Serve To Lead or Serve To Manage or ....

Discussion in 'Officers' started by ExPara, Sep 25, 2005.

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. Re: Can we please discuss real matters for a change!
    Posted: 24 Sep 2005 16:31


  2. Thank you ExPara for keeping this alive.

    But does Serve to Lead still have meaning I wonder. We all know its definition of course, it's,

    [align=center]"Being at the front of the queue for the bad things and at the back of the queue for the good things".[/align]

    I have tried to abide by that. Some things can never change even in a regime where the budget holder is king.


  3. Being able to manage a seemingly never ending shrinking budget is one of the tasks one has to get to grips with the further one escalates the promotional ladder. Tough decisions have to be made and someone has to make them. Taking responsibility when times are tough is part and parcel of being in a responsible position.

    Money, unfortunately, knows no guilt, sense of National pride or personal sacrifice. If it did, no doubt it would wonder why the UK, reportedly the 5th wealthiest nation on earth, would lead one of its greatest institutions to become so demoralised.

    Until this happens though, we will have to continue doing the best we can.

  4. For what it is worth:

    The MOD is one of the few government organisations that thrives due to the large number of its professional operators being involved in policy, plans and financial decisions. There are very few doctors, nurses and dentists in the Department of Health guiding the future of teh NHS, likewise very few policemen and immigration officers in the Home Office. How lucky are we that we can have an influence on the future of our department and the defence of the realm.

    The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not like the Armed Forces, they are a drain on the Treasury and do not win votes. As a Chancellor and as a politician we are not interesting to him. However, we must be realistic to note that no other political party in government would be any better.

    Budget Management is only one part of the increasing burden on middle and senior management in the Armed Forces, sadly it is a get on and do situation, which will remain until the Germans are outside Calais, again.

    Are we serving to lead? (worthy of a dissertation in itself) In my opinion we have to understand that if our soldiers do not trust that we are doing the right thing for them, or the best for them, then we are failing to serve them. Loyalty works both ways, to do what our superiors instruct us and to represent the interests of our subordinates to our superiors. If we cannot do that then we should step aside and no longer serve.

    As to the title: you can manage without leading, but you need to be able to manage in order to lead.