Leadership, Management and Command:
The Officer’s trinity.†
W B Howieson & H Kahn
The acts of leading, managing and commanding (based on either philosophy or practice) have had to
adapt throughout the history of the Royal Air Force, in concert with changing environments; these acts
will have to change again in the 21st century and will require new skills, new attitudes and differing
perspectives of the Officer’s trinity.
INTRODUCTION
There is a plethora of literature on leadership, management and command. In the civilian (business)
market, there are – literally – thousands of books on leadership; management; and leadership and
management as a ‘dual’ concept. However, there are no books in the business market on what the
military call ‘command’.1
In contrast, in the military domain, there are an equal amount of books on leadership; command; and
leadership and command together. However, very little has been written – to date – about military
management; this represents a very serious limitation. New business practices and performance
management systems now require capable senior managers and leaders and private sector organizations
have found clear strategic benefit in providing a structured approach to the developmental needs of
senior executives.
Although it is recognized that leadership, management and command are closely related (especially in
the military environment), comparatively little has been written on the nature and practice on the 3
subjects as ‘a state of being three’. This view has also been recognised in the recent Defence Training
Review Report where it states: “The pressures of limited resources and increased accountability have
placed new demands on Ministry of Defence leaders, as has the challenge of leading a more diverse
workforce…in parallel, our studies showed that we must do more to prepare our people effectively, in
the post-Strategic Defence Review environment, and, especially to improve management and
leadership development, both civilian and military”.
LEADERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND COMMAND – THE EXISTING SITUATION
Although military doctrine exists currently on leadership, management and command (for example
British Defence Doctrine (BDD)2 and the Army Doctrine Publication – Volume 2: Command (ADP)3),
it is – in places – limited. Indeed, the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force (RAF) do not have any singleService doctrinal publications on this theme, at present. Moreover, the emphasis – in the tri-Service
arena – is clearly on command as the prominent component of the trinity and this is echoed in the
teachings of the Junior Officers Command Course, the Joint Services Command and Staff College and
the Higher Command and Staff Course.
Therefore, most Officers hold a basic definition of each component of this trinity and indeed, how they
are related to each other; this basic inter-relationship is shown in Figure 1.0.
†
In this context, ‘trinity’ refers to the state of being three and it is not intended to replace or substitute
The Holy Trinity.
1
Figure 1.0: A Simple Interrelationship between Command, Leadership and Management
WHAT EXACTLY IS COMMAND?
"One of the least controversial things that can be said about command and control is that it is poorly
understood and subject to wildly different interpretation. The term can mean almost everything from
military computers to the art of generalship; whatever the user wishes it to mean."4
Kenneth Moll
So what exactly is command then? In the military literature, there are a vast amount of definitions of
command.5 Indeed, one-third of the United Kingdom Doctrine for Joint and Multinational Operations
is dedicated to Command.6,7 Furthermore, in the Queen’s Regulations for the RAF,8 the concept and act
of commanding is explained at length; however, no formal definition for command exists. Moreover,
command is also different at each level of war9 and this task becomes all the more difficult in joint and
multi-national operations, where senior commanders may have to impose their will, in an atmosphere
of political, legal and even moral confusion.
In addition, the UK Glossary of Terms and Definitions currently gives 5 definitions of command: 10

The authority vested in an individual of the AFs, for the direction, coordination and control of
military forces.

An order given by a commander; that is, the will of the commander expressed for the purpose of
bringing about a particular action.

A unit and organization or an area under the command of an individual.

To dominate by field or weapon fire or by observation from a superior position.

