20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
ETHOS,
CORE VALUES & STANDARDS,
AND HERITAGE
(AN ANTHOLOGY)
Sqn Ldr R A Heath
SO2 Ethos & Heritage
GETC – Leadership Centre
RAF Cranwell
Tel: 01400 268216
Mil: 95751 8216
RAFMAIL: 22TrgGp-GETC LC SO2 Ethos
Email: getcso2ethos@cranwell.raf.mod.uk
Intentionally blank
CONTENTS
Introduction
iii
Ethos
1
The Importance of Ethos
1
Key Distinctions of a Military Ethos
2
Service Definitions of Ethos
3
Inculcating RAF Ethos
4
Ownership of Ethos
6
Core Values & Standards
7
Maintaining Core Values and Standards
The “Psychological Contract” and Military Covenant
Heritage – How does it Fit In?
9
12
14
Heritage – Challenges and Opportunities
14
The Changing Face of Civil-Military Relations
16
Bringing it all Together?
21
Projecting Ethos, CV&S, and Heritage – the Leadership
and Trg Challenges
25-26
Enclosure:
RAF Ethos Forum – Dec 01
i
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
Intentionally blank
ii
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
INTRODUCTION
Aim: To communicate to all RAF personnel the importance of the contribution
that RAF Ethos, Core Values & Standards, and Heritage make
to the Moral Component of Fighting Power.
RAF Leadership Centre and responsibility for Ethos, Core Values & Standards, and
Heritage
The RAF Leadership Centre (RAFLC) was formed at Cranwell as a result of one of the
recommendations in the 2003 AFBSC-endorsed paper ‘Developing Excellence in
Leadership’.1 On formation, the RAFLC was charged with discovering, developing and
delivering means of improving RAF Leadership; this direction being predicated on the
concept that leadership is the most cost effective way of improving operational
effectiveness in the RAF. It is now part of the Generic Education & Training Centre
(GETC), alongside the Air Power Training Strategy Team and the Generic Training Team.
These 3 sub-groups combine in output to satisfy the mission of the GETC to enhance RAF
operational effectiveness by developing and directing consistent, coherent and progressive
generic and Force Development (FD) training across all phases of through-life
development in the RAF. In 2008, the RAFLC assumed training authority for the areas of
ethos, core values and standards (CV&S) and heritage – policy issues related to heritage
remain with external departments (primarily DAS and Defence Estates).
Why study Ethos, CV&S, and Heritage?
Ethos is generally considered to be the common spirit of comradeship, enthusiasm and
devotion to a cause that unites a group. It includes a consciousness of, and pride in
belonging to, a particular organisation. The CV&S of the RAF 2 seek to shape behaviours
and lay down the standards of personal conduct that are expected of members of the
Service community; they underpin our ethos and are a key element of the Moral
Component.3 The RAF’s distinctive ethos has also been shaped by history and by the
demands of operating in an environment that differs markedly from those of our sister
Services. However, interest in the RAF’s heritage should not be limited to simply looking
at the past 4 – it is primarily about understanding the lessons gleaned from experience and
using this to provide foundations upon which to build the future. In this way, the Moral
Component of Fighting Power is developed.5 Consequently, the promotion of Ethos and
Heritage, which is one of the 5 Force Development domains, is complimentary to the
RAFLC’s task of acting as a Focal Point for leadership in the RAF.
Evolution of the Anthology
In researching these broad topics, it became apparent that there are many views in
circulation as to what constitutes ‘Ethos’, ‘Core Values’ and ‘Heritage’, and that although
there may not be a definitive ‘right answer’ in each case, there are certainly many
misconceptions which may lead to flawed and/or incomplete assumptions and
interpretations. Moreover, the subject areas are often treated in isolation, whereas in
1
PTC/462122/2/1/TD dated 27 Feb 03, Developing Excellence in Leadership.
Air Publication 1 (2nd Edition), Ethos, Core Values and Standards (High Wycombe: Media Services HQ Air Cmd, 2008).
3 Strengthening RAF Ethos, PTC/462122/8/TD, dated Aug 02, p 5.
4 Heritage comes in many forms, from commemorations of events such as the Battle of Britain, to purpose built
memorials and working buildings. It is also displayed through Battle Honours embroidered on Squadron Standards,
Books of Remembrance and Rolls of Honour, aircraft gate guardians, and works of art. (Flt Lt M Hudson (AHB RAF),
RAF Heritage, Spirit of the Air, Issue 1, 2005, p 8.)
5 Air Cdre R F Garwood, DAS, Foreword (Cornerstone of Our Strength), Spirit of the Air, Issue 1, 2005).
2
iii
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
reality they are interactive and either directly or indirectly affect each other. It also became
apparent that there was no one source of material to draw upon when considering the
various issues, and thus work began to compile a selection of authoritative, useful, and
imaginative ideas/quotations to guide the debate and improve understanding. These were
then separated into the various categories of Ethos, CV&S, and Heritage and (insofar as
was possible) streamlined into a ‘linear flow’ of ideas or strands of thought: some of the
ideas are complementary, others contradictory. It later also seemed appropriate to include
a separate section on the parallel but related issue of the ever changing civil-military
relationship. Where an item appeared to provide a useful summation and/or combined
aspects from more than one of the main areas, it seemed sensible to put these under the
questioning heading of “Bringing it all together?”. One drawback of this approach is that
some ‘summary’ items introduce new information for the first time but, if the document is
either read as a whole, or a main heading is read in conjunction with the summary section,
this problem is not insurmountable. It should, however, be understood that the aim of this
anthology is not to provide ‘answers’, but to broaden the debate and introduce new ideas
and considerations that the reader may not have thought about before or, if they have,
then perhaps to consider them in a wider context. This explanation is necessary in order
to understand the layout and style of the document. Also enclosed is the summary of
outcomes of the Ethos Forum held at HQ PTC in Dec 01 – the reader may wish to peruse
this and consider how much/little has changed in the interim period.
An initial briefing pack of quotations, definitions, and other such ethos, CV&S, and
heritage-related items was collated and distributed to the stn reps who attended the 2-day
FD Seminar ‘Force Development – Into the Future’ at RAF Cottesmore in Mar 09. The
subsequent updating and expansion of that document has created this ‘mini-anthology’.
Thanks are due to the numerous contributors who have unwittingly provided a raft of
useful references via their Defence Research Papers, ’Spirit of the Air’, and other
articles/sources. Future updates to this document will be accessible via the RAF Cranwell
website.6
R A Heath
Sqn Ldr
SO2 Ethos & Heritage
27 Jul 09
6
RAF Cranwell Intranet Home page/ GETC/Leadership Ethos & Heritage/Ethos & Heritage.
iv
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
ETHOS
Ethos is intangible; you can not see or touch it, but you know that it exists. The question is
how do you create it?
(Gp Capt C Smith, Ethos – a very small word for a very large subject,
Spirit of the Air, Vol 3, No 3, 2008, p 3.)
Ethos is considered a pivotal word in our military vocabulary. Ask anyone to define it and
inevitably each person’s answer will be different, sometimes radically so. For some, it
means badges and songs in the bar; for others it is a history of distinguished service; and
for a few, it is regarded as sentimental tosh. Based on my experiences of the past year,
the use of ethos is sometimes misplaced and occasionally even overplayed. Granted,
some of us take enormous pride in the brave exploits of our forefathers, but is it really this
that drives us on day after day? What about those in our Service who have little knowledge
of our history (there are some about): what makes them tick? Is it the section, squadron,
wing or even group badge that they wear on their arms? Possibly, but surely the driving
factor behind the creation of expeditionary organisations (of varying sizes) was not the
result of below-par efforts from those without a badge? Ethos to me is a little more
intangible.
In the Services, most people’s loyalty is towards those with whom they work most closely
— those from the same trade, shift, section or squadron and so on. In truth, there are
probably very few who feel an overriding affinity to their station, group or command. The
same could possibly be said of our Army brethren. First and foremost, does Tommy Atkins
have loyalty to his platoon, his company, his battalion, his regiment, his brigade or his
division? I suspect it is probably the platoon. Ultimately, the key to success is not to
overplay the ‘E’ word. Providing the workplace of your organisation is one where people
wish to be; usually everything else follows, including team spirit and success. It sounds so
obvious but it is easily forgotten, particularly in the context of change.
(Wg Cdr A Hine, OC II(AC) Sqn, Command during change – journey into the unknown,
Spirit of the Air, Vol 2, No 1, 2007, p 14.)
THE IMPORTANCE OF ETHOS
The RAF’s ability to project military force in the air is contingent upon the willingness of its
uniformed cadre to fight and to support the fight. This moral component depends upon
effective leadership, a shared set of core values and the total commitment that arises from
a strong and binding military ethos. Over the last 85 years the RAF has developed a
unique and strong ethos. Our Service has a proud tradition and reputation for excellence,
but we cannot afford to be complacent. Many external and internal factors affect or
potentially impact upon our ethos and we must ensure that these are not allowed to dilute
our operational effectiveness. Therefore, it is essential to articulate, reinforce and maintain
RAF Ethos so that the Service can be confident that it retains the total commitment of its
people and can continue to operate as an air warfighting force that is, person for person,
second to none.
(http://www.raf.r.mil.uk/live/policy_statements/ethos policy statement.htm - 03/03/2009)
(Last updated 28 Aug 02)
1
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
Being highly motivated in peace-time is one thing; to retain that motivation in the face of
battle requires a profoundly deep commitment to one’s comrades, one’s unit, one’s country
and to the cause for which one is fighting.
(MOD, Joint Warfare Publication 0-01 - British Defence Doctrine, 2nd Ed, Oct 01, p.4-4.) 7
Hugh Trenchard was very clear; he believed that the Royal Air Force needed to develop its
own ‘spirit’ which would reflect the differences that existed between it and the other two
Services. In particular, since the Royal Air Force operated in the third dimension, the air, it
needed to have personnel, irrespective of their background, who appreciated the value of
Air Power together with the technical ability to sustain what were, even in those days,
technologically advanced machines. By creating a training organisation that could provide
the necessary framework for new recruits, Lord Trenchard believed that he could create
the right environment in which to foster this ‘spirit’. Few would disagree that by the time
that, perhaps, the most defining moment in the Royal Air Force’s history occurred, the
Battle of Britain, Lord Trenchard had achieved his intent.
(Gp Capt C Smith, Ethos – a very small word for a very large subject,
Spirit of the Air, Vol 3, No 3, 2008, p 3.)
KEY DISTINCTIONS OF A MILITARY ETHOS
The Armed Forces are different to the society upon which they are based, with a unique
aspect of employment being the willingness to make personal sacrifices in the interests of
the Service. This ultimately requires the acceptance of a liability to kill or be killed. This is
a critical element in defining RAF Ethos but does not apply to the broader defence
community i.e. dependants, contractors and MOD civilians.
(PTC/462122/8/TD dated 8 Aug 02, Strengthening RAF Ethos, A Paper by AMP, pp 1-2.)
The concept of Risk Transfer Warfare raises a question over the morality of the conduct of
most UN operations in the 1990s. George Lucas argues that intervening forces should not
intervene on the basis of traditional ‘Just-War’ theory because their purpose in intervening
is not concerned with defeating an opposing military force, the “war convention” as Michael
Walzer calls it, but is more akin to a domestic policing role … Whereas under the “war
convention” during combat soldiers are entitled to transfer risk away from themselves and
onto the enemy, and even to non-combatants when absolutely necessary; in humanitarian
operations, however, they are not entitled to ‘protect themselves at all costs from harm,
and even to inflict unintentional damage on non-military targets’ by applying the principle of
double effect, or ‘collateral damage’. Instead they are obliged to incur additional risk
where necessary in order to avoid the inadvertent occurrence of the very harm that they
are deployed to prevent.8
(Wg Cdr J K Frampton, The Military Covenant in an Age of Discretionary Intervention,
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, pp 26-27.)
7
Cited by Maj P P Lynch MC RM, What kind of soldier should I be? Does ethical education have a place in
the UK Armed Forces? If so, what should be its base and how should it be taught? JSCSC Defence
Research Paper, 2008, p 33.
8 Lucas, George R, ‘From “jus ad bellum” to “jus ad pacem”: re-thinking just-war criteria for the use of military
force for humanitarian ends’ in Chatterjee, Deen K. and Scheid, Don E.(Eds), Ethics and Foreign
Intervention, 2003, p 78.
2
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
SERVICE DEFINITIONS OF ETHOS
Current RAF definition:
Our distinctive character, spirit and attitude that is necessary to pull
together as a team, in order to deliver air power no matter the
challenges or environment. We place unit and Royal Air Force success
above self and strive to be courageous in the face of adversity and
risk. Sustained by strong leadership, high professional and personal
standards, we are bound by a strong sense of tradition and belonging
to an organisation of which we are immensely proud.
(AP1, (2nd Edition), Ethos, Core Values and Standards, 2008)
The distinctive character, spirit and attitude of the RAF which
together inspire our people to face challenge, and, on occasion,
danger. It is underpinned by tradition, esprit de corps and a
sense of belonging. It encompasses the will to contribute to the
delivery of effective air power that arises from confidence in the
chain of command, trust in colleagues and equipment, respect
for individuality, sustainment of high professional standards and
the courage to subordinate personal needs for the greater good.
(AP1, (1st Edition), Ethos, Core Values and Standards of the Royal Air Force, 2002)9
The enduring spirit derived from our people’s loyalty to their
ship, unit or team sustained by high professional standards and
strong leadership, that gives us courage in adversity and the
determination to fight and win.
(RN Ethos – The Spirit to Fight and Win, 2009)
Essentially, ethos is about group cohesion within a structured chain of command, enabling
the Services to conduct operations across the full spectrum of directed tasks. It centres on
the requirement for personnel to willingly subjugate their own personal interest to the
common good. The values and standards inherent in supporting this ethos place a unique
demand upon the individual, requiring a high sense of duty, loyalty and self-discipline.
Individuals may have to place themselves in danger or to work in stressful conditions.
They may be called upon to face personal deprivation, physical or mental injury or death.
They (and sometimes their dependants) are also subject to an exacting behavioural code
and disciplinary arrangements, which require them to forego some of the individual
liberties that exist in the wider community.
(RN definition – Annex A to D/CNS/504/01, dated 8 Dec 95.)
There is much written about ethos and it is often wrongly conceived. However, far from
being complex, ethos is actually straightforward; defined simply it is what a group does
Note: No reference was made to ‘ethos’ in the original RAF booklet “Core Values and Standards in the
Royal Air Force” (Undated – Foreword signed by CAS, ACM Sir Richard Johns).
9
3
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
and how it does it. The ethos of the Royal Marines refers to our role and the way we fulfil
it. Since the Second World War, we have developed a specific function as a commando
and amphibious force, undertaking operations in harsh environments be they mountain,
jungle, cold weather or desert. This difficult and unique task requires certain personal
characteristics, which are nurtured at the Commando Training Centre during training and
then maintained and developed during our subsequent service. It is because of these
individual qualities that we are able to fulfil our collective role successfully; combined,
these two key elements form our ethos.
(http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/royal-marines-(old)/royal-marines-profile/royal-marines-ethos/
2009.)
Commanders create their command ethos and must ensure
that Values and Standards are at the centre of it, through personal
example and by educating and training their subordinates.
The responsibility of commanders to be at the heart of this process
cannot be delegated, and I hold you all accountable for it.
The Values are about character and spirit: the Standards define our
actions and behaviour: I expect everyone in the Army to abide by
these Values and Standards.
(Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, CGS, Foreword to The Values and Standards of the British Army, Jan 08.)
That spirit which inspires soldiers to fight. It derives from, and depends upon, the high
degrees of commitment, self-sacrifice and mutual trust which together are so essential to
the maintenance of morale.
(The Values and Standards of the British Army (Commanders’ Edition) – Mar 00.)
INCULCATING RAF ETHOS
An essential contribution to an individual’s understanding of RAF Ethos occurs during
formal training. This environment provides an excellent vehicle for shaping attitudes
because of the intensive and residential nature of such courses. During initial (Phase 1)
training, new entrants are … immersed in a programme of General Service Training (GST)
that includes, inter alia, RAF history, air power, military field skills, physical education,
beliefs and values, responsibilities, teambuilding and leadership.
(PTC/462122/8/TD dated 8 Aug 02, Strengthening RAF Ethos, A Paper by AMP, p 4.)
Strengthening of ethos takes place during productive service through operational success,
maintenance of standards by line managers, and mechanisms such as inspections,
parades, dining-in nights, community events and sport. However, the opportunity to
participate in many of these aspects of Service life has been reduced as a result of
overstretch and under-funding, as well as societal changes that have led to increasing
numbers of Service personnel living off-base. Furthermore, the heavy demands placed on
line managers and the general erosion of the supervisory role of many technical trade
JNCOs have weakened the emphasis placed on their ‘role model’ function. As a
consequence, it may be argued that only a limited amount of reinforcement of RAF ethos
now occurs outside of the formal training environment. This may be especially true for
4
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
those personnel employed outwith PTC and STC on DAUs or within joint or tri-Service
organisations.
(PTC/462122/8/TD dated 8 Aug 02, Strengthening RAF Ethos, A Paper by AMP, p 4.)
The system of imbuing ethos currently lacks intellectual rigour, cannot be easily explained
and appears impenetrable to ordinary civilians but has traditionally been seen to work.
However, in the development of Service ethoi, there is little actual mention of ethics theory
relating to the selection of core values.10 It would appear that the military have been
unable to define what they understood to be ‘best practice’ in the face of significant
intellectual challenge for justification. Field Marshall Sir Peter Inge, Chief of the Defence
Staff, summed this feeling up in 1995:
‘I believe that to the Armed Forces, ethos is very important. It is, I find, a very difficult
subject to talk about. It is a mixture of emotional, intellectual and moral qualities. …it is
something that is fundamentally important for Armed Forces to believe in. It is about
tradition, the type based on high standards, on comradeship, on helping others and, when
the going gets rough, about something to provide a useful handrail to guide you out of
difficulties.’11
(Maj P P Lynch MC RM, What kind of soldier should I be? Does ethical education have a place
in the UK Armed Forces? If so, what should be its base and how should it be taught?
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 20.)
There remains a general acceptance that the armed forces do need to be different from
the societies “because of the functional imperative that underpins all their actions, namely
war fighting”. However, since the Cold War there has been societal pressure for the
armed forces to adapt their ethos and culture. Some senior military officers have
expressed their concern about this, General Rose has commented that “Today, our
military ethos … is being actively destroyed by a mixture of cultural change within our
society and new international legislation”.
In 2000 the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Guthrie, warned that if this process,
together with under-funding, continued then the British armed forces could become “little
more than a gendarmerie, all symbolism and no substance”. There are three main
reasons why the war fighting ethos and culture of the services are perceived as being at
risk. Firstly, there are the significant cultural and social changes occurring in British society
that have resulted in the composition of the British armed forces being altered; principally
with an increasing number of roles for females, the acceptance of homosexuals and the
influence of human rights legislation.
