The Wavell Room
(Crown copyright 2017) A serviceman accesses social media channels, using a desktop computer.
  • Home
  • Opinion
  • Diversity, Divergence and Debate: Professional Development Through Professional Discussion
Opinion People and Leadership

Diversity, Divergence and Debate: Professional Development Through Professional Discussion

“I love argument, I love debate. I don’t expect anyone just to sit there and agree with me, that’s not their job” – Margaret Thatcher

In the land environment, an Army’s soldiers and officers – its people – have always been viewed as the most important asset and at the very heart of the military capabilities it fields.  Capabilities are comprised of multiple entities; from physical equipment to logistic systems, infrastructure to enable and doctrine to exploit.  At the heart of each of these are the personnel to man, operate, maintain and manage them.  Without suitably qualified and experienced personnel (SQEP), a capability cannot be brought to bear, let alone arrive at and remain in-service.  Maintaining our people’s efficacy across a range of military capabilities, particularly those in more conceptual roles such as operational planning and intelligence, demands continuous professional development.  The British Army is well aware of this and invests heavily in a wide range of professional education and training, with topics ranging from literacy to leadership.  It aims to promote a culture where officers and soldiers are encouraged to learn from the experiences of others through reading and study. Postgraduate degrees and extended academic based education, including the Intermediate Command and Staff Course (Land) (ICSC(L)), the Advanced Command and Staff Course (ACSC) and in-service MAs, MScs and MPhils all serve to support the development of the intellectual capability of the British Army, although it is worth noting that this education is primarily aimed at the officer corps.  The fact that this activity continues to be resourced in such financially constrained times, strongly support the thesis that there is more to professional development than simply reading books and reflective study.

Discussion and Debate

Critical discussion is a fundamental activity, which supports the progression from the lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (understanding and applying knowledge) to the higher ones (evaluating and creating concepts).  Exposure to different professional and analytical perspectives is essential, so that all can benefit from their assumptions being challenged and outcomes learned by all.  Through active debate, individuals are forced to refine and justify their arguments when they are challenged.  This stimulates group discussion and can generate debate based on the breadth of experience of others.  In turn it encourages individuals to think deeper about the logic behind their arguments adding rigour to the process of conceptual thought, whether they choose to defend or amend them.  A subsequent effect is the enablement of group ownership to the challenges in debate, and in this context grasping and owning the many challenges facing Defence.  The solutions to the British Army’s challenges will most likely come from its military professionals and thus the encouragement of engagement in open debate and discussion of such matters should be viewed as a substantive and authoritative opportunity.  We need to be able to think faster, smarter and from a better informed footing, than our adversaries.  Open debate and discussion is key to harnessing our people in this way and making them an asset.  Professional military blogs and online platforms offering critical analysis of current and future challenges, such as Strategy Bridge, The Cove and Grounded Curiosity (and we hope in due course, The Wavell Room) are an ideal vehicle for furthering this.

Risk and Opportunity

Bringing this debate online may present risks to reputation, as divergent and critical analysis may contradict or even undermine the central and endorsed messages or policies.  Yet there is equally a risk if debate does not occur.  In the words of Sir Liddell Hart “whoever habitually suppresses the truth in the interests of tact will produce a deformity from the womb of his thought.”  The opportunity to exploit debate not only serves the demands of continuous professional development, but also provides a vector for emergent and diverse thinking, which may influence future concepts, doctrine and approaches.  These benefits far outweigh the risk at hand in an environment where rapid adaptation is a core requirement of the military in the contemporary operating environment.  Establishing debates and discussion online opens up contribution from a wider, broader audience, with new perspectives and fresh ideas, some of which may emerge from non-military professionals.  Online, people are also less fearful of entering the debate and there is greater opportunity to discuss topics across the levels of rank and experience.

The Benefits of Diversity

True debate can only exist when a diversity of opinion is accepted, allowing varied perspectives to be offered, evidenced and considered.  Western militaries are increasingly diverse, which serves a broader sounding board, with different backgrounds and perceptions.  In order to fully realise the benefits of diversity we, as professionals, must create inviting and accessible spaces which enable active debate and divergent thinking whilst avoiding the domination of traditional positivist thinking.  By embracing diversity of thought, not only will the Army appear diverse, but its conceptual mass will increase in complexity allowing us as a profession to grow, adapt and improve in an increasingly complex world.  If we are fearful of challenging ourselves, how will we be able to face down the real challenges of contemporary operations?


To maintain the world-leading quality of our soldiers and officers as professionals through continuous professional development, we should promote and provoke open debate, encourage diversity, divergence and independent critical thinking enabled by the honest and thoughtful perspectives that reflect the broad experience and intelligence of our key capability; our people.

The views expressed within individual posts and media are those of the author and do not reflect any official position or that of the author’s employees or employer. Concerns regarding content should be addressed to the wavellroom through the contact form

The Wavell Room Team are a bunch of enthusiastic individuals who believe strongly in constructive debate, discussion and openness in order to arrive at a sound, non-bias and informed position on many subjects.  The team are all volunteers and support this non-profit in their own time.

Related posts

Mission Command; The Fall of the Strategic Corporal & Rise of the Tactical Minister


Trauma: it’s not us, it’s the others.


RUSI Annual Chief of the Defence Staff Lecture 2017: View from the Wavell Room.

The Admin

Leave a Reply

Notify of
Grounded Curiosity
Grounded Curiosity

Hi Wavell Room – congratulations on such a great initiative and thanks for the shout-out to Grounded Curiosity and The Cove in Australia. While Grounded Curiosity is not as academically robust as many other military blogs, we are finding the inject of short, sharp ideas from serving personnel is starting face-to-face conversations amoungst peers, subordinates and superiors. Importantly, these conversations are adding to the vibrancy of debate in our Messes as we challenge each other’s thoughts and explore ideas for our future operating environment. Having ideas from other military forces and external thinkers is also well worth the risk of… Read more »


It’s great to see more people writing. But hopefully it will move beyond debates about debates, or interesting but nonetheless somewhat ethereal discussions around empowerment, on to articles that actually seek to develop our professional mastery of soldering. Here’s the kind of writing coming out of US OF3s:

Adi S
Adi S

I wholeheartedly agree with you Dave, but I think articles like this are important right now. They establish the basis for the discussion and as Grounded Curiosity above commented, some debate, however ethereal can stimulated discussion in the messes and the workplace. How do we move onwards and start producing the sort of ‘open’ discussion that we see in that article written on Stryker?

Although….Some of the commentary at the bottom of the article may demonstrate reasons why people don’t wish to deliver quite so strong and persuasive articles linked to current capabilities?

Tony R
Tony R

Krulak didn’t invent the phrase or concept of strategic corporal, but may have introduced it to a new audience in America (and then back to the UK). It was a well used phrase throughout 70s and 80s operations, especially in Northern Ireland and for SF ops where an operation would always become headline news. So too the concern over centralised command, long screw drivers, invasion of information and introduction of long winded doctrine. These cries faced General Bagnall when he starting its formal definition back in the 80s. What is new here is the concern that UK commanders are lazily… Read more »

%d bloggers like this: