JOINT SERVICES
COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE
Defence Research Paper
By
Wing Commander J M Banbrook RAF
ADVANCED COMMAND AND
STAFF COURSE
NUMBER 11
SEP 07 – JUL 08
DEFENCE RESEARCH PAPER
SUBMISSION COVER SHEET
Student Name:
DRP Title:
Syndicate:
Syndicate DS:
DSD DRP Supervisor:
FE submitted towards psc(j)
and the KCL MA in Defence
Studies
Wg Cdr J M Banbrook
(PIC: 07-3476)
How important are RAF core values in the context
of contemporary British society?
B4
Wg Cdr Tom Whittingham
Dr Ian Gooderson
psc(j) and KCL MA
MOD Sponsored Topic?
No
Number of Words:
14963 (inc 84 words from 3 diagrams)
I confirm that this Formal Exercise is all my own work.
Signature:
Date:
DSD Comments
Seen by:
.
Date:
Comment/ Action:
How important are RAF core values in the context of
contemporary British society?
Word Count
14963
Abstract
Since the end of the Cold War, British societal values have diverged from the more
traditional organisational values articulated by the RAF. This Paper will briefly examine the
relationship between society and the military prior to considering contemporary models of
individual, organisational and societal values. The Paper will consider the evolution of RAF
core values and the relationship between the current institutional values articulated by the RAF
and changing British societal values. The Paper includes the personal observations of several
members of the RAF senior leadership team including the Chief of the Air Staff. It will conclude
that whilst societal values are diverging, there is a clear requirement for the RAF to retain
institutional core values and consequently there will be a greater need to understand, promote,
develop, sustain and measure RAF core values.
1
How important are RAF core values in the context of contemporary British society?
“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 11
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. What are core values; are they enduring?
What effect do societal values have on organisations, given that organisations draw their
members from society? A quick ‘google’ search on the subject of core values reveals a
plethora of different subjects ranging from personal development, sociology, anthropology,
psychology, religion and social scientists. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary describes
values as ‘principles or standards of behaviour’ or that which we ‘consider to be important or
beneficial.’2 Consequently it would appear that definitions and interpretation of values are more
abstract than scientific. Respect, Integrity, Service and Excellence (RISE) would seem to
reflect values that any organisation might aspire toward and they seem instinctively relevant
within the Service environment. Indeed, the USAF articulate, ‘Integrity First’, ‘Service Before
Self’ and ‘Excellence in All We Do’, as their core values3 and whilst the Royal Australian Air
Force do not use a short acronym such as RISE, respect, integrity, service and excellence
each feature in the published list of their values.4
Assuming that the assumptions already alluded to are correct and that RAF core values
are rooted in the development of our society over previous generations, are they still relevant in
contemporary British society? A quick glance at the British media on any given day might
1
Air Publication 1 (2nd Edition), Ethos, Core Values and Standards (High Wycombe: Media Services HQ
Air Cmd, 2008), p.7.
2 Soanes, Catherine and Stevenson, Angus (Eds), Concise Oxford English Dictionary: Eleventh Edition
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p.1597.
3 United States Air Force, ‘Core Values’ [online], http://www.usafa.af.mil/core-value/ [accessed 7 Apr
2008].
4 Royal Australian Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force Values [online],
http://www.raaf.gov.au/aboutus/values.htm [accessed 7 Apr 2008].
2
indicate that RAF core values have been overtaken by a wider generation motivated by
personal gain and instant gratification rather than the personal sacrifice and selfless sense of
duty demonstrated by those members of society that served in the armed forces in either of the
World Wars. The ‘what’s in it for me’, ‘me first’ and ‘X Factor’ generation are popular sweeping
statements often used to describe contemporary British youth. The Association of Teachers
and Lecturers recently reported that ‘children are turning away from schoolwork because they
see education as unhelpful in their ambition to become rich and famous as reality TV stars’ and
in a survey of 300 teachers, two thirds of them said that the ‘children they taught aspired to be
sports stars or pop singers.’5 Perhaps there is nothing new in the latter statement, though it
may have greater consequences if the values of sports stars or pop singers have also diverged
from more traditional values. Witness the behaviour of premiership footballers towards match
officials compared to their peers 30-years ago; does this indicate that there has there been a
shift in societal values in recent years?
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 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 20th 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.
The thesis for this paper is that since the end of the Cold War, British societal values
have diverged from the more traditional organisational values articulated by the RAF. To
address the thesis, this paper will consider 4 primary issues: what are core values; the
evolution of RAF core values and their relationship with British societal values during the 20th
century; whether institutional values are still relevant within the context of contemporary British
society; and, the implications for the RAF? In the first section, in order to define the abstract
concept of core values, the paper will examine the relationship between the military and society
5
Woolcock, Nicola, Forget education, pupils just want to be famous’, The Times, 14 March 2008, p.35.
3
prior to considering contemporary models of core values and exploring how values are formed.
In the second section, the paper will look at some selected events from the formation of the
RAF to the post Cold War era of expeditionary operations to consider the foundations of RAF
core values and the evolving relationship with British society. Space precludes a detailed
analysis of all of the historical influences on societal and RAF values throughout the 20 century.
Therefore, the intention of this section is to highlight a number of significant events that suggest
how values may have been influenced, thereby leading to the values currently displayed by
contemporary society and the 21st century RAF. This section will conclude with a brief history
of how the current RAF core values were defined and their link with the moral component of
fighting power. The third section will highlight the dilemma faced by the RAF regarding the
need to maintain traditional institutional values within a society whose values are increasingly
individualistic in nature. A review of contemporary values will be presented to suggest that
British societal values are changing concurrently with increasing trends within the armed forces
toward more integration with civilian practises. This section will conclude with an explanation of
why the RAF has elected to retain institutional values. The final section will consider the
implications of the foregoing for the RAF including personal observations from the Chief of the
Air Staff and the Air Member for Personnel. This section will also present some evidence from
recent studies to suggest how well core values are adhered to across the RAF and
consequently highlight areas of concern and areas for improvement.
The paper will conclude that whilst societal values are diverging, there is a clear
requirement for the RAF to retain a clearly articulated set of traditional institutional core values
in order to maintain operational effectiveness. Essentially, the current set of RAF core values
are fit for purpose, though it will become increasingly difficult to inculcate these values in new
recruits coming from a society that focuses on individual aspirations rather than a collective
good. In short, there will be increased demands placed on the Service training establishments
and a greater need to understand, promote, develop, sustain and measure RAF core values.
4
What are Core Values? Before looking at some practical contemporary definitions and
models of values, it is useful to consider some of the early work on civil-military relations in
order to understand the relationship between society, the military and its members. In 1957,
Samuel Huntingdon wrote a book titled ‘The Soldier and the State’ in which he addresses the
key issue of the inherent power possessed by large military organisations and the resultant
significance of civil-military relations.6 Huntingdon, writing during the Cold War when the US
had developed a powerful and large-scale military to counter the Soviet threat, suggests that
the military should be treated as an autonomous apolitical professional organisation and that it
should be subordinated to the state by ‘objective civilian control’.7 The dilemma was that the
traditional conservative values implicit within the hierarchical structure of the United States
military were at odds with the more liberal values of the United States society. Indeed,
Huntingdon went as far as suggesting that ‘military organisations which reflect only social
values may be incapable of performing effectively their military function.’8 This raises the issue
regarding the significance of societal values in comparison with the values of a military
organisation. Huntingdon even suggests that America might do well to adopt the more
professional, disciplined values of the military rather than the military reflecting more liberal
values.9 This comment must be considered in the context of the period it was written, the
height of the Cold War. However, this point raises potentially serious consequences as ‘an
armed force that sees itself as the last moral and ethical bastion in a societal era of greed,
egocentrism, and moral and political corruption is, in some circumstances, a military coup
waiting to happen.’10
Huntingdon’s seminal piece of work places the military as an institution within society,
but it does not address the issues of individuals serving within the military. By definition, the
soldiers, sailors and airmen of military institutions originate from society and therefore grow-up
as members of civilian society. In his book titled ‘The Professional Soldier’ Morris Janowitz
takes Huntingdon’s basic thesis and goes on to consider the position and standing of the
professional soldier within American society.11 Essentially, outside of the total war
environment, Janowitz suggested that future military outputs would have an increasing
resemblance to ‘constabulary’ functions and thus the professional military officer needs to
retain close links with the society they serve. Moreover, he highlights the increasing need for
6
Huntington, Samuel P, The Soldier and The State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations,
(Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967).
7 ibid., p.190.
8 ibid., p.2.
9 ibid., p.464-466.
10 Cathy Downs in Moskos, Charles C, and Wood, Frank R (Eds), The Military: More than Just a Job?
(London: Brassey’s Defence Publishers Ltd, 1988), p.163.
11 Janowitz, Morris, The Professional Soldier: A social and political portrait, (New York: The Free Press,
1964).
5
managerial skills in order for the military to better reflect society.12 Janowitz suggests that the
military officer is ‘subject to civilian control, not only because of the “rule of law” and tradition,
but also because of self-imposed professional standards and meaningful integration with
civilian values.’13 Janowitz’s theories are clearly relevant and one might be forgiven for
believing that they were written this century rather than in the 1960s. Indeed, an increase in
civilian management practices and constabulary functions have been widespread in both
American and British armed forces since the end of the Cold War. Whilst based on American
society, Huntingdon and Janowitz’s classic pieces of work propose a model for the Western
military institution and it’s serving members within society. Both pieces were written in the
aftermath of World War 2 and the concomitant fight against fascism/Nazism, and in the middle
of the Cold War, which marked a fight of democracy versus communism, essentially conflicts
about very different sets of values. Consequently, the relationship between the military and
society and the need for an acceptance and understanding of each others values is
fundamental.
Perhaps one of the most relevant models to this particular thesis 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.’14 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.15 His co-editor,
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 interaction with civilian
contractors and their methods of operating.16 The planned introduction of partnerships with
industry is an extremely important issue and was one of the fundamental reasons why the RAF
chose to formally articulate core values, an issue which will be examined in more detail later in
this paper. Perhaps most importantly, Moskos and Woods propose that a shift towards
occupational trends and values potentially has a negative effect on military effectiveness,
particularly with regard to ‘mission performance, member motivation and professional
responsibility.’17 By way of balance, Moskos and Wood also suggest that in reality Western
military organisations contain both institutional and occupational values, largely because they
12
ibid.
ibid., p.420.
14 Moskos, Charles C, and Wood, Frank R (Eds), The Military: More than Just a Job? (London: Brassey’s
Defence Publishers Ltd, 1988).
15 ibid., p.3.
16 Wood, Frank in Moskos, Charles and Wood, Frank (Eds), op. cit., p.36.
17 ibid., p.4.
13
6
reflect societal trends. The institutional/occupational model theory provides a sound framework
for this paper as it draws the distinction between traditional service values and the increasing
trends toward societal values; further analysis will be conducted later.
Having considered the relationship between military organisations and society, it is now
appropriate to attempt to provide a definition for core values. Air Publication 3000 suggests
that:
‘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.’
Moreover, ‘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.’ 18
This explanation focuses on what core values achieve rather than attempting an explanation of
what they are. Indeed, Service doctrine focuses exclusively on the outputs of core values and
their importance rather than providing any understanding of what they are or how they are
achieved. Moreover, this definition mixes organisational or shared values with individual values
and whilst Service doctrine promotes the importance of the individual within the organisation, it
does not attempt to provide a deeper understanding of what comprises individual values.
Professor Yoash Wiener from Cleveland State University suggests that ‘a value is an
enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or
socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence,’ and
goes on to suggest that ‘values can be construed as internalised normative beliefs; once
established, they may act as built-in normative guides to behaviour, independent from the effect
of rewards and punishments as consequences of actions.’19 From these explanations, we can
extract that values influence behaviour and this is clearly significant in the context of a
Serviceman/woman’s values, when the requirement can ultimately lead to behaviours that
might oppose human instinct, such as personal sacrifice. Reading any posthumous VC citation
would seem to support this analysis. Another perspective of values can be gained by
considering definitions promoted by some of the more conceptual personal development
18
AP3000, Third Edition, British Air Power Doctrine (Norwich: HM Stationary, 1999), p.1.2.15.
Weiner, Yoash, ‘Forms of Value Systems: A Focus on Organisational Effectiveness and Cultural
Change and Maintenance’, Academy of Management Review, 1988, Vol 13, No4, p.535.
19
7
models. In California in the 1970s, Dr John Grindler and Richard Bandler conceived an
abstract concept called Neuro-Linguistic Programming in order to better understand why people
do what they do. David Shephard, a UK-based Master Trainer of Neuro-Linguistic
Programming, provides the following more digestible definition:
‘values define what is important to us as individuals providing our upfront motivations for
our actions and after-the-fact evaluations, allowing us to know what is right and wrong
or good and bad, and core values represent the deepest sense of who we are as
individuals.’20
In his trainings, Shephard promotes a useful model of values developed by Robert Dilts,
another exponent of Neuro-Linguistic Programming. The model is shown at fig 1 below:
Fig 1 – The Neurological Levels by Robert Dilts21
Shephard, David, ‘The Personality Matrix’, The Performance Partnership’s NLP Master Practitioner
Certification Programme, 2006, p.1. Available from
http://www.performancepartnership.com/docs/products/index.php
21 Dilts, Robert cited in Shephard, David, ‘The Personality Matrix’, The Performance Partnership’s NLP
Master Practitioner Certification Programme, 2006, p.2. Available from
http://www.performancepartnership.com/docs/products/index.php
20
8
The theory behind this diagram is that in order to obtain the right results, an individual must
display appropriate behaviours; moreover, he/she will need suitable skills and abilities to
achieve this. However, skills, abilities and behaviours will still not achieve the best results if an
individual does not believe in what they are doing. At the deepest level and in order to gain the
very best results are values, which determine whether the task/event is important to us. If an
individual’s values are met, they will believe in what they are doing and providing that they have
the correct skills and abilities, they will display the appropriate behaviours and achieve the best
results.22 It would also follow that if we are able to influence or change our values, it would be
possible to influence, beliefs, behaviours and ultimately results.
How are individual values formed? Sociologist, Dr Morris Massey suggests that
individual values are defined over 3 developmental periods.23 The first period, known as the
imprint period extends from birth to approximately 7-years of age and is the most influential
period as young minds are ‘sponges’ for information and children are strongly influenced by
their parents/guardians. The second period, called the modelling period, extends from
approximately 7 to 14-years of age and is the next most influential period. During the modelling
period, young people’s values are influenced by the role models that they consciously choose
to adopt. The final period is the socialisation period extending from approximately 14 to 21
years of age and it is the least significant or influential of the 3 periods. During the socialisation
period, an individual’s values are influenced by social issues including personal relationships.
Indeed, Massey believes that, who you are, is where you were and what values you had
obtained by the age of 10.24 This hypothesis does not appear to allow much flexibility for
individual values to evolve. However, Shephard, suggests that values are also formed by
significant emotional experiences and that family, friends, religion, school, geography,
economics and the media all influence individual values as we grow-up.25 Analysis of this list
would also suggest that initial military training with its focus on uniformity, discipline, physical
fitness and teamwork could also influence individual core values.
The significance of individual values is that they can become ‘institutionalised within a
society – ultimately in the form of a central value system’ and ‘social cohesion will emerge in
the sharing of goals and expectations and hence coordinated patterns of activity.’26
Consequently, values formed by individuals, shaped by shared experiences and social activity,
contribute toward societal values and these values can be passed from generation to
22
ibid.
Shephard, David, op.cit., p.4.
24 ibid.
25 ibid.
26 Heritage, John C in Giddens, Anthony, and Turner, Jonathon (Eds), Social Theory Today (Oxford:
Polity Press, 1987), p.227.
23
9
generation. Essentially, societal values represent the collective dominant values of the
individual members of a particular society.27 In a similar vein, organisational values are the
product of the shared values of organisational members.28 Moreover, ‘any given core
organisational value can be derived primarily from organisational tradition or charismatic
leadership.’29 The theory of this model is that the strongest and perhaps most enduring
organisational values are those evolved from the organisation’s tradition and history. However,
charismatic leaders can strongly influence the values of individual members of an organisation
(positively and negatively) and, over time, these may evolve into traditional values.30
This section has highlighted the significance of the relationship between the military and
society and provided some conceptual explanations of individual, societal and organisational
values together with an understanding of how they are formed. Closer analysis of the
relationship between individual, societal and organisational values will be addressed later in the
paper. The primary conclusion from this section is that values are formed by the experiences
and collective experiences of individuals and they can be influenced by social and emotional
experiences. Tradition, history and charismatic leadership can also influence the values of
organisations. Consequently, values can be influenced by nature via indirect environmental
experiences and nurture via direct interventions such as training and indirectly through
exemplar leadership. The significance of this conclusion will be explored in the next section.
27
Gorman, Benjamin, Social Themes (London: Prentic-Hall Inc, 1971), p.85.
Wiener, op. cit., p.535.
29 ibid., p.537.
30 ibid.
28
10
The evolution of RAF core values and their relationship with British societal
values during the 20th century? The previous chapter established that individual core values
are influenced by significant experiences and that societal and even organisational values
represent the prevailing values of their members.31 Consequently, in order to address the
foundations of RAF core values and their evolving relationship with British society, it is
necessary to review some of the significant historical events that may have influenced the
relationship. As previously highlighted, a full analysis of this issue would extend beyond the
space available in this paper. Nonetheless, this chapter will consider a number of significant
events that may have contributed to the evolvement of British societal and RAF values and the
relationship between them. Whilst this analysis is subjective, it has been derived from the
definitions and understanding provided in the previous chapter with respect to core values and
how they are formed.
To that end, this chapter will consider Trenchard’s influence on the formation of the
RAF, particularly during the resource constrained era of the interwar years, the effect of the
Second World War through the Battle of Britain and the Bomber Command campaign, the Cold
War and the more recent return to expeditionary operations. Moreover, a brief analysis will be
provided to demonstrate that for the majority of the 20th Century, RAF values were more closely
aligned to British societal values than the current day. This chapter will conclude with a brief
history of why the RAF chose to publish the current set of RAF core values.
Lord Trenchard is commonly referred to as the ‘father of the RAF’, and if organisational
values can be formed by charismatic leadership, the RAF is indelibly stamped with Trenchard’s
personality.32 Whilst he had a reputation for poor interpersonal skills, he understood that air
power had changed the face of warfare forever and he fought with tremendous persistence to
establish the new Service on firm foundations in the face of intensive opposition from the older
Services and pressure from government.33 Indeed, Trenchard had ‘no need of the solaces of
popularity or liking; he simply knew that he was right. His contempt for what he called
“interfering busybodies,” uniformed or civilian, coupled with a reluctance to defend himself
against misinformed criticism, was one of the glaring defects of his monolithic integrity.’34 From
1919 to 1929 as Chief of the Air Staff, Trenchard not only fought off attempts to disband the
new Service but, against the odds, he established the foundations and values that have
endured to this day.
31
Weiner, op. cit., p.536.
AP3003, A Brief History of the RAF (Norwich: HM Stationary Office, 2004), p.41-42.
33 Primarily Lord Balfour’s inquiry in 1921, Sir Eric Geddes inquiry 1922 and Lord Salisbury’s inquiry
1923.