Secondly, for primarily economic reasons more civilians, both civil servants and private
contractors, now carry out tasks within the military that were traditionally performed by
Service personnel. Finally, there are the profound changes to the nature of operations that
the armed forces are now required to conduct, many of which are not related to war
fighting. Consequently, armed forces are now “more multipurpose in mission, increasingly
Mileham, Patrick, ‘Teaching military ethics in the British Armed Forces’, in Robinson, Paul, de Lee, Nigel,
and Carrick, Don, (eds.), Ethics education in the Military, 2008, p.47.
11 Inge, Sir Peter, Field Marshall, ‘The roles and challenges of the British Armed Forces’, RUSI, Feb 96, p.4.
10
5
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
androgynous in make-up and ethos, and with greater permeability with civilian society”.
(Sqn Ldr A J Seabright, RAF Ethos & Culture in the 21st Century – Aircrew or Air Power?
Air Power Review, Vol 7, No 1, Spring 04, p 94.)
OWNERSHIP OF ETHOS
Formal responsibility for defining, articulating and sustaining ethos rests properly with the
AFB. However, day to day responsibility lies with those stakeholders involved in the
training, management and operational command of personnel.
(PTC/462122/8/TD dated 8 Aug 02, Strengthening RAF Ethos, A Paper by AMP, p 7.)
6
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
CORE VALUES & STANDARDS
The sustainment of ethos is also dependent upon an individual submitting to conditioning
through exposure to the military community12; this conditioning induces a bond with that
community and promotes absorption and adoption of its core values. The CV&S of the
RAF seek to shape behaviours and lay down the standards of personal conduct that are
expected of members of the Service community; they underpin our ethos and are a key
element of the moral component.
(PTC/462122/8/TD dated 8 Aug 02, Strengthening RAF Ethos, A Paper by AMP, p 5.)
Core values are the permanent foundations on which the identity and purpose of the
British Armed Forces are built and are a small number of ethically based principles which
serve, in all circumstances, to guide the behaviour of members of the Service in a way
which both further its purpose and is ethically sound… Core values capture the very
essence of what is important to the Service and those who serve within it, thereby
engendering justifiable pride. Although important at all times, they are most valuable at
times of extreme personal commitment, when together with leadership and training, they
sustain and inspire personnel in circumstances which might otherwise overwhelm them.
(AP3000, Third Edition, British Air Power Doctrine, 1999, pp.1.2.15-16.)
Character as Aristotle taught is a habit, the daily choice of right instead of wrong; it is a
moral quality which grows to maturity in peace and is not suddenly developed on the
outbreak of war. For war … has no power to transform, it merely exaggerates the good
and evil that are in us, till it is plain for all to read; it cannot change, it exposes. Man’s fate
in battle is worked out before war begins. For his acts in war are dictated not by courage,
nor by fear, but by conscience, of which war is the final test. The man whose quick
conscience is the secret of his success in battle has the same clear cut feelings about right
and wrong before war makes them obvious to all. If you know a man in peace, you know
him in war.
(Lord Moran, Anatomy of Courage, 1966, p.160.) 13
‘The core values of the RAF, Respect, Integrity, Service
and Excellence, are values that are recognised as the foundational
principles of the RAF’s ethos as a war fighting Service’
In seeking to maintain and enhance its ethos, therefore, the RAF has articulated what it
calls its ‘Core Values’. Core values are the moral principles and beliefs, or the accepted
standards, of a person or group — and a concept that is associated with the word ‘good’.
To speak of values implies that the moral principles under consideration are themselves
intrinsically good and should, therefore, be encouraged. Core values are values held in
common and are capable of transcending racial, religious and social divisions. They are
‘core’ in the sense that they hold a place of particular prominence to such an extent that
12
Neil, G W, Organisational Change and the Military Ethos: A Discussion Paper, HQ RAFSC Research
Branch Report 3/94, 1994.
13 Cited by Maj P P Lynch MC RM, What kind of soldier should I be? Does ethical education have a place in
the UK Armed Forces? If so, what should be its base and how should it be taught? JSCSC Defence
Research Paper, 2008, p 33.
7
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
they have a unifying function. The core values of the RAF, Respect, Integrity, Service and
Excellence, are values that are recognised as the foundational principles of the RAF’s
ethos as a war fighting Service.
(Rev Gp Capt E Gore, Core Values and Ethos in a Changing World,
Spirit of the Air, Issue 1, 2005, pp 37-39.)
Values and Standards directly contribute to the Army’s ethos and to fighting power. They
are a moral requirement and have functional utility. Upholding them is the collective
responsibility of all members of the Army. They are the foundations of teamwork, and are
interdependent. If any one of them is lacking, the team and the mission are threatened.
They are fostered and enhanced by good leadership, training and man-management,
throughout the chain of command.
(The Values and Standards of the British Army, Jan 08, p 7.)
Morality can be defined concurrently as the principles concerning the distinction between
right and wrong or good and bad behaviour, a system of values and moral principles, and
the extent to which an action is right or wrong.14 It involves making judgements of what is
right and wrong by determining which behaviour is in accord with commonly accepted
moral standards. Morals relate to principles of right and wrong and focus on standards of
behaviour. In this definition, a moral person would be one whom society judges to have
acted in a decent and acceptable manner in a particular situation.
Ethics is the branch of knowledge concerned with these moral principles. 15 It is derived
from the Greek word ήθος (ethos), but has a distinct purpose and meaning. Ethics refer to
the study of moral principles, encompassing the breadth and depth of moral philosophy,
without ascribing universal value to each branch. Ethos is defined as the characteristic
spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its attitudes and aspirations and is
therefore limited in its scope and veracity of challenge to its statement. The words ‘ethic’,
described as a set of moral principles, and ‘ethos’ are not interchangeable and can be
misleading if this is considered. Attitudes and aspirations are not the same as a set of
moral principles. Many nations choose to use the term ‘ethos’ to describe how their
members uphold their version of right and wrong. By describing what the spirit of the UK
Armed Forces is, in terms of the individual Services, one may miss describing its military
ethic. The ethos and the ethic of a group are linked but one does not necessarily explain
the other.
(Maj P P Lynch MC RM, What kind of soldier should I be? Does ethical education have a place
in the UK Armed Forces? If so, what should be its base and how should it be taught?
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, pp 12-13.)
The single Services are not monolithic organisations in the contemporary operating
environment. Each may have a culture and distinct way of thinking about the way war
should be conducted, not only by their branch, but by the other branches and Services
with which it would have to interact in war.16 However, in addition to this multicultural mix,
increasingly joint organisations and operations have emerged and have led to a crosspollination of values, described in Table 1.
14
Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th Ed, 2006.
Ibid.
16 Rosen, Stephen, Winning the next war, 1995, p.19.
15
8
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
Table 1: The core values of the UK Armed Forces.
Royal Navy
Courage
Royal Marines
Personal courage
Discipline
Integrity
Army
Courage
Discipline
Integrity
Professional standards
Loyalty
Respect for others
Commitment
Unity
Humility
Commando humour
Cheerfulness
Unselfishness
Loyalty
Respect for others
Selfless commitment
Personal determination
Adaptability
Fortitude
Commando spirit in bold,
others are group values
Royal Air Force
Physical and moral
courage
Discipline
Integrity – moral courage,
honesty, responsibility,
justice
Excellence – personal
excellence, discipline, pride
Loyalty
Respect – mutual and self
Service – physical courage,
loyalty, commitment,
teamwork
Italicised words
incorporated in main
values in bold
(Maj P P Lynch MC RM, What kind of soldier should I be? Does ethical education have a place
in the UK Armed Forces? If so, what should be its base and how should it be taught?
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 19.)
‘A man can be selfish, cowardly, disloyal, false, fleeting, perjured, and morally corrupt in a
wide variety of other ways and still be outstandingly good in pursuits in which other
imperatives bear than those upon the fighting man. … What the bad man cannot be is a
good sailor, or soldier, or airman.’17
- General Sir John Hackett
(Maj P P Lynch MC RM, What kind of soldier should I be? Does ethical education have a place
in the UK Armed Forces? If so, what should be its base and how should it be taught?
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 5.)
MAINTAINING CORE VALUES AND STANDARDS
There exists a strong chance that an individual will uphold moral values if those values are
not perceived as a varnish which has no deep root in his personal convictions, but when
those values have become, as a result of moral (self)education, a part of his sense of
personal identity.18
(Baarda, Ted, ‘Military ethics in peacekeeping and in war: Maintaining moral integrity in a world of contrast
and confusion’, speech at the University of Amsterdam, 2 Oct 03, http://www.jha.ac/articles/a129.htm,
accessed 4 Apr 08, conclusion.)
Hackett, Sir John, General, ‘The military in the service of the state’, in Wakin, Malham, War, Morality and
the Military Profession, 1986, p.119.
18 Cited by Maj P P Lynch MC RM, What kind of soldier should I be? Does ethical education have a place in
the UK Armed Forces? If so, what should be its base and how should it be taught? JSCSC Defence
Research Paper, 2008, p 33.)
17
9
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
High operational tempo coupled with posts being gapped and the concomitant increased
demands placed on RAF personnel suggest that adherence to a set of institutional core
values have never been more important. Understanding that individual core values can be
nurtured suggests that the RAF needs to do more to develop and sustain them.
(Wg Cdr J M Banbrook, How important are RAF core values in the context of contemporary British society?
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 38.)
All 3 initial training organisations, RAF Cranwell for officers, RAF Halton for airmen/
airwomen and RAF Honington for RAF Regiment Gunners, introduce the core values
articulated in Air Publication 1. Moreover, these organisations are almost exclusively
manned by serving RAF personnel who are able to pass-on their values by personally
demonstrating the behaviours associated with RAF core values. Consequently, the initial
training environment remains the bedrock for inculcating institutional core values.
(Wg Cdr J M Banbrook, How important are RAF core values in the context of contemporary British society?
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 31.)
One of the greatest challenges the RAF faces is how it manages to encourage the
acceptance of these Core Values amongst its personnel. The experience of the US military
serves as a warning. One US naval officer writes about the ‘Do-as-I-say’ core values. The
warning is clear. Core values can so easily become empty slogans unless they are
embraced by personnel at all levels and, in particular, those in senior positions set a good
example. In recruit training establishments, for both officers and other ranks, the centrality
of the RAF’s Core Values is recognised as a crucial foundation.
(Rev Gp Capt E Gore, Core Values and Ethos in a Changing World,
Spirit of the Air, Issue 1, 2005, pp 37-39.)
“Core values are those values by which we lead our lives and which we aspire to
develop in others. The Royal Air Force core values are: Respect, Integrity,
Service and Excellence, nurtured by effective and consistent leadership. These
values, rooted in the moral and social development of our society over many
generations, have a unifying function within the Royal Air Force and constitute the
founding principles of our ethos as a warfighting Service.” (Air Publication 1)
The bold introductory quote above contains 2 assumptions: first, that an organisation’s
core values can be ‘rooted in the moral and social development of our society over many
generations’; and second, organisational values can influence the motivations of
individuals. If these assumptions are true, it would follow that organisational core values
have a fundamental role to play in any successful organisation. However, outside of initial
training establishments and glossy strategy documents, RAF core values have not enjoyed
a profile commensurate with the significance and potential alluded to above.
(Wg Cdr J M Banbrook, How important are RAF core values in the context of contemporary British society?
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 2.)
With the end of conscription in 1961 and the importance placed on comradeship and the
small team, ship, platoon, or aircraft, the right or need for the Armed Forces to be different
emerged. The often unspoken argument was that professional armed forces were a
unique institution that required unique (‘higher’) standards. Homosexual acts were
10
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
decriminalised in UK civilian law in 1967 yet it was not until 2000 that the UK Armed
Forces followed suit. Similarly the integration of women into the workforce in the Armed
Forces lagged behind that in society more generally. The Armed Forces still do not
appear attractive to ethnic minority populations. Strachan cites the 25% 19 of homeless in
the UK who are ex-servicemen as an example of a civil/military gap: military life is so
different to civilian life that many cannot successfully make the change. Dandeker and
Freedman suggest that the MOD and UK Armed Forces give the impression of being oldfashioned and reactionary and of being forced into the 21st Century with their attitude to
these personnel issues. They suggest that an increasingly ‘risk-averse’ society and the
rise of a ‘compensation culture’ will have a damaging effect on armed forces operations,
recruitment and culture.20
There is a conservatism in the British Army which has led to a desire by some officers for
‘inappropriate’ differences to society. Antony Beevor states that ‘Even as late as 1988 and
1989, many senior officers were still arguing that it was the duty of the Armed Forces to
remain half a generation behind civilian society.’21 The logic of this value may have merit
but it is the attitude and sentiment behind it, a deeply conservative and even bigoted one,
that many interested parties outside the senior ranks of the Armed Forces fear may be the
justification for prolonging outmoded practice. It is to be hoped that the nature and tempo
of current operations will have driven this attitude out.
(Lt Cdr S M Joll RN, Assess the health of civil-military relations in the UK today. Discuss with
reference to the Clausewitzian Trinity. JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, pp 25-26.)
AMP commented that in his view, institutional core values do not necessarily need to
evolve and consequently he fully supported the recent decision to retain Respect, Integrity,
Service and Excellence as the RAF’s core values.22 However, he suggested that whilst
core values should remain the same, the standards by which we judge peoples behaviour
may evolve. Two examples to illustrate this comment are the decision in 1999 to permit
homosexuals to serve in the RAF and greater employment of women, including within
combat aircrew roles. Both of these examples highlight changes of behaviour that remain
consistent with RAF core values. Indeed acceptance of greater diversity will become an
important factor for the future as the traditional recruiting pool of white males aged 18-24
with appropriate qualifications reduces, thereby driving a need to recruit more females and
more individuals from ethnic minorities.
(Wg Cdr J M Banbrook, How important are RAF core values in the context of contemporary British society?
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, pp 38-39.)
Assuming that RAF core values are appropriately inculcated during initial training, there
will be an ongoing requirement for a structured follow-on programme to ensure values are
properly understood and sustained throughout an individual’s full career.
(Wg Cdr J M Banbrook, How important are RAF core values in the context of contemporary British society?
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, pp 38-39.)
19
Strachan, Hew (ed.), The British Army: Manpower and Society into the Twenty-First Century, 2000, p.xxii.
Dandeker, Christopher and Freedman, Lawrence, ‘The British Armed Services’, Political Quarterly, Vol.73,
No.4, October-December 2002, p.474.
21 Strachan, Hew (ed.), The British Army: Manpower and Society into the Twenty-First Century, 2000, p.62
(by Antony Beevor).
22 Interview with Air Member for Personnel on 11 Apr 08.
20
11
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
THE “PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT” AND MILITARY COVENANT
An individual joins the military with an unwritten set of expectations and commitments,
commonly called the “psychological contract”. In return for an acceptance of the primacy
of Service requirements over personal needs, and absolute submission to military
authority, individuals have an expectation that the Service will accept responsibility for their
overall well-being and that of their dependants23. This recognition of mutual obligation
enables the Services to be confident that they have the total commitment of their
personnel. However, failure to uphold the Service side of the psychological contract will
erode trust and commitment, thereby undermining the moral component.
(PTC/462122/8/TD dated 8 Aug 02, Strengthening RAF Ethos, A Paper by AMP, p 2.)
The nature of the psychological contract means that, in exchange for a preparedness to
make the ultimate sacrifice, RAF personnel legitimately expect the Service to make
adequate provision for their welfare and that of their families. In recent years, a strong
perception has developed that welfare facilities for families have been eroded, although
work is now underway to enhance the provision of community support. As acknowledged
previously, increasing numbers of Servicemen are choosing to settle their families in areas
geographically remote from the military bases at which they serve and great care must be
taken to ensure that the needs of these families are not overlooked.
(PTC/462122/8/TD dated 8 Aug 02, Strengthening RAF Ethos, A Paper by AMP, p 6.)
A distinction is made between the ‘military covenant’ and the ‘Military Covenant’. The
former is a concept that for centuries there has been an implied, uncodified agreement that
the armed forces (and especially soldiers) will make sacrifices for their country and in
return their country will support them with equipment, healthcare, pay, accommodation,
and so on. The ‘Military Covenant’ is a British Army document from 2000 which attempted
to codify this.
(Lt Cdr S M Joll RN, Assess the health of civil-military relations in the UK today. Discuss with
reference to the Clausewitzian Trinity, JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, Footnote p 1.)
[It] must first be understood that no formal ‘Military Covenant’ actually exists within the UK
or any other Western nation. In 2000, the British Army for the first time published a
doctrinal explanation of the Military Covenant, known as ‘ADP5’.24 This did not, however,
constitute a legal agreement of any sort, although it defined the Military Covenant as a
mutual obligation ‘between the nation, the Army and each individual soldier’. It carried no
ministerial endorsement because it was, in effect, an internal briefing document, a vehicle
to explain to soldiers their relationship to the state that they served. 25
The essence of ADP5 is that military service ‘imposes certain limitations on individual
freedom, and requires a degree of self-sacrifice’, and that in return for surrendering these
liberties soldiers ‘must always be able to expect fair treatment’ from the State. The
essential requirement that the document outlines, and which separates the serviceman
23
Neil, G W, Organisational Change and the Military Ethos: A Discussion Paper, HQ RAFSC Research
Branch Report 3/94, 1994.
24 Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) Volume 5, Soldiering – The Military Covenant (CGS: DGD&D/18/34/71,
Feb 00).
25 Ibid, p.1-2 (paragraph 0103).
12
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
from all other public servants, is that they must be ‘prepared personally to engage an
enemy or to place themselves in harm’s way … [a] legal right and duty to fight and if
necessary kill, according to their orders, and an unlimited liability to give their lives in doing
so’.26 Other public servants, such as police and fire service personnel may routinely face
dangerous or traumatic situations, but none can or should be asked to deliberately risk, or
even give, their lives in the service of others.
(Wg Cdr J K Frampton, The Military Covenant in an Age of Discretionary Intervention,
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 1.)
The last two or three years have witnessed a surge of UK government initiatives designed
to enhance support for armed forces personnel. From the introduction of the Operational
Allowance in 2006 to the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) in 2005, the
government has been busy in this area. Additionally, two large studies have recently been
commissioned. The Service Personnel Command Paper (SPCP) and the National
Recognition Study27 are both highly publicised and significant pieces of work, led by
Members of Parliament (MPs) which implicitly seek to rebut the spate of media articles,
much based on the remarks of the Chief of the General Staff (CGS)28 and others, which
suggest that the ‘military covenant’, the relationship between the Ministry of Defence
(MOD) and armed forces personnel, is somehow being undermined. Furthermore, the
Royal British Legion (RBL) has been running its ‘Honour the Covenant’ campaign which
also seeks to highlight the allegedly unsatisfactory treatment of servicemen and their
families.
(Lt Cdr S M Joll RN, Assess the health of civil-military relations in the UK today. Discuss
with reference to the Clausewitzian Trinity, JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 1.)
Ibid, p.1-1 (paragraph 0101), author’s italics.
Davies, Q, Clark, B, and Sharp, M, ‘National Recognition of our Armed Forces’, 19 May 08.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/69519F89-9630-4D5F-92CF-B834FAB0FBD2/0/recognition_of_our_armed
_ forces.pdf, accessed 27 May 08.
28 Dannatt, Sir Richard, General – various but including his address to the Institute of International Strategic
Studies on 21 Sep 07.
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/military-leaders-forum/general-sir-richard-dannatt/, accessed 12 Feb 08.
26
27
13
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
HERITAGE – HOW DOES IT FIT IN?
The RAF’s distinctive ethos has been shaped by history and by the demands of operating
in an environment that differs markedly from those of our sister Services. This has given
rise to a great emphasis on technology, respect for individuality and a professional
closeness between commissioned and non-commissioned ranks.
(http://www.raf.r.mil.uk/live/policy_statements/ethos policy statement.htm - 03/03/2009)
(Last updated 28 Aug 02)
The RAF is a relatively new Service by military standards but it has a rich history. At the
point of its creation in 1918, many Victorian values still prevailed but the pioneering spirit
that accompanied exploration of the air influenced greatly the ethos of the new military
Service created to exploit the medium. Therefore, RAF Ethos is an amalgam of many
different ingredients - the values of the RFC and RNAS, inherited military structures,
specialist technical skills and the courage needed to fly.
(PTC/462122/8/TD dated 8 Aug 02, Strengthening RAF Ethos, A Paper by AMP, p 2.)
Interest in the Royal Air Force’s heritage should not be limited to simply looking over our
shoulders at the past. It is primarily about understanding the lessons gleaned from
experience and using this to provide foundations upon which to build the future. In this
way, the Moral Component of Fighting Power is developed.
(Air Cdre R F Garwood, DAS, Foreword Cornerstone of Our Strength, Spirit of the Air, Issue 1, 2005.)
HERITAGE – CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
The RAF vision properly refers to an Air Force that is “proud of its heritage” but in reality,
little time is devoted to exploring either our traditions or the factors that make the RAF
unique. Furthermore, the drive to bring personnel into productive service more quickly has
forced specialist training sqns to focus almost entirely on delivering trade and branchspecific training. This has fostered a perception that an individual’s standard of General
Service Proficiency is secondary to the performance of his or her specialist duties; giving
rise to the criticism that some personnel are merely ‘civilians in uniform’.
(PTC/462122/8/TD dated 8 Aug 02, Strengthening RAF Ethos, A Paper by AMP, p 5.)
Heritage is not just about buildings it is also about people. The RAF is the youngest of the
three Services but is as proud of its heritage as the Royal Navy and the Army. The RAF’s
heritage comes in many forms from commemorations of events such as the Battle of
Britain to purpose built memorials and working buildings. It is also displayed through Battle
Honours embroidered on Squadron Standards, Books of Remembrance and Rolls of
Honour, aircraft gate guardians, and works of art.
(Flt Lt M Hudson (AHB RAF), RAF Heritage, Spirit of the Air, Issue 1, 2005, p 8.)
14
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
Military Identity. The need to focus on delivering operational outputs is understandable but
it has led to the elimination of many elements of our working routines that served to remind
us that the RAF is a military organisation. Symbols, badges and the ceremonial activities
associated with membership of a fighting Service are powerful, visual reinforcements of
shared identity which remind us that standards and teamwork are an essential aspect of
the military way of life. It is important that both our sister Services and the general public
recognise who we are and understand what we do. Therefore, it is vital that we protect the
few overtly ‘RAF’ elements still extant within our working practices e.g. the wearing of
blues. Consideration should also be given to resurrecting some of our ‘lost’ traditions e.g.
the re-introduction of trade badges and the expansion of sqn identities through celebration
of sqn histories and wider employment of sqn number plates. This should extend to the
management methods we employ and the language that we use, although we should also
be wary of creating artificial constraints that could serve to attenuate creativity. The
question of whether the business models that work for profit-making, private sector
companies are appropriate for the Armed Forces lies outside the scope of this Paper but
we should at least consider whether terms such as ‘Chief Executive’ send confusing
messages about our culture and ethos.
(PTC/462122/8/TD dated 8 Aug 02, Strengthening RAF Ethos, A Paper by AMP, p 6.)
Are Ethos and Heritage the same thing?
 Simple answer – no.
 Argue that heritage is an important part of ethos.
What part does Heritage have to play?
 We are what we are because of our heritage.
 Handed down by tradition.
 ‘Battle of Britain’ still public perception of RAF.
 Includes lessons from the past.
 Not always a good thing – image of ‘Biggles’ relevant to modern day air power?
 Buildings and memorabilia important.
What part do you have to play?
 Leadership.
o All have responsibilities.
 History.
o Staff rides.
o Local history.
 Physical.
o Buildings.
o Memorabilia.
o Know your Station.
o FD activity.
 Traditions.
o Those things that make us ‘different’
 Education.
o Primary role for you.
o Making people aware.
(Gp Capt C Smith (DAS Heritage), Presentation RAF Ethos and Heritage, 2007/8?)
15
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
THE CHANGING FACE OF CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS
Carl Von Clausewitz highlighted the importance of the relationship between the people, the
government and the armed forces, calling them a remarkable, or paradoxical, trinity …
The Trinity is composed of three relationships between the individual pillars and 2 sides to
each of those three relationships … At the risk of being overly simplistic, but as a general
starting point, in a western democracy like the UK for most of the last century, the
relationships can be broadly characterised as follows:
The Relationship between the Government and the Armed Forces
The government requires that the armed forces be loyal and obedient, to articulate their
requirements, to provide value for money and to be successful in any endeavour. The
armed forces require that the government provides money and equipment, a legal
framework to provide legitimacy within which to operate, and political direction including a
clear End State to any campaign. Increasingly, today that can be extended to include
cross-government support to the so-called Comprehensive Approach (CA)29.
The Relationship between the Government and the People
The people require their government to have integrity, honesty, to enact and reflect the
public’s will and to be competent. In turn, the government requires that the people give it
money, legitimacy (their votes) and direction.
The Relationship between the Armed Forces and the People
The people require the armed forces to be loyal and obedient, be successful and ultimately
to provide ‘security’ and perhaps today to be a ‘force for good’. The armed forces require
of the people: recruits, support (moral and physical), an industrial base, sympathy and
understanding and, ideally, political engagement.
(Lt Cdr S M Joll RN, Assess the health of civil-military relations in the UK today. Discuss with
reference to the Clausewitzian Trinity. JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, pp 3-5.)
In the years immediately following the [1st world] war, British society remained in shock
following the horrific losses on the Western front. Despite the inherent rejection of
militarism, society still reflected a leaning towards intrinsic values and deference to
authority and hierarchy rather than individualism.30 To that end, recruits and cadets
selected from society embarked on careers, where societal values were very much aligned
with the hierarchical structure of the RAF. Arguably, at that time, respect, integrity and the
notion of service were endemic in society and Trenchard’s training establishment could
focus on ‘excellence’, a value demanded by the air environment.
(Wg Cdr J M Banbrook, How important are RAF core values in the context of contemporary British society?
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 13.)
JDN 7/06 defines the CA as ‘Commonly understood principles and collaborative processes that enhance
the likelihood of favourable and enduring outcomes within a particular situation.’ The CA is yet to be fully
embraced by the UK government but seeks to coordinate the efforts of all government departments involved
in a campaign (often FCO, DFID and MOD).
30 Bishop, Patrick, Bomber Boys, Fighting Back 1940-1945, 2007, p.189.
29
16
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
In the early years of the Cold War, Britain still had to maintain a sizeable Empire and
National Service was introduced in 1947 to ensure British forces were sufficiently
resourced to be able to conduct operations on a global scale. Similar to recruitment during
World War 2, conscription had the effect of broadening ‘social recruitment into the
Services and raised public interest in the affairs of the services.’31 National Service also
resulted in the general public gaining a greater understanding of the military; however, ‘its
emphasis on spit and polish, pervasive regulation, and boring and invented make-work,
left most civilians with a perception of the military as a national repository for authoritarian
values.’32 Following the Suez crisis, in 1957, British defence policy was revised which
resulted in a significant reduction in world commitments and the announcement that
National Service would end in 1963. The authoritarian values associated with National
Service ‘would become increasingly inconsistent with society in the 1960s, particularly with
its youthful element, who moved to embrace a more permissive life-style.33 However, a
report issued by the King George Jubilee Trust in 1955, concluded that ‘the majority
benefit from National Service at least in physical fitness and character development.’ 34
Moreover, the generation who took part in National Service gained an understanding of the
military and the inherent values associated with service, and, consequently were able to
directly influence the generation that followed them.35
(Wg Cdr J M Banbrook, How important are RAF core values in the context of contemporary British society?
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 16.)
The existence of a system of conscription where citizens are compelled by law to join the
country’s armed forces affects civil-military relations in several ways. Firstly, the distinction
between people and armed forces is blurred. Is a citizen-soldier a member of the people
or armed forces part of the [Clausewitzian] Trinity?36 Secondly, it ensures that a wide
section of the civilian population, and therefore the government as well, have personal
experience of armed forces life and a basic military appreciation and familiarity. And
thirdly, senior officers will have a good range of contacts and links into civil society,
potentially ministers and civil servants, with whom they may have served and also leading
members of all walks of life from business to the judiciary and from police officers to
members of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) providing humanitarian aid. The
ending of conscription in 1961 and the ‘wasting out’ of those who saw service in WW2 has
meant that society and government have seen a startling reduction in the numbers who
have served in the armed forces.... In any event, there are currently no UK cabinet
ministers with military experience. This is merely a reflection of society at large; the
disconnection between the armed forces and the rest of public life.
(Lt Cdr S M Joll RN, Assess the health of civil-military relations in the UK today. Discuss with
reference to the Clausewitzian Trinity. JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 10.)
Throughout much of the 20th century, the role of the military in British society was
characterised by wars of national survival including both World Wars and the Cold War.
Since the end of the Cold War, Britain has been engaged in a number of expeditionary
31
Downs, Cathy, in Moskos and Wood (Eds), The Military: More than Just a Job? 1988, p.158.
ibid.
33 ibid.
34 Hickman, Tom, The Call-Up: A History of National Service, 2004, p.275.
35 ibid., Chapter 12.
36 Clausewitz, Carl Von, On War, translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, 1984. Clausewitz’s ‘Trinity’
– the relationship between the people, the army and the government (extended in this context to include the
armed forces in general).
32
17
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
conflicts and there has been no direct threat to national survival and our way of life, as we
know it. Even Britain’s participation in the ‘Global War on Terror’ does not threaten the
lives of the wider civilian population as experienced during either of the World Wars, or the
threat posed by the ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ strategy of the Cold War. Arguably,
British society had a strong affiliation with its military throughout much of the 20 th century,
borne out of a shared desire for national survival. Since the end of the Cold War, the RAF
together with its sister Services have reduced significantly in size and consequently each
of the Services have a much-reduced ‘footprint’ across the country. Moreover, the general
population have a decreasing understanding of the armed forces as we increasingly move
away from generations where many members of the population had personal experience
of military service.
(Wg Cdr J M Banbrook, How important are RAF core values in the context of contemporary British society?
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 3.)
The British civil-military relationship throughout the majority of the 20 th century can be
characterised by generations of society that have successively served their country in
order to preserve national survival. Each generation overlapped the previous generation
and society enjoyed an understanding of the qualities and values required to serve in the
armed forces. The first break in this chain occurred with the end of National Service in
1963 and therefore the end of widespread exposure of society with the armed forces. The
end of the Cold War marked the end of wars of national survival for the foreseeable
future37 and we currently live at a time when parents and even grandparents have had no
exposure to military life and its demands for inherent institutional values.
(Wg Cdr J M Banbrook, How important are RAF core values in the context of contemporary British society?
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, pp 20-21.)
Fewer people have any contact or visibility of what the armed forces do. ‘In the 20 years
prior to 1964, it is estimated that no less than 6.3 million people went through the Forces
and therefore 6.3 million families, about 20 million people, had a direct or indirect
involvement in military life, almost half the population. The total number entering the
armed forces between 1974 and 1994 amounted to no more than 660,000.’ This 90%
reduction in direct contact with the armed forces (an immediate family member) has meant
that visibility is rapidly reducing as is the footprint of the armed forces’ infrastructure, in
particular that of the RN and RAF.38 Much of this change can be seen in the very recent
past. Christopher Dandeker notes that UK armed forces have been halved in size since
the Cold War. The proportion of GDP devoted to defence also fell from 5.2% in 1984-539
to 2.5% in 200540.
(Lt Cdr S M Joll RN, Assess the health of civil-military relations in the UK today. Discuss with
reference to the Clausewitzian Trinity. JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 8.)
37
DCDC Strategic Trends [online] http://www.dcdc-strategictrends.org.uk/home.aspx, accessed Apr 08.
‘The Future of British Military Cultures: Social and Legal Change in Britain and Europe: The Personnel
Implications for the Armed Forces of the Twenty-First Century’ by Christopher Dandeker et al, British Military
Studies Group: 1998, p.7.
39 Hartley, K, Economic Premise and Resource Availability, British Security 2010 (London: 1995), p.222.
40 http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/Organisation/KeyFactsAboutDefenceDefence
Spending.htm, accessed 31 March 2008.
38
18
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
While there is evidence that recruitment may be affected … the public support for the
armed forces is apparently still high. Ipsos MORI data from 2006 showed that 87 per cent
of those surveyed agreed that the British armed forces were ‘among the best in the world’
with 64 per cent having a ‘very favourable’ or ‘mainly favourable’ view of them. The
majority also responded that the armed forces were doing a good job and were supportive
of their expeditionary role. Furthermore, 60 per cent believed that the armed forces’ priority
should be to ‘make the world a safer place’. ‘More widely, the British were generally much
more willing to contemplate the use of force in international affairs than other Europeans
and are of the view that the UK needs to maintain ‘strong armed forces’.’ 41 However, there
must be doubt regarding the sustainability of this.42 With an ever increasing, and
seemingly infinite, demand for spending on healthcare and education it must only be a
matter of time before this desire for the UK to punch above its weight on the global stage
becomes financially unsustainable… at least assuming that the current societal view
regarding priorities remains unchallenged by outside events.
(Lt Cdr S M Joll RN, Assess the health of civil-military relations in the UK today. Discuss with
reference to the Clausewitzian Trinity. JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 14.)
Armed forces personnel themselves are not immune from the changes in society. They
are also becoming more ‘individualistic’ and less inclined to see service in the military as a
vocation and more as ‘just a job’. The traditional service values of self-sacrifice, if
necessary making the ultimate sacrifice, putting the team above oneself, working long
hours, a ‘can do’ attitude and the ‘unlimited liability’ of service life are no longer as
automatic to personnel as they perhaps once were. Set against the background of a
public less committed to the government’s strategic policy, frequent deployments to highrisk theatres, concern over legal prosecution of servicemen,43 increasing availability of
alternative careers, more working spouses and spouses less forgiving of the demands that
armed service life places on the serviceman’s family, recruitment and, in particular,
retention, is becoming a real challenge.44
(Lt Cdr S M Joll RN, Assess the health of civil-military relations in the UK today. Discuss with
reference to the Clausewitzian Trinity. JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 26.)
Perhaps one of the most relevant models … is the institutional/occupational model
originally proposed by Charles Moskos, an American professor of sociology. Moskos
proposes a typology whereby institutional values are characterised by the concept of
service, loyalty and honour, whilst occupational values might best be characterised by
phrases such as ‘just a job’ or a ‘9 to 5 mentality.’ 45 Moskos’ theory, proposed toward the
end of the Cold War, was that American military organisations were moving from the
traditional institutional model increasingly toward more occupational trends. 46 His coeditor, Frank Wood, suggested that this was particularly true in the United States Air
Force, largely due to the highly technical nature of the Service and the increasing
Edmunds, Timothy and Forster, Anthony, ‘Out of Step: The Case for Change in the British Armed Forces’
by London: DEMOS: 2007, p.60 including Ipsos MORI data from Mar–Apr 2006.
42 Views expressed during two DEMOS workshops in London: ‘A force to be reckoned with? The British
armed forces in contemporary society’, 30 May 2007; and ‘Armed forces: a crisis in civil–military relations?’,
12 Jul 07.
43 For example the Colonel Jorge Mendonca court martial of 2006/7.
44 Edmunds, Timothy and Forster, Anthony, op. cit., pp.47-8 & 55-6.
45 Moskos and Wood (Eds), The Military: More than Just a Job? 1988.
46 ibid., p.3.
41
19
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
interaction with civilian contractors and their methods of operating.47
(Wg Cdr J M Banbrook, How important are RAF core values in the context of contemporary British society?
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 6.)
Since 2000, occupational trends and other overtly civilian influences have continued in the
RAF including projects such as ‘Pay As You Dine’, Joint Personnel Administration, DTR,
MFTS and Future Strategic Transport Aircraft (FSTA). In short, occupational trends are
now rife within the contemporary RAF domestic and operational environments.
(Wg Cdr J M Banbrook, How important are RAF core values in the context of contemporary British society?
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 25.)
The real danger may not be armed forces and society becoming too different and separate
but that they become too similar. If that idea has any validity then the implication is that
armed forces are required no longer to reflect society but to be increasingly different. The
product would be elitist armed forces increasingly at odds with the society from which they
recruit, from which they are funded and which they serve. The extreme choice suggested
is either ineffective armed forces which reflect society or elite fighting machines
disconnected from society. Clearly the reality will lie somewhere in the middle but the
tensions placed on the [Clausewitzian] Trinity are clear.
(Lt Cdr S M Joll RN, Assess the health of civil-military relations in the UK today. Discuss with
reference to the Clausewitzian Trinity. JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, pp 2-3.)
47
Wood, Frank in Moskos and Wood (Eds), The Military: More than Just a Job? 1988, p.36.
20
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER?
