Read on Twitter
This interesting article makes an important point. If the Armed Forces want to improve their overall effectiveness, then they must become learning organisations. This means each service must encourage intellectual development and make it a central part of their culture.
1/ https://twitter.com/wavellroom/status/1328427664777109504
1/ https://twitter.com/wavellroom/status/1328427664777109504
But how should the Army, for example, implement such an aspiration. A few thoughts:
First of all, there needs to be cultural shift internally within the Army so that personal and professional development becomes a priority for all ranks, not just officers.
2/
First of all, there needs to be cultural shift internally within the Army so that personal and professional development becomes a priority for all ranks, not just officers. 2/
The Army presently has two career streams: an officer rank stream and an enlisted rank stream. We need to introduce a third stream, which is an intellectual or specialist stream. This recognises that not all smart people want to be officers or managers.
3/
The specialist career stream would allow technical skills and problem solving-expertise to be incorporated more effectively. Specialists could be paid according to the skills provided, even if this is more than some senior officers. This would attract the brightest talent.4/
The title "Specialist" (or whatever we choose to call it) denotes expertise within a given area. It would ensure that technical knowledge becomes an integral part of team structures as well as command and planning. It would give those who posses an intellectual edge a voice.
5/
5/
Of course, rank still plays an important part of effective leadership and the maintenance of discipline and rigorous professional standards. But, if commanders have access to technical knowledge with the potential to ensure mission success, then it can only benefit them.
6/
6/
What makes this discussion important is that the Army increasingly depends on exceptional technical skills to operate complex equipment types. The ability to collect and analyse data is also likely to be a winning capability in future tech-dominated warfare.
7/
7/
But, there's a problem. The Army has an excessive number of ranks. It makes the leadership function extremely hierarchical and stratified. This makes it difficult for lower ranks who possess unique knowledge to express a valid perspective. So how do we get around this?
8/
8/
The Army needs a flatter rank structure. It presently has 18 separate ranks whereas most larger organisations manage with less than 10. Professional services firms manage with just 4 or 5 management levels. Leadership is then based on command appointments not absolute rank.9/
The time has come to streamline rank structures of Britain's Armed Forces. 12 or 14 really ought to suffice. Flatter structures promote teamwork and cooperation. Leaner management supported by technical expertise is a system well tested by UK Special Forces.
10/
10/
As a straw man suggestion, the Specialist stream could have 4 levels, from basic degree specialisations to advanced degree or doctorate levels. Soldiers should be able to achieve these qualifications through internal education, but also by attending external universities. 11/
To make the system work, officers should lead the way. All those seeking commissions ought to have a degree. Officers seeking to command a regiment or battalion should have masters degrees. And generals should be encouraged to obtain doctorates. 12/
A system through which accumulated knowledge is written down, retained and made accessible would help to prevent the Army as an institution from forgetting important strategic and tactical lessons, especially those learned at great human cost. 13/
Finally, a number of exceptionally smart people join the Army from disadvantaged backgrounds with limited educations and few qualifications. If we can do more to nurture such talent, by recognising and developing it, we will build an Army that truly punches above its weight.
END/
END/