To exercise command.
Therefore, to address command properly, it must be considered on 3 separate, but related, dimensions.
(1)
Legal and Process.
(2)
Individual Command.
2
(3)
Organizational Command.
LEGAL AND PROCESS
Firstly, command has a legal and constitutional status, as codified in the Queen’s Regulations. In the
Queen’s Regulations for the RAF, it states that at the highest level: "The government and command of
each of the Services is vested in Her Majesty the Queen, who has charged the Secretary of State with
general responsibility for the defence of the Realm and established a Defence Council having command
and administration over Her Armed Forces;” and, in turn, Commanders in Chiefs who: "in conjunction
with other duties are operationally responsible to the Defence Council for command of personnel in
their area". Therefore, command is vested in a commander by higher authority and gives him direction
(often encapsulated in a mission) that assigns forces to him, to accomplish that mission.
The concept of authority requires further definition: traditionalists define authority as ‘the right to
command and to induce compliance.’ They regard authority as a central feature of the structure of
formal organizations that ‘prescribe expectations that certain individuals should exert control and
direction over others within defined areas of competence.’ In this context, authority involves the right
and freedom to use the ‘power of command’ and ultimately to enforce obedience; whilst a commander
can devolve specific authority to subordinates to decide and to act within their own areas of delegated
responsibility, a commander retains overall responsibility for his command.
This theme is espoused further in the Queen’s Commissioning Scroll, where it states:
"And we do hereby Command them (Officers, Airmen and Airwomen) to obey you as their superior
Officer and you to observe and follow such Orders and Directions as from time to time you shall
receive from us, or any Superior Officer, according to the Rules and Discipline of War, in the
pursuance of the Trust hereby reposed in you".
INDIVIDUAL COMMAND
Secondly, ‘the exercise of command’ includes the process by which a commander makes decisions,
impresses his will upon, and transmits (i.e. tells) his intention to his subordinates. It, therefore,
encompasses the authority, responsibility and duty11 to act. Therefore, individual command – at all
levels – is defined as the art of decision-making, motivating and directing all ranks into actions to
accomplish missions, whilst at the same time maintaining accountability and control.
In this context, accountability and control require further analysis. Accountability is a corollary to
both responsibility and authority; it involves a liability and obligation to answer to a superior for the
proper user of delegated responsibility, authority and resources. Thus, he who delegates responsibility
should grant sufficient authority to a subordinate for him to carry out his task; the subordinate,
meanwhile, remains accountable to his superior for its execution.
In addition, Armed Forces often use the acronym C3I (command, control, communication and
intelligence) and the addition of ‘computers’ to the list of Cs to produce C4. These definitions apply to
command at every level: grand strategic, military strategic, operational and tactical. The German
sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) was one of the most prolific and influential sociologists of the
20th Century and he was the first person to coin the phrase ‘command and control’. Three words
describe his bureaucratic model: control, order and predict.12 Therefore, control is the process
through which the commander – assisted by his staff – organizes, directs and co-ordinates his activities
3
of the forces allocated to him. To achieve this, he and his staff employ a common doctrine for
command and use standardized procedures for control in conjunction with the equipment,
communication and information systems available. Command and control are thus inextricably linked
with commanders requiring an understanding of both and the roles of each other if they are to perform
their duties effectively. Command and control, however, are not ‘equal partners’ as control is merely
one aspect of command.
In essence, command requires a vision of the desired result; an understanding of the concepts, missions,
priorities and the allocation of resources; an ability to assess people and risks; and a continual process
of re-evaluating the situation. A commander requires – above all – to decide on a course of action and
to lead his command.
A simple way of understanding this one-way (‘order’) process is by reference to the classic model of
leadership studies by Tannenbaum and Schmidt13 at Figure 2.0.
Figure 2.0: Individual Command
Figure 2.0 shows that an approximation for the various styles of command can be found from the above
continuum. For ease of presentation, the styles listed may be substituted for the expressions ‘bosscentred’ and ‘employee-centred’ used by Tannenbaum and Schmidt in this classic continuum.
Broadly speaking then, there are 2 styles of individual command:14 Befehlstaktik is an inflexible,
authoritarian form of ‘top-down’ command in which subordinates receive rigid orders, that leave little
or no scope to exercise low-level initiative. By contrast, Auftragstaktik emphasizes mission-type
orders; the superior commander sets broad objectives, but then allows subordinates to use their
initiative to achieve their part of the plan in the way that they think best. The BAFs version of
Auftragstaktik is known as ‘Mission Command.’15 Befehlstaktik dictates not just what is to be done,
but how it is to be done and can be represented by the extreme left-end of the command circle in Figure
2.0 (i.e. ‘tells’). Auftragstaktik can be represented by the right end of the command circle (i.e. shares
the information).
4
Although BDD currently adopt Mission Command (the commander defines the limits of the operation
and then lets the subordinates take the appropriate action at the coal-face), Befehlstaktik is wholly
appropriate in certain circumstances; in times of crisis/emergency, a one-way, directional and
autocratic approach to command must always be used. In this context, ‘command-by-direction’ is a
description of the method used by commanders who directly command subordinates before and during
battle; the commander feels he has positive control over each element. Van Creveld 16 describes this
as a method, which prioritises uncertainty; the commander, accepting that he will never have perfect
information, nevertheless brings all uncertainty to himself and deals with whichever uncertainty assails
him most at each moment.
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMAND
Thirdly, organizational command is related to organizational design: human beings profit from living
in structured groups and irrespective of the organizational design (for example hierarchical,
network/cellular or indeed a combination of the both – the matrix), organizations require a structure so
that work can be divided to achieve coordination among its various work activities.17
Organizational command, therefore, centres on the issues of:18

Division of labour.

Allocation of authority.

Departmentalisation.

Span of control.
In addition, Burns and Stalker, 2 British Social Scientists, labelled organizations as either mechanistic
or organic.19 The RAF employs (at present) a mechanistic organizational structure, which could be
argued consists of tight rules and policies; limited individual job discretion; and coordination, which
is both formal and written. In addition, mechanistic organizations also posses:

High divisions of labour.

Low delegation of authority.

Departments with great uniformity of work activities.

Narrow spans of control.
At the organizational level then, senior commanders make countless decision about the division of
labour, delegation of authority, departmentalisation and span of control. Over time, these decisions
result in the elaboration of the organizations structure. Therefore, organizational command is defined
as the arrangement of roles and reporting relationships, which govern employee behaviour with two
primary components of organizational structure, namely centralization20 and co-ordination.21
This form of command (organizational) is shown in Figure 3.0, where individual command is seen to
operate at various levels within organizational command.
5
Figure 3.0: Individual and Organizational Command
MANAGEMENT
"Being a manager is the most infuriating, frustrating and demanding job that anyone could ask for.
You don’t get time for yourself and you are constantly ‘on call.’ You always have to watch for
everyone else. For these reasons, I wouldn’t do anything else."22
R Dailey
Management is defined as the allocation and control of resources (human, material and financial) to
achieve the goals and objectives of the organization and the measure of good management is the ability
to achieve the right balance: neither an over-abundance nor a shortage of resources, either of which
would undermine the concentration of effort on the main objective, whatever that may be.23
Understanding the roles of the Manager
Mintzberg24 analysed a managers’ job in terms of roles and identified 10 managerial roles clustered
around 3 main categories (interpersonal, informational and decisional), which are described in Table
1.0 below:
6
INTERPERSONAL
Figurehead
Leader
Liaison
The Manager’s Role
INFORMATIONAL
Monitor: scans for information.
DECISIONAL
Entrepreneur:
seeks change.
Disseminator: shares information Disturbance
with other people.
handler:
responds to
pressures and
crisis.
Spokesperson: shares information Resource
with outsiders.
allocator: gives
resources to
others.
Negotiator:
reaches
agreement.
Table 1.0: The Roles of the Manager
Management practices and procedures are largely a response to one of the most significant
developments of the 20th Century: the emergence of large organizations. Without good management,
complex enterprises in a fast-moving and dynamic environment tend to become chaotic in ways that
threaten their very existence and effective management, therefore, brings a degree of order and
consistency to the key decisions made by managers.
For example, command-by-direction (see Individual Command) is more orientated to concern for the
task and management-by-people is closely orientated to the area of freedom for subordinates. These
concepts are shown in Figure 4.0, ‘Individual Management’. In this diagram, Human Resource
Management varies between the right-hand end of the continuum (i.e. ‘delegates’) and the ‘selling’ end
of the spectrum.
Figure 4.0: Individual Management
7
LEADERSHIP
"Leadership is intangible, and therefore no weapon ever designed can replace it".25
General Omar Bradley
Leadership has been closely studied over the years, both as a matter of academic interest and with an
eye to making leadership easier and more effective in organizations. There is no formal and agreed
definition of leadership (or even of its functions), although there are common features to many of the
definitions available.
In 1988, Warren G Bennis completed writing his classic book On Becoming A Leader.26 This richly
praised book details: how people become leaders; how they lead; and how organizations encourage or
indeed, stifle leaders. Underlying the ‘how’s,’ he goes onto claim that leaders must understand the
context in which they are working in and notes: "The changes in the last generation have been so
radical that it seems…not just that the rules have changed (but that) it is a different game".27
Indeed, for the RAF, the pace of change in the last 30 years alone has been extraordinary, with
simultaneous changes in both international security and domestic society. Therefore, in this dynamic
and fast-changing environment, strong leadership is required at every level of the organization; there is
nothing more important to an organization than the quality of its leadership and indeed, of its
leadership philosophy. However, one criticism of today’s organizations is that they are over managed
and under led: they (organizations) are overly concerned with policies, practices, procedures and rule
books and not concerned enough with the important issues like trust, mission and an overarching and
compelling vision.
Indeed, Warren Bennis has detailed 4 things that people want from their leaders:28

Purpose, direction and meaning (a strong determination to achieve a goal).

Trust.

A sense of we-can-do-it (optimism).

Results.
Everyone knows that excellent leadership can be felt throughout an organization; leadership gives pace
and energy to the work and empowers the workforce, which is most evident in 4 themes: people feel
significant (everyone feels that he or she makes a difference to the success of the organization);
learning and competence matter (leaders value learning and mastery and so do the people who work for
leaders);29 people are part of the community (where there is leadership, there is a team – a family a
unit); and work is exciting (where there are leaders, work is stimulating, challenging, fascinating and
fun).
Therefore, in simple terms, leaders create vision, trust, meaning, success and healthy environments – if
they survive the bureaucracy.30 A better definition of leadership, therefore, is how to achieve
worthwhile goals through other people via a vision.31
8
Critically, to survive in the 21st Century, the RAF will require a new generation of leaders – leaders,
not managers. This distinction is an important one: leaders conquer the context, the volatile,
turbulent, ambiguous surroundings that sometimes seem to conspire against the organization, whilst
managers surrender to the bureaucracy! Effective leadership, therefore, is very important to unlocking
the immense talent in any organization, including the RAF. Moreover, organizational vision can also
challenge people to stretch beyond their current capabilities and often beyond their limitations. As
Nanus comments: "There is no more powerful engine driving an organization towards excellence and
long range success, than an attractive, worthwhile and achievable vision of the future, that is widely
shared". 32
This vision must be alive in every command level of the RAF and a corporate vision must operate at 3
levels:

Strategic – The RAF’s overriding philosophy.

