Human Resource Management in the British Armed Forces

Investing in the Future

Alex Alexandreou, Richard Bartle, Richard Holmes

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781135310455
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Storia
• Subtopic: Storia militare e marittima

This study of the future of human resource management in the British armed forces considers the impace of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Macpherson report. It covers ethnic minorities and gay rights as well as other challenging human resource issues.

1

HRM in the Armed Forces: Options for Change to AFOPS

ALEX ALEXANDROU, RICHARD BARTLE AND RICHARD HOLMES

Cranfield University, Royal Military College of Science

INTRODUCTION

The Armed Services, in common with other public sector organisations have experienced rationalisation and restructuring on a large scale during the 1990s. This has occurred as a result of the ending of the ‘Cold War’, a change in the nation’s defence priorities, and various internal and external reviews, most notably Options for Change,¹ the Bett Inquiry,² the Strategic Defence Review (SDR)³ and the Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy (AFOPS).⁴ These have been accompanied by the recent adoption and implementation of HRM practices and techniques by senior management.

Against the backdrop of such fundamental change within the Armed Forces, it is our intention to outline the major HRM developments that have occurred within the Services since 1990. As will be shown, the Forces have radically altered their traditional approach to ‘people issues’ by adopting and implementing some of the latest HRM practices. This has been driven by the need to update and improve internal management systems relating both to the organisation and to the ‘workforce’ in terms of achieving greater efficiency, rationalisation and flexibility.

Our understanding of the underlying ideology of HRM within the Armed Services is that it is dominated by the need to recruit and retain the best available talent, contraction of the ‘core workforce’ (i.e. armed personnel) and constraining demands on the public purse. The aim has been to deliver and yet at the same time to improve efficiency, effectiveness and flexibility. In practice, it seems to be characterised by a significant decrease in the number of service personnel, overstretch, low morale and difficulties in recruiting the next generation.

There have been a number of developments, which have had a significant bearing on HRM in the Armed Services. We would like to take as our base the Options for Change initiative and move through the 1990s and finish off with the introduction of AFOPS in the new millennium. But first to set the scene we will examine some aspects of the present manpower crisis that, arguably, has influenced HRM strategies so significantly.

ARMED SERVICES MANPOWER LEVELS, 1990–1999

To put some of the issues into context, particularly recruitment and retention, the following table shows the overall effect that succeeding initiatives have had on the manning levels of all three Services.

TABLE 1

STRENGTHS OF UK REGULAR FORCES – TRAINED AND UNTRAINED, 1990–1999

Year	Royal Navy	Army	RAF
1990	63,200	152,800	89,700
1991	62,100	147,600	88,400
1992	62,100	145,200	86,000
1993	59,400	134,600	80,900
1994	55,800	123,000	75,700
1995	50,900	111,700	70,800
1996	48,300	108,800	64,700
1997	45,100	108,800	56,900
1998	44,500	109,800	55,800
1999	43,700	109,700	55,200

Source: UK Defence Statistics, 1992–1999⁵

As the above figures clearly illustrate, all three Services have experienced downsizing on a huge scale. The Options for Change⁶ and Defence Costs Studies⁷ initiatives accounted for approximately 43,000 personnel between 1992–1997. This situation was exacerbated by the effects of the SDR,⁸ which cut the Navy’s numbers by a further 1,400, allowed the RAF to maintain existing numbers and demanded an increase in Army personnel of 3,500. Inevitably this has had an impact on recent human resource strategies some of which we shall now examine.

OPTIONS FOR CHANGE, 1990

In July 1990, Tom King, the then Secretary of State for Defence, made the following statement to the House of Commons on ‘Options for Change’:

‘Our proposals will bring savings and a reduction in the share of GDP taken by defence. We need force levels, which we can afford and which can be realistically be manned, given demographic pressures in the 1990s. The aim is smaller forces, better equipped, properly trained and housed, and well motivated. They will need to be flexible and mobile and able to contribute both in NATO and, if necessary, elsewhere’.⁹

He continued by stating that the Government was looking for substantial savings and that it envisaged that by the mid-1990s the United Kingdom would have a Regular Army of about 120,000 personnel, Royal Navy/Royal Marines of approximately 60,000 and a Royal Air Force of about 75,000. He said that he expected similar reductions in civilian numbers and announced that a decrease in the number of volunteer reserves would also be considered. According to Tom King the new force structures would give the nation strong and reliable forces that were affordable and could continue to make a significant contribution to NATO.¹⁰

Thus the scene was set. The initiative would save precious financial resources, reduce manpower and yet create a flexible organisation that could be deployed in different circumstances under the auspices of NATO and other international bodies, most notably the United Nations (UN).

INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ARMED FORCES MANPOWER CAREER AND REMUNERATION STRUCTURES – THE BETT INQUIRY, 1995

Michael Bett’s inquiry was commissioned in 1994 to look forward to the year 2010 and review the Armed Forces career and manpower structures and terms and conditions of service.

The review’s full terms of reference were to:

‘…examine Service career and manpower structures, and terms and conditions of service, and recommend changes required to render them appropriate to the needs of the 21st Century’.¹¹

The inquiry team was to take into account changes in military commitments and deployments, examine practices within the armed forces of other nations and of other organisations in the United Kingdom and propose future structures which were robust, flexible, efficient and cost-effective. It was asked to pay particular attention to current practice in such areas as length of service, career patterns, deployment patterns, rank structure and trade structures and the relationship between responsibility, rank, trade and pay. The inquiry team was also asked to examine the concept of performance pay, sources of dissatisfaction and the scope for a rationalised pay and allowance structure.¹²

The aim of the review was to make recommendations that would contribute to the reduction over the longer term of the overall costs of manpower, and identify clearly the resource implications of its proposals. It was also to take full account of the requirement to maintain disciplined, highly trained and well-motivated Armed Forces, and the particular requirements of Service life.¹³

The final report made 150 recommendations and observations covering a wide area. Of particular interest was the observation that there was no personnel policy to help manage the careers of military personnel and the informal, horizontal working practices of civilian employers were likely to be more attractive than the hierarchical and directive style of the Forces.¹⁴ To that end Bett recommended the creation of a Services Personnel Board. He argued that too often in the present system, personnel management decisions were referred upwards ‘…without coming to rest with a proper authority’. He identified what he called a ‘centralist culture’ that ‘coupled with the constant pressure of public expenditure constraints, has led to employment policies dictated by tradition and attempts to impose uniformity among the three services’.¹⁵ Consequently, he recommended that the Treasury and Ministry of Defence (MoD) should delegate to each Service the responsibility for fundamental activities such as recruitment, retention and pay and conditions. The proposed Services Personnel Board would ensure all three Services operated within a single framework.¹⁶

In addition Bett felt that a Director of Service Personnel should be appointed to ensure that the Armed Forces are kept abreast of legal developments and modern training and personnel practices. He recommended that the post shoul...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• The Authors
• Introduction
• 1. HRM in the Armed Forces – Options for Change to AFOPS
• 2. Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy
• 3. A Wasted Investment – The Career Management of Royal Signals Young Officers
• 4. ‘Train for Certainty – Educate for Uncertainty': Personal Development in the British Army
• 5. Past, Present and Future: The Territorial Army Beyond SDR
• 6. Tri-Service Equal Opportunities Initiatives
• 7. Managing Ethnic Minority Recruitment in the Uniformed Services: A Scottish Perspective
• 8. The Times are a’ Changin’ – Homosexuality and the Armed Forces
• 9. Homosexuality and the Armed Forces – The Legal Position!
• Index