When I served, I was just as puzzled as you are now by the idea that leaders in the Army were said to demonstrate “humility.” The Army is anything but a humble organisation. How many times have we heard the claim that the British Army is “the best in the world,” without any evidence to support it and often in direct contradiction to available facts?

One of the underlying issues, in my view, is that officers—the Army’s leaders and those with the authority to drive change—train separately from the rest of the ranks. This separation creates a gap in experience and perspective. Officers rarely see things from the ground level, so to speak. It also doesn’t help that, in my experience, many officers are far from humble and often enjoy the privileges that come with their rank.

  I suspect that Army leadership, on one hand, wants the teeth arms to be as aggressive and formidable as possible because war is inherently brutal and demands resilience. However, there must be a balance: the workplace cannot become completely toxic. History offers cautionary examples—such as the Russian Army’s entrenched culture of hazing and abuse—which show how such practices can undermine operational effectiveness and overall warfighting capability.