" jBmjfevio] BA * Maintaining Flexibility: Multi Role Vessels & Mission Based
Shipyards: Australia and USA Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Fax +61 8 9410 2564 Tel: +61 8 9410 1111
President's Message Welcome to the first Headmark for 2009. On the 25th of this month I will report to those of you at the AGM that I think we have had an outstanding year with strong membership growth and well attended functions in both Canberra and Sydney.
I think 2009 will be as busy as last year and I hope that you will support our activities as enthusiastically as you did last year. It was impressive that we had nearly 500 members and guests attend our functions in 2008. This year we will again be putting a deal of effort into our Midshipmen at ADFA through a series of breakfast presentations and other activities. In July we will be supporting the keynote speaker for the King Hall History Conference in Canberra and of course we will have the Vernon Parker Oration on a cold winter's night and the 3rdannual ANI Warfare Seminar at HMAS Watson in October. We also hope to have a major ANI event in Western Australia this year.
You will see a brief article by the Vice President outlining our plan to
publish a number of essays from the two essay competitions that were conducted last year. I hope that you find this a useful initiative which is aimed at exposing the views of our younger and more junior members and, of course, sparking some debate. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Council members who devoted a considerable amount of their time in organizing and marking the essays for last year's competition. Through their efforts we have seen that our future leaders care about the Navy in which they serve and are passionate enough to put their thoughts down on paper. We are already running the two essay competitions again this year and I hope that they are now becoming well known amongst our more junior personnel. I would encourage all our Lieutenants, Sub Lieutenants and Midshipmen to enter for the chance to win one of two great overseas trips. The essay competitions close on the 3rd of July.
What's Wrongwith the Navy'sValues? 4
Remilitarising the Australian
HydrographicService (or'Why the
Application of Geographic Information
System & Statistical Methods for Effective
Marine Fisheries Law Enforcement in the
South China Sea15
Virtual Memorial of HMAS Sydney 22
Sailing into History: The 1908 Voyage
of the US Navy's Great White Fleet to
Australia, As Seen Through theEyes
The Influence of History Upon Sea Power
HMAS Manoora ship's company fall in during theceremony of HMAS Sydney II
SPONSORS: ati - austal - Australian defence credit union
- B00Z ALLEN & HAMILTON FRIEND - EDS - KBR - LOPAC - RAYTHEON AUSTRALIA - SAAB Maintaining Flexibility: Multi Role
Vessels & Mission Based Modular
Armidale Class Patrol Boats HMAS Maryborough with Landing Craft Heavy HMASBetanosail in company from Darwin Harbour New Directions for Headmark2009
This year in Headmark we are embarking on an aggressive campaign to get the views of our younger members into print. We have been able to achieve this through the vehicle of the two Essay competitions that were inaugurated last year. This has been a significant initiative for the Institute. The two overseas trips offered as prizes among the most generous of essay competition prizes anywhere and have had the right effect in stimulating interest. In our first year we attracted a combined total of 36 entries to the two competitions. The topics were wide ranging and the views expressed varied from considered to some that were less so. Some entries showed deep thought and research, some were provocative and others were written by those clearly in a hurry! Regardless, they have demonstrated what we always knew, that our younger members care about the Navy in which they serve and have a range of views worth being aired and listened to. We hope to publish around 15 of these essays during the year
Some of the views expressed will no doubt annoy some people or even sections of the naval community. We have already had some reaction even prior to publication. Some of the essays will not quite be what we would normally publish. However, the value of these essays is not how well written or referenced they are, but their freshness of thought and candour. They might not show that the author has the 'whole picture' but it has never been a crime to present ones views in these pages without the 'whole picture'- few of us have. This does not invalidate the contributions these essays make and in many ways the unencumbered views of our younger members provide a fascinating window into what our younger and more junior members think.
This Journal has historically been one where there was little fear in expressing strong views. Sadly the passion and energy in the debates that have raged at various times in the past has not been as evident in recent times. Our aim in the ANI remains, as it has always been, to foster debate. We hope that these essays will act as a catalyst to return to a more energetic debate in these pages. Because we have had a relatively lengthy period without strong debate it may take some time for people to get used to it again. It is some time since we have had letters to the editor or papers rebutting another or offering a counter view. I hope that all concerned will respect how difficult it is to put yourself 'out there' in print and applaud those who have. One of the risks in putting your views in print is that others can counter them, as long as this is done constructively and remains focused on the issues and not the author, this helps sustain the debate in a positive and robust way.
Journal of the Australian Naval Institute Issue 131
What's Wrong with the Navy's Values?
BY COMMANDER TONYMULLAN, RAN, DEPUTYDIRECTOROFTHECENTREFORDEFENCELEADERSHIPSTUDIES
Courage-HMS Hermes in Wll-Membersofthecrew carrying out the captains last order to abandon ship
O ver the last couple of decades there has been considerable interest displayed by organisations around the world in the area of corporate values. This is primarily as the result of a school of thought advocating that values-based organisations are more likely to enjoy long-term success and a competitive edge over rivals in their sector.1 Visit any corporate web site today and you will invariably find a list of their corporate values. Visit any relatively modern military organisation around the world and values statements are often very visible and prolific.2
In Australia, not only does Defence have values, but the three Services each maintain their own unique values sets that complement, expand and overlap Defence's. One only has to caste a cursory eye around the work environment to see visible evidence oftheRAiSTs values program. Values posters adorn walls and publications such as the Serving in Australia's Navy booklet and the RAN Warfare Officer's Career Handbook specifically discuss values and the importance of developing a values-based culture. All
of this gives the impression that values are something that the RAN sees as vitally important and integral to the future success of the organisation.
