Should Commanders lead from the front??
 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
SAS Boss has been sacked for doing what he should do!!

I remember a good lesson, learnt many years ago whilst Sail Training as a Watch Leader. If you get "stuck in" with your men and haul on the ropes as yourself, you will not notice when the sail gets caught or one of your watch gets hoisted up the mast, because he has clipped himself onto the halyard.

When you stand back from the action and observe and direct, you spot the problems more readily and are in a much better position to avert disaster.

Lesson learnt and it has served me well.

Depends who you believe, the Mail or the Times. No different to the pilots who have left after their Stn Cdr tours because they wanted to keep flying a jet rather than a desk....

"The head of the SAS has resigned from the elite army regiment “for personal reasons”, defence sources said last night.

The commanding officer of 22 Special Air Service Regiment, who cannot be named for his own security, has been involved in covert operations in Iraq and Afghanistan where he gained a reputation for leading from the front.

However, this has drawn criticism from the army hierarchy, which believes that commanding officers, whether they are in the SAS or in conventional regiments, need to be less involved in frontline combat and more concerned with the “big picture”, sending their men out to do the fighting, according to a report in The Sun.

The commanding officer of the SAS — a lieutenant-colonel in his early forties — has served in the Army for more than 20 years and is planning to end his military career when he hands over the special forces role to his successor. The head of the SAS normally stays in the job for about three years and he will have completed his full appointment period by the time he leaves.

Defence sources were anxious to emphasise that the commanding officer was leaving the SAS for “personal reasons”, but acknowledged that the reports of his style of leadership were not far off the mark.".......

The lieutenant-colonel’s future money-earning prospects in the civilian world will be unrivalled. As head of the most famous regiment in the world he will be able to command a big salary in a security company. When he leaves the Army he is expected to be recruited by one of the top companies who are winning big contracts in Iraq.

At least 10,000 people are now operating in Iraq with private security companies, all of which rely on ex-special forces soldiers to perform the dangerous roles that are needed in a country suffering from increasingly sophisticated insurgency groups.

However, as a senior officer and with his SAS background, the lieutenant-colonel is likely to be snapped up as a director of one of the private security companies.

JT - you may not remember the deserved criticism of Col H Jones VC - it was an open secret that his personal action was foolhardy to say the least, and in losing his own life he in fact risked the lives of many others, who depended on their CO to be at the battalion HQ to make the correct decisions.

Like Widger I remember watching a Leading Seaman in the old damage control trainer at HMS Excellent. The guy was supposed to be in charge of a team, but instead he was getting stuck in, and while the rest weren't exactly standing around, the things they were doing were not half as important as the the tasks that he'd have seen needed doing if his face wasn't 6" from one of the smaller problems.

...or you will not notice that your yacht is moving rapidly towards the submarine barrier in the Solent whilst on your Day Skipper course!!

JSASTC Assessor saved the day with the engine and I learnt the lesson.

This is a non-story : everyone is a civvy again one day.

G:ok:

A slightly different slant on the story in the Torygraph:

SAS chief quits to take security job
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:57am BST 17/07/2007



The commanding officer of the SAS has resigned, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

The officer, a lieutenant colonel who cannot be named for security reasons, is believed to have been offered a lucrative job in the security industry, where he could earn well into six figures.

His departure highlights a growing exodus of officers who have been almost constantly on operations since 2001.

advertisementThe Army is short of about 800 officers but it is the defection of special forces troopers to the private sector that is proving the most worrying. They can earn more than £600 a day in security work, almost five times the average trooper's income.

The resignation will come as a further blow to the already undermanned SAS. The officer had been offered promotion to full colonel following command of 22 SAS Regiment. He led several assaults during the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 and during his tenure the SAS has been involved in successful assaults against insurgents in Iraq.

Friends said he felt that he had achieved all he wanted. "He has had a really great time, and got to the zenith of his career and feels there is nothing better than that," said a fellow officer.

He will be replaced by an officer from the Guards division. The Ministry of Defence said it did not comment on special forces matters.

Last month Col Jorge Mendonca put in papers to leave because he felt commanders failed to support him during a court martial over the death of an Iraqi in his regiments' custody.