It has to be acknowledged that the concept of ethos is abstract and intangible, and is often
difficult to pin down precisely. For this reason, work has been done more recently to try
and define how ethos is developed and sustained. Eleven elements have been identified:

Inspirational leadership

Committed followers

Common beliefs

Shared vision for the future

Doctrine

Corporate celebration

Defined (moral) standards

Symbols and artefacts

Historical foundations

Belonging

Willingness to accept danger for the greater good
Inspirational leadership and committed followers are clearly important to maintaining the
Service ethos. A strong sense of belonging is central to our team working and common
purpose. The importance of our heritage, expressed in our historical foundations, symbols
and artefacts and our corporate celebrations, such as those surrounding the Battle of
Britain, will do much to reinforce our sense of a common ethos running back through time
to the foundation of the RAF in 1918. A shared vision for the future, building on this
heritage, will help take that common ethos into the future. The RAF’s doctrine, the theory
and practice of how it conducts its operations, which is built on past experience, will also
reflect our ethos. Our common beliefs, our Core Values, alongside our clearly defined
standards, not only stand out on their own as important but also underpin each of the other
eleven. These Core Values are indeed the very foundations of our communal life and
purpose.
(Rev Gp Capt E Gore, Core Values and Ethos in a Changing World,
Spirit of the Air, Issue 1, 2005, pp 37-39.)
Taking the model illustrated at Annex B [below] as a convenient representation of how the
relationship between ethos and culture works in practice, it is evident that while ethos is
heavily dependent on the strength of core values and beliefs, it can also be affected by
changes to culture. Therefore, changes to any aspect of culture will impact upon ethos,
and vice versa. Thus, examination of the observable aspects of culture should provide a
fairly reliable indicator of the state of the underlying ethos.
(PTC/462122/8/TD dated 8 Aug 02, Strengthening RAF Ethos, A Paper by AMP, p 2.)
21
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
A MODEL TO REPRESENT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORE VALUES,
ETHOS AND CULTURE
The model below illustrates the relationship between core values, ethos and culture. The
core values lie at the heart of the model because they are central to an organisation’s
sense of identity. They are the virtues and principles that an organisation prizes above all
else and guide the way in which it goes about its business.
The core values determine how business is conducted because, provided they are
universally accepted, they shape the attitudes of members of the organisation. These
attitudes give rise to the distinctive character or spirit that is peculiar to the organisation
and, collectively, these elements constitute the ethos.
Ethos cannot be directly observed but is manifested in the observable behaviours,
traditions, structures, routines, power bases and control mechanisms that together
constitute the culture of an organisation. As culture is an outward expression of ethos, it
follows that a change in ethos will be reflected in the culture. Equally, changes to aspects
of an organisation’s culture will have some impact on ethos. The relationship between
ethos and culture is therefore one of interdependence.
(PTC/462122/8/TD dated 8 Aug 02, Strengthening RAF Ethos, A Paper by AMP, Annex B.)
22
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
Future interventions are likely to be discretionary and expeditionary, as the recently
released UK National Security Strategy states, “there are no direct threats to the UK at this
time”.48 Future operations, whether conducted for humanitarian reasons or national
interests, or both, are likely to be undertaken by multinational forces.49
(Wg Cdr J K Frampton, The Military Covenant in an Age of Discretionary Intervention,
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 34.)
[The] civil-military relationship - the relationship between the people, the government and
the armed forces of a state - has been, and remains, vitally important to the successful
operation of this country’s armed forces; that it has changed in nature over time but
particularly following the end of the Cold War; and that it will wither if taken for granted or
ignored. It must be worked on by all parties if it is to remain strong. For a variety of
reasons, this relationship is under significant strain. The following three paragraphs based
on Hew Strachan, Rupert Smith, Andrew Dorman and Jean Callaghan/Jurgen Kuhlmann’s
work set the context [for this essay].
Firstly, Strachan suggests that the British people and their forces are distant. ‘In Britain,
defence does not figure as an electoral issue, and defence expenditure is an easy victim
when set against…health or education. Servicemen conclude that civilians accept the
decisions of their political masters because they are unwarrantably ignorant of military
realities. They see civilians as venerating individualism over cohesion.’ 50 The armed
forces are concerned that they have adopted equal opportunities ideals but struggle to
recruit and retain personnel. They are concerned that operational effectiveness is
therefore being undermined. Smith suggests that current UK military campaigns, in
Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, are disconnected from British people’s lives. He
believes that these military operations ‘have become media events far away from any
ongoing social reality’.51
Secondly, Dorman states that ‘Britain’s armed forces have accepted the government’s
case for the various wars and remained their servant. However, public opinion has not
fully endorsed this view and the continuing support of the public for ongoing operations
cannot be guaranteed.’ British public opinion has, in Dorman’s opinion, failed ‘to sign up to
the concept of a “Global War on Terror”’.52
And lastly, Callaghan and Kuhlmann find that the ethos and values of the armed forces are
problematic. ‘Armed forces also face new problems of legitimacy in their societies…the
Military must address the problem of how to legitimise its unique military culture when, as
a result of a more individualistic liberal climate, the civilian foundations are perhaps less
secure than they were.’53
Three challenges emerge from these quotations. Firstly, that a distance has grown
between the people (and inevitably the government as well) on the one side and their
armed forces on the other. Secondly, that the British people have failed to see the logic of
‘The National Security Strategy of the United Kingdom’, 2008, p.10.
Ibid., p.9.
50 Strachan, Hew, ‘The Civil-Military “Gap” in Britain’, Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol.26, No.2, Jun 03, p.46.
51 Smith, Rupert, The Utility of Force, 2006, p.9.
52 Dorman, Andrew, ‘Britain and its Armed Forces Today’, Political Quarterly, Vol.78, No.2, Apr-Jun 2007,
p.322.
53 Callaghan, Jean and Kuhlmann, Jurgen, Military and Society in Twenty-First Century Europe, 2000, p.3.
48
49
23
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
the government’s interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. And thirdly, that tensions exist
around the concept that armed forces ‘need to be different’ if they are to be successful.
(Lt Cdr S M Joll RN, Assess the health of civil-military relations in the UK today. Discuss with
reference to the Clausewitzian Trinity. JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, pp 1-2.)
The TISS report54 … identified a ‘functional gap’ between the armed forces and society,
suggesting that while the armed forces think they should be ‘different’ to society.
Increasingly society fails to see why. ‘A key people issue in the UK is the increasing
expectation – not least by the government – that the armed services should ‘reflect’
society…The social profile of the services should correspond more closely with that of the
wider population in terms of gender, sexual orientation, social class and ethnicity.’ 55 How
closely should the armed forces of a country reflect the society from which they are
drawn?
Christopher Dandeker asserts that ‘the functional imperatives of war and military
operations ensure that the Services stand apart from civilian society.’ 56 The core values of
the culture of the armed forces are subordination of the individual to the team and the idea
of sacrifice.57 These are very different to modern UK society.
(Lt Cdr S M Joll RN, Assess the health of civil-military relations in the UK today. Discuss with
reference to the Clausewitzian Trinity. JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 29.)
Considering the relevance of institutional values in a society that is increasingly
occupational in nature highlights the dilemma faced by contemporary armed forces and
specifically the RAF. Against the backdrop of declining societal values and a general shift
toward more occupational trends as a result of economic pressures, the RAF needs to
retain institutional values as the foundation of its moral component of fighting power. To
that end and because of the unique nature and culture of Service life and the roles that
individuals are expected to contribute, the RAF was right to retain a set of institutional core
values. Moreover, British society has a tendency to respect its armed forces’ ‘adherence
to these values and for the character of these values.’58 The challenge for the RAF as its
members spend more and more time with those who do not necessarily share those
values, is likely to be ensuring that RAF core values are genuinely adhered to by the
organisation and its members rather than just existing as a mantra for initial training
establishments and empty rhetoric for glossy brochures and strategy documents.
(Wg Cdr J M Banbrook, How important are RAF core values in the context of contemporary British society?
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 28.)
Brigadier Aitken’s words add significant weight to formalising the ethics education of the
UK Armed Forces: ‘We now have to encapsulate in our people a better understanding of
what is right and wrong, and not by learning the core values parrot-fashion but really
54
The Triangle Institute for Security Studies (TISS) research project of 2003 into US civil-military relations.
Dandeker, Christopher and Mason, David, ‘Diversifying the Uniform?’, Armed Forces and Society, Vol.29,
No.4, Summer 2003, p.481.
56 Strachan, Hew (ed.), The British Army: Manpower and Society into the Twenty-First Century, 2000, p.174
(by Christopher Dandeker)
57 Strachan, The British Army, op. cit., p.175 (by Christopher Dandeker).
58 Downes, Cathy, in Moskos and Wood (Eds), The Military: More than Just a Job? 1988, p.165.
55
24
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
understanding what they mean.’59 This will undoubtedly mean a greater emphasis on
ethics education, possibly forcing a more intellectual approach.
(Maj P P Lynch MC RM, What kind of soldier should I be? Does ethical education have a place
in the UK Armed Forces? If so, what should be its base and how should it be taught?
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 20.)
Societal values have gradually evolved whilst the Service need has remained the same.
The RAF still requires individuals to uphold institutional values as defined by Moskos, 60
because whilst the strategic operating environment has changed and technology has
evolved, fighting power still relies on the moral component. Air Publication 1 (2nd Edition)
suggests that:
‘the moral component of air power depends upon effective leadership, resilience, a
shared set of core values, high personal standards and the total commitment that
arises from a strong and binding Royal Air Force ethos.’61
This requirement has endured since the formation of the RAF, through the Second World
War and Cold War to the current day. In short, the RAF still needs highly motivated
people to fight and support the fight, particularly as the current high levels of operational
commitments are set to continue for many years to come.62
(Wg Cdr J M Banbrook, How important are RAF core values in the context of contemporary British society?
JSCSC Defence Research Paper, 2008, p 37.)
PROJECTING ETHOS, CV&S, AND HERITAGE – THE LEADERSHIP AND TRG
CHALLENGES
Ethos:
Arguably, ethos is ‘multi-layered’ – from the high level military ethos which, ultimately,
requires the acceptance of a liability to kill or be killed, down through the single Service
ethos (ie, that which makes each Service different), to those factors which make the most
junior rating/soldier/airman ‘tick’ and fulfil (or maybe exceed) the requirements of their
individual role and duties. Organisations can issue definitions of what they believe the
‘corporate ethos’ ought to be but, at the lowest level, ethos ‘is what it is’ – it comes from
within and is the personal motivation and drive of the individual.
From a training perspective, ethos itself cannot easily be measured or tested for
individuals to be awarded a ‘pass/fail’ score – what can be taught and tested is an
understanding of what ethos is as a concept, and what factors (internal and external to the
RAF) can enhance or undermine it.
CV&S:
Considered to be the very foundations of the RAF’s communal life and purpose, these are
laid down in AP1. Significantly, they form the basis of the ‘Service Test’ when considering
the acceptability or otherwise of the actions and behaviours of the individual. However,
Ministry of Defence, ‘MOD releases report into abuse of Iraqi civilians’, 25 Jan 08,
http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/defencenews/defencepolicyandbusiness/modreleasesreportintoabuseofir
aqicivilians.htm, accessed 25 Apr 08.
60 Moskos and Wood (Eds), The Military: More than Just a Job? 1988.
61 Air Publication 1, (2nd Edition), Ethos, Core Values and Standards, 2008, p.5.
62 ibid.
59
25
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
the declared CV&S of any organisation only work if they are accepted by, and shape the
behaviours of, the members of an organisation – they cannot be seen as ‘core values’ if
they become merely a checklist for disciplinary purposes.
From a training perspective, CV&S can be (and are) heavily emphasised during basic trg
and individuals can be taught and tested on what the CV&S and their constituent parts are,
and why they are important. However, CV&S are subject to pressures both internal and
external to the RAF, and therefore some evolution of what is deemed to be
acceptable/unacceptable conduct is inevitable. The key point is that although CV&S can
be published, taught and tested, that in itself is not enough – to be valid, they have to be
the accepted code of conduct which people actually use to live their lives, day by day, on
and off duty. Reinforcement education and trg may therefore be required to develop and
sustain them, with leadership by example being pivotal at all levels.
Heritage:
We are what we are because of our heritage, and it is the platform upon which the future
of our Service is shaped and built. It is, however, arguably the most diverse area,
operating at various levels (eg, the history of our Service, our stns, flying and other sqns,
Branches/Trades, etc), and with a broad range of physical, ceremonial and participative
aspects (eg, memorials, buildings, gate guardians, memorabilia and works of art; Battle
Honours and Unit/Sqn crests and badges; Remembrance Sunday, Battle of Britain, and
Freedom Parades and other ceremonies; social traditions (such as Dining-In Nights), etc).
‘Current ops’ at some indeterminable point become part of our history and heritage (eg,
the Falklands campaign, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the honours and awards/Battle
Honours that have gone with them), which may or may not have a physical ongoing
commitment for serving and future RAF personnel. This list is not exhaustive.
From a training perspective, ‘headline RAF history’ (eg, key dates, personalities and
events) and other mainstream issues can be taught and tested during basic trg, and this
can be developed and reinforced during formal through-life education. However, in an
expeditionary Service that is working hard in its primary roles at home and is also
preparing for or serving OOA, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain and develop
interest in such matters on a routine basis. For example, consider the problem frequently
encountered of encouraging participation in ceremonial parades and Dining-In Nights
(many of which are performed out of ‘normal working hours’): how can personnel be
persuaded (or reach the conclusion themselves) that such occasions are both relevant and
something to appreciate and enjoy, rather than being a further distraction from their
primary role and a personal cost to them in terms of time and/or money? The number of
both single and ‘partnered personnel’ (in their various forms) who live off-base, or who
weekend commute over long distances, compounds the problem. At stn level, FDSs may
(eg) be able to encourage interest in local heritage by focusing on and promoting the
history, roles and activities of the Stn itself (and its satellite units) and the lodger units/sqns
within it, perhaps by initially including it as part of the Stn Arrivals Brief, and then
developing this through in-house presentations, visits to national/stn/sqn museums, etc.
However, this is but one area and tackling the promotion of, and participation in, the
broader range of heritage-related areas is a significant (and growing?) leadership and
management challenge at all levels.
*
*
*
26
*
*
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
ENCLOSURE
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
Intentionally blank
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
RAF ETHOS FORUM – DEC 01
To broaden the debate and gain an insight into what personnel perceived current RAF
Ethos and culture to be, a cross-section of ranks from across the Service was invited to an
Ethos Forum held at HQ PTC in Dec 01. By analysing their experience of RAF culture,
syndicates identified many factors that had a positive impact on ethos. There was
collective agreement that it was essential to retain teamwork, professionalism, humour, a
distinct RAF identity and greater acknowledgement of the importance of our history and
traditions. Furthermore, a common theme that emerged was the need to have a clear
organisational structure but, within that structure, to encourage a greater degree of
empowerment and to celebrate more overtly the respect for individuality that is a distinctive
hallmark of the RAF. Of the factors that were perceived to have had a negative effect on
our ethos, contractorisation was most frequently mentioned and was deemed to have
generated procedural inflexibility, a decline in standards and an erosion of discipline due to
the loss of military role models.5 Frustration was also caused by a perceived shortage of
resources, the apparently endless quest for efficiency and budgetary primacy in decisionmaking. The adoption of private sector business methods and language, excessive
political correctness, the civilianisation of instructor posts and the loss of Trade Group 10
(and the associated reduction in the authority of the SWO) were also perceived to have
undermined our military identity.
A summary of observations from the Ethos Forum is at Annex C.
(PTC/462122/8/TD dated 8 Aug 02, Strengthening RAF Ethos, A Paper by AMP, p 3.)
5
Increased centralisation and contractorisation of support activities has also denied commanders the
flexibility to modify the environment in which their people worked as recently indicated in Aircrew Retention
Review non-remuneration issues.
1
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
Intentionally blank
2
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
ANNEX C TO
PTC/462122/8/TD
DATED 8 AUG 02
SUMMARY OF ETHOS FORUM OUTCOMES
WHAT DO WE HAVE THAT WE WANT TO KEEP?
Humour, team-working (Core Value), individuality, professionalism (Core Value), a distinct
RAF identity, and respect for our history and traditions were the most common themes,
being mentioned by 4 of the 6 syndicates. Loyalty, another Core Value, was mentioned by
3 of the 6 syndicates, along with discipline. Other themes included: task focus, “can do”
attitude, pride (Core Value), trust in colleagues, values, and sense of belonging. Some
themes emerged that were particular to specific syndicates and some of these merit
further comment as they may be indicative of subcultures. Members of syndicate 1
(comprising trainees and personnel involved in the delivery of airman trg) wished to retain
a clear, hierarchical structure because “every person needs to know his or her place in the
organisation”. Notwithstanding this, there was a stated desire for greater empowerment
for individuals and retention of every individual’s freedom to speak his/her mind.”
Interestingly, credibility and reputation were mentioned only by the aircrew syndicate as
was a wish to “keep the teeth, reduce the tail”. One of the syndicates stated the need to
retain our military language rather than allow it to be watered-down by business
management speak.
WHAT DO WE HAVE THAT WE DON’T WANT TO KEEP?
The issue that all syndicates wished to discuss in this part of the matrix was
contractorisation/ civilianisation. Five of the groups mentioned resource shortages and a
need to get rid of budgetary primacy.
Eliminating bureaucracy and overcoming
organisational paranoia were mentioned by 2 or 3 different syndicates. Of the other issues
arising, the 2 airmen trg syndicates wanted to get rid of political correctness, the ‘us and
them’ culture, resistance to change and what they perceived to be outdated rituals (e.g.
orderly cpl). The aircrew syndicate wanted to eradicate 1-way loyalty, over-supervision,
cynicism and management speak. Contributions from the officer trg and policy groups
included a desire to halt the erosion of discipline, prevent “dogma-driven purplisation” and
dispense with the blame culture.
WHAT DON’T WE HAVE THAT WE WOULD LIKE?
Adequate resourcing and more attention given to quality of life issues were desired by 3 of
the 6 syndicates. The other common “wants” were consistency (both managerially and in
terms of coherence of policy), recognition of hard work, 2-way loyalty, better
equipment/improved technology and confidence in the organisation and its future. The jnr
ranks within syndicate 1 requested more active listening from the top down, more control
over their own career development and some form of representation to the highest levels
of the RAF through a jnr ranks-led focus group or similar. Some other tangible desires
included the de-coupling of reward from rank, an increase in the number of military
instructors and a selection system for instructional posts, the widespread re-introduction of
exercises (TACEVAL, etc) and a policy for employing RAF personnel in an RAF
environment in their initial years of service.
C-1
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1
WHAT DON’T WE HAVE THAT WE NEVER WANT TO HAVE?
The most common phrase appearing in this section was “a purple uniform” which was
mentioned by 3 syndicates. Unions/federations and overwhelming civilianisation came up
in 2 different syndicates. Other ‘don’t ever wants’ include rigidity, a “jobsworth” culture,
excessive political correctness, a drugs culture, the values of broader society, mercenaries
and National Service.
C-2
20090727-Ethos&Heritage-U-V1