Logon info of MS Br websiteHide DetailsFROM:

Capt MahfuzTO:

maj.shehab@yahoo.comMessage flaggedMonday, July 23, 2012 10:54 AM

Welcome to the MS Br Interactive Site. Please retain the following login information for your records.Do not reply to this message.

At Login, enter:

User Name: c@YQ5wPassword: S3%H3x52

As a registered user, you can log on tomsbr.army.mil.bd------------------------------------------Thank You.Best Regards,MS BR WEB ADMINJAPANESE INVASION TIMELINE1.Manchuria and China

Manchuria was occupied on 1931 but total war broke out in 1937upto Sep 2 1945. 2.Vietnam Sep 1940 Japan invaded Vietnam (French Indo-china)3.Cambodia

August 1941, the Japanese army entered theFrench protectorate of Cambodiaand established a garrison that numbered 8,000 troops.4.Pearl Harbour 7th Dec 1941.

5.Thailand On December 8, 1941, after several hours of fighting between Thai and Japanese troops.6.Malaysia and Philippines 8 th Dec 1941 Japan invaded Malaysia and Philippine.7.Guam On December 10, 1941, ceding control of the island.[1]8.Hongkong Surrendered the territory of Hong Kong toJapanon 25 December 1941.

9.Indonesia On the night of 1011 January 1942.10.Burma Jan 1942 Japan entered in Burma.

11.Papua New Guinea Jan 1942

12.Singapore 15 Feb 1942 Japan invaded Singapore.13.Victory in Europe Day known asV-E DayorVE Day was the public holiday celebrated on 8 May 1945 (inCommonwealthcountries, 7 May 1945) to mark the date when theWorld War IIAlliesformally accepted theunconditional surrenderof the armed forces ofNazi Germanyand the end ofAdolf Hitler'sThird Reich, thus ending the war in Europe. The formal surrender of the occupying German forces in theChannel Islandswas not until 9 May 1945. On 30 AprilHitler committed suicideduring theBattle of Berlin, and so the surrender of Germany was authorized by his successor,

14.Soviet invasion of ManchuriaAs agreed with theAlliesat theTehran Conference(November 1943) and theYalta Conference(February 1945), the Soviet Union entered World War II'sPacific Theaterwithin three months of theend of the war in Europe. The invasion began on August 9, 1945, exactly three months after theGermansurrender on May8 (May 9, 0:43 Moscow time).15.Pearl Harbour

a.There are approximately 4,060 miles between Japan and Pearl Harbour, Hawaii. The attack on Pearl Harbour was a major loss for the US army as a massive amount of men were killed and injured. 188 U.S. Aircraft were destroyed; 2,402 men were killed and 1,282 wounded. It occurred on the morning of December 7, 1941, and was a surprise military strike conducted by the Imperia JapaneseNavy against the United States naval base at Pearl Harbour, Hawaii.

b.The attack was intended as a preventive action in order to keep the U.S. Pacific Fleet from interfering with military actionsthe Empireof Japan was planning in Southeast Asia against overseas territories of the United Kingdom, theNetherlands, and the United States. The base was attacked by 353Japanesefighters,bombersand torpedo planes in two waves, launched from sixaircraft carriers. Four U.S. Navy battleships were sunk and the four others present were damaged.

c.Japanesealso sank or damaged three cruisers, three destroyers, an anti-aircraft training ship and one minelayer. Thepower station, shipyard, maintenance, and fuel and torpedostorage facilities, as well as the submarine piers and headquartersbuilding(also home of theintelligencesection) were not attacked.Japaneselosses were light: 29 aircraft and five midget submarines lost, and 65 servicemen killed or wounded. OneJapanesesailor was captured. The attack came as a profoundshockto theAmericanpeople and led directly to theAmericanentry into World War II in both the Pacific and European theatres. The following day (December 8) the United States declared war on Japan.

d.All six of Japan's first-line aircraft carriers,Akagi,Kaga,Soryu,Hiryu,ShokakuandZuikaku, were assigned to the mission. With over 420 embarked planes, these ships constituted by far the most powerful carrier task force ever assembled. Vice AdmiralChuichi Nagumo, an experienced, cautious officer, would command the operation. His Pearl Harbor Striking Force also included fast battleships, cruisers and destroyers, with tankers to fuel the ships during their passage across the Pacific. An Advance Expeditionary Force of large submarines, five of them carryingmidget submarines, was sent to scout around Hawaii, dispatch the midgets into Pearl Harbor to attack ships there, and torpedo American warships that might escape to sea.

e.Under the greatest secrecy, Nagumo took his ships to sea on 26 November 1941, with orders to abort the mission if he was discovered, or should diplomacy work an unanticipated miracle. Before dawn on the 7th of December, undiscovered and with diplomatic prospects firmly at an end, the Pearl Harbor Striking Force was less than three-hundred miles north of Pearl Harbor. A first attack wave of over 180 aircraft, including torpedo planes, high-level bombers, dive bombers and fighters, was launched in the darkness and flew off to the south. When first group had taken off, a second attack wave of similar size, but with more dive bombers and no torpedo planes, was brought up from the carriers' hangar decks and sent off into the emerging morning light. Near Oahu's southern shore, the five midget submarines had already cast loose from their "mother" subs and were trying to make their way into Pearl Harbor's narrow entrance channel.

Leadership, Management and Command:

The Officers trinity.

W B Howieson & H Kahn

The acts of leading, managing and commanding (based on either philosophy or practice) have had to adapt throughout the history of the Royal Air Force, in concert with changing environments; these acts will have to change again in the 21st century and will require new skills, new attitudes and differing perspectives of the Officers trinity.

INTRODUCTION

There is a plethora of literature on leadership, management and command. In the civilian (business) market, there are literally thousands of books on leadership; management; and leadership and management as a dual concept. However, there are no books in the business market on what the military call command.

In contrast, in the military domain, there are an equal amount of books on leadership; command; and leadership and command together. However, very little has been written to date about military management; this represents a very serious limitation. New business practices and performance management systems now require capable senior managers and leaders and private sector organizations have found clear strategic benefit in providing a structured approach to the developmental needs of senior executives.

Although it is recognized that leadership, management and command are closely related (especially in the military environment), comparatively little has been written on the nature and practice on the 3 subjects as a state of being three. This view has also been recognised in the recent Defence Training Review Report where it states: The pressures of limited resources and increased accountability have placed new demands on Ministry of Defence leaders, as has the challenge of leading a more diverse workforcein parallel, our studies showed that we must do more to prepare our people effectively, in the post-Strategic Defence Review environment, and, especially to improve management and leadership development, both civilian and military.LEADERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND COMMAND THE EXISTING SITUATION

Although military doctrine exists currently on leadership, management and command (for example British Defence Doctrine (BDD) and the Army Doctrine Publication Volume 2: Command (ADP)), it is in places limited. Indeed, the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force (RAF) do not have any single-Service doctrinal publications on this theme, at present. Moreover, the emphasis in the tri-Service arena is clearly on command as the prominent component of the trinity and this is echoed in the teachings of the Junior Officers Command Course, the Joint Services Command and Staff College and the Higher Command and Staff Course.

Therefore, most Officers hold a basic definition of each component of this trinity and indeed, how they are related to each other; this basic inter-relationship is shown in Figure 1.0.

Figure 1.0: A Simple Interrelationship between Command, Leadership and Management

WHAT EXACTLY IS COMMAND?

"One of the least controversial things that can be said about command and control is that it is poorly understood and subject to wildly different interpretation. The term can mean almost everything from military computers to the art of generalship; whatever the user wishes it to mean."

Kenneth Moll

So what exactly is command then? In the military literature, there are a vast amount of definitions of command. Indeed, one-third of the United Kingdom Doctrine for Joint and Multinational Operations is dedicated to Command., Furthermore, in the Queens Regulations for the RAF, the concept and act of commanding is explained at length; however, no formal definition for command exists. Moreover, command is also different at each level of war and this task becomes all the more difficult in joint and multi-national operations, where senior commanders may have to impose their will, in an atmosphere of political, legal and even moral confusion. In addition, the UK Glossary of Terms and Definitions currently gives 5 definitions of command:

The authority vested in an individual of the AFs, for the direction, coordination and control of military forces.

An order given by a commander; that is, the will of the commander expressed for the purpose of bringing about a particular action.

A unit and organization or an area under the command of an individual.

To dominate by field or weapon fire or by observation from a superior position.

To exercise command.

Therefore, to address command properly, it must be considered on 3 separate, but related, dimensions.

(1)Legal and Process.

(2)Individual Command.

(3)Organizational Command.

LEGAL AND PROCESS

Firstly, command has a legal and constitutional status, as codified in the Queens Regulations. In the Queens Regulations for the RAF, it states that at the highest level: "The government and command of each of the Services is vested in Her Majesty the Queen, who has charged the Secretary of State with general responsibility for the defence of the Realm and established a Defence Council having command and administration over Her Armed Forces; and, in turn, Commanders in Chiefs who: "in conjunction with other duties are operationally responsible to the Defence Council for command of personnel in their area". Therefore, command is vested in a commander by higher authority and gives him direction (often encapsulated in a mission) that assigns forces to him, to accomplish that mission.

The concept of authority requires further definition: traditionalists define authority as the right to command and to induce compliance. They regard authority as a central feature of the structure of formal organizations that prescribe expectations that certain individuals should exert control and direction over others within defined areas of competence. In this context, authority involves the right and freedom to use the power of command and ultimately to enforce obedience; whilst a commander can devolve specific authority to subordinates to decide and to act within their own areas of delegated responsibility, a commander retains overall responsibility for his command.

This theme is espoused further in the Queens Commissioning Scroll, where it states:

"And we do hereby Command them (Officers, Airmen and Airwomen) to obey you as their superior Officer and you to observe and follow such Orders and Directions as from time to time you shall receive from us, or any Superior Officer, according to the Rules and Discipline of War, in the pursuance of the Trust hereby reposed in you".

INDIVIDUAL COMMAND

Secondly, the exercise of command includes the process by which a commander makes decisions, impresses his will upon, and transmits (i.e. tells) his intention to his subordinates. It, therefore, encompasses the authority, responsibility and duty to act. Therefore, individual command at all levels is defined as the art of decision-making, motivating and directing all ranks into actions to accomplish missions, whilst at the same time maintaining accountability and control.In this context, accountability and control require further analysis. Accountability is a corollary to both responsibility and authority; it involves a liability and obligation to answer to a superior for the proper user of delegated responsibility, authority and resources. Thus, he who delegates responsibility should grant sufficient authority to a subordinate for him to carry out his task; the subordinate, meanwhile, remains accountable to his superior for its execution.

In addition, Armed Forces often use the acronym C3I (command, control, communication and intelligence) and the addition of computers to the list of Cs to produce C4. These definitions apply to command at every level: grand strategic, military strategic, operational and tactical. The German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) was one of the most prolific and influential sociologists of the 20th Century and he was the first person to coin the phrase command and control. Three words describe his bureaucratic model: control, order and predict. Therefore, control is the process through which the commander assisted by his staff organizes, directs and co-ordinates his activities of the forces allocated to him. To achieve this, he and his staff employ a common doctrine for command and use standardized procedures for control in conjunction with the equipment, communication and information systems available. Command and control are thus inextricably linked with commanders requiring an understanding of both and the roles of each other if they are to perform their duties effectively. Command and control, however, are not equal partners as control is merely one aspect of command.In essence, command requires a vision of the desired result; an understanding of the concepts, missions, priorities and the allocation of resources; an ability to assess people and risks; and a continual process of re-evaluating the situation. A commander requires above all to decide on a course of action and to lead his command.

A simple way of understanding this one-way (order) process is by reference to the classic model of leadership studies by Tannenbaum and Schmidt at Figure 2.0.

Figure 2.0: Individual Command

Figure 2.0 shows that an approximation for the various styles of command can be found from the above continuum. For ease of presentation, the styles listed may be substituted for the expressions boss-centred and employee-centred used by Tannenbaum and Schmidt in this classic continuum.

Broadly speaking then, there are 2 styles of individual command: Befehlstaktik is an inflexible, authoritarian form of top-down command in which subordinates receive rigid orders, that leave little or no scope to exercise low-level initiative. By contrast, Auftragstaktik emphasizes mission-type orders; the superior commander sets broad objectives, but then allows subordinates to use their initiative to achieve their part of the plan in the way that they think best. The BAFs version of Auftragstaktik is known as Mission Command. Befehlstaktik dictates not just what is to be done, but how it is to be done and can be represented by the extreme left-end of the command circle in Figure 2.0 (i.e. tells). Auftragstaktik can be represented by the right end of the command circle (i.e. shares the information).

Although BDD currently adopt Mission Command (the commander defines the limits of the operation and then lets the subordinates take the appropriate action at the coal-face), Befehlstaktik is wholly appropriate in certain circumstances; in times of crisis/emergency, a one-way, directional and autocratic approach to command must always be used. In this context, command-by-direction is a description of the method used by commanders who directly command subordinates before and during battle; the commander feels he has positive control over each element. Van Creveld describes this as a method, which prioritises uncertainty; the commander, accepting that he will never have perfect information, nevertheless brings all uncertainty to himself and deals with whichever uncertainty assails him most at each moment.

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMANDThirdly, organizational command is related to organizational design: human beings profit from living in structured groups and irrespective of the organizational design (for example hierarchical, network/cellular or indeed a combination of the both the matrix), organizations require a structure so that work can be divided to achieve coordination among its various work activities.

Organizational command, therefore, centres on the issues of:

Division of labour.

Allocation of authority.

Departmentalisation.

Span of control.

In addition, Burns and Stalker, 2 British Social Scientists, labelled organizations as either mechanistic or organic. The RAF employs (at present) a mechanistic organizational structure, which could be argued consists of tight rules and policies; limited individual job discretion; and coordination, which is both formal and written. In addition, mechanistic organizations also posses:

High divisions of labour.

Low delegation of authority.

Departments with great uniformity of work activities.

Narrow spans of control.

At the organizational level then, senior commanders make countless decision about the division of labour, delegation of authority, departmentalisation and span of control. Over time, these decisions result in the elaboration of the organizations structure. Therefore, organizational command is defined as the arrangement of roles and reporting relationships, which govern employee behaviour with two primary components of organizational structure, namely centralization and co-ordination.

This form of command (organizational) is shown in Figure 3.0, where individual command is seen to operate at various levels within organizational command.

Figure 3.0: Individual and Organizational Command

MANAGEMENT

"Being a manager is the most infuriating, frustrating and demanding job that anyone could ask for. You dont get time for yourself and you are constantly on call. You always have to watch for everyone else. For these reasons, I wouldnt do anything else."

R Dailey

Management is defined as the allocation and control of resources (human, material and financial) to achieve the goals and objectives of the organization and the measure of good management is the ability to achieve the right balance: neither an over-abundance nor a shortage of resources, either of which would undermine the concentration of effort on the main objective, whatever that may be.

Understanding the roles of the Manager

Mintzberg analysed a managers job in terms of roles and identified 10 managerial roles clustered around 3 main categories (interpersonal, informational and decisional), which are described in Table 1.0 below:

The Managers Role

INTERPERSONALINFORMATIONALDECISIONAL

FigureheadMonitor: scans for information.Entrepreneur: seeks change.

Leader

Disseminator: shares information with other people.

Disturbance handler: responds to pressures and crisis.

Liaison

Spokesperson: shares information with outsiders.Resource allocator: gives resources to others.

Negotiator: reaches agreement.

Table 1.0: The Roles of the Manager

Management practices and procedures are largely a response to one of the most significant developments of the 20th Century: the emergence of large organizations. Without good management, complex enterprises in a fast-moving and dynamic environment tend to become chaotic in ways that threaten their very existence and effective management, therefore, brings a degree of order and consistency to the key decisions made by managers.

For example, command-by-direction (see Individual Command) is more orientated to concern for the task and management-by-people is closely orientated to the area of freedom for subordinates. These concepts are shown in Figure 4.0, Individual Management. In this diagram, Human Resource Management varies between the right-hand end of the continuum (i.e. delegates) and the selling end of the spectrum.

Figure 4.0: Individual Management

LEADERSHIP

"Leadership is intangible, and therefore no weapon ever designed can replace it".

General Omar Bradley

Leadership has been closely studied over the years, both as a matter of academic interest and with an eye to making leadership easier and more effective in organizations. There is no formal and agreed definition of leadership (or even of its functions), although there are common features to many of the definitions available.

In 1988, Warren G Bennis completed writing his classic book On Becoming A Leader. This richly praised book details: how people become leaders; how they lead; and how organizations encourage or indeed, stifle leaders. Underlying the hows, he goes onto claim that leaders must understand the context in which they are working in and notes: "The changes in the last generation have been so radical that it seemsnot just that the rules have changed (but that) it is a different game".

Indeed, for the RAF, the pace of change in the last 30 years alone has been extraordinary, with simultaneous changes in both international security and domestic society. Therefore, in this dynamic and fast-changing environment, strong leadership is required at every level of the organization; there is nothing more important to an organization than the quality of its leadership and indeed, of its leadership philosophy. However, one criticism of todays organizations is that they are over managed and under led: they (organizations) are overly concerned with policies, practices, procedures and rule books and not concerned enough with the important issues like trust, mission and an overarching and compelling vision.

Indeed, Warren Bennis has detailed 4 things that people want from their leaders:

Purpose, direction and meaning (a strong determination to achieve a goal).

Trust.

A sense of we-can-do-it (optimism).

Results.

Everyone knows that excellent leadership can be felt throughout an organization; leadership gives pace and energy to the work and empowers the workforce, which is most evident in 4 themes: people feel significant (everyone feels that he or she makes a difference to the success of the organization); learning and competence matter (leaders value learning and mastery and so do the people who work for leaders); people are part of the community (where there is leadership, there is a team a family a unit); and work is exciting (where there are leaders, work is stimulating, challenging, fascinating and fun).

Therefore, in simple terms, leaders create vision, trust, meaning, success and healthy environments if they survive the bureaucracy. A better definition of leadership, therefore, is how to achieve worthwhile goals through other people via a vision.

Critically, to survive in the 21st Century, the RAF will require a new generation of leaders leaders, not managers. This distinction is an important one: leaders conquer the context, the volatile, turbulent, ambiguous surroundings that sometimes seem to conspire against the organization, whilst managers surrender to the bureaucracy! Effective leadership, therefore, is very important to unlocking the immense talent in any organization, including the RAF. Moreover, organizational vision can also challenge people to stretch beyond their current capabilities and often beyond their limitations. As Nanus comments: "There is no more powerful engine driving an organization towards excellence and long range success, than an attractive, worthwhile and achievable vision of the future, that is widely shared".

This vision must be alive in every command level of the RAF and a corporate vision must operate at 3 levels:

Strategic The RAFs overriding philosophy.

Operational That philosophy in action.

Tactical That philosophy manifested in the behaviour of each airman/woman.

Thus, the leaders responsibilities include disseminating vision to all 3 levels and this vision needs to permeate throughout the organization.

Finally, leaders must evaluate vision, before the vision fails or is inadequate to handle new challenges. Vision needs constant attention in light of the dynamic environment in which we live and work in and leaders who are not strategists are simply caretakers and gatekeepers. Though they may run efficient and effective organizations (i.e. they are managers), they do not really serve the long-term interests of their institutions unless they plan, set goals and provide strategic vision. Leaders who care about their missions and about their people normally want to leave their organization in better shape and with a clearer strategic direction, than when they took over.

In summary, the difference between a good unit and a bad unit is leadership: sound leadership within a dynamic environment, is at the heart of the RAFs institutional character. It is the most important bond among airmen and is the foundation for successful Air Force achievements in peace and war; of the many skills and abilities used in the profession of arms, none is prized more highly. Enhancing leadership as we transform to meet the challenges of this millennium can strengthen the foundation of mutual trust and respect among ranks and across the organization as a whole.

HOW ARE LEADERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND COMMAND RELATED TO EACH OTHER?

Leadership, management and command are 3 distinctive and complementary systems of action and the precise activities and the characteristics required of each system are intensely human matters. Critically, leadership, management and command (as individual components, and as a trinity) are necessary for success in an increasingly complex and volatile military environment.

Figure 5.0 is a revision of the simple model of leadership, management and command shown at Figure 1.0. The main difference between these 2 Figures (Figure 1.0 & Figure 5.0) is that leadership is now the dominant component of the trinity.

Figure 5.0: A Revised Model of Leadership, Management and Command

Part of the reason leadership has become so important (and therefore, the dominant component of the trinity) in recent years, is that the macro-environment (consisting of political, economic, socio-cultural and technological dimensions) has become more competitive and more volatile. The net result is that doing what was done yesterday or even doing it 5% better is no longer a formula for success.

For example, consider a simple military analogy: a peacetime Air Force can usually survive with good command and management procedures up and down the hierarchy, coupled with good leadership at the very top. A wartime Air Force, however, needs competent leadership at all levels. No one yet has figured out how to manage people effectively into battle; they must be led! Indeed, in times of rapid change, there is no substitute for leadership.

Unfortunately, most organizations are still based on the old-fashioned form of bureaucracy: the mind-set of control, order and predict. Those are the things of command and management. If we existed in an environment where we could control order and predict, a manager and commander would be a terrific thing and bureaucracy in a stable environment as in the Victorian era would be a great social invention. But today, organizations have become unhinged: they are confusing, rapidly changing, unpredictable and full of surprises. This is why leadership is now critical: it (leadership) moves people into the arena of creative solutions, by first breaking barriers that inhibit fresh and new unthinked thinking. Indeed, preparing airmen for future (rather than past wars) involves constant encouragement of open-minded thinking to ensure intellectual growth. Thus the art of leadership involves moving people forward towards a goal and inspiring them to perform and succeed for the greater goal.

In this sense, leadership cannot be bestowed upon a person by higher authority. Therefore, it is misleading to think that leadership is only a characteristic of senior ranks or specific positions. Leadership is needed and must be practiced at every level of an organization: great leaders understand that to achieve their vision and gain respect and authority, they must be willing to give power (command authority) to others; they delegate responsibility to other individuals and give those individuals the knowledge and resources to succeed.

Leadership and Management

Field Marshal Sir William Slim led the 14th British Army from 1943 to 1945 in the reconquest of Burma from the Japanese one of the most epic campaigns of WWII. He recognized the distinction between leaders and managers when he said:

"Managers are necessary; leaders are essential. Leadership is of the spirit, compounded by personality. Management is of the mind, more a matter of accurate calculation, statistics, methods, timetables and routine.

Management develops the capacity to achieve its plan by organizing and staffing creating an organizational structure and a set of jobs for accomplishing the plan. The equivalent leadership activity, however, is aligning people: this means communicating a new direction to those who can create coalitions and who both understand the vision and are committed to its achievement. In addition, management ensures plan accomplishment by controlling and problem solving (monitoring the results versus the plan in some detail (both formally and informally) by means of reports, meetings and other tools; identifying deviations; and then planning and organizing to solve the problems). But for leadership, achieving a vision requires motivating and inspiring despite major obstacles to change by appealing to the basic, but often untapped, human needs, values and emotions.

More than anything else, however, the difference between the leader and the manger rests with the status quo: managers are willing to live with it and leaders are not.

In summary, then, perhaps the best way to explain the difference between leadership and management is by reference to Table 2.0 (reproduced from Bennis (1997): Managing People is like Herding Cats).

The ManagerThe Leader

The manager administersThe leader innovates.

The manager is a copyThe leader is an original.

The manager maintainsThe leader develops.

The manager controlsThe leader inspires trust.

The manager has a short-range viewThe leader has a long-range perspective.

The manager asks how and whenThe leader asks what and why.

The manager has his or her eye on the bottom lineThe leader has his or her eye on the horizon.

The manager is the classic good soldierThe leader is his or her own person.

The manager does things rightThe leader does the right thing.

Table. 2.0: The Difference Between Leadership and Management

Leadership and Command

Leadership and headship are uniquely different and it is always important to focus on the leader as a person, and not those who merely serve as heads (commanders) in positions of leadership. While many people regard command and leadership as much the same thing, it is more helpful to treat them as 2 separate but related functions. Successful leaders persuade people willingly to endure hardships (usually prolonged) and incur dangers (usually acute) that if left to themselves, they would do their utmost to avoid. Leadership is, therefore, concerned with inspiration and motivation. Command, by contrast, is the direction, coordination and effective use of military force."

MACRO-ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT HAVE IMPACTED DIRECTLY ON CURRENT LEADERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND COMMAND PHILOSOPHIES AND PRACTICES.

Perhaps the single greatest difference to the environment affecting leadership, management and command philosophies, is that both leader and led are increasingly reflecting a diverging set of values and beliefs, to those traditionally held by the RAF. In the last 20 years, there has been dynamic political, economic, socio-cultural and technological change in the western world. Indeed, major changes to UK and European legislation have reflected the growth of individualism within society and, as a result, society is more 'permissive,' with the emphasis now on individual rights rather than responsibility towards the community or traditional organizations such as the RAF.

This is derived, in part, from European Human Rights Legislation and the distinction between individualism and collectivism is worthy of explanation: individualism values loose linkages between individuals, who view themselves as independent of collectives; are primarily motivated by their own preferences, needs, rights and the contracts that they have established with others; give priority to their personal goals over the goals of others and emphasize rational analysis of the advantages and disadvantages to associating with others. Collectivism, on the other hand, values close linkages between individuals, who see themselves as part of one or more collectives; are primarily motivated by the norms of, and duties imposed by those collectives; are willing to give priority to the goals of these collectives over their own personal goals and emphasize their connectedness to members of these collectives.

Table 3.0 summarises in broad terms the main changes in the macro-environment of the western world in the last 30 years.

From (1970s)To (2000)

Industrial Society.Information Society.

Forced Technology.High Tech/High Touch.

National Economy.World Economy.

Centralization.Decentralization.

Institutional Help.Self Help.

Representative Democracy.Participative Democracy.

Hierarchies.Networking.

Either/Or.Multiple Options.

Table 3.0: A Summary of the Macro-Environmental Changes in the Western World between 1970 and 2000

Therefore, the greatest challenge facing the RAF is that todays young Officers and non-commissioned ranks may simply not be willing to accept the traditional leadership, management and command principles of the past. The power to make life or death decisions over subordinates runs contrary to the increasing emphasis on the rights of the individual, expressed by the society from which recruits are drawn. Of particular note is the tendency towards meritocracy in the last 20 years which can run contrary to the traditional function of rank. In essence, young people of today are increasingly reflecting the views of what Bett calls the post deferential society.

In summary then, almost all organizations are now caught between 2 paradigms: how they are organized and how they are led. On the one hand, we have bureaucracy with the mindset of self-control, order and predict with clear lines of distinction and no cross-functional work modes. On the other hand, we have eloquent stakeholders whose voices have to be taken into account.

AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL FOR LEADERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND COMMAND DOCTRINE

"A good soldier whether he leads a platoon or an Army is expected to look backward as well as forward; but he must only think forward."

General Douglas Macarthur

A New Approach

The world of work is changing at a rapid pace, greatly influenced by shifting societal trends, technology and globalization. These trends cannot be treated as separate issues; their interdependent effects will continue to exert powerful influences on the RAF, its culture and how leadership, management and command is viewed and practiced. Therefore, proactively adapting leadership, management and command philosophies to meet these challenges of this millennium will enhance the overall effectiveness of the RAF.

To date, however, the military style of leadership, management and command training (and doctrine) has often focused on hard skills such as planning, organizing and directing, all within an impersonal hierarchical structure. However, current thinking (from both the corporate world and academia) is now shifting towards an increase in the importance of soft skills such as communication and motivation. In addition, the supply of human capital is undergoing a pervasive and powerful shift: the workforce in the UK today is a mosaic of individuals with varied ages, backgrounds, skills, aspirations and styles. Therefore, the definition of diversity will continue to evolve from merely race and gender to include age, disability, family structure, sexual orientation, ethnic culture, language and religious affiliation. Thus, organizations that can lead, manage and command this diversity will have a greater opportunity to thrive in the years ahead.

Indeed, research now shows that respect for the differences in people is now one of the most important qualities in a leader. Further, the Industrial Society has now published research on the 5 weakest areas of the less successful leader:

Failure to be sensitive to peoples feelings.

Failure to recognize other peoples stress.

Failure to develop and guide staff.

Failure to encourage feedback on their own (the leaders) performance.

Failure to consult those affected before making decisions.

Although the above list was generated from Industrial leaders, it has equal applicability to the RAF and serves to reinforce previous arguments about the personal or human side to leadership, management and command: the above failures are all soft-skill orientated. Therefore, to undergo the necessary transformation in leadership, management and command philosophies and, therefore, to provide the relevant training, Officers will now have to accept the feasibility of working alliances with subordinates who question old practices and propose new solutions and to think of the link between them, as essential as the link between strategy and operations. Furthermore, it will be vital that too much emphasis is not put on leadership traits or leadership doctrine from the past: even successful organizations may undo themselves in the future if they continue to act today in the way they have acted in the past.

Organizational Leadership

Leadership exists at every level of the organization and it is not a function of rank. From the airmen in the RAF today, to the Air Marshals at the corporate level, everybody has an individual leadership responsibility to those who serve under them. Indeed, given their generational characteristics, the recruits of tomorrow (both Officers and airmen) will likely have little organizational loyalty: they will view themselves as free agents who will only work for a leader who provides the most developmental challenges and opportunities, that focus on promoting commitment, involvement, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration. Therefore, leaders will need to routinely ask for inputs from subordinates and share information freely while focusing on trust, respect and empowerment that will help to strike a balance between the leaders and those that they lead.

Like organizational command, organizational leadership works at every level of the RAF; this situation is shown diagrammatically at Figure 6.0.

Figure 6.0: Organizational Leadership

Leadership and Strategy

"Tactics make the steps from which operational leaps are assembled, strategy points out the path."

A A Svechin

The necessity to make the right decision and then carry it out in the right way, is reflected currently by the Services formal decision-making tool, the Formal Estimate. In essence, this estimate consists of 4 parts:

Mission Analysis.

Evaluation of factors.

Consideration of courses of action.

Selection of the best course of action.

Whilst the format of the process and the language has a unique military favour, the concept of working out what to do, analysing the relevant factors, and selecting a choice, is the basis for strategy in the civilian world. In this context, it is here that leadership is closely related to strategy. Strategy is the job of projecting into the future: surveying an organizational situation or problem and deciding between alternative courses of action that have many possible consequences. Again, strategic leadership exists at every level in the RAF.

The Officers trinity

Combining leadership, management, command, organizational leadership and strategy, a revised model for the Officers trinity is shown at Figure 7.0. Creating a long-range, strategic vision for the RAF requires the leader to deal with issues that are more complex, conceptual and abstract than the tactical concerns of a unit commander. In this respect, leadership is a more intellectual activity.

Figure 7.0: The Officers trinity

CONCLUSION

War is not the business of managers; it is the art of leaders. The most essential dynamic of combat power is competent and confident leadership.

As leadership is a dynamic process between the leader and the led, airmen of today require a subtly different approach in the ways that they are led, managed and commanded if the maximum use is to be made of them as a human resource. The RAF has traditionally been able to rely on the fact that the subordinate was going to do what he/she was told because the order came from someone senior: this is no longer an acceptable assumption. Airmen are now more questioning and, therefore, will be more willing to respond to leadership styles that involve them in the decision making process that explains the rationale behind that decision. Today, we are moving towards organizations formed more like temporary systems networks and clusters: their mind set will be alignment, creativity and empowerment. Therefore, in this post-bureaucratic world, the laurel will go to the leader who encourages healthy dissent and values followers, brave enough to say no. Successful leaders will have not the loudest voice but the readiest ear. And their genius may well lie not in personal achievements, but in understanding other peoples talents.

In addition, leaders, particularly military, are already required to adapt to peer leadership, matrix-style management and team building that combines military and civilian efforts in joint, coalition and inter-agency activities, all in a fast-paced, high tempo environment. At the same time, the leader must continuously and simultaneously design and implement plans, policies and practices to maximize group cohesion, subordinates potential and foster high professional ethics. These conditions, create a large dynamic, non-linear system: sequential cause and effect are more difficult to track and predict and leaders will increasingly need to pace and anticipate the changing complexity in order to provide subordinates with a shared vision and coherent direction, through a succession of organizational changes. This system will require a holistic and multifaceted approach to leadership that stresses interactive participation, open communication and continuous learning for both the leaders and the followers. The functions of leadership then become the creation of systems, structures and environments where this interaction and learning can occur:

Therefore, the best leadership will not generate followers; it will generate other leaders.

Thus, the main objective of the effective and successful leader will be to produce change, often dramatically and highly needed. Leaders will transform people and organizations by setting and articulating a clear vision and implementing effective strategies that inspire others by enabling them to reach their full potential.

Existing bureaucracies and pyramidal organizations are as inadequate to a world of change and interdependence as the existing models of leaders and followers. Traditional leadership metaphors such as rule and subjects and bosses and subordinates are all inappropriate for this new age of democracy, participation and empowerment.

ENDNOTES

In this context, trinity refers to the state of being three and it is not intended to replace or substitute

The Holy Trinity.

Command should be seen as more than a military expression; it has relevance to all employees who hold positions

of supervisory responsibility, whether they work in large or small organizations, public or private domains.

British Defence Doctrine [BDD] 2nd Edition: Joint Warfare Publication 0-01[JWP 0-01].

Army Doctrine Publication [ADP] Volume 2: Command April 1995.

Quoted from Kenneth Moll [1978] in The Command and Control Dilemma: when Technology and

Organizational Orientation Collide, by Lieutenant Colonel G A Roman USAF: Air War College Maxwell Paper No 8, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, March 1997.

For example, Allied Joint Doctrine AJP-01 offers: Commanders Intent, Command and Control [C2], Principle

of Joint and Combined Command, Full Command, Operational Command, Tactical Command and Functional Command.

See Joint Warfare Publication 0-10 [JWP 0-10], and in particular Part 2: Command including Chapter 4: The

Commander and Chapter 5: Command and Control Operations.

This view is also echoed by Air Commodore Stuart Peach in The Airmens Dilemma: To Command or to

Control in Air Power 21 Challenges for the New Century Edited by Peter W Gray. On page 125 of this book, Peach describes the NATO terms of command in detail. However, he goes on: "The problem is that these elegant terms no longer work." Further reference should also be made again to The Command and Control Dilemma: when Technology and Organizational Orientation Collide, by Lieutenant Colonel G A Roman USAF: Air War College Maxwell Paper No 8, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, March 1997.

Queens Regulations [QRs] for The Royal Air Force: Chapter 3 - General Instructions for Officers: Section 1

[Instructions for Commanders].

For example, see The Levels of War on p1-2 of BDD: "Military activities are conducted at different levels

involving different people, from the senior political leadership of the state to the soldiers, sailors and airmen at the forefront of military operations. Traditionally, military activities were viewed as having either strategic or tactical qualities. Some eminent scholars discerned a level between those two what Jomini referred to as grand tactics and, especially after WWII, a higher political or grand strategic level has frequently been referred to. Within NATO, there are 4 levels currently accepted as providing a framework for command and analysis: the grand strategic, the military strategic, the operational and the tactical".

UK Glossary of Terms and Definitions Joint Warfare Publication [JWP 0-01.1], the Joint Defence and Concept

Centre.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines Duty as: "a moral or legal obligation".

See From Max Weber by Gerth, Mills & Turner [1991] for a selection of his key papers that describe

bureaucratic society

For a further analysis of this model, see Luthans F. [2002]. Organizational Behaviour [9th International

Edition]. New York: McGraw-Hill, page 613..

For further analysis, see Sheffield G.D. [Ed]. [1997]. Leadership & Command: The Anglo-American Experience

since 1861. Brasseys.

For a full definition of Mission Command see BDD, op. cit. page 3-7.

Van Creveld M.L. [1989]. Technology in War. New York: The Free Press, Chapters 2-5.

Mintzberg H. [1979]. The Structure of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ivancevich, J., and Matteson, T. [1987]. Organizational Behaviour and Management. Plano, Tex:

Business Publications.

Burns T. and Stalker G. [1961]. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.