Col Tim Collins, commander of the Royal Irish Regiment during the Iraq invasion, resigned three years ago with a similar complaint after an allegation of abusing prisoners.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...17/nsas117.xml

How else would the poor chap make time for the rounds of publishers and snapping up the very best newspaper serialisation for his new best seller?

Wasn’t Sir Michael Rose criticised by his predecessor Sir Peter de la Billière for being in the Falklands area when he should have been back at an HQ? – one can understand the principal in that situation, given the complex coordinating role he had.
But I disagree with Airborne Artist’s reference to Col H Jones VC – his men were pinned down and the heroic action, which was successful, was what was required from their chief – who else had that special bond with his men that could have instantly encouraged and motivated them to undertake that precipitous and brave action other than their respected Colonel?

What??? ISTR his 2i/c came along with a cool head and actually sorted it out.

There is but one commanding officer. Even if his sortie is uneventful he would be absent from command in the pre-flight rest period, the flight, and in post-flight debrief. Even in post-flight rest.

In GW1 a Tonka Sqn Cdr crashed shortly after take-off. I can't recall the mission/sortie details but I believe he b:mad:d his back and took no further interest in the proceedures.

Yes, fine to lead from the front, experience the hell you are committing your chaps to but you risk decapitating the leadership.

Maybe some bosses should fly but most should not.

The JHC)I) Commander who was shot down was, arguably, doing a necessary area famil sortie.

PN

So taking your view that Bosses should not fly (on Ops), on the basis that "in peace we train for war" (or whatever the phrase is), and given how tight the Defence Budget appears to be, are you suggesting that these command appts should be totally non flying appts? After all, what is the point in wasting trg hours if your not going to do the task at hand when push comes to shove?

Walter,

Perhaps you've not been to Goose Green and seen where Col "H" fell, and how close on an exposed hillside it was to where the enemy were well dug in.

Definately a fine line between the ultimate sacrifice and lunacy IMHO.

(An account I heard on my visit was that amongst the last words said to him - by one of his SNCO's - was along the lines of "What the f*** do you think you're doing, Sir!")

Wrathmonk,

Difficult answer and one I haven't really thought through but for starters a boss must be proficient on type and know the equipment inside out. Only in that way can you avoid nonsense tasking. We had one once where the aircraft performance data came from the Observer's Book of aircraft.

Also my initial captain was the Task Force Commander, a gp capt, although he handed over later to the copilot, a wg cdr. Now on that operation we could probably have managed as the tasking was unlikely to be more than a couple of sorties but if it had gone in to intensive ops things could have been quite tight with no exec on the ground.

So, logically, once the initial baptism of fire was passed, and the operations became more routine, then it would matter less if the CO flew and was diverted, in rest, or worse.

As an aircrew sqn cdr I think it probably esential that the boss is available to run the outfit during that all important transition from peace to war. Just when that transition changes to steady state is of course another question.

The important thing is to inspire and motivate. Ideally you can do that from a safe position, but not always (See the Air Rank Thread).

Just an opinion.

WM

I doubt the SAS need the commander out in the field to motivate and inspire them. :hmm:

The Mail report is inaccurate and sensationalised (surprise, surprise) as is jayteeto's comment on it. The CO 22 is not being sacked. He is resigning from the Army at the end of his full and very successful tenure in command of The Regiment. After all, when you've done that job what attraction is there in staying in to fly a desk and be paid pea-nuts for the privilege? Good on him.

As to the complex qustion whether commanders should lead from the front, it depends very much on the Service and on the environment. In simplest terms, once battle commences, he must be where he can best read and influence that battle. That is usually not in a rear HQ. Communications, effective staff procedures and trust between all levels of command are essential elements in succesful command in battle. They still won't necessarily lead to a succesful outcome though: look at Rommel.