Operational – That philosophy in action.

Tactical – That philosophy manifested in the behaviour of each airman/woman.
Thus, the leaders responsibilities include disseminating vision to all 3 levels and this vision needs to
permeate throughout the organization.
Finally, leaders must evaluate vision, before the vision fails or is inadequate to handle new challenges.
Vision needs constant attention in light of the dynamic environment in which we live and work in and
leaders who are not strategists are simply caretakers and gatekeepers. Though they may run efficient
and effective organizations (i.e. they are managers), they do not really serve the long-term interests of
their institutions unless they plan, set goals and provide strategic vision. Leaders who care about their
missions and about their people normally want to leave their organization in better shape and with a
clearer strategic direction, than when they took over.
In summary, the difference between a good unit and a bad unit is leadership: sound leadership within a
dynamic environment, is at the heart of the RAF’s institutional character. It is the most important
bond among airmen and is the foundation for successful Air Force achievements in peace and war; of
the many skills and abilities used in the profession of arms, none is prized more highly. Enhancing
leadership as we transform to meet the challenges of this millennium can strengthen the foundation of
mutual trust and respect among ranks and across the organization as a whole.
HOW ARE LEADERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND COMMAND RELATED TO EACH
OTHER?
Leadership, management and command are 3 distinctive and complementary systems of action and the
precise activities – and the characteristics required – of each system are intensely human matters.
Critically, leadership, management and command (as individual components, and as a trinity) are
necessary for success in an increasingly complex and volatile military environment.
Figure 5.0 is a revision of the simple model of leadership, management and command shown at Figure
1.0. The main difference between these 2 Figures (Figure 1.0 & Figure 5.0) is that leadership is now
the dominant component of the trinity.
9
Figure 5.0: A Revised Model of Leadership, Management and Command
Part of the reason leadership has become so important (and therefore, the dominant component of the
trinity) in recent years, is that the macro-environment (consisting of political, economic, socio-cultural
and technological dimensions) has become more competitive and more volatile. The net result is that
doing what was done yesterday – or even doing it 5% better – is no longer a formula for success.
For example, consider a simple military analogy: a peacetime Air Force can usually survive with good
command and management procedures up and down the hierarchy, coupled with good leadership at the
very top. A wartime Air Force, however, needs competent leadership at all levels. No one yet has
figured out how to manage people effectively into battle; they must be led! Indeed, in times of rapid
change, there is no substitute for leadership.
Unfortunately, most organizations are still based on the old-fashioned form of bureaucracy: the mindset of control, order and predict. Those are the things of command and management. If we existed in
an environment where we could control order and ‘predict’, a manager and commander would be a
terrific thing and bureaucracy in a stable environment – as in the Victorian era – would be a great social
invention. But today, organizations have become ‘unhinged’: they are confusing, rapidly changing,
unpredictable and full of surprises. This is why leadership is now critical: it (leadership) moves
people into the arena of creative solutions, by first breaking barriers that inhibit fresh and new
‘unthinked’ thinking. Indeed, preparing airmen for future (rather than past wars) involves constant
encouragement of open-minded thinking to ensure intellectual growth. Thus the art of leadership
involves moving people forward towards a goal and inspiring them to perform and succeed for the
greater goal.
In this sense, leadership cannot be bestowed upon a person by higher authority. Therefore, it is
misleading to think that leadership is only a characteristic of senior ranks or specific positions.
Leadership is needed and must be practiced at every level of an organization: great leaders understand
that to achieve their vision and gain respect and authority, they must be willing to give power
(command authority) to others; they delegate responsibility to other individuals and give those
individuals the knowledge and resources to succeed.33
Leadership and Management
Field Marshal Sir William Slim led the 14th British Army from 1943 to 1945 in the reconquest of
Burma from the Japanese – one of the most epic campaigns of WWII. He recognized the distinction
between leaders and managers when he said:
10
"Managers are necessary; leaders are essential. Leadership is of the spirit, compounded by
personality. Management is of the mind, more a matter of accurate calculation, statistics, methods,
timetables and routine.34
Management develops the capacity to achieve its plan by organizing and staffing – creating an
organizational structure and a set of jobs for accomplishing the plan. The equivalent leadership
activity, however, is aligning people: this means communicating a new direction to those who can
create coalitions and who both understand the vision and are committed to its achievement. In
addition, management ensures plan accomplishment by controlling and problem solving (monitoring
the results versus the plan in some detail (both formally and informally) by means of reports, meetings
and other tools; identifying deviations; and then planning and organizing to solve the problems). But
for leadership, achieving a vision requires motivating and inspiring – despite major obstacles to change
– by appealing to the basic, but often untapped, human needs, values and emotions.35
More than anything else, however, the difference between the leader and the manger rests with the
status quo: managers are willing to live with it and leaders are not.
In summary, then, perhaps the best way to explain the difference between leadership and management
is by reference to Table 2.0 (reproduced from Bennis (1997): ‘Managing People is like Herding Cats’).
The Manager
The manager administers
The manager is a copy
The manager maintains
The manager controls
The manager has a short-range view
The Leader
The leader innovates.
