Mission Command in the Military; Time for Change?

The Paradox of Decentralised Leadership in an Autocratic, Hierarchical Organisation: An Ethnographic Case Study of a Royal Air Force Squadron

Submitted by ANDREW D. MEEKER to the University of Exeter as a dissertation towards the degree of Master of Arts by advanced study in Leadership Studies,

February 2008

I certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own work has been identified and that no material is included for which a degree has previously been conferred on me.

..............................

Page 1 of 131

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to The Officer & Aircrew Training Unit, RAF Cranwell, for sponsoring my studies. In particular, thank you to Squadron Leader Andrew Garven and Squadron Leader Mark Lovatt for specific support and guidance and for placing me onto this programme of study. Also, thank you to Dr. Geoff Ahern for his guidance, feedback and support and to Mr David Cuckney for proof reading my work.

Many thanks to the 'Subordinates' of 'The Squadron' for their openness and honesty. Specific gratitude to my Sponsor and to the Officer Commanding for granting me access. Thanks also, to the Royal Air Force Leadership Centre for their vision.

Special thank you to my wife Hannah for her patience and support.

Page 2 of 131

ABSTRACT

The Royal Air Force has stated the need for greater leadership in its subordinates. As such it has implemented a policy of decentralised leadership through its concept of Mission Command. Through an ethnographic case study of a front-line RAF flying squadron, this research examines subordinates' perceptions of hierarchy, structure and decentralised leadership in order to identify underlying assumptions and hence promote further research around Mission Command. The enquiry's aim is to undertake a qualitative examination of RAF personnel's assumptions, values and beliefs using observation, conversations and ad-hoc interview techniques. Findings in this research describe the sub-culture of the case study. In analysing the data, four main categories are identified: Blame & Dissent; Storytelling; Bureaucracy & Structure; and Leadership, Followership & Mission Command. Using an interpretive paradigm, this enquiry lists ambiguities and paradoxes with implementing a policy of decentralised leadership in a hierarchical and autocratic organisation.

KEYWORDS

Royal Air Force Decentralised Leadership Followership

Hierarchy

Structure

Ethnographic Study

Page 3 of 131

CONTENTS AND LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 The RAF & Decentralised Leadership

1.2 Personal Perspectives & Rationale

1.3 Audience

1.3.1 The RAF Leadership Centre (RAF LC) and Mission Command

1.4 The Intent of the Study

1.4.1 Purpose 1.4.2 Aims

1.4.3 Objectives:

1.5 Research Overview

1.6 Indicative Review of the Literature

1.7 Research Issues, Procedures and Portrayals

1.7.1 Research Paradigm & Methodology

1.7.2 Research Design

1.7.3 Ethical Issues

1.7.4 Nature of Portrayals

1.8 Summary & Enquiry Overview

Page 4 of 131

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 Overview

2.1.2 Leader-follower Distinctions

2.2 Leadership Defined

2.2.1 Military Leadership

2.2.2 Assigned and Emergent Leadership

2.3 Followership

2.3.1 Followers as Leaders

2.3.2 Responsible Followers

2.4 Leadership as a Social Construction

2.4.1 Subjective Interpretation or a Scientific Function?

2.5 Organizational Culture

2.6 Role Expectation

2.7 Conflicts, Ambiguities & Paradoxes

2.8 Conclusion

Page 5 of 131

CHAPTER THREE: THE NATURAL HISTORY OF MY RESEARCH 3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 Motives for my Research

3.1.2 Overview

3.2 Philosophical Assumptions, Paradigms and Research Choices

3.2.1 Subjective Nature of the Social World

3.2.2 Intellectual Traditions & Phenomenology

3.3 Methodology-Ethnography

3.3.1 Advantages & Disadvantages of Ethnography

3.4 Quality in my Research

3.4.1 Selection of Case & Sampling

3.4.2 Representativeness & Generalizability

3.4.3 Validity & Reliability

3.4.4 Research Design and Going into the Field

3.5 How I Gathered Data and What Data was Found

3.5.1 Social Context

3.6 Ethics

3.6.1 Informed consent

3.6.2 Confidentiality & Anonymity

3.7 How I Analysed that Data

3.8 Conclusion

Page 6 of 131

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA & FINDINGS-THE ETHNOGRAPHIC EXPERIENCE 4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 Ethnographic Context-Case Study-The Squadron