The Army command and control staff system provides for the Commander to decide on his plan, issue his orders to his subordinates and then move forward to observe its execution from suitable vantage points closer to the action. His staff are empowered and able to monitor and run the big details from safely behind but are inevitably somewhat out of touch. Provided (essential) his comms are up to it, the Commander can tweak the plan via his staff from his vantage point. He can also respond quickly to the inevitable crises, encourage, change emphasis, etc. He must, however, resist the temptation to micro-manage his subordinates bits of the battle because he will then distract them, undermine their confidence and lose his own grasp of the big picture.

A commander of ships has much less freedom of movement but better comms and visibility of the big picture. He must also resist the urge to micro-manage and be micro-managed himself.

Being a Pongo I can, of course, have no understanding of air operations, as so many Crab Pruners keep asserting, so I will not give you the opportunity to open that particular front.

For clarity, think of how three great and largely successful commanders at different levels ran their particular shows in WW2 and from where. Guy Gibson on the dams raid. Rommel in N Africa. Cunningham (the Admiral, not the Air Marshall) in the Med.

Infantry battles are unlike any others. H Jones role in his particular battle attracts frequent misplaced criticism. He had made his plan, issued his orders and then rightly moved forward with his Command Group into a wide spread, very confused and complex battle while his Battalion staff, ably led by Chris Keeble, coordinated the overall show from the rear. When H found the attack of one rifle coy stalled, he did the only thing he could in that particular situation, he led by example and was killed. However, the battalion SOPs worked seamlessly. Chris Keeble immediately took over command, also moved forward nearer the battle, and the Battalion was inspired by H's example to pick itself up and continue to ultimate success. Had H been positioned back in Bn HQ during the fighting, he could not have known what was going wrong and would not have been in a position to influence it. He was an infantry commander, an inspiring leader and a modest but very brave man.

Sorry to have banged at length but the wife's at work and it's p*ss*ng with rain outside so I can't mow the blasted lawn!

I only raised the thread as a discussion point, Clockwork Mouse, I apologise if I am not as well informed as you. I only reported what I read. This is a RUMOUR network you know!!
Airborne Artist, I do remember the Falkands, I was originally posted on to Atlantic Conveyor to service Harrier Inertial Platforms. That was until one of the lads pulled his superior seniority card and got to take my place!! Yes, he went for an unplanned swim....... Colonel Jones was criticised by some and applauded by others. It is said that his sacrifice/suicide spurred his men on when they were close to giving up the push. How often these days, do we complain about bosses being out of touch. A half-colonel is in a tricky situation. He/She is not a HQ member, they have HQ staff for that, but they are not one of the boys either. My humble view is that they should be there close to the front line, but not too close. Back in the UK is ok, as long as they are visiting regularly. However, if a leader is foolish/dedicated enough to want to be there 24/7, why not???

Wrathmonk,

I discussed this with a colleague today. The solution, certainly in the RAF was quite simple and indeed my previous experience actually points the same way.

Yes, the sqn cdr leads his sqn through training in to war and leads in battle. To provide the much needed operational control when the sqn cdr is in rest was quite simple. The sqn was effectively commanded by a gp capt. Indeed the EAWs are also, I believe, commanded by gp capts.

So yes, a sqn cdr should lead his men.

Jayteeto
No need to apologise for reading Mails tales mate! Afraid I banged on a bit in my reply but, as I explained, I was at a loose end. I'm sorry I came over a bit strong!
I do get a bit peed off however when people (not you), who are not qualified to, make negative comments about H's sacrifice, as on this thread. I knew him professionally, worked with him for a while and understand how he operated. I'm proud to have had that privilege.
Leading from the front is a dangerous practise in our profession.

Great to see the chat on this subject. There is obviously a time and a place for the leader to take up a position forward and conversely the situation may dictate that he should view the 'field' from afar so that disaster can be averted. I think the point is that the leader should make that decision. Hind sight is a wonderfull thing but invariably leaders have to make these sorts of decisions in relatively short order. You pays your money and takes your choice - if they get it wrong then so be it. To arbitarily promote any kind of leadership stance or approach ignores the fact that every situation and therefore every decision is differant.

Ref GW 1, I worked closely with some of the young lads (and older ones) who were expected to do something which was actually quit unusual for the Cold War warrior ie go to war! If you would have asked a Laarbruch Tornado mate in the Summer of 90 what he would be doing in Feb 91, I don't think he would have replied that he would be dropping bombs for real. They, IMHO needed to be led from the front. Many senior guys decided to fly (not sure how much real choice they had) and ensured that it all worked. I honestly believe many a personal 'wobble' was averted upon hearing about the previous nights sortie when the Boss broke radio silence to pronounce 'wibble' over the radio when returning home.

By the way what ever happened to Pablo M after the book launch?:rolleyes:

Fair enough but you might be letting your personal connection cloud your views, according to several who were actually there quoted in 'Forgotten Voices from the Falklands' he macro-managed things and failed to stand back to get the bigger picture as commanders are supposed to. And the charge was pure Boy's Own stuff - good for the papers, but hugely irresponsible.

It is very easy in hindsight to analyse and judge Lt Col H Jones' actions on that fateful day, however I think you have to bear 2 things in mind: he gave up his life whilst serving his country in a selfless act and he was on the ground at the time knew the situation and made a courageous decision. Many of the heros of the past were actually people who you wouldn't chose as friends or even bosses - they are only human at the day.

Leaders should lead from the front, provided they can do the job without being a liability. For example a Sqn Cdr or Stn Cdr should be able to fill a role on ops competantly and if, due to his lack of recent experience, that means a Gp Capt co-pilot then so be it. He would be showing he is willing to take the risks without putting more risk and hardship on the guys at the coalface. It is only when they can experience the issues first hand that they really understand what their people are going through and do something about it.

Analyse what people do by all means to learn from peoples mistakes, but respect the sacrifice many of these people make.

GB2.

Green bottle.... Good post with many interesting issues....

Would you argue that the Commanding Officer of a Typhoon Squadron had to be a Typhoon pilot? Why? Why can't he be an engineer? surely the reason that the guy has been selected to drive the squadron is because he can "command"....so therefore, why (in order to command) must he be aircrew?

Apart from the reason....Because the CO has always been aircrew

Command is certainly a potential although QRs mandate against it but he could clearly not lead.

More seductively you might have asked could a navigator command a Typhoon sqn. Yes he could and, in the same way as a pilot defers to an engineer's knowledge so too could a navigator defer to his pilot leader.

But he could not lead his sqn from the front.

Maple 01
No; I'm letting 34 years of active soldiering, professional knowledge and experience cloud my views. What's your excuse?

After twenty something years working for Betty Windsor and close to a decade wearing a suit, I like to think that not only do I know the difference between Leadership and Management, I also know when to apply the appropriate one. In HM Forces there is no substitute for sound leadership, (even though leading from the front is but one aspect of leadership) and I despair at the constant attempt to turn HM Forces into UK plc with the current day obsession with management. There is no cohesion or military ethos without leadership, and effective management is always by-product of sound leadership. If you seek management without leadership, go and work for Argos. H Jones had no problem understanding his ultimate obligations as a leader, even if he made life a little harder for the managers for short while.

Vec - I would argue that a commanding officer should have a well informed (via personal experience wherever possible) mindset as to just how "nails" the jobs those under his command do when they put themselves into harm's way. Thus, albeit an engineer might be able to understand that flying and fighting a Typhoon/F3/GR4/9 is quite hard work, he would never actually have that first hand experience to understand what he was asking of his men, whereas an infantry officer will have that understanding, having done (at some point in his career) the platoon cdr's cse and such like.

JT

I recall a certain "lay preacher" whom we both served for. Would you seriously have wanted him (or indeed some of his execs) anywhere near the front of certain tasks the force subsequently undertook?

Horses and courses come to mind.

Well said that man!
:D

The guys who were there were the ones questioning his leadership style, getting into a huff about is just shows a clouded view IMO, whether you served 34 years or not. Not wishing to enter some pi**ing contest but I was around for a while too but can manage to be objective.

Some people refuse to hear a bad word about Bader but he was a sod - Monty made several serious tactical mistakes but his 'Old Boys' swear by him - personal loyalty is all well and good but doesn’t help when trying to draw lessons from the past.

antisthenes, that is a really valid point. On the other side of the coin, most people here will not know or understand the particular personality, but I am sure they could substitute a stroker from their past into the position. We had a Sqn Commander (as did our other resident sqn) who would cause me to fly in the opposite direction if he led a mission. At least ours did not sit in on South Armagh briefings doing work on his laptop!!! Peacetime V Wartime leaders is another valid debate. Sadly, in my time, the Peacetime ones were in the majority with good leaders seen as dinosaurs. Hopefully, with current operational tempo, the Jurassic Park might bring some of the good ones to the front......

jayteeto,

yes, we had two in succession. One was a nav who seemed to fly irregularly, work for an hour or so, then piss off and write 1369s. I dont think the sqn would have followed him to the toilet as there was doubt whether that was allowed.

The next one was far more charismatic and not a bad bloke. However he only ever flew pilot trainers or the odd jolly, never an operational or trainer.

There is a fascinating dichotomy in this thread which mirrors our own schizophrenic view as leaders.

Gloria Gaynor (Don't snigger at the back) was onr the wireless last week, and defined this pithily saying "lead - that means I go first"

It is right that nobody should expect his/her people do do something he is not prepared to do himself, but that is no reason for the CO putting himself in harm's way unnecessarily. What requires real moral courage is to do his own job. Sharing dangers is fine, courting them is unhelpful. Sometimes exceptionalcircumstances require exceptional actions. It is recorded that the presence of the Duke ofWellington on the battlefield was worth 10000 men to the morale of his troops, but his greatest skill lay in knowing when to have them retreat or even lie down. It wasn't the sight of his nose, but his nous that made him a great commander.

Shakespeare sums up this opposite view:
"when that the General is not like the hive,
To whom the foragers may all repair,
What honey is expected?"

I was taught this graphically some time ago as a snotty when during a Practical Leadership Exercise on Dartmoor I was tapped on the shoulder by the directing staff and asked if I knew where all my team were. While I had been p*ssing about with bends and hitches he had quietly thinned out half my team one at a time at two minute intervals and told them to go round the corner and get a brew on. Subsequent experience including operational experience has reinforced this valuable lesson.

Army and the RAF COs in particular suffer from the understandable desire to
share the perils of their people (Matelots' COs get this for free). The danger is that is is easy to forget that the folk doing the flying are only part of the bigger machine needed to deliver effect which includes the engineers, armourers, fire crew, met and int, air tragicers, chefs, stackers, adminners
those guarding the airfield etc. Everybody must do their own job as well as they can: it is for the CO to see that they do.

The CO should be like the conductor of an orchestra: the one man looking at the big picture so that everybody can concentrate on their area of expertise.
He must have an absolute understanding of the music, as well as a pretty good working knowledge of all the instuments, but is not expected to play them all and never during the piece he is conducting. There is a good reason that command is given to operators (the same as why conductors are musicians).

Sometimes not storming the enemy position or flying the sortie yourself can take just as much courage. The really tough thing is visting the widows.

CAS Input
 

I hope that 'Typhoon Torps' put a word in for the poor chap, It would never happen in the RAF!;)

fawkes, nice one.:ok:

So, do you need to be a good leader to command a squadron? Clearly not as I have known many poor leaders command a squadron.

What is the difference between command and leadership? Is there a difference? Are the 2 linked?
Was Colonel H Jones a good leader? was he a good commander?
What about Hitler? Did he command well or was he a leader? I would argue that adolf was a poor commander but clealry one of the worlds finest leaders.

What about winston> Good leader? what did he lead? Good commander?

Oh, I know very well what the difference is. But does JOCC ? Dors Torps?

There is a vast difference between leadership and command...every serviceman is taught leadership from the day they join but few get to command.

An example. Should the Captain of a Destroyer be qualified in driving that ship? Should the Captain of a ship have any seamanship qualifications? Why should he? he has people to do that for him....surely, all the Captain needs to do is fight and Command. Why does the Captain of a ship need to be a fishhead?

Plagiarised from another site:

The "L" in RAF stands for leadership!

I believe a noted Russian (well Russian occupied territory) and long serving Admiral would isagree that a Captain should rely on experts to run his ship for him.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...kover_1955.jpg