34 Boyle, Andrew, Trenchard (London: Collins, 1962), p.156.
32
11
The post war period was characterised by severe economic pressure and the overriding
need to reduce public spending. Sustaining the newly formed RAF within this environment was
to be Trenchard’s main battle for the early years of the 1920’s. The formation of the RAF not
only presented a threat to the more traditional roles and supremacy of the Royal Navy and the
British Army, it also threatened to dilute the limited funding available to the Admiralty and War
Office. Indeed, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson was
adamant that the RAF should at least share supply and administrative functions such as basic
training and he considered the RAF as an ‘expensive luxury.’35 Notwithstanding this, Trenchard
focused on 3 enduring lines of development, equipment, training and people.36 Whilst there
was little money available to develop new aircraft technology, despite the comparatively basic
nature of airpower in the 1920s, Trenchard exploited the enduring characteristics of height,
speed, reach and ubiquity to provide a capability that proved the utility of air power for the
future.37 Moreover, from the outset, he recognised the importance of providing highly trained
technicians to maintain and develop aircraft and aircraft technology. Consequently an
apprentice scheme (colloquially known as “Trenchard’s Brats”) was developed at RAF Halton in
Buckinghamshire that operated from 1921 to 1994; indeed many apprentices went on to hold
senior positions in the RAF including Chief of the Air Staff and Commander-in-Chief
appointments.
The RAF Halton Apprentice Association still holds annual reunions to celebrate the
camaraderie and culture instilled in its members over many years. Trenchard’s ‘brats’ and the
apprentice scheme unquestionably mark one of the cornerstones of his legacy. The same
effort was expended on creating an initial officer training college at Cranwell in Lincolnshire to
rival Sandhurst and Dartmouth. Trenchard’s criteria for selection to either Cranwell or Halton
were based on meritocracy rather than class and in this respect the RAF differed at an early
stage from the Army. Trenchard paid close personal attention to selection criteria, famously
overturning a decision that had rejected a ‘young Frank Whittle.’38 Indeed, this last point
betrays the lie that Trenchard was not a ‘people person’. Whilst he may have frequently
displayed a rather gruff and difficult persona, close analysis of his leadership qualities will show
that Trenchard placed people at the centre of the RAF’s needs. Trenchard recognised the
importance of creating solid foundations within the training environment in order to instil single
service ethos and values from the outset. Respect, Integrity, Service and Excellence bear the
hallmarks of Trenchard’s overwhelming contribution to the early years of the RAF.
35
ibid., p.407.
ACM Sir Glenn Torpy speech at RAF 90th Anniversary Dinner, RAF Museum Hendon, 1 April 2008.
37 AP3003, A Brief History of the RAF (Norwich: HM Stationary Office, 2004), p.60-79.
38 Boyle, Andrew, Trenchard (London: Collins, 1962), p.363.
36
12
In the years immediately following the 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.39 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.
At the start of the Second World War, the RAF had no difficulty in attracting recruits to
fly or support air power. ‘Young men arriving at the recruiting centres had been born during, or
just after, the end of the First World War’40 and were familiar with the horror stories from the
trenches. Even at the height of the war when the losses from Bomber Command were well
known and life expectancy was actually worse than that on the Western front, there was no
shortage of recruits. Essentially the RAF ‘seemed to offer a relatively clean way of fighting’
rather than the drudgery associated with service in the Army.41 Amongst the many
contributions made by the RAF during the Second World War, 2 particular events stand out
ahead of all others. Firstly, the RAF is probably best known for the activities of the ‘few’ during
the Battle of Britain. Churchill’s famous speech: “Never in the field of human conflict was so
much owed by so many to so few” singled out the fighter pilots who became the ‘epitome of
glamour’.42 However, fighter pilots came from a broad cross section of British society and not
just the elite classes typified in popular culture. Indeed during the War, 25% of pilots were
NCOs, echoing Trenchard’s belief, that air force personnel were selected on meritocracy.43
Aircrew came from ‘every class and background and every area. Their values and attitudes
were those of the people they were defending.’44 The Battle of Britain took place over the
Channel and in the skies over Britain. Consequently the British public could actually witness
events unfolding and this had the effect of drawing civilians and airmen closer together.45 In his
account of the battle, Dr Stephen Bungay suggests that:
‘Soldiers throughout the ages have been feared by civilians as brutal, amoral and
potentially dangerous. With the recruitment of civilian armies, this began to change.
With the pilots of 1940, the centuries old view of the military professional became
39
Bishop, Patrick, Bomber Boys, Fighting Back 1940-1945 (London: Harper Press, 2007), p.189.
ibid., p.36.
41 Bishop, Patrick, Fighter Boys, The Battle of Britain 1940 (London: Penguin Group, 2003), p.74.
42 Bishop, Fighter Boys, op. cit., p.339.
43 ibid., p.320.
44 ibid., p.405.
45 ibid., p.301.
40
13
inverted, for they seemed to many to be the finest embodiment of the civilised values for
which they were fighting.’46
Moreover, given the fierce nature of the fighting and the high casualty rates, aircrew and
support staff were constantly reminded how ‘privileged’ they were to have the opportunity to
defend their country. This approach led to the creation of clear values and attitudes and a
strong sense of identity.47 In contrast to the heroic status afforded to them after the War, the
‘fighter boys’ considered their role as unglamorous albeit values such as loyalty, courage both
moral and physical, modesty and humility were prevalent.48 These values reflect a clear
acceptance of institutional values and the need to subordinate personal values for the greater
good of colleagues, the squadron, the RAF and the nation.
Secondly, Bomber Command crews faced appalling losses, with official figures claiming
55,000 men out of a total of 125,000; 25% of ‘those who lost their lives in the whole of the
British Armed Services’ during World War 2.49 Harris wrote of his men that:
‘There are no words with which I can do justice to the aircrew who fought under my
command. There is no parallel in warfare to such courage and determination in the face
of danger over so prolonged a period, of danger which at times was so great that
scarcely one man in three could expect to survive his tour of operations.’50
It would be wrong to suggest that every airman displayed outstanding values at all times
and maintenance of morale was one of the enduring issues faced by Bomber Command.
Notwithstanding, less than ‘0.4% of bomber airmen engaged on operations…were classified
with lack of moral fibre.’51 Once again, investment in training was recognised as fundamental
to providing the competencies and personal qualities necessary for service on Bombers; ‘the
education of a member of a bomber crew was the most expensive in the world [and] it cost
some £10,000 for each man, enough to send ten men to Oxford or Cambridge for three
years.’52
46
Bungay, Stephen, The Most Dangerous Enemy, A History of the Battle of Britain (London: Aurum
Press Ltd, 2000), p.397.
47 Bishop, Fighter Boys, op. cit., p.317.
48 Bungay, op. cit., p.396-7.
49 Probert, Henry, Bomber Harris, His Life and Times (London: Greenhill Books, 2001), p.208.
50 MRAF Sir Arthur Harris cited in Probert, op. cit., p.208.
51 Probert, op. cit., p.212.
52 Terraine, John, Right of the Line, The Royal Air Force in the European War 1939-1945 (London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1985), p.536.
14
National opinion on the morality of Bomber Commands offensive has been the subject
of much post-war debate. Indeed, it might be argued that after the war and with the benefit of
hindsight, the continuance of the Bomber Command offensive against centres of population
raised a public backlash and searching questions against the conduct of the campaign. The
treatment of Sir Arthur Harris and the lack of a campaign medal for Bomber Command crews
remain a source of contention to this day and suggest a possible crack in the relationship
between the RAF and the public. However, at the time, national opinion together with that of
the key political and military leaders was preoccupied with ending the war that had been
ongoing for 5 ½ years. Analysis of the morality of the bombing offensive is outside of the scope
of this paper; however, suffice to conclude that prior to 7 May 1945, it had the support of the
majority of the population and airmen had the admiration of a nation. Indeed, ‘World War 2
proved crucial in reviving public confidence in the military profession and the profession’s
confidence in itself…The population mobilized more completely in support of the war; the
prospect of invasion and the Luftwaffe bombings raised the nation’s spirit of defiance and
determination.’53 Referring to the values displayed by the ‘fighter boys’, Bungay suggested that
‘they are not martial virtues, but they can make a peaceful nation a formidable opponent in
war.’54 The current set of RAF core values were typified by the intrinsic values and selfless
behaviours demonstrated by members of the RAF during the Second World War. There are
many anecdotes to justify this assertion. Moreover, Respect, Integrity, Service and Excellence,
reflected the values of the nation and its charismatic leader, throughout the War.
The Cold War distinguishes another significant event in RAF history. Initially, marked
by the provision of Britain’s independent strategic nuclear deterrent until 1969 and latterly,
support to the Royal Navy and British Army. Defence of the UK airspace endured as a role for
the RAF throughout this period as it does today. The Cold War was characterised by high
states of readiness, mechanistic and well-rehearsed plans together with standard operating
procedures to combat a known enemy and anticipated enemy courses of action. Against this
backdrop, the RAF was positioned in rear echelon areas ready to deploy aircraft against Soviet
forces and in defence of NATO forces and the UK mainland. A ‘fortress’ mentality prevailed
together with the knowledge that if the ‘siren’ sounded for real, it would surely result in ‘Mutually
Assured Destruction’. Moreover, ‘politicians and the public seemed to accept the cruel logic of
their own vulnerability and of strategic retaliation, trusted the Government and the RAF to
operate it responsibly, and raised no objections to the attendant logic that UK forces should
‘fail-deadly’, rather than ‘fail-safe; for the UK there would be no second chances.’55 At its heart,
the Cold War was a battle of ideology and differing values between East and West. In the
53
Cathy Downs in Moskos and Wood, op. cit., p.157.
Bungay, op. cit., p.397.
55 Clarke, Michael in Gray, Peter W (Ed), British Air Power (London: The Stationary Office, 2003), p.5.
54
15
West, values associated with democracy and free market economies were dominant, whilst in
the East communism prevailed. Whilst thankfully the Cold War never became ‘hot’, the British
public accepted the role of defence in order to sustain values associated with freedom and
individuality.