The RAN has maintained an explicit set of values since around
2002 and sees these as a vital for the shaping of its organisational culture, and ultimately the achievement of its mission.3 RAN statements regarding its organisational values say that:
These values provide a basis for our personal and professional conduct and enable us to respond dynamically to new situations. They guide how we behave and how we treat each other. Our values determine what is important to us. Navy values are a sourceofstrength and moral courage.'4
Given the focus placed on values and values-based leadership in the various policy documents, high-level statements and marketing material produced by the RAN, it begs the question - are the values the organisation espouses optimised to get the best results for the Navy? If values can be considered 'organisational DNA'5 are the RAN's values growing the right sort of culture and the right sort of sailor? After all - a small tweak to a DNA strand can turn a butterfly into a pig!
The aim of this article is to identify two vital areas in which the RAN's existing values could be significantly enhanced to the ultimate benefit of individual members and the wider organisation. Those areas being the focus of the values and their actual content.
The Navy's values were developed as a part of the wider Serving Australia's Navy Program (SANP) which was set up as a direct result of a number of incidents of unacceptable behaviour within the Service and are primarily aimed at improving the RANs organisational culture and preserving and enhancing its reputation.6 Indeed,
reputation management still seems to be an important reason for the RANs values program with the perceptions of serving members and the public as to how the RAN treats its personnel seen as very important for recruiting and retention.7 In addition, when reputation is considered, the RAN also relies heavily on the public's perception of how successfully we undertake operations locally and around the globe.
The RANs existing values program is essentially focused inwards, towards its members and how they treat each other and behave within the organisation. Currently there seems to be no conscious, explicit focus on the RANs external behaviour - that is - how it conducts operations and interacts with 'outsiders'. It may be that this has been taken for granted for a long time and that the RANs very good record in its behaviour during operations has created an environment in which it is simply assumed that the RAN will always 'do the right thing' without any further thought being given to the matter.
As Robinson points out in the book Ethics Education in the Military, most military values sets contain values that focus almost exclusively inwards, that is, the values that are enspoused are primarily directed at making the military member more effective in a functional sense and concentrate more on how he or she should act and treat others within the organisation.8 This certainly seems to be the case for the Navy's current values and this is understandable given their genesis.
What the RANs values program lacks however, is an equally important focus outwards. That is; to also contain values that recognise the unique position that RAN members (and the
Journal of the Australian Naval Institute
What's Wrong with the Navy's Values? Army and RAAF for that matter) hold in our society in that they are legally able to kill others and cause great destruction at the direction of the State. Expanding on the discussion Robinson has on this issue,9 whilst society expects its military personnel to exercise appropriate restraint in the use of force, respect non-combatants, unhold basic human rights and so forth, the RAN has no explicit values dealing with these issues, nor does it mention these within existing values descriptors. Given the great responsibility the Australian people see fit to bestow upon members of the RAN, ignoring this fundamental requirement in the Navy's organisational values is potentially very dangerous and does not produce values that clearly explain a core part of what the RAN stands for.
Is this requirement for the RAN's values to also be outward looking really that important though or is it just a theoretical argument? If we asked the US Army whether they believed that they were in the business of producing soldiers capable of committing the atrocities that took place at Abu Ghraib, the answer would have been 'never' - and yet it happened, causing the US Army to go through a significant upheaval and fundamental re-examination of how its soldiers were being morally and ethically prepared for combat. The important things to note about this example is that it is recent and that it happened to a modern and professional Western military force (just as the RAN is). Unfortunately it is but one of many ethical failures recorded throughout military history that remind us that taking such things for granted can be very dangerous indeed.
In order to address this very significant blind spot the RANs values should be rewritten and include explainations that have both an inwards and outwards focus. For example,
were 'respect1 to be a Navy value, its explaination might be as follows:
Respectisabouttreating peopleasyou would wish to be treated yourself. In your day to day job, withthepeople you workandlive with, respect is about acknowledging everyone's individual worth and giving them a lair go'. Respect means recognizing and appreciating the inherent dignity of all people and living up to Australian society's expectations about how we should treat each other.
On operations and in combat we mustaboveall, respect human life and recognise its supreme value. We mustrecognisethatweplaceourselves or others at risk solely to the extent required to carry out our mission. Respect for human lifeand human dignity mustfind expression in all of our actions and must permeate everything we do on operations, in line with the lawsofarmed conflict Australia's international obligations and the expectations of Australian society. Without exception it must guidethe way we fight but it must also guide us in other areas such as how wetreat enemy wounded or prisoners and how we interact with civilian populations and different cultures.
Rewording appropriate values to have both an inwards and outwards focus can therefore remind personnel that the culture of the RAN is more than just about how people treat each other and act within the organisation. Reworded values can also reinforce to every member of the RAN their significant responsibilities as members
of the profession of arms and their fundamental duty to maintain the high standards the RAN has historically shown on operations. Importantly, during a time of high operational tempo against a new and often merciless foe it is maintaining these values that sharply differentiates the RAN from its adverseries and helps cement its excellent reputation in the public and international domain.
Moving onto the content of the existing Navy values, considerable scope exists for them to be rewritten to provide more useful products and guidance for RAN personnel. The RANs current values are: