The Defence Leadership Centre (2003) identifies Military Leadership as the projection of personality and character to inspire soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen to carry out what is required of them and more. Proficiency in the techniques of leadership is the foremost quality in the skill of command and contributes significantly to operational accomplishment. There is no prescription of leadership and no prearranged style of leader. Military Leadership is a combination of example, influence and compulsion dependent upon the situation. It is transformational in approach and underpinned by the ethos of Mission Command and a balance of military attributes, which will be discussed further later. Successful military leaders are individuals who understand themselves, the organisation, the environment in which they operate and the people that they are privileged to lead, considerable similarities with transformational leadership. Furthermore, Mission Command is split into three levels, Strategic, Operational and Tactical (or Team). This is best explained by viewing the below model.
In this model, Strategic Leadership refers to leading a whole organisation with overall accountability for the other 2 levels. At this level, leadership is primarily concerned with vision, purpose or mission, alignment, values and communication. Operational Leadership defined as leading a number of teams, leadership is concerned with the implementation of strategy and issues such as enabling success through the determination of appropriate structures and creation of a climate for success. Tactical (or Team) Leadership refers to leading a single unit and requires the leader to balance the needs of the task, the team and the individual as described by the Functional Leadership model (Adair 1983), which has been the basis of the RAF's leadership training for the last thirty years. These attributes are not exclusive to each the level of leadership to which they are appointed in the model, rather that the relative importance of those attributes changes in relation to the leadership context. Adair’s (1983) model is not the only model currently being studied by the RAF Leadership Training Centre, others include, the Tannenbaum & Schmitt (1958) model of autocratic and democratic styles; the Mouton-Blake Grid (1964); the Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership model (1988); the Ashridge Management/Leadership model (Wynn & Guditus 1984) and the Bass and Avolio Full Range Leadership model (Bass & Avolio 1994). The later of which is gaining significant interest as the RAF goes through a period of change and transformation.
The Functional Approach to Leadership is utilised by the lower echelons of the RAF. This practical model shows what it is that a leader should be doing. Few, if any, other models do this. The three circles of the Functional Approach vary in size (or importance) depending on circumstance, for example, the task can become overwhelmingly big on operations at times but at others if the team and Individual are not attended to and take precedence over the task, the people will be lost to the leader. Within the circles many other leadership models can be accommodated, such as transformational leadership, when a leader considers how to deal with task, team or individual.
However, any organisation seeks a particular contribution from its leaders and the following list of attributes outlined by the RAF Leadership Centre (2008):
a. Warfighter, Courageous. All RAF personnel, commissioned or non-commissioned are, first and foremost, warfighters and second specialists, though they may excel in their specialisation. The distinction between the front line and support areas is becoming increasingly blurred and it has been identified that all RAF personnel need to be military minded and of a determined fighting spirit to overcome the adversity of circumstances that they may face in operations. Physical courage is expected of all RAF leaders, but foremost is the moral courage to do the right thing. This attribute equates well with the first tenet of transformational leadership, idealised influence.
b. Emotionally Intelligent. The RAF has identified that self-awareness is one of the key foundations of effective leadership. Leaders who know themselves are better able to develop self-control and subsequently understand the needs of others, enabling them to better manage relationships at all levels, remaining calm under pressure. Individuals are expected to function as part of a wider team, invariably multidisciplinary, increasingly joint and often multinational, in the delivery of military capability. This equates the transformational leadership tenet of individualised consideration.
c. Flexible and Responsive. In a world that is changing faster than ever, with technology advancing rapidly, the RAF needs leaders who are flexible in approach and able to consider new ways of doing things. RAF leaders must be open minded, responsive to change, constantly looking for the opportunities that change brings and be able to cope with the discomfort that is associated with change. It could be argued that it correlates to the fourth tenet of transformational leadership, intellectual stimulation.
d. Willing to Take Risks. The RAF has identified that it needs leaders who understand the difference between a gamble and a risk and are willing to take measured risks in appropriate areas without abrogating responsibility. This will be achieved if leaders at all levels fulfil 2 roles: they must themselves set the example in this regard and must develop an ethos where a failure to act is considered a more serious fault than making a mistake. This attribute correlates with individualised consideration.
e. Mentally Agile – Physically Robust. The RAF requires its leaders to be able to handle complex and multifarious problems and have the creativity and mental agility to move quickly between various concepts. Their thinking must be innovative and their minds receptive. They must be physically robust and able to withstand the strain of operations, so that their mental capacity does not fail them under stress. This attribute correlates with inspirational motivation.
f. Able to Handle Ambiguity. Ambiguity pervades military existance and becomes prevalent with the Clausewitzian ‘friction’ (Watts 1996) that causes the fog of war. At the more junior levels of leadership there may be little ambiguity but at the highest levels it is considerable. RAF leaders must be able to handle it and, if possible, turn it to their advantage. This correlates to the tenet of idealised influence.
g. Politically and Globally Astute. RAF Leaders are expected to be more effective depending upon their aptitude in two areas. The first is their ability to understand and thus cope with the politics of their immediate environment and, hence, their ability to influence those around them. Similarly, a leader’s awareness of much wider issues at a national and international level, and their ability to put their actions and decisions into the context of air power and air warfare, is crucial. This correlates to the tenets of idealised influence and inspirational motivations.
h. Technologically Competent. The RAF culture has always been to embrace new technology. The RAF expects all of its members to be competent within their specialisation and many, at various stages of their career, will need to display considerable expertise. Yet, in the age of Network Enabled Capability, this may not be enough. Leaders must strive to keep pace with technological advances on a broad front, through a focus on continual personal development, so as to ensure its most effective application. This correlates with intellectual stimulation.
i. Able to Lead tomorrow’s Recruit. As society develops, each new generation of recruits to the RAF is different. The RAF demands that its leaders must recognise the qualities the new generation brings and must learn the leadership skills that will allow them to maximise their potential. This, it could argue correlates to all of the four tenets of transformational leadership.
The Royal Air Force requires personnel with strong leadership attributes, excellent managerial skills and the confidence to exercise command. Effective leadership is essential throughout the Service; in the front line as well as in the RAF’s training establishments; in the field as well as in the office; in the turbulence of war as well as in the calm of peace. Therefore, having looked at current leadership issues with the Military and RAF, an example of an historic example of RAF leadership will now be critiqued against what it is to be a Transformational Leader.
Air Chief Marshall (ACM) Sir Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris, one of the iconic figures of the RAF in World War II, has been described anywhere on the scale from hero to war criminal (Probert 1991). Dogged by controversy, he lived his post-war years until his death knowing that an estimated 600,000 German civilians died because of his decision to pursue saturation (or area) bombing. Heifetz (1994), a prominent leadership theorist, hypothesises that the evaluation of leadership merits contains an imposed set of values relative to outcomes of actions. It is under these circumstances that Harris will be looked at as an example of Strategic Leadership and his effectiveness as a Transformational Leader and will be judged against the four tenets of the model. Scarlett (2004) considers Harris as a ‘change agent’, which Northouse (1997) defines as individuals ‘who create good role models, who can create and articulate a clear vision for an organisation’.
The first category, ‘idealised influence’, describes leaders who ‘provide followers with a vision and a sense of mission’ (Northouse 1997). Harris had his vision, the ‘Thousand Plan’, which was based upon his long-held philosophy in the benefits of night flying and the major responsibility that the bomber should perform in the war with Germany. Despite estimating that he would require 600 aircraft to achieve his objective, Harris ‘set his heart on 1,000 aircraft’ (Saward 1984). It was a bold plan, particularly viewed against the ‘378 aircraft serviceable with crews, and only 69 of these heavy bombers’ (Harris 1947) initially available to him. Harris had a clear vision of how his command could turn the course of the war. A vision that had the full backing of Sir Winston Churchill, confirming that his vision remained consistent with the government’s objectives.
Communication of the vision is categorised under the second tenet, ‘inspirational motivation’. Northouse (1997) hypothesises that transformational leaders possess an innate ability to ‘communicate high expectations to followers, inspiring them through motivation to become committed to and be a part of the shared vision’. Hughes, Ginnett and Curphy (1999) refer to ‘Rhetorical Skills’ possessed by transformational leaders that ‘heighten followers’ emotional levels and inspire them to embrace the vision. This is where Harris excelled, at a time when losses by today’s standards were unimaginable. Harris was capable of eruditely telling his bomber crews the cold truth, which they respected him for, they understood his vision and were prepared to put their lives ‘on the line’ for him, daily. This ability was further emphasised by the first attempt to fly 1000 bombers on a single attacking raid, despite Costal Command reneging on a commitment to provide 250 aircraft for the raid, somehow through exceptional effort from within Bomber Command, on 30th May 1942 a bomber force of 1046 aircraft attacked Cologne (Saward 1984).
Northouse (1997) expresses ‘individualised consideration’ as individuals ‘who provide a supportive environment in which they listen to the individual needs of the individual’. Avolio, Waldman and Yammarino (1991) posit individualised consideration is ‘best represented in the mentoring role’ and may broaden to ‘a person who serves as a personal advocate for an employee by “going to bat” for the employee’. Although forced by ill health to give up flying in 1942, his vast experience as a pilot allowed him to relate directly with his men. His experience as a pilot complemented his leadership in many ways. He respected the judgement of those working around him. He had assembled around him ‘a team of senior officers whom he had known personally and who had served under him previously during their careers’ (Saward 1984). He was operating with a team he had successfully mentored in the past, thereby enabling that spirit to permeate down through the rest of Bomber Command. It was no less effective than mentoring each man himself. There are those that are critical, citing his supposed disregard for the lives of his aircrew suggesting that Harris was ‘callous with regard to his crews; 51 per cent of Bomber Command aircrews were killed in operations’ (Neillands 2001). Of the ‘125,000 aircrew who had served in Bomber Command 55,000 had been killed’ (Probert 2001). This cold statistic belies the underlying truth. Accepted losses were normally 4 per cent of aircraft and crew per mission. During the course of the war Bomber Command recorded only 2.2 per cent losses per mission—389,809 sorties (331,001 under Harris’s command) sustaining the loss of 8,655 aircraft (Probert 2001).
For the final tenet, Northouse (1997) asserts that transformational leaders should stimulate ‘followers to be creative and innovative’ and to ‘support followers as they try new approaches and develop innovative ways of dealing with organisational issues.’ Harris was an ‘Airman’s airman’ (Lewis). He was a thoughtful man and understood flying requirements. Though restricted with time, he was receptive to innovation and was not averse to seeking opinion from his aircrews. Criticism has been made at his limited initial enthusiasm for the plan to develop a ‘bouncing bomb’ to attack German Dams and the use of elite aircrew to become known as ‘Pathfinders’ to indicate the target for the remaining bombing crews. It is with hindsight that these criticisms have been made and there are numerous examples of Bomber Command units being allowed to ‘try something different’.
As a symbol, evocative of the mission entrusted to Bomber Command, Harris, and indeed his vision, provided an inspirational focus. Through its simplicity, his ‘Thousand Plan’ provided something concrete for his followers and the wider public to achieve. In terms of the four tenets, Harris’s leadership, proved very effective against the characteristics of inspirational motivation and idealised influence. His leadership was not as strong against the remaining two, individualised consideration and intellectual stimulation, largely because he remained isolated from contact with the majority of his men, partly due to the constraints of his daily schedule and the limitations of communication during the period. Despite these limitations, Harris utilised his command structure and his senior leadership team to achieve good results through his effective influence. Perhaps the most compelling measure of his leadership is the high regard most of his men felt for him (Messenger 1984). Much of Harris’s leadership had an intangible and immeasurable quality. On balance, Harris was a very effective leader, possibly even a Transformational Leader before such a concept existed.
In summary, working within an organisation where new technology and the growth in effects based operations facilitated by networked enabled capability is increasingly bluring the distinction between the support area and the front line. The emphasis upon enabling individuals to function as part of a wider team – invariably multidisciplinary, increasingly joint and often multinational - in the delivery of military capability is growing in importance. Any member of the Royal Air Force could find himself or herself in a situation where all their courage and war fighting abilities are required. Effective leadership at all levels and across all ranks will be key to the Service’s success in meeting the challenges of new technology, expeditionary warfare, structural changes to the defence organisation, an increasingly diverse workforce and changes in wider society that affect our people and those that the RAF seek to recruit. Leadership is extremely important to the RAF, which utilises its own brand of leadership that is continuing to evolve. All Leadership Models continue to evolve with various criticisms being brought to bare, with the ever increasing entwining of the various models.
The essence of the model is captured in the often-cited cliché ‘the ability to get ordinary people to do extra-ordinary things’ (Sawbridge 2000).
The testament to ACM Sir Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris’s excellent leadership is the conversion of Bomber Command from an organisation that had ‘done nothing … worth mentioning to injure the enemy’ (Harris 1947) into one which despatched 2,647 tons of bombs (from 786 heavy bombers) onto Dresden in a single night (Saward 1984).
The range, precision and utility of air power continues to grow, as does the contribution of every individual to our operational capability. Wherever its personnel serve, the Royal Air Force celebrates professional excellence and leads through it.
This concept assumes certain traits or characteristics will tend to lead to effective leadership. Although trait theory has an intuitive appeal, difficulties may arise in proving its tenets, and opponents frequently challenge this approach. The ‘strongest’ versions of trait theory see these ‘leadership characteristics’ as innate, and accordingly labels some people as ‘born leaders’ due to their psychological makeup. On this reading of the theory, leadership development involves identifying and measuring leadership qualities, screening potential leaders from non-leaders, then training those with potential.
Mission Command is a style of military command promoting decentralised command, freedom and speed of action, and initiative. Subordinates, understanding the commander's intentions, their own missions and the context of those missions, are told what effect they are to achieve and the reason why it needs to be achieved. They then decide within their delegated freedom of action how best to achieve their missions. Mission Command is closely related to civilian management concept of empowerment.