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.’56 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.’57 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.58 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.’59 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.60
Overlapping the last decade of the Cold War, Margaret Thatcher became the British
Prime Minister and she embarked on a series of policies that have subsequently become
known as ‘Thatcherism’. These policies were dominated by encouraging a culture of individual
initiative rather than state reliance and were marked by privatisation of national industries,
selling council houses to residents and lowering taxes in order to reduce reliance on expensive
welfare policies.61 Thatcher promoted individualism, ‘a moral, political, or social outlook that
stresses human independence and the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty.’62 This
period marks the beginnings of a shift in British society from reliance upon and deference to the
56
Cathy Downs in Moskos and Wood, op. cit., p.158.
ibid.
58 ibid.
59 Hickman, Tom, The Call-Up: A History of National Service (London: Headline Book Publishing, 2004),
p.275.
60 ibid., Chapter 12.
61 Pearce, Robert, Thatcherism, new perspective Vol 9, No 3 [online],
http://www.history-ontheweb.co.uk/concepts/thatcherism93.htm [accessed Mar 2008].
62 Wikipedia, Individualism, [online], http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism [accessed 4 April 2008].
57
16
state, to a more individualistic approach. Considering this period in light of Moskos’
institutional/occupational model suggests a shift in society from institutional values to
occupational values.
The end of the Cold War came about suddenly and unexpectedly in 1991 and the years
that followed were dominated by the opportunity to reduce defence expenditure; arguably a
period not dissimilar to the interwar period of the 1920s. Several defence reviews were
conducted including the Defence Cost Studies, Options for Change and ultimately the Strategic
Defence Review in 1997. The promise of peace at the end of the Cold War created a dilemma
as there was no longer a direct threat to British interests that justified the expense of a large
armed force particularly given the spiralling costs associated with technological advancements
in warfare. Political and public pressure to reduce spending on defence resulted in all 3
services downsizing and innovative methods were sought to reduce overheads. This period
saw an increase in ‘contractorisation’ and the civilianisation of large parts of defence; and the
introduction of civilian business practices it an attempt to drive efficiencies. Coincidently,
service personnel moved closer toward civil society with increasing levels of private house
ownership, spouses pursuing careers and increasing calls for stability. In short, RAF personnel
moved even further toward the occupational model as defined by Moskos. The 1990’s also
witnessed the rise of globalisation, the exponential explosion of information technology via the
internet and mobile communications, and an increase in global mass migration.
Following the infamous terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, the RAF has been
engaged in both warfighting and counter insurgency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both
theatres have experienced the highest levels of operational combat for many years. Fighting
power relies on the ability of personnel to fight and support the fight and this requires highly
motivated individuals with inherently institutional values. However, these individuals need to be
recruited from a society that increasingly focuses on individualism.
The current RAF core values of Respect, Integrity, Service and Excellence were
published in a new format of Air Publication 1 in 2002 which grouped together values and
standards for the first time.63 The document was issued in response to concerns regarding the
maintenance of RAF ethos and culture at a time when economic reality was driving increasing
levels of civilian and contractor support within military training establishments. The two major
areas of concern were multi-billion pound projects, the Military Flying Training System (MFTS)
and the Defence Training Review (DTR) Rationalisation Programme. Both projects proposed
63
Air Publication 1 (1st Edition), Ethos, Core Values and Standards of the Royal Air Force (Gloucester:
TGDA Media Services, 2002).
17
partnerships with industry to provide modern training environments for flying training (MFTS)
and large elements of specialist trade training (DTR). MFTS ‘will cater for the different training
needs of the entire flying element of the UK front line, ranging from fast-jet, rotary and multiengine pilots, weapons systems operators, through to all the rear crew disciplines’ with the
training provided by a Training Systems Partner.64 Similarly, it is currently planned that DTR
will provide all RAF technical training, delivered under a Public Private Partnership, with the
partner providing the majority of the training design and delivery.65
From the outset of these initiatives, there were concerns at a senior level within the
Service about how the RAF would maintain Service ethos and culture within an environment
characterised by civilian contractors.66 Until forced to articulate these issues, the RAF had not
previously formally considered abstract concepts such as ethos and culture, perhaps because
they were inherent within an organisation dominated by servicemen. Specifically, the training
environment, where young impressionable cadets and recruits were indoctrinated into the ways
of military life, was traditionally the domain of service instructors. Indeed, a strong focus on
training was one of cornerstones of Lord Trenchard’s newly formed independent air force in the
1920s. Consequently, in 2002, a paper was produced by AMP entitled ‘Strengthening RAF
Ethos’, which suggested that whilst ethos is a ‘somewhat nebulous concept, it can be inferred
from observed behaviours, routines, symbols and customs; in short, the organisations culture
and its core values and beliefs.’67 The paper included the following model illustrating the
relationship between core values, ethos and culture:
64
MOD Website, UK Military Flying Training System [online],
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/AirSafetyandAviation/UKMFTS/
[accessed 8 Apr 2008]
65 Metrix, Defence Training Review Rationalisation Programme [online],
http://www.qinetiq.com/home_metrix_review/defence_training_review.html [Accessed 8 Apr 2008]
66 Interview with AVM Peter Dye, Head of RAF Transformation, 27 Mar 2008.
67 PTC/462122/8/TD dated 8 August 2002, Strengthening RAF Ethos, A Paper by AMP, p.2.
18
Fig 2 – Core Values, Ethos and
Culture Model.5
This illustration highlights that core values lie at the ‘heart of the model because they are
central to an organisation’s sense of identity.’68 This model compares favourably with Robert
Dilt’s Neurological Levels shown at Fig 1. Concurrently, a further paper was produced to
propose a set of core values for the RAF.69 The acronym RISE was chosen as it reflected the
recruiting strap-line in 2002, ‘RISE above the Rest.’ The values, Respect, Integrity, Service
and Excellence were chosen as these were the values that had been identified as those that
needed to be reinforced during initial training; moreover, each of the 4 values were common to
all of the mainstream religions in the UK.70 Air Publication 1 (1st Edition) outlining RAF Core
Values and Standards was issued to every member of the RAF in 2002.
In March 2007, a further paper by the Director of Personnel and Training Strategy
sought to review and assess Air Publication 1 in order to ‘establish currency, relevance and
coherence’ with the other services.71 It was felt that a review was necessary at this time
because the original publication did not reflect the robust nature of ‘warfighting’ being
conducted by the RAF. Consequently, a revised Air Publication 1 (2nd Edition) was published in
68
ibid., p.A-1.
It has not been possible to trace a copy of the original paper as the archive files did not survive the HQ
PTC relocation from RAF Innsworth to RAF High Wycombe in Oct 06.
70 Telephone interview with AVM David Walker on 1 May 2008.
71 14032007-U-RAF_Ethos – Ethos, Values and Standards of the RAF – A paper by Director Personnel
and Training Strategy.
69
19
January 2008, which retained the same core values, albeit it updated the descriptions
associated with the behaviours of each value and provided a new definition of RAF Ethos.72
This raises an interesting side-issue as, in the compilation of the revised Air Publication, the
RAF senior leadership had considered the possibility of changing the published list of core
values; which raised the questions of whether core values are enduring and whether leadership
should change core values to suit current organisational trends? These issues will be
addressed later in the paper.
The RAF Strategy 2006 document, suggests that:
‘the success of the RAF in any military endeavour is dependent upon the willingness of
its uniformed cadre to fight and to support the fight; this is what defines the “morale
component” of airpower, and the effectiveness of this component, in turn, relies on
strong leadership, unwavering commitment and a shared set of core values.’73
This statement highlights the significance of core values to the provision of fighting power and
specifically the moral component. Essentially, it makes the point that even though the RAF is a
highly technical Service, ‘ultimately it is people that realise fighting power,’74 and in his
introductory comments to the new Air Publication 1, the Chief of the Air Staff states that:
‘The Royal Air Force needs people who will respond to a demanding way of life, who
aspire to excellence, who share a sense of duty and commitment and who understand
and live by our collective values. We want men and women who are proud to serve
their country and whose personal qualities reflect the core values of the RAF.’75
The concept of Service, willingness to fight and the possibility of sacrificing life are
distinct to the military environment. Since 2002, the RAF has selected a set of core values that
provide the founding principles on which the moral component of fighting power is built. It
would follow that they are fundamental to the success of its members and the organisation as a
whole.
The British civil-military relationship throughout the majority of the 20th 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
72
Air Publication 1 (2nd Edition), op. cit.
Royal Air Force Strategy 2006, (London: MOD Main Building, 2006), p.2.
74 Joint Warfare Publication 0-01, ‘British Defence Doctrine’, Second Edition, (2001), p.4-3.
75 Air Publication 1 (2nd Edition), op. cit., p.5.
73
20
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 future76 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. This chapter set out to highlight the traditional roots of RAF values
and the evolving relationship with British society. For the majority of the century, it is argued
that military and societal values were well aligned; it is suggested that since the end of the Cold
War societal values have diverged from the traditional institutional values still demanded by the
RAF.
76
DCDC Strategic Trends [online] http://www.dcdc-strategictrends.org.uk/home.aspx [accessed April
2008].
21
Are institutional values still relevant within the context of contemporary British society?
Having gained an understanding of what core values are at an individual, societal and
organisational level and having considered the evolving relationship between RAF values and
societal values, this section will go on to explore the relationship between contemporary society
and the RAF. In order to address this issue, observations will be made regarding the state of
contemporary British societal values and the growing gap between society and the more
traditional institutional values recently republished by the RAF. Did the RAF make the right
decision to retain a set of institutional values when the Service is increasingly exposed to
occupational trends and in a society that appears to be the antithesis of Respect, Integrity,
Service and Excellence?
Analysis of whether societal values are declining is at best a subjective exercise.
Nonetheless, behind the often sensationalist headlines of the national media, there is a
plethora of studies and statistics that point towards a change in public values which manifest
themselves in low standards of behaviour. The inextricable relationship between values and
behaviour was highlighted in the first section of this paper. Time magazine recently cited a
study by the Institute of Public Policy Research in 2003, in which 27% of British 15-year olds
admit to having been drunk on more than 20 occasions, compared to 12% of young Germans,
6% of Netherlands’ youth and only 3% of French adolescents.77 Moreover, 44% of British
teenagers admit to having been involved in a fight compared to only 28% of their German
peers.78 Britain has the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases
and British teenagers are more likely to try drugs or smoke, with 35% having admitted to using
Cannabis in the last 12-months compared to only 31% in the United States, 27% in France,
22% in the Netherlands and only 18% in Germany.79 In 2007, a UNICEF study of ‘child wellbeing in 21 industrialised countries placed Britain firmly at the bottom of this table.80 Tackling
antisocial behaviour is one of the Government’s top priorities and the 2003/4 British Crime
Survey suggests that of those surveyed in England and Wales, 76% of the population believe
that antisocial behaviour is a problem, with 36% suggesting that it was a ‘very big’ problem.81
However, the results vary considerably by geographical location, with inner city and ‘hardpressed’ areas reporting much higher levels than wealthier and more affluent areas.82 ‘It
should go without saying that tens of thousands successfully navigate the dangerous waters of
Mayer, Catherine, ‘Mean Streets’, Time, 7 April 2008, pp.38-42.
ibid.
79 ibid.
80 ibid.
81 Wood, Martin, Perceptions and experience of antisocial behaviour: findings from the 2003/2004 British
Crime Survey, [online] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr4904.pdf [accessed 14 Apr 2008].
82 ibid., p.6.
77
78
22
a British childhood.’83 Moreover, Britain has a long history of poor youth behaviour from Teddy
boys in the 1950s, from mods and rockers in the 1960s and from skinheads and punks in the
1970s.84 During these periods, the Services were generally able to recruit and train sufficient
numbers of capable and motivated people. However, in a further report from the Institute for
Public Policy Research, ‘the rise of individualism and a decline in norms of solidarity,
cooperation and civic participation’ is highlighted as an increasing concern.’85 This trend is also
highlighted in the DCDC Strategic Trends document which suggests that:
‘many people in affluent societies will increasingly regard their relationship with the state
in consumerist rather than civic terms [and] these changes will alter the social contract
between the citizen and society, which is likely to result in citizens becoming more selfreliant and therefore expecting a reduced obligation to the state in return.’86
Consumerism and materialism amongst the younger generations is becoming more
prevalent and this may also contribute toward more selfish individual values rather than civic or
societal values. In a recent survey conducted by ‘The Children’s Society’, 90% of respondents
agreed that ‘children nowadays are more materialistic than past generations’87 and the Chief
Executive of the study said that ‘a crucial question raised by the inquiry is whether childhood
should be a space where developing minds are free from concentrated sales techniques, [and]
unless we question our own behaviour as a society we risk creating a generation who are left
unfulfilled through chasing unattainable lifestyles.’88 Moreover, Dr Rowan Williams, patron of
the inquiry, said “the selling of lifestyles to children creates a culture of material
competitiveness and promotes acquisitive individualism at the expense of the principles of
community and co-operation.”89 Indeed the BBC television news report into The Children’s
Society survey, suggested that 12-year olds are now exposed to 40,000 television adverts per
year.90 These comments highlight the significance created by the increasing levels of exposure
to multi-media such as television, internet, computer games and mobile phones. The current
generation of youth is exposed to the media exponentially more than previous generations. If
we compare this phenomenon with Morris Massey’s theory about how individual values are
83
Mayer, op.cit., p39.
ibid.
85 Rogers, Ben and Muir, Rick, The Power of Belonging: Identity, citizenship and community cohesion,
Institute for Public Policy Research, 2007, [online]
http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=568 [accessed 14 April 2008].
86 DCDC Strategic Trends, op. cit., p.36.
87
Growth from Knowledge, Reflections on Childhood Lifestyle, Report by the Childrens Society, [online]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/25_02_08_childhood.pdf [accessed April 2008], p.3.
88 BBC News, Children ‘damaged’ by materialism, [online] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7262936.stm
[accessed 15 April 2008].
89 ibid.
90 Statistic quoted on the BBC 10 O’clock News on 26 February 2008.
84
23
formed and specifically the modelling period between the ages of 7-14, where individuals begin
to consciously choose role models, it is easy to understand the significant influence wielded by
the media in its many forms.91
The increasing exposure that children have with the media is also contrasted by lower
than ever exposure to their parents.92 ‘A study in 2000 by the OECD found that British parents
spend less time with their children compared to other nationalities, leaving them more open to
influence from their peers and a commercially driven, celebrity-obsessed media.’93 In an article
titled ‘Towards a happier society’, Professor Richard Layard suggests that the pursuit of
individual self-interest is not a good formula for personal happiness and that individualism has
become the prevailing ideology in Western culture since the late 1970s.94 Layard contends that
there has been a ‘precipitous fall’ in the number of people who believe that they can trust others
and he proposes the need to ‘offer a structured education in morals’ in schools. Indeed the
government has considered incorporating ‘an appreciation of “core British values” into
citizenship classes within schools, partly in response for the need to tackle religious
extremism.95
A recent survey of over 3500 members of the public by the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation highlights a decline of community, individualism, consumerism, a decline of values
and the decline of the family as the top 5 social evils facing Britain today.96 Joseph Rowntree
set-up a trust over a century ago to “search out the underlying causes of weakness or evil in
the community” and in ‘1904 he identified poverty, war, slavery, intemperance, the opium trade,
impurity and gambling as the “great scourges of humanity”.’97 The latest survey, conducted in
2007, concurs with many of the reports highlighted above. In short, whilst subjective, there is
significant evidence to suggest that British societal values are becoming less inclined to the
community and that this trend is likely to continue. Declining social values influence the values
of individual members of society and may contribute towards undermining the ‘social and
perceived significance of the armed forces in developed societies.’98
91
Shephard, David, op.cit., p.4.
Mayer, op. cit., p.39.
93 ibid.
94 Layard, Richard, Toward a happier society, [online] http://cep.lse.ac.uk/layard/RL362.pdf [accessed 14
March 2008].
95 BBC News, Reaction to UK ‘core values’ idea, [online]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4772059.stm [accessed 18 Apr 2008].
96 Joseph Rowntree Foundation, What are today’s social evils?, [online]
http://www.socialevils.org.uk/documents/social-evils-summary.pdf [accessed 20 April 2008].
97 ibid., p.2.
98 DCDC Strategic Trends, op. cit., p.39.
92
24
Historically, in Britain ‘the contemporary military profession and its relationship with the
parent society reflect a centuries-old alliance with the institutions of monarchy, Parliament, the
Church, and other lesser ruling institutions.’99 Consequently, this relationship has ‘insulated’
the military from the many internal and external influences that have affected the United States
armed forces.100 It has been suggested that American society has a value system in which
‘money and power are the currency of success’ and that this is the opposite of the values
required for military service.101 Indeed, it was the gap between American civic values and
military values that Huntingdon highlighted in his book titled ‘The Soldier and the State’.102 By
contrast, British armed forces have traditionally been less affected by shifts in the prevailing
‘civilian social structure and supporting value system.’103 At least, this was the historical trend
up until the end of the Cold War. Since then, arguably the RAF has been influenced by British
society highlighted by a shift much closer to the occupational model as defined by Moskos.104
Specifically, a number of policies such as increasing levels of private house purchase, provision
of medical services, the influence of human rights and health and safety at work legislation and
widespread civilian business practices, have all contributed toward a shift to ‘occupationalism’.
The removal of Crown immunity, an increase in redresses of complaint and a greater
acceptance of litigation also emphasize occupational trends. An example of this was the
decision by Senior RAF Leadership in 2002 to ‘tone down’ the original RAF Ethos definition
because it contained a reference to the fact that service might ultimately result in death, thereby
possibly admitting that the RAF puts peoples lives at risk; RAF lawyers considered this might
result in successful litigious claims.105 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.
As highlighted briefly in the first section of this paper, Moskos and Wood suggest 3
primary reasons for a military organisation to pursue institutional values over occupational
values. 106 First, they suggest that with regard to mission performance, the ‘armed forces
require certain behaviour from their members that can never be made to serve individual
interests, certainly not in the narrow economic sense.’107 In short, ‘institutional identification
99
Downes, Cathy in Moskos and Woods, op. cit., p.153.
ibid., p.154.
101 ibid., p.162-163.
102 Huntingdon, op. cit.
103 Downes, Cathy in Moskos and Woods, op. cit., p.164.
104 Moskos and Wood, op. cit.
105 Interview with AVM Peter Dye, Head of RAF Transformation, on 27 April 2008.
106 Moskos and Wood, op. cit., p.4.
107 ibid., p.5.
100
25
fosters greater organisational commitment and performance than does occupational.’108 The
need for greater individual commitment within the military is paramount, particularly in the
context of a combat or high threat environment. Secondly, member motivation within an
occupational system is reduced because whilst institutional values drive intrinsic motivation in
individuals, occupational trends are more likely to result in extrinsic motivation, such as
‘behaviour bought about by pay.’109 An interesting consideration might be made with regard to
the current trend of using Financial Retention Initiatives (FRI) for branches and trades that are
struggling to retain individuals with specific skills; do FRI’s represent an occupational trend?
Intrinsic motivation within individuals is a highly desirable quality in the military environment as
it provides a strong foundation for developing teamwork and it promotes a culture whereby
individuals give more than they otherwise might have done. Finally, Moskos and Wood
suggest that a further consequence of occupationalism is the undermining of military
professionalism.110 Essentially, they suggest that ‘if military functions can be reduced to
dollars, then ultimate decisions on the military organisation and military personnel become the
province of cost-benefit analysts; decisions are removed from the military profession.’111
Remembering that Moskos and Wood’s thesis was written in 1988, and reflecting on the current
ongoing resource constrained environment in Britain, one might conclude that this latter point is
now a fact of life for the RAF. Nonetheless, Moskos and Wood’s institutional/occupational
concept provides a model worthy of consideration in the contemporary military context.
Increasing interaction with civilians will continue to be a significant factor for the RAF for the
foreseeable future. Initiatives such as Sponsored Reserves, Contractors on Deployed
Operations and increasing levels of civilian contractors supporting new technologies each
contribute toward reduced operating costs for the armed forces and greater overlap with
society. Indeed initiatives such as DTR, MFTS and FSTA provide the only affordable way for
the RAF to bridge the ever-growing gap between the initial/specialist training environment and
the expensive and highly complex ‘glass cockpit’ technology of modern platforms. Quite
simply, future-operating effectiveness will rely on ever more innovative methods of funding
training and support activity and this is likely to mean ongoing initiatives with the public and
private sector, or to put it another way, more occupationalism.
This situation presents a dilemma for the RAF. Declining British societal values and a
general shift of the RAF toward more occupational trends, comes at a time when the RAF is
involved in some of the most sustained combat operations since the Second World War. The
current high level of operations has marked a return to military professionalism and a
108
ibid.
ibid.
110 ibid.
111 ibid.
109
26
requirement for ‘warfighting’ behaviours and skills rather than the ‘constabulary and
management behaviours’ as suggested by Janowitz.112 ‘Warfighter first, specialist second’,
was a term coined by Air Chief Marshal Sir Brian Burridge, former Commander in Chief HQ
Strike Command, in order to refocus all RAF personnel, regardless of branch or trade, on the
actual business of the RAF. Whilst this phrase has subsequently been updated to ‘warfighting
specialists’ in order to better capture the unique nature of service for the majority, it sends a
clear message that service in the RAF is very distinct from any civilian occupation. Current
employment in the RAF is almost certain to involve an operational deployment and therefore
the requirement for individuals to subordinate personal values to those of the Service. The
challenge for the RAF has been to ‘articulate a military ethos that is close to the essence of the
institutional image presented by Moskos. At the outset, this ethos would define military service
as an unlimited liability and delineate the desired culture of the military community.’113 If the
RAF is unable to achieve this, against the backdrop of declining societal values and ‘in a
context of institutional drift, broad social forces will shape values by default.’114 Indeed, Moskos
himself suggests that ‘the optimum is a military organisation that is both internally cohesive and
congruent with civilian society. To accomplish this goal, military leaders must articulate
institutional values and emphasize consistently the organisational priority of operational
readiness. Otherwise societal pressures towards occupationalism will continue to be
ascendant.’115
To a large extent, the RAF has achieved this aim in the new version of Air Publication 1
(2nd Edition), which clearly defines the requirement for RAF core values and provides the
following definition for RAF Ethos:
‘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 organization of which we are immensely proud.’116
Moreover, the RAF acknowledges that society has ‘differing attitudes towards the notion
of duty, adherence to those in authority and the awareness of individual rights’ and
112
Janowitz, Morris, op. cit.
Cotton, Charles in Moskos and Wood, op. cit., p.52.
114 ibid., p.53.
115 Moskos and Wood, op. cit., p.7.
116 Air Publication 1 (2nd Edition), op. cit., p.6.
113
27
consequently sets out the need for a set of core values that are ‘more demanding of RAF
personnel than of ordinary citizens.’117 This latter point is perhaps the most fundamental issue
of this section. Essentially, the RAF understands that British society no longer shares the same
association with the more traditional and institutional values espoused by the Service, but for
operational necessity, the RAF has elected to retain and pursue via leadership and training a
clearly defined set of institutional values. In short, institutional values are necessary for
operational success.
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.’118 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.
117
118
ibid.
Downes, Cathy, in Moskos and Wood, op. cit., p.165.
28
What are the implications for the RAF? In the previous section, increasing levels of
antisocial behaviour was cited as evidence of declining societal values, though despite this
widespread trend and the ever-increasing pressures forcing the RAF toward occupational
trends, the RAF had elected to retain a set of traditional institutional values. What does this
mean for the RAF? This section will present the personal comments of the Chief of the Air
Staff (CAS) and the Air Member for Personnel (AMP), consider how well core values are
adhered to across the RAF and highlight the key implications for the RAF.
Why does the RAF senior leadership consider it important to retain institutional core
values and what are the implications? In an interview with Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy,
he stated “RAF core values frame our approach to the way we do business and specifically the
way we work as a team, demonstrating loyalty to each other and to the institute”.119 CAS
suggested that society has changed, but that the RAF need not change because service within
the RAF is not a normal job; “quite simply, we ask people to do things that normal people do
not have to do.” To illustrate his comments, CAS provided a copy of recent diplomatic
communication from Kabul recounting a repatriation ceremony at Camp Bastion for Cpl
Lawrence of the 2nd Battalion, the Yorkshire Regiment. The following extract is the final
paragraphs describing the last moments of the ceremony in theatre:
8. BY NOW THE EVENING WIND WAS UP, AND IT WAS GROWING COLD. AND
OUT OF THE SILENCE WE HEARD AGAIN THE GRADUALLY GROWING
GROWLING OF THE C-130’S ENGINES, AS, WITH IMPECCABLE TIMING, IT
TAXIED BACK INTO SIGHT. THEN, IN AN EXTRAORDINARY MANOEUVRE, IT
REVERSED THRUST, AND BACKED INTO THE OPEN SIDE OF SQUARE, TO TAKE
DELIVERY OF ITS SAD CARGO.
9. WITH THE ENGINES STILL TURNING, A LOADMASTER JUMPED DOWN FROM
THE REAR RAMP, AND STOOD TO ATTENTION. A FEMALE RAF CORPORAL
MARCHED OUT, SALUTED SMARTLY, AND HANDED HIM THE AIRWAYBILL. THE
COMMANDING OFFICER, AND [RSM] HIND, FORMED UP ALONGSIDE THE RAMP.
THE BEARER PARTY SHOULDERED THE COFFIN, AND, ACCOMPANIED BY THE
PADRE, MARCHED WITH PERFECT PRECISION UP INTO THE HOLD OF THE
HERCULES. COLONEL DOWNEY MOUNTED THE RAMP. OUT OF SIGHT, HE SAID
HIS FAREWELL TO HIS FALLEN COMRADE. IN SHORT ORDER, THE BEARERS
AND ACCOMPANYING PARTY DISMOUNTED, THE RAMP CLOSED, THE
119
Interview with ACM Sir Glenn Torpy, Chief of the Air Staff on 10 April 2008 at MOD.
29
HERCULES TAXIED OUT, AND TOOK OFF. WE STOOD IN SILENCE, LISTENING
TO THE FADING MURMUR OF ITS ENGINES.
10. AND THEN, IN ONE OF THE MOST STRIKING MOMENTS OF THE WHOLE
CEREMONY, OUT OF THE SUN SETTING BEHIND US AGAIN CAME THE ROAR OF
THE HERCULES, FLYING IN FAST AND LOW. AS THE AIRCRAFT PASSED OVER,
AND STARTED TO CLIMB, THE STARBOARD WING DIPPED, IN IMPOSSIBLY
ELOQUENT TRIBUTE FROM THE ROYAL AIR FORCE TO CORPORAL LAWRENCE
AND ALL THOSE WHO HAD FALLEN HERE. AS WE WATCHED, THE AEROPLANE
CLIMBED IN A GREAT WHEELING TURN, UP INTO A STILL BLUE NORTH
EASTERN SKY, TAKING CORPORAL LAWRENCE ON BACK HOME, VIA
KANDAHAR AND BRIZE NORTON, TO NORTH YORKSHIRE.120
CAS suggested that “This is what makes the RAF different from society; RAF core values are
fundamental for when the going gets tough”.121 However, CAS candidly commented that he
believed core values were adhered to in varying degrees across the RAF, though in his
experience core values provided the motivation behind the outstanding performances
demonstrated by RAF personnel on operations. Consequently, he suggested that it was
essential to maintain institutional core values. Moreover, whilst traditionally only the teeth arms
of the RAF such as aircrew and RAF Regiment were exposed to actual combat, current
operations have meant that a far greater number of RAF personnel from a variety of branches
and trades have been exposed to real dangers in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This is evidenced
by the recent loss of Sgt ‘Baz’ Barwood, an MT driver, during a rocket attack on the
Contingency Operating Base at Basra. In more recent history, whilst only a small number of
officers, essentially aircrew, were expected to face real danger, everyone in the RAF might now
expect to find themselves in a dangerous operating environment and therefore the need for
intrinsic or institutional core values has increased. CAS suggested that it will become even
more challenging for the RAF to sustain its core values as he believed that societal values were
“disintegrating”, evidenced by the breakdown of the family framework and a gradual move away
from traditional structures and values. Evidence to support CAS’ views include a study in 2000
by the OECD highlighting that British marriage rates were down to a 146-year low122; moreover,
40% of British marriages end in divorce, 4 times higher than the 1950s.123 Indeed CAS
suggested that “teamwork, loyalty and role models are no longer evident in society” and these
120
DIPTEL, UNCLASIFIED, From MODUK to Cabinet Office UK, Subject LNDOAN 8114 dated 250732Z
February 08.
121 Interview with Chief of the Air Staff on 10 April 2008.
122 Mayer, op. cit., p.39.
123 Dobson, Roger and Habershon, Ed, All work and no play leads to divorce, The Times Online, [online]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article740123.ece [accessed 18 April 2008].
30
comments are coherent with the evidence cited in the previous section regarding declining
social values.
CAS acknowledged that this would provide more of a challenge for both the RAF’s initial
training organisations and through-life training programmes across the RAF.124 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. In order to achieve the most effective transformation, initial
training organisations must be manned by high quality instructors and the RAF must continue
to invest in the personal development of these individuals. Instructors within the initial training
environment have the greatest impact on the individual values of recruits and officer cadets
entering the Service. In the future, in recognition of the increasing challenge that instructors will
face as a result of declining societal values, it may be necessary to look again at the initial
training syllabi and the training provided to instructors in order that they are able to better
understand how to influence individual values. An even greater challenge will exist in the
specialist and trade training organisations that follow-on from initial training particularly as much
of this training is likely to be delivered in partnership with civilian contractors. Maintaining the
momentum delivered by the initial training organisations will be essential to shaping individual
values and hence intrinsic motivation of new members of the Service. Whilst the need to
maintain momentum within specialist and trade training organisations is well understood and
well documented within the RAF, its success could hinge on the costs associated with its
provision. This is an issue that presents significant risk for all 3 Services and the RAF’s senior
leadership acknowledges this.
CAS also highlighted the important role of the Air Cadet Organisation in providing a
means for delivering ‘citizenship’ training for 13-18 year-olds.125 The Air Cadet Organisation
has over 41,000 cadets supported by a further 10,250 uniformed volunteer staff and a further
5000 civilian support staff; consequently, the Air Cadet Organisation is larger than its parent
Service. Indeed, the Air Cadets provide the only ‘light blue’ uniformed presence in many parts
of the country. Reduced visibility was highlighted as a contributory factor for young people
124
125
Interview with Chief of the Air Staff on 10 April 2008.
ibid.
31
dismissing the RAF as a career option towards the end of the 1990s.126 Whilst the Air Cadet
Organisation is not a recruiting vehicle, 781 cadets did subsequently choose to join the RAF in
the last financial year.127 This is a significant percentage of the overall number of recruits and
officer cadets that entered initial training last year. Perhaps more importantly is the citizenship
training promoted by the Air Cadet Organisation to its 56,000 cadets and adult volunteers
spread across the whole of the country. Interestingly, CAS suggested that Air Cadets were 15
times less likely to be young offenders than their non-cadet peers.128 This latter fact has not
escaped the Government’s attentions, who continue to pursue an expansion of all cadet forces
within the Secondary School environment.129
Air Marshal Steve Dalton, AMP, concurred with CAS suggesting that RAF core values
define the standards, ethos and behaviour that we expect to live by and that they distinguish
the RAF as a unique element within our society.130 He suggested that across the RAF, core
values were adhered to on a graduated basis, determined by age and generation as a result of
the changes in society over recent years; a new entrant at 16 years of age will have a different
view of core values to an officer or NCO aged over 50 years of age. Once again, this highlights
the importance of initial training and specialist/trade training with respect to inculcating the
correct values and behaviours in new members of the Service. AMP suggested that societal
values had declined, which he evidenced by members of the media, politics and even
businessmen/women who no longer sign-up to an ethical way of operating. However, this
comment was balanced by an observation that even our Victorian ancestors did not always
practice what they preached! Both of these observations are supported by the recent public
consultation conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, mentioned in the previous
section. Specifically, the report suggests that ‘Government, media, big business and religion
were believed to be responsible for social evils.’131
AMP also agreed that it would be a constant challenge to sustain a strong set of
institutional values in a society typified by declining values.132 He suggested that the RAF will
face both an internal and external communication challenge to explain why the Service needs a
Haysman, KJ and Lewis, CA, ‘Service Personnel’s Commitment to the RAF – An Analysis of the
Potential Impact of Change’, Command Scientific Support Branch Working Paper 7/98,
PTC/496165/2CSSB, 1998, p.4.
127 Information provided by HQ Air Cadet Organisation.
128 Interview with ACM Sir Glenn Torpy, Chief of the Air Staff on 10 April 2008 at MOD.
129 Davies, Quentin and Clark, Bill and Sharp, Martin. ‘Report of Inquiry into National Recognition of our
Armed Forces’. Available from: http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/69519F89-9630-4D5F-92CFB834FAB0FBD2/0/recognition_of_our_armed_forces.pdf [Accessed 27 May 2008], p.12.
130 Interview with AM S Dalton, Air Member for Personnel, on 11 April 2008 at HQ Air Command.
131 Joseph Rowntree Foundation, What are today’s social evils?[online]
http://www.socialevils.org.uk/documents/social-evils-summary.pdf [accessed 20 April 2008], p.1.
132 Interview with Air Member for Personnel on 11 April 2008.
126
32
better defined and perhaps more stringent set of values and standards than main stream
society. First and foremost, is the need for a clearly defined message during recruitment in
order that both values and standards are explicitly stated. Air Publication 1 is now issued to
recruits and officer cadets before they arrive to start their initial training. Moreover, both the
Attestation Pledge and Commissioning Scroll make it perfectly clear that individual values must
be subordinated to the Service. Internally, the RAF has established a Force Development
organisation across the Service to prepare personnel for operations. One of the 5 pillars of
Force Development focuses on RAF ethos and provides a vehicle for reinforcing RAF core
values. Force Development Squadrons under the command of the RAF Generic Education and
Training Centre provide an opportunity to deliver through-life training on RAF core values.
Finally, 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.133 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.
CAS and AMP are clearly fully supportive of retaining institutional core values and their
observations are coherent with the analysis in this paper, leading to the conclusion that RAF
core values have an enduring nature. Notwithstanding this, how well are RAF core values
adhered to across the Service? Both CAS and AMP suggested that the results are likely to
vary. Two studies may provide some insight into this question: the 2006 Continuous General
Attitude Survey (CGAS); and a recent pilot study conducted by the RAF Transformation Team.
The 2006 CGAS report compared the responses from 3838 members of the RAF from a
representative range of ranks and trades.134 Whilst the CGAS does not specifically seek to
address how well RAF core values are adhered to across the Service, the 2006 survey did
target RAF ethos and the relevancy is clear in the following statement extracted from the
executive summary:
133
ibid.
HQ Air Command, Director of Personnel and Training Strategy, ‘RAF Continuous General Attitude
Survey 2005/2006 data, June 2007, p.iii.
134
33
‘Positive trends also occurred in responses to items concerned with elements of RAF
ethos: confidence in and respect for chain of command; willingness to make sacrifices
for the RAF; and for junior airmen sense of belonging to the RAF, and trust in and
respect for colleagues.’135
Moreover, in response to questions about the need for high personal and professional
standards, 98% of respondents agreed that it was important.136 However, until recently, there
has not been any specific work to consider how endemic core values are across the RAF. The
RAF Transformation Team recently identified a list of questions relating to behaviours that are
associated with RAF core values. The checklist of questions was assembled to determine
specifically how well core values are adhered to across the RAF by considering the behaviours
of individuals’ immediate superiors and those above them (bosses and their bosses boss).
Approximately 1000 individuals across a range of representative ranks and trades were
interviewed at 9 operational, training and HQ units.137 The results of the trial are depicted on
the following ‘pizza’ map:138
135
ibid., p.iv.
ibid.
137 Telephone interview with Wg Cdr Sykes, RAF Transformation Team, HQ Air Command on 25 April
2008.
138 E-mail from Wg Cdr Sykes dated 1 May 2008.
136
34
Fig 3 - RAF Transformational Behavioural
Checklist - Comparison Between 9 Units.
120
Excellence
- Boss' Boss
Respect - Boss
100
80
60
Excellence - Boss
Respect
- Boss' Boss
40
20
0
Service
- Boss' Boss
Integrity - Boss
Integrity
- Boss' Boss
Service - Boss
Units
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Unit 5
Unit 6
Unit 7
Unit 8
Investigation Required?
No
Yes
%age positive
>60%
40 to 60%
<40%
Unit 9
The most notable conclusion that can be drawn from this illustration is that the results do not
indicate any obvious trends, except it is clear that core values are adhered to in varying
degrees across the Service. This is emerging work and the RAF intends to pursue the study
further in order to better understand what the results actually mean. However, it follows that if
the RAF is serious about retaining and promoting a set of institutional values, it needs a method
of measuring how effective the organisation is at inculcating and sustaining these values. The
work being conducted by the RAF Transformation Team is the first attempt to do this.
35
In addition to operational necessity, maintaining institutional values in a society where
values are declining potentially has 3 implications for RAF personnel strategy: recruiting;
training; and retention. RAF recruitment has proved to be a particular challenge over the last
12-months. Factors such as the public reaction to current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a
buoyant economy and a reduction in the number of technically qualified people coming into the
market place have resulted in the RAF recruiting only 88% of the 2007/08 recruiting target.139
Further issues have included the reducing public visibility of the RAF, particularly as the RAF
has withdrawn from the recruiting market over the last three years due to drawdown. Core
values are important to the recruiting environment because if the RAF can target recruiting at
areas or organisations that share similar values, it may be easier to attract the right person.
Moreover, individuals whose values are more closely aligned with the institutional values of the
RAF are more likely to readily accept the discipline and behaviours implicit in military service
and more likely to be successful during initial training. RAF units could assist in this respect by
maximising opportunities to engage with their local communities and continued support for the
Air Cadet Organisation. Training and particularly initial training is the area most affected by
declining societal values. The training challenge will become more acute as social values
diverge from the traditional institutional values of the RAF. Finally, retention of serving
personnel is another key issue faced by the RAF in an era of high operational tempo
demanding high levels of commitment from it’s personnel. Sustaining and reinforcing
institutional values via a deliberate programme of through-life training could help to counter the
‘pull’ effects of ‘occupationalism’ and the individualistic culture typified in wider society.
139
Information provided by HQ 22 (Training) Group, HQ Air Command.
36
In conclusion, this paper set out to address whether RAF core values are important in
the context of contemporary British society. The thesis is that since the end of the Cold War,
British societal values have diverged from the more traditional organisational values articulated
by the RAF. There is a plethora of evidence to suggest that British societal values have moved
toward a more individual focus and consequently members of society are less inclined to
support community and civic interests. This is evidenced by increasing levels of anti-social
behaviours across the country. During much of the 20th century, society readily accepted
authority and the hierarchical structures of national institutions. Core values such as respect
for others, integrity, service before self and excellence in all that we do, are no longer prevalent
in a wider society where individuals have been encouraged to primarily consider their own
interests. In contrast, even a brief reflection of RAF history identifies that the current set of RAF
core values are ‘rooted’ in the traditions and culture of the Service over many years. Lord
Trenchard deliberately created a training organisation that enabled the RAF to develop a
culture and ethos distinct from the older Services despite the significant pressure on resources
at that time. Indeed, Trenchard could easily have conceded the need for separate training
organisations in search of more funds for aircraft development and against stiff opposition, he
elected not to do so.
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,140
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.’141
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.142
The enduring theme that extends throughout this paper is the importance of training. In
the first chapter, it was suggested that individual core values are influenced by nature through
an individuals experiences as they grow-up via factors such as family, friends, religion, school,
140
Moskos and Wood, op. cit.
Air Publication 1, 2nd Edition, op. cit., p.5.
142 ibid.
141
37
geography, economics and the media.143 However, it was also suggested that individual core
values can be influenced by nurture and from the military perspective, this means exposure to
the Service’s initial training establishments combined with ongoing exemplar leadership. The
simple fact that individual core values can be nurtured is fundamental to organisations and
particularly relevant to the RAF in the context of this debate. Specifically, it is paramount to the
RAF given the enduring need to pursue institutional values against the backdrop of declining
social values. If individual values could not be nurtured, there would be very little point in
articulating organisational values. Indeed, if this were the case, the RAF would need to accept
that individuals would have adopted their own values prior to joining the organisation. The only
salvation for organisations in this scenario would be to attract individuals with similar values to
the organisation and this would create an increasing problem for the RAF in a society of
declining values.
However, individual values can be nurtured and they continue to evolve depending on
the significant emotional experiences that individuals are exposed to. Consequently, there is
considerable merit for organisations and particularly the RAF, to identify and promote a set of
collective core values. For the RAF, these values were formally identified relatively recently
when forced to consider the essence of RAF culture and ethos in an era of increasing exposure
to civilian contractors and business practices. The intention to work in partnership with
contractors to deliver specialist technical and flying training risks ‘digging a spade’ into the very
foundations laid by Lord Trenchard over 90 years ago. So what? Having identified a set of
core values that are coherent with the foundations laid by Trenchard and the traditions of the
Service over the last 90 years, what next? Both CAS and AMP have confirmed the importance
of articulating RAF core values. However, the recent study by the RAF Transformation Team
highlights that core values are adhered to in varying degrees across the Service. 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; it may not be sufficient
to rely on the current initial training syllabus to inculcate values and rely on leadership to
sustain them. Specifically, initial training has historically focused on training individuals to
assimilate skills and abilities; in the future, as the gap between societal values and the Service
need widens, it will be necessary to refocus training on values and attitudes in order that
individuals have the correct motivations to assimilate military skills and abilities. This will
demand a fundamental shift in emphasis for initial training and follow-on training establishments
with regard to course content and instructor training. Assuming that RAF core values are
143
Shephard, David, op. cit., p.4.
38
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.
Changes to initial, trade/specialist and through life training will inevitably incur costs and
these costs are likely to be difficult to justify against the ever decreasing pool of defence
resources. Notwithstanding this, choosing to articulate core values has been an important step
in understanding RAF culture and ethos. Linking core values to the moral component of
fighting power highlights the real importance of understanding individual motivations.
Understanding why people do what they do and more importantly understanding that we can
influence individual motivations is an essential step to creating the agile, adaptable and capable
air force desired by CAS.144 It will therefore be essential for the RAF to pursue a greater
understanding of core values and ensure that appropriate resources are allocated.
Inevitably, the gap between societal values and the institutional core values of the RAF
will continue to get wider and the RAF will continue to have greater exposure to occupational
trends. Against this backdrop, it will therefore become increasingly important to understand,
develop, sustain and measure RAF core values in the context of contemporary British societal
values.
144
RAF Strategy 2006, op. cit., p.1.
39
Bibliography
Books
AP3000, Third Edition, British Air Power Doctrine (Norwich: HM Stationary, 1999).
AP3003, A Brief History of the RAF (Norwich: HM Stationary Office, 2004).
Bishop, Patrick, Fighter Boys, The Battle of Britain 1940 (London: Penguin Group, 2003).
Bishop, Patrick, Bomber Boys, Fighting Back 1940-1945 (London: Harper Press, 2007).
Boyle, Andrew, Trenchard (London: Collins, 1962).
Bungay, Stephen, The Most Dangerous Enemy, A History of the Battle of Britain (London:
Aurum Press Ltd, 2000).
Giddens, Anthony, and Turner, Jonathon (Eds), Social Theory Today (Oxford: Polity Press,
1987).
Gorman, Benjamin, Social Themes (London: Prentic-Hall Inc, 1971).
Gray, Peter W (Ed), British Air Power (London: The Stationary Office, 2003).
Heritage, John C in Giddens, Anthony, and Turner, Jonathon (Eds), Social Theory Today
(Oxford: Polity Press, 1987).
Hickman, Tom, The Call-Up: A History of National Service (London: Headline Book Publishing,
2004).
Huntington, Samuel P, The Soldier and The State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military
Relations, (Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967).
Janowitz, Morris, The Professional Soldier: A social and political portrait, (New York: The Free
Press, 1964).
Moskos, Charles C, and Wood, Frank R (Eds), The Military: More than Just a Job? (London:
Brassey’s Defence Publishers Ltd, 1988).
Probert, Henry, Bomber Harris, His Life and Times (London: Greenhill Books, 2001)
Soanes, Catherine and Stevenson, Angus (Eds), Concise Oxford English Dictionary: Eleventh
Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
Terraine, John, Right of the Line, The Royal Air Force in the European War 1939-1945
(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1985).
Articles
Air Publication 1 (1st Edition), Ethos, Core Values and Standards of the Royal Air Force
(Gloucester: TGDA Media Services, 2002).
Air Publication 1 (2nd Edition) Ethos, Core Values and Standards (High Wycombe: Media
Services HQ Air Cmd, 2008).
40
Joint Warfare Publication 0-01, ‘British Defence Doctrine’, Second Edition, (2001).
Mayer, Catherine, ‘Mean Streets’, Time, 7 April 2008, pp.38-42.
Royal Air Force Strategy 2006, (London: MOD Main Building, 2006).
Weiner, Yoash, ‘Forms of Value Systems: A Focus on Organisational Effectiveness and
Cultural Change and Maintenance’, Academy of Management Review, 1988, Vol 13, No4,
pp.534-545.
Woolcock, Nicola, Forget education, pupils just want to be famous’, The Times, 14 March 2008,
p.35.
Websites
BBC News. ‘Children ‘damaged’ by materialism’. Available from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7262936.stm [Accessed 15 April 2008].
BBC News. ‘Reaction to UK ‘core values’ idea’. Available from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4772059.stm [Accessed 18 Apr 2008]
Davies, Quentin and Clark, Bill and Sharp, Martin. ‘Report of Inquiry into National Recognition
of our Armed Forces’. Available from: http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/69519F89-9630-4D5F92CF-B834FAB0FBD2/0/recognition_of_our_armed_forces.pdf [Accessed 27 May 2008]
DCDC Strategic Trends. Available from: http://www.dcdc-strategictrends.org.uk/home.aspx
[Accessed April 2008]
Dobson, Roger and Habershon, Ed. ‘All work and no plays leads to divorce’, The Times Online.
Available at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article740123.ece [Accessed 18 April
2008]
Growth from Knowledge. ‘Reflections on Childhood Lifestyle’, Report by the Childrens Society.
Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/25_02_08_childhood.pdf [Accessed
April 2008].
Joseph Rowntree Foundation. ‘What are today’s social evils?’. Available from:
http://www.socialevils.org.uk/documents/social-evils-summary.pdf [Accessed 20 April 2008].
Layard, Richard. ‘Toward a happier society’. Available from:
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/layard/RL362.pdf [Accessed 14 March 2008].
Metrix. ‘Defence Training Review Rationalisation Programme’. Available from:
http://www.qinetiq.com/home_metrix_review/defence_training_review.html [Accessed 8 Apr
2008]
Pearce, Robert. ‘Thatcherism’, new perspective Vol 9, No 3. Available from:
http://www.history-ontheweb.co.uk/concepts/thatcherism93.htm [Accessed Mar 2008].
Rogers, Ben and Muir, Rick. ‘The Power of Belonging: Identity, citizenship and community
cohesion’, Institute for Public Policy Research, 2007. Available from:
http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=568 [Accessed 14 April 2008]
UK Military Flying Training System. Available from:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/AirSafetyandAviation/UKMFTS/
[Accessed 8 Apr 2008]
41
United States Air Force. ‘Core Values’. Available from:
http://www.usafa.af.mil/core-value/ [Accessed 7 Apr 2008]
Wikipedia. ‘Individualism’. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism [Accessed
4 April 2008]
Royal Australian Air Force. ‘Values’. Available from: http://www.raaf.gov.au/aboutus/values.htm
[Accessed 7 Apr 2008]
Wood, Martin. ‘Perceptions and experience of antisocial behaviour: findings from the
2003/2004 British Crime Survey’. Available from:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr4904.pdf [Accessed 14 Apr 2008]
Papers
Haysman, KJ and Lewis, CA, ‘Service Personnel’s Commitment to the RAF – An Analysis of
the Potential Impact of Change’, Command Scientific Support Branch Working Paper 7/98,
PTC/496165/2CSSB, 1998.
HQ Air Command, Director of Personnel and Training Strategy, ‘RAF Continuous General
Attitude Survey 2005/2006 data, June 2007.
PTC/462122/8/TD dated 8 August 2002, Strengthening RAF Ethos, A Paper by AMP.
14032007-U-RAF_Ethos – Ethos, Values and Standards of the RAF – A Paper by Director
Personnel and Training Strategy.
Misc
Shephard, David, ‘The Personality Matrix’, The Performance Partnership’s NLP Master
Practitioner Certification Programme, 2006. Available from
http://www.performancepartnership.com/docs/products/index.php
42
43