Thinking Sailors: Re-imagining Staff Training and Postgraduate Education for the Royal Navy

Introduction

There can be few employers who offer such a wide array of postgraduate training opportunities as the Royal Navy. Postgraduate degrees, fellowships and staff college places all purport to meet the wider needs of the Service. But does this wide array of opportunities meet the needs of individuals and are these courses worth the investment? With such a bewildering range of opportunities on offer, does the wide choice risk putting off from applying those who could most benefit from these offerings?  The author, a graduate of ACSC and the Cambridge International Relations master’s course, considers the range of training opportunities on offer and explores whether reform or wholescale reassessment is needed to meet the needs of today’s Royal Navy.

Armed Forces across the world have long benefitted from the intellectual horsepower of those in uniform. They have driven improvements in technology, scientific discovery, and shaped great power competition: from the RAF’s Frank Whittle, the father of the jet engine, to the Royal Navy’s nineteenth-century sailor-scholars Beaufort and Fitzroy, and across the Atlantic to Mahan influencing strategic thinking through his writings at the Naval War College. Ultimately the Services require their people to close with and defeat the enemy: but this requires as much brains as brawn and as much as the Royal Navy needs fighters it also needs thinkers.

Royal Navy Staff Training

Today personnel at a variety of levels are offered educational opportunities, but in formats little changed from staff colleges of the 19^th century.  The various staff college offerings from the Intermediate, Advanced and Higher Command and Staff courses (ICSC, ACSC and HCSC) and the Royal College of Defence Studies (RCDS) each promises to deliver a different training need across the Service and wider Defence. A signature point about each of these courses is their requirement for full-time attendance. This makes them time consuming and expensive. For example, potential candidates for ACSC have to sign a return of service form for over £60,000 to be allowed to attend. What does the Service get for such an investment? In King’s College London (KCL), Defence has selected a highly reputable education provider, with an established reputation in the field of War Studies. In terms of what ACSC offers, the course covers a bit of education in international relations and current affairs, the chance to earn a master’s degree and a basic level of critical thinking training. Alongside and beyond these curriculum objectives, ACSC provides opportunity to access an incredibly valuable network with future quad-Service and international colleagues and, for the sharp-elbowed, the chance to be graded against your peers in an end of course report.

However, questions could be raised as to whether this model provides the best outcome for Defence or the majority of attendees. In the three centuries since the Prussians established the modern staff college model, training needs and training means have changed vastly. One might question the sense of taking 250 middle-ranking personnel out of the workforce for a year to deliver this training. Perhaps Defence has become wedded to this model simply because it is the one which we have grown up with. Other providers offer similar, or arguably better, experience and education for a fraction of the financial cost. At £24,000 the Cambridge International Relations masters, costs roughly a third of an ACSC place and introduces attendees to a far wider cohort of fellow students, whilst Exeter University’s Security and Strategy Institute MA in Applied Strategy (£12,500) has developed a strong reputation led by a team of practitioners and academics. Both also expose military attendees to thinking beyond the military mainstream and build personal and institutional links into academia and industry. Whilst KCL does have a strong academic team at JSCSC/DSD, there is a limit to their worldview and perspective predicated on what it is they have been asked, by the Services, to teach.

Notably both Cambridge and Exeter offer a part-time option which highlights the issue of means of delivery, as undertaking the course part-time means that the individual can still contribute to their day job. In contrast, ACSC can only be undertaken by being resident in Shrivenham: ideal for personnel based in close proximity in the South of England, not so good for those based in Lincolnshire or Faslane. The rural location of the Defence Academy far from established single-Service centres of gravity means that any attendees must also weigh the merits of familial separation or a short-term move, with all the attendant issues and costs associated. This means that attendance can be self-selecting, with promising individuals discouraged from applying owing to the added stresses of familial moves or weekly commuting.

In contrast, in the United States, the Army, Naval and Air War Colleges have offered their equivalent-level training via distance learning for a number of years. If the UK were to shift to a similar model this could offer an equivalent opportunity to those less able to relocate for a year, widening the talent pool who could benefit. A United States Navy officer has the option of completing Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) Phase 1 either in residence at the Naval War College in Rhode Island, through distance learning at a number of locations under the Fleet Seminar Programme, or fully remote under the Online Programme. The US Marine Corps University, meanwhile, offers access to the Command and Staff College distance education programme to unrestricted, limited duty, and selected majors. Distance learning staff training is not only the preserve of the USA. The Australian Command and Staff College – Remote (ACSC-R) is a blended version of Australia’s standard staff course delivered in blocks over the course of eleven months. The course ‘mirrors the core modules of ACSC with focus on strategy, planning, capability, command, leadership, and ethics in the context of whole-of-Government domestic and regional operations.’ ¹

Clearly a distance learning course will not offer exactly the same experience as face-to-face teaching, and this difference needs to be understood. Writing in 2019, Commander Paul Davidson, a member of the Directing Staff on the Australian Command and Staff Course noted ‘what sets the teaching and learning at the ACSC apart from an on-line distance education course is the personal attention that the DS are able to offer each CM, and the small group face-to-face syndicate discussions and exercises that structure the teaching and learning.’² Some of this might be mitigated through virtual syndicates or occasional face-to-face meetings so that course members are engaged with their peers and the Directing Staff. What is clear is that even if the residential staff course model cannot be perfectly replicated, some of our closest allies have been willing to devise part-time and distance learning versions to suit the needs of their current workforce.

If some of our closest allies can offer more flexible staff training, the UK should arguably be considering a similar approach. Defence has already considered this problem, and devised a solution, but it has not been implemented. Back in 2001, during the Defence Training Review (DTR), the study argued that ‘We need to broaden opportunities for staff training where this is required to meet the career needs of those not selected for the Advanced Command and Staff Course. We will offer distance learning modules, exploiting new technology, drawn from the core Course as well as the specialist modules at the end of the Course.’³ However, in the two decades since the DTR there appears little progress on this front, at least for those staff courses above ICSC. ACSC, HCSC and RCDS all remain fully residential. Arguments that it is not possible to deliver these courses other than through in-person residential attendance do not stack up. Advanced staff training for Reservists through ACSC (Reserves) is now arranged as ‘an annual residential (2+15-day) and e-Learning (6-week) course.’⁴ Clearly, if the Reserves’ course can be run partly in person and partly remote, the same could be achieved for the Regular version. There is already precedent, with students on ACSC 23 forced to work remotely for half the course following the lockdown restrictions in response to the pandemic. Necessity is the mother of innovation.

A Navy Advanced Development Programme?

A more radical departure from the standard Staff College model would be to take a leaf from the British Army’s book. In recent years the Army have run their own parallel advanced staff training option through the Army Advanced Development Programme (AADP). AADP as advertised takes ‘a group of up to 15 officers (10 recently selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel and ACSC, and five who have attended ACSC) and five civil servants, and expose them to business education, training and real-time experience for up to two years.’⁵ The link to those with the same profile as ACSC course members is clear, but the product is rather different. AADP is designed to develop problem solving and business skills, provided by ‘including management consultancy training and mentoring, taking an MBA, being exposed to a wider network of high achievers through association with external institutes, practicing and testing new skills on real-time Army Headquarters’ projects.’⁶

AADP produce a cohort of officers and civil servants trained as the Army’s problem solvers and internal management consultants. What the programme offers is a blend of a two-year assignment, and the accompanying annual reports, combined with the opportunity to gain a Master of Business Administration and experience in management consultancy. If this model is the future of ‘staff training’ for the Army, then the Royal Navy and RAF risk being left behind if they do not introduce their own versions to run alongside ACSC and AADP. The fact that only the Army has so far developed such a programme suggests that their sister Services do not (yet) perceive a need for such a programme, but perhaps now is the time to review that position.

Fellowships

In contrast to ACSC and AADP, academic Fellowships offer a means of delivering education or developing expertise not necessarily with a formal qualification. For three decades the Service has been the beneficiary of the Hudson Trust, utilising income from the bequest of the late Lt Guy Hudson DSC to fund Naval officer education and development at Oxford.  There has been a strong record of senior officers going to St Antony’s College, Oxford to undertake the year-long fellowship. Notably, a number of Fellows would go on to senior command and even Flag rank. Less well known is the junior Hudson Fellowship at Christ Church, Oxford which allows for a Lieutenant or Lieutenant Commander to undertake a similar period of research. This perception of research being open to senior officers alone ⁷ is also borne out by the Mountbatten Fellowship at Cambridge which was previously advertised only for senior officers despite at least one Lieutenant having successfully competed for and won a place. If there is a perception that educational opportunities are for senior personnel only, we risk unnecessarily filtering out or dissuading people from applying when undertaking the course earlier could arguably offer longer-term benefit to the Service. The perverse result is that a soon to retire two-star may be awarded a fellowship when a senior rating undertaking a part-time PhD might have presented more benefit to the Service but is filtered out from applying.

Perhaps more egalitarian has been the Percy Hobart Fellowship, provided in partnership with PUBLIC, which describes itself as a ‘full-time, 12-week innovation learning programme for service personnel, providing Fellows with the skills and expertise to drive innovation across defence⁸.’ Fellows have been a mix of civil servants, junior ratings, senior ratings and officers. The scheme has arguably been a success because rank is not one of the main criteria for selection and because the duration does not take people out of the workforce for significant periods. Instead, it takes a short immersive block, introduces people to a new network and gives Fellows a different perspective on how to approach the problems facing Defence. A yardstick of the programme’s success has been the move from Royal Navy-only membership, to include RAF, Army and US Navy colleagues. This model of delivering short-term Fellowships bears some consideration for how future training and education opportunities can be offered: working together with external providers to deliver tailored solutions to wider cohorts than Defence might earlier have considered.

Postgraduate Degrees

A browse through the latest postgraduate training DIN shows how wide the fully-funded training options are: eight full-time masters at the Defence Academy and another seven part-time courses. Alongside this comes certain role-specific training: the MSc course offered to Royal Navy engineers at University College London, as well as various masters courses offered to barristers and doctors to fill particular roles. Added to this, the Royal Navy has long had a strong relationship with the University of Portsmouth where Upper Yardman candidates have had success completing their engineering degrees prior to starting at BRNC. More recently the Services have developed a relationship with the University of Lincoln as the academic partner for Team Fisher, Capita’s programme to modernise Royal Navy shore training.

However, what is really notable in this DIN, and arguably is not advertised or appreciated enough, is the flexibility offered where prospective scholars can find their own bespoke course: funding for three full time master’s students and up to twenty part-time master’s students. The first challenge here is making people aware of what is on offer; the second challenge is to get people to want to undertake the challenge; the third is to make undertaking a course compatible with career and home life. A cynic might argue that the best way to hide information in plain sight is to write a DIN. Few Service personnel have time to peruse and digest the latest postgraduate education DIN And even fewer have had a serious conversation with their respective Career Manager about undertaking one of these courses? In the race for the next report which will bring promotion, we are too quick to dismiss master’s courses as a lost SJAR or OJAR, rather than the outstanding opportunity they undoubtedly are. The problem here, is that few sailors and marines know someone who has undertaken a postgraduate Service-funded course, let alone someone who has clearly benefitted from the outstanding opportunity they were given. The Cambridge International Relations masters courses offers up to two places a year at one of the world’s top universities. However, too often interest from serving personnel is low because of the perceived negative career impact in undertaking the course. Contrast this with how the Army and RAF value the course: a quick check on LinkedIn reveals a number of Brigade Commanders (1*) and in Lord Peach, a former Chief of the Defence Staff, who are course graduates. When there are such visible role models for people to see, it is easier to understand why Army and RAF see such courses as good value rather than career limiting.

The option now to take the course part-time might increase its attractiveness. The author knows from experience the particular challenges of undertaking a part-time course alongside a full-time job, but there are many people who have successfully balanced the two, with careful discussion with Line Managers being crucial to such a path being manageable. The fact that there has been success in completing part-time master’s degrees and indeed people moving on to part-time Doctorates demonstrates both what is on offer by the Royal Navy and what can be achieved with some thought. As those Service Doctors progress through the military and act as spokespeople for what we offer, we can hope that more people will understand what can be achieved and the support available.