The leader is an original.
The leader develops.
The leader inspires trust.
The leader has a long-range
perspective.
The manager asks how and when
The leader asks what and why.
The manager has his or her eye on the
The leader has his or her eye on the
bottom line
horizon.
The manager is the classic good soldier The leader is his or her own person.
The manager does things right
The leader does the right thing.
Table. 2.0: The Difference Between Leadership and Management
Leadership and Command
Leadership and ‘headship’ are uniquely different and it is always important to focus on the leader as a
person, and not those who merely serve as heads (‘commanders’) in positions of leadership. While
many people regard ‘command’ and ‘leadership’ as much the same thing, it is more helpful to treat
them as 2 separate but related functions.36 Successful leaders persuade people willingly to endure
hardships (usually prolonged) and incur dangers (usually acute) that if left to themselves, they would
do their utmost to avoid. Leadership is, therefore, concerned with inspiration and motivation.
Command, by contrast, is the direction, coordination and effective use of military force." 37
MACRO-ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT HAVE IMPACTED DIRECTLY ON
CURRENT LEADERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND COMMAND PHILOSOPHIES AND
PRACTICES.
11
Perhaps the single greatest difference to the environment affecting leadership, management and
command philosophies, is that both leader and ‘led’ are increasingly reflecting a diverging set of values
and beliefs, to those traditionally held by the RAF. In the last 20 years, there has been dynamic
political, economic, socio-cultural and technological change in the western world. Indeed, major
changes to UK and European legislation have reflected the growth of individualism within society and,
as a result, society is more 'permissive,' with the emphasis now on individual rights rather than
responsibility towards the community or traditional organizations such as the RAF.
This is derived, in part, from European Human Rights Legislation and the distinction between
individualism and collectivism is worthy of explanation: individualism values loose linkages between
individuals, who view themselves as independent of collectives; are primarily motivated by their own
preferences, needs, rights and the contracts that they have established with others; give priority to their
personal goals over the goals of others and emphasize rational analysis of the advantages and
disadvantages to associating with others. Collectivism, on the other hand, values close linkages
between individuals, who see themselves as part of one or more collectives; are primarily motivated by
the norms of, and duties imposed by those collectives; are willing to give priority to the goals of these
collectives over their own personal goals and emphasize their connectedness to members of these
collectives.
Table 3.0 summarises – in broad terms – the main changes in the macro-environment of the western
world in the last 30 years.
From (1970s)
To (2000)
Industrial Society.
Information Society.
Forced Technology.
High Tech/High Touch.
National Economy.
World Economy.
Centralization.
Decentralization.
Institutional Help.
Self Help.
Representative Democracy.
Participative Democracy.
Hierarchies.
Networking.
Either/Or.
Multiple Options.
Table 3.0: A Summary of the Macro-Environmental Changes in the Western World between 1970 and
2000
Therefore, the greatest challenge facing the RAF is that today’s young Officers and non-commissioned
ranks may simply not be willing to accept the traditional leadership, management and command
principles of the past. The power to make life or death decisions over subordinates runs contrary to the
increasing emphasis on the rights of the individual, expressed by the society from which recruits are
drawn. Of particular note is the tendency towards meritocracy – in the last 20 years – which can run
contrary to the traditional function of rank. In essence, young people of today are increasingly
reflecting the views of what Bett calls the post deferential society.38
In summary then, almost all organizations are now caught between 2 paradigms: how they are
organized and how they are led. On the one hand, we have bureaucracy with the mindset of selfcontrol, order and predict with clear lines of distinction and no cross-functional work modes. On the
other hand, we have eloquent stakeholders whose voices have to be taken into account.
12
AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL FOR LEADERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND COMMAND
DOCTRINE
"A good soldier – whether he leads a platoon or an Army – is expected to look backward as well as
forward; but he must only think forward."39
General Douglas Macarthur
A New Approach
The world of work is changing at a rapid pace, greatly influenced by shifting societal trends,
technology and globalization. These trends cannot be treated as separate issues; their interdependent
effects will continue to exert powerful influences on the RAF, its culture and how leadership,
management and command is viewed and practiced. Therefore, proactively adapting leadership,
management and command philosophies to meet these challenges of this millennium will enhance the
overall effectiveness of the RAF.
To date, however, the military style of leadership, management and command training (and doctrine)
has often focused on ‘hard’ skills such as planning, organizing and directing, all within an impersonal
hierarchical structure. However, current thinking (from both the corporate world and academia) is now
shifting towards an increase in the importance of ‘soft’ skills such as communication and motivation.
In addition, the supply of human capital is undergoing a pervasive and powerful shift: the workforce –
in the UK today – is a mosaic of individuals with varied ages, backgrounds, skills, aspirations and
styles. Therefore, the definition of diversity will continue to evolve from merely race and gender to
include age, disability, family structure, sexual orientation, ethnic culture, language and religious
affiliation. Thus, organizations that can lead, manage and command this diversity will have a greater
opportunity to thrive in the years ahead.
Indeed, research now shows that ‘respect for the differences in people’ is now one of the most
important qualities in a leader.40 Further, the Industrial Society has now published research on the 5
weakest areas of the less successful leader:41