Centralization refers to the retention of authority to make decisions by senior commanders; when an organization

is centralized, all subordinates follow uniform procedures and policies, which are formulated and enforced by higher commanders. Rules and regulations direct subordinates to do certain things in specific ways at certain times e.g. direct orders. Moreover, rules and regulations make subordinates tasks explicit and they shape the superior-subordinate relationship, which is essential to organizational command. If commanders establish many rules and regulations covering subordinate behaviours, then they maintain control over the subordinates tasks, work relationships and behaviour. Thus, decision-making remains centralized through the formal system of rules and regulations. Indeed, highly centralized organizations usually exhibit high formalization [which is defined as written documentation of rules, regulations and procedures].

Coordination is a set of mechanisms, which commanders employ to link the actions of the organizational sub-units

to achieve a pattern of consistent outcomes. Several vertical coordination mechanisms can be used including, direct supervision, standardization of work groups, standardization of outputs, performance appraisal and management information systems.

Dailey R. [1988]. Understanding People in Organizations. St. Paul, Minn: West.

Most people believe that management is a science and can, therefore, be taught. There is a huge array of books in

the field of management, ranging from accounting to strategic planning. In all respects, management thinking is now high on all corporate agendas, especially within the Ministry of Defence: today, all organizations, private or public, large or small, require management equipped with the latest management skills. Indeed, the whole thrust of the Governments financial management in the public sector in all western countries is towards those measures adopted and used by the private sector i.e. financial planning, performance management and budgetary control.

Mintzberg H. [1973]. The Nature of Managerial Work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

General Omar Bradley: Command and General Staff College, USA 16th May 1967.

Bennis W G [1988] On Becoming a Leader New York: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.

ibid, page 2.

Bennis W G [1997]. Managing People is like Herding Cats. London: Kogan Page Limited.

The key to gaining competitive advantage today will be the ability of leaders to create an adaptive learning

environment that encourages the development of intellectual capital that releases the creative power of individuals.

Canadian research, has suggested that potential recruits perceive military organizations as bureaucratic institutions

that are authoritarian and coercive [see Major R L Hills, 2000: The military in a changing society: the impact of demographics on the Canadian forces. These facts have been echoed elsewhere: research by the American military also argues that Armed Forces must now, not only provide for the everyday sustenance needs of individuals, but must also liberate their creative drives, which can be difficult in rigid command and control, bureaucratic structures [see Centre for Strategic and International Studies [CSIS] Report, February 2000].

Vision is the combined ability to conceptualize and to execute. Having a vision or a mission and communicating

it effectively is essential.

Nanus B. [1992]. Visionary Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers

This is the current thinking behind Mission Command. Further reference should be made to BDD op. cit.

page 3-7.

Bennis [1997]. op. cit. page 63.

Emotional Intelligence is an area that is now attracting huge interest in current leadership thinking. It is

defined as: "The ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth". For a further analysis of this theme see D Goleman, Emotional Intelligence [London: Bloomsbury, 1996] and Post-Modern Military Education: Are We Meeting the Challenge? by Air Vice-Marshal Brian Burridge CBE RAF in Defence Studies Vol 1, No 1 spring 2001: The Journal of the Joint Services Command and Staff College.

Taken from Sheffield. [1997]. op. cit.

ibid.

This term, now widely used, was originally devised by Sir Michael Bett CBE

Attributed to General Douglas Macarthur.

Alexander J. & Wilson M. [1997] The Organization of the future: leading across cultures.

See www.indsoc.co.uk

A A Svechin taken from Chapter 3 Operational Art: United Kingdom Doctrine for Joint and Multinational

Operations [JWP 0-10].

In this context, leadership and strategy are closely related. Strategy consists of 4 basic elements: who decides to

do what [i.e. what are the objectives], analysis and diagnosis of the problem/situation [analysis of the macro-environment, the industry environment, internal factors of the organization and the organizations competitive position], choice [consisting of generic strategy alternatives, strategy variations and strategy choice] and implementation [consisting of resources and structures, resource allocation and evaluation and control] combined with a feedback loop.

Since strategic leadership is typically visualized at the military strategic level of the RAF, it could be argued that

this is the domain of only Air Ranking Officers and that Senior and Junior Officers need not be concerned with such issues. However, there are potential returns to both the RAF and the individual from comprehension of strategic leadership at all ranks; some organizational behaviour experts maintain that it is not so much the existence of a strategy which benefits an organization, but by the process by which the plan is developed: this approach leads to relationships among employees and approaches to the job which would otherwise be missing.

A leader empowers others to translate intention into reality and sustain it: this does not mean that

leaders must relinquish command or that followers must continually challenge authority. It does mean, however, that command must become a unit of exchange an active, changing token in creative, productive and communicative transactions. Effective leaders will ultimately reap the harvest of their efforts by the simple action of commands reciprocal empowerment. It puts the duality back in motion: command to empowerment and empowerment back to command.

Recent research [by the Department of Leadership Studies at the University of Leeds] has taken an

upside-down approach to leadership study; instead of analyzing the distant and mainly white men at the top of organizations, 3500 managers [in the public sector] were asked what they wanted from their immediate bosses. Their answer was someone who will coach and encourage them and someone with the humility to admit to making mistakes. Perhaps, then, the leader as a helper has superseded the heroic leader.