Value for Money

Woven into the discussion of staff training and postgraduate education are questions about determining value for money. This might be impacted by the cost of investment in terms of time or money, but also the issue of determining return on that investment. If a Service Person has five years or ten years left to serve, the cost of attending a course may be the same, but the return on investment will likely differ. This is most evident from the wide age-range seen among staff college attendees. Whilst the Army and RAF restrict attendance to substantive or selected SO1, the Royal Navy is less prescriptive, but also is not the most flexible. Many nations send far more junior personnel; notably the USA and Singapore, where attendees tended to be Majors about a decade earlier in their careers than their UK counterparts. Further along the career pipeline the question becomes more focussed.  Comparatively late career assignment via the UK model to attend ACSC has a negative impact on attendance on RCDS or HCSC. Achieving genuine value in these courses is limited if the attendees have only one or two jobs left in them. Therefore, questions need to be raised as to the merits of permitting ACSC attendance much earlier in individual careers, therefore allowing the best to proceed to higher staff training when there is still time for them and the Service to benefit. Examples of RCDS attendees completing the course and retiring may be rare, but they do not show the selection process in the best light, and represent a missed opportunity for other, promising candidates to be developed early.

The second-order issue of bringing staff training and postgraduate education opportunities earlier in people’s careers centres around the linked questions of incentivisation and retention. The aforementioned return of service requirement is one means, but it offers a pretty blunt tool: you compel people rather than inspire them to stay. One need only look at how many Service-sponsored MBAs end up staying beyond their return of service. Potentially bringing forward training opportunities could become its own retention tool. LinkedIn’s 2019 Workplace Learning Report found that ‘94% of employees say they would stay at a company longer if it invested in their learning and development.⁹’ To think more widely about the issue, the Service might want to look at international examples: both the USA and Singapore invest heavily in postgraduate education with high retention levels. Both countries notably introduce postgraduate training opportunities earlier in their career pipelines than we do. One might point to examples of Rhodes Scholars coming from US Service Academies or the Singaporean model where new graduates are often sent immediately to complete a master’s degree in the UK or USA before returning to service.  This suggests that earlier training opportunities become a retention incentive rather than a training package which will only benefit a future employer.

Conclusions

In a period of ever tightening budget constraints, we need to consider more carefully about how we think, and ultimately how we fight. Whilst the content of staff courses has changed over time, in terms of delivery there has been little progress since the 19^th century. As a result, the UK Armed Forces have not kept up with either academia or our sister Services in partner nations who have adapted more readily to the changing landscape.  Ultimately, we need to consider a number of points:

1. Ask the question of what training is needed and what courses actually deliver. Does the output justify the cost in time and money?
2. Be clearer on postgraduate education options for all and offer them earlier in people’s careers.
3. Consider greater flexibility, moving away from the full-time attendance postgraduate course as standard to the part-time model as default.
4. If ACSC is the pivotal course at the Defence Academy, be less rigid about a purely residential model: consider remote, blended learning with residential blocks.
5. Accept that ACSC may not be the only internal training option- consider the need for a Naval Advanced Development Programme.
6. Move away from the antiquated view that only officers get offered postgraduate education. If we really mean that people are our greatest asset, we should not restrict our higher education opportunities to only 10% of the workforce. Rank, after all, is no indicator of intelligence.
7. Understand how the Royal Navy incentivises those the Service has invested in to remain, accepting that what motivates people – status, satisfaction or stability will not be the same for every Service Person.

1. Australian Command and Staff Course -Remote https://www.defence.gov.au/defence-activities/education-training/courses/australian-command-and-staff-course-remote  accessed 13 May 24.
2. Teaching and Learning in the Australian Command and Staff course The Forge https://theforge.defence.gov.au/article/teaching-and-learning-australian-command-and-staff-course#author-region accessed 13 May 24.
3. Modernising Defence Training Supporting Essays p11-12.
4. Advanced Command and Staff Course Reserves https://www.da.mod.uk/courses/advanced-command-and-staff-course-reserves accessed 28 Mar 24.
5. An Introduction to the Army Advanced Development Programme Ares and Athena Vol 08 March 2017.
6. Ibid.

7. In 2012 the relevant DIN stated that the Hudson Fellowship was “available to OF4 and above educated to Masters level and with demonstrable reach;” by 2019 it was for “available to OF3 and above educated to Masters level and with demonstrable reach”, by 2021 “primarily targeted at OF3 and above” and in 2022 it was “primarily targeted at experienced service personnel who have served circa 8+ years.”

8. https://www.public.io/case-study/the-percy-hobart-fellowship accessed 5 Nov 24.
9. https://learning.linkedin.com/content/dam/me/business/en-us/amp/learning-solutions/images/workplace-learning-report-2019/pdf/workplace-learning-report-2019.pdf page 38 accessed 5 Nov 24.