Failure to be sensitive to peoples feelings.

Failure to recognize other peoples’ stress.

Failure to develop and guide staff.

Failure to encourage feedback on their own (the leader’s) performance.

Failure to consult those affected before making decisions.
Although the above list was generated from Industrial leaders, it has equal applicability to the RAF and
serves to reinforce previous arguments about the personal or human side to leadership, management
and command: the above failures are all ‘soft-skill’ orientated.
Therefore, to undergo the necessary transformation in leadership, management and command
philosophies and, therefore, to provide the relevant training, Officers will now have to accept the
13
feasibility of working alliances with subordinates who question old practices and propose new
solutions and to think of the link between them, as essential as the link between strategy and
operations. Furthermore, it will be vital that too much emphasis is not put on leadership traits or
leadership doctrine from the past: even successful organizations may undo themselves in the future if
they continue to act today in the way they have acted in the past.
Organizational Leadership
Leadership exists at every level of the organization and it is not a function of rank. From the airmen in
the RAF today, to the Air Marshals at the corporate level, everybody has an individual leadership
responsibility to those who serve under them. Indeed, given their generational characteristics, the
recruits of tomorrow (both Officers and airmen) will likely have little organizational loyalty: they will
view themselves as ‘free agents’ who will only work for a leader who provides the most developmental
challenges and opportunities, that focus on promoting commitment, involvement, intellectual
stimulation and individual consideration. Therefore, leaders will need to routinely ask for inputs from
subordinates and share information freely while focusing on trust, respect and empowerment that will
help to strike a balance between the leaders and those that they lead.
Like organizational command, organizational leadership works at every level of the RAF; this situation
is shown diagrammatically at Figure 6.0.
Figure 6.0: Organizational Leadership
Leadership and Strategy
"Tactics make the steps from which operational leaps are assembled, strategy points out the path."42
A A Svechin
14
The necessity to make the right decision and then carry it out in the ‘right way,’ is reflected currently
by the Services formal decision-making tool, the Formal Estimate. In essence, this estimate consists of
4 parts:

Mission Analysis.

Evaluation of factors.

Consideration of courses of action.

