military decades later. Any study been done on that?