Selection of the best course of action.
Whilst the format of the process and the language has a unique military favour, the concept of working
out what to do, analysing the relevant factors, and selecting a choice, is the basis for strategy in the
civilian world. In this context, it is here that leadership is closely related to strategy. 43 Strategy is the
job of projecting into the future: surveying an organizational situation or problem and deciding
between alternative courses of action that have many possible consequences. Again, strategic
leadership exists at every level in the RAF.44
The Officer’s trinity
Combining leadership, management, command, organizational leadership and strategy, a revised model
for the Officer’s trinity is shown at Figure 7.0. Creating a long-range, strategic vision for the RAF
requires the leader to deal with issues that are more complex, conceptual and abstract than the tactical
concerns of a unit commander. In this respect, leadership is a more intellectual activity.
15
Figure 7.0: The Officer’s trinity
CONCLUSION
War is not the business of managers; it is the art of leaders. The most essential dynamic of combat
power is competent and confident leadership.
As leadership is a dynamic process between the leader and the led, airmen of today require a subtly
different approach in the ways that they are led, managed and commanded if the maximum use is to be
made of them as a human resource. The RAF has traditionally been able to rely on the fact that the
subordinate was going to do what he/she was told because the order came from someone senior: this is
no longer an acceptable assumption. Airmen are now more ‘questioning’ and, therefore, will be more
willing to respond to leadership styles that involve them in the decision making process that explains
the rationale behind that decision. Today, we are moving towards organizations formed more like
temporary systems networks and clusters: their mind set will be alignment, creativity and
empowerment.45 Therefore, in this post-bureaucratic world, the laurel will go to the leader who
encourages healthy dissent and values followers, brave enough to say no. Successful leaders will have
– not the loudest voice – but the readiest ear. And their genius may well lie not in personal
achievements, but in understanding other people’s talents.46
In addition, leaders, particularly military, are already required to adapt to peer leadership, matrix-style
management and team building that combines military and civilian efforts in joint, coalition and interagency activities, all in a fast-paced, high tempo environment. At the same time, the leader must
continuously and simultaneously design and implement plans, policies and practices to maximize group
cohesion, subordinates’ potential and foster high professional ethics. These conditions, create a large
dynamic, non-linear system: sequential cause and effect are more difficult to track and predict and
16
leaders will increasingly need to pace and anticipate the changing complexity in order to provide
subordinates with a shared vision and coherent direction, through a succession of organizational
changes. This system will require a holistic and multifaceted approach to leadership that stresses
interactive participation, open communication and continuous learning for both the leaders and the
followers. The functions of leadership then become the creation of systems, structures and
environments where this interaction and learning can occur:
Therefore, the best leadership will not generate followers; it will generate other leaders.
Thus, the main objective of the effective and successful leader will be to produce change, often
dramatically and highly needed. Leaders will transform people and organizations by setting and
articulating a clear vision and implementing effective strategies that inspire others by enabling them to
reach their full potential.
Existing bureaucracies and pyramidal organizations are as inadequate to a world of change and
interdependence as the existing models of leaders and followers. Traditional leadership metaphors
such as rule and subjects and bosses and subordinates are all inappropriate for this new age of
democracy, participation and empowerment.
17
ENDNOTES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Command should be seen as more than a military expression; it has relevance to all employees who hold positions
of supervisory responsibility, whether they work in large or small organizations, public or private domains.
British Defence Doctrine [BDD] 2nd Edition: Joint Warfare Publication 0-01[JWP 0-01].
Army Doctrine Publication [ADP] Volume 2: Command – April 1995.
Quoted from Kenneth Moll [1978] in ‘The Command and Control Dilemma: when Technology and
Organizational Orientation Collide,’ by Lieutenant Colonel G A Roman USAF: Air War College Maxwell Paper
No 8, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, March 1997.
For example, Allied Joint Doctrine AJP-01 offers: Commanders’ Intent, Command and Control [C2], Principle
of Joint and Combined Command, Full Command, Operational Command, Tactical Command and Functional
Command.
See Joint Warfare Publication 0-10 [JWP 0-10], and in particular Part 2: Command including Chapter 4: ‘The
Commander’ and Chapter 5: ‘Command and Control Operations.’
This view is also echoed by Air Commodore Stuart Peach in ‘The Airmen’s Dilemma: To Command or to
Control’ in Air Power 21 Challenges for the New Century Edited by Peter W Gray. On page 125 of this book,
Peach describes the NATO terms of command in detail. However, he goes on: "The problem is that these elegant
terms no longer work." Further reference should also be made again to ‘The Command and Control Dilemma:
when Technology and Organizational Orientation Collide,’ by Lieutenant Colonel G A Roman USAF: Air War
College Maxwell Paper No 8, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, March 1997.
Queen’s Regulations [QRs] for The Royal Air Force: Chapter 3 - General Instructions for Officers: Section 1
[Instructions for Commanders].
For example, see ‘The Levels of War’ on p1-2 of BDD: "Military activities are conducted at different levels
involving different people, from the senior political leadership of the state to the soldiers, sailors and airmen at the
forefront of military operations. Traditionally, military activities were viewed as having either strategic or
tactical qualities. Some eminent scholars discerned a level between those two – what Jomini referred to as grand
tactics – and, especially after WWII, a higher political or grand strategic level has frequently been referred to.
Within NATO, there are 4 levels currently accepted as providing a framework for command and analysis: the
grand strategic, the military strategic, the operational and the tactical".
UK Glossary of Terms and Definitions – Joint Warfare Publication [JWP 0-01.1], the Joint Defence and Concept
Centre.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines Duty as: "a moral or legal obligation".
See ‘From Max Weber’ by Gerth, Mills & Turner [1991] for a selection of his key papers that describe
bureaucratic society
For a further analysis of this model, see Luthans F. [2002]. Organizational Behaviour [9th International
Edition]. New York: McGraw-Hill, page 613..
For further analysis, see Sheffield G.D. [Ed]. [1997]. Leadership & Command: The Anglo-American Experience
since 1861. Brassey’s.
For a full definition of Mission Command see BDD, op. cit. page 3-7.
Van Creveld M.L. [1989]. Technology in War. New York: The Free Press, Chapters 2-5.
Mintzberg H. [1979]. The Structure of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ivancevich, J., and Matteson, T. [1987]. Organizational Behaviour and Management. Plano, Tex:
Business Publications.
Burns T. and Stalker G. [1961]. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
Centralization refers to the retention of authority to make decisions by senior commanders; when an organization
is centralized, all subordinates follow uniform procedures and policies, which are formulated and enforced by
higher commanders. Rules and regulations direct subordinates to do certain things in specific ways at certain
times e.g. direct orders. Moreover, rules and regulations make subordinates tasks explicit and they shape the
superior-subordinate relationship, which is essential to organizational command. If commanders establish many
rules and regulations covering subordinate behaviours, then they maintain control over the subordinates’ tasks,
work relationships and behaviour. Thus, decision-making remains centralized through the formal system of rules
and regulations. Indeed, highly centralized organizations usually exhibit high formalization [which is defined as
written documentation of rules, regulations and procedures].
Coordination is a set of mechanisms, which commanders employ to link the actions of the organizational sub-units
to achieve a pattern of consistent outcomes. Several vertical coordination mechanisms can be used including,
direct supervision, standardization of work groups, standardization of outputs, performance appraisal and
management information systems.
Dailey R. [1988]. Understanding People in Organizations. St. Paul, Minn: West.
18
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Most people believe that management is a science and can, therefore, be taught. There is a huge array of books in
the field of management, ranging from accounting to strategic planning. In all respects, management thinking is
now high on all corporate agendas, especially within the Ministry of Defence: today, all organizations, private or
public, large or small, require management equipped with the latest management skills. Indeed, the whole thrust
of the Government’s financial management in the public sector – in all western countries – is towards those
measures adopted and used by the private sector i.e. financial planning, performance management and budgetary
control.
Mintzberg H. [1973]. The Nature of Managerial Work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
General Omar Bradley: Command and General Staff College, USA 16 th May 1967.
Bennis W G [1988] On Becoming a Leader New York: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
ibid, page 2.
Bennis W G [1997]. Managing People is like Herding Cats. London: Kogan Page Limited.
The key to gaining competitive advantage today will be the ability of leaders to create an adaptive learning
environment that encourages the development of intellectual capital that releases the creative power of individuals.
Canadian research, has suggested that potential recruits perceive military organizations as bureaucratic institutions
that are authoritarian and coercive [see Major R L Hills, 2000: The military in a changing society: the impact of
demographics on the Canadian forces. These facts have been echoed elsewhere: research by the American
military also argues that Armed Forces must now, not only provide for the everyday sustenance needs of
individuals, but must also liberate their creative drives, which can be difficult in rigid command and control,
bureaucratic structures [see Centre for Strategic and International Studies [CSIS] Report, February 2000].
Vision is the combined ability to conceptualize and to execute. Having a ‘vision’ or a mission and communicating
it effectively is essential.
Nanus B. [1992]. Visionary Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers
This is the current thinking behind Mission Command. Further reference should be made to BDD op. cit.
page 3-7.
Bennis [1997]. op. cit. page 63.
Emotional Intelligence is an area that is now attracting huge interest in current leadership thinking. It is
defined as: "The ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access
and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional
knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth". For a
further analysis of this theme see D Goleman, Emotional Intelligence [London: Bloomsbury, 1996] and
Post-Modern Military Education: Are We Meeting the Challenge? by Air Vice-Marshal Brian Burridge
CBE RAF in Defence Studies Vol 1, No 1 spring 2001: The Journal of the Joint Services Command and
Staff College.
Taken from Sheffield. [1997]. op. cit.
ibid.
This term, now widely used, was originally devised by Sir Michael Bett CBE
Attributed to General Douglas Macarthur.
Alexander J. & Wilson M. [1997] The Organization of the future: leading across cultures.
See www.indsoc.co.uk
A A Svechin taken from Chapter 3 – Operational Art: United Kingdom Doctrine for Joint and Multinational
Operations [JWP 0-10].
In this context, leadership and strategy are closely related. Strategy consists of 4 basic elements: who decides to
do what [i.e. what are the objectives], analysis and diagnosis of the problem/situation [analysis of the macroenvironment, the industry environment, internal factors of the organization and the organization’s competitive
position], choice [consisting of generic strategy alternatives, strategy variations and strategy choice] and
implementation [consisting of resources and structures, resource allocation and evaluation and control] combined
with a feedback loop.
Since strategic leadership is typically visualized at the military strategic level of the RAF, it could be argued that
this is the domain of only Air Ranking Officers and that Senior and Junior Officers need not be concerned with
such issues. However, there are potential returns to both the RAF and the individual from comprehension of
strategic leadership at all ranks; some organizational behaviour experts maintain that it is not so much the
existence of a strategy which benefits an organization, but by the process by which the plan is developed: this
approach leads to relationships among employees and approaches to the job which would otherwise be missing.
A leader empowers others to translate intention into reality and sustain it: this does not mean that
leaders must relinquish command or that followers must continually challenge authority. It does mean, however,
that command must become a unit of exchange – an active, changing token in creative, productive and
communicative transactions. Effective leaders will ultimately reap the harvest of their efforts by the simple action
19
46
of command’s reciprocal – empowerment. It puts the duality back in motion: command to empowerment and
empowerment back to command.
Recent research [by the Department of Leadership Studies at the University of Leeds] has taken an
‘upside-down’ approach to leadership study; instead of analyzing the distant and mainly white men at the top of
organizations, 3500 managers [in the public sector] were asked what they wanted from their immediate bosses.
Their answer was someone who will coach and encourage them and someone with the humility to admit to making
mistakes. Perhaps, then, the leader as a ‘helper’ has superseded the heroic leader.
20