ADC Forge Media

In this episode of Lives in Leadership, Dr Lucas Marie speaks with Warrant Officer Dave Ashley, whose Australian Army career spans more than 40 years — including service in South-East Asia, East Timor (Timor-Leste), and Afghanistan. A former Regimental Sergeant Major of the Army, Dave shares candid reflections on leadership across tactical, operational, and strategic levels, emphasising the human dimension of command. He discusses the unique responsibilities of military leaders in times of conflict, the vital role of care and empathy in building resilience, and how the ADF can prepare its people for the uncertainty of future warfare. Drawing from hard-earned lessons and deeply personal experiences, Dave also explores how the Army has changed culturally — becoming more diverse, inclusive, and adaptable — while still holding fast to the fundamentals of discipline, humility, and excellence in leadership. In this episode of Lives in Leadership, Dr Lucas Marie speaks with Warrant Officer Dave Ashley, whose Australian Army career spans more than 40 years — including service in South-East Asia, East Timor (Timor-Leste), and Afghanistan. A former Regimental Sergeant Major of the Army, Dave shares candid reflections on leadership across tactical, operational, and strategic levels, emphasising the human dimension of command. He discusses the unique responsibilities of military leaders in times of conflict, the vital role of care and empathy in building resilience, and how the ADF can prepare its people for the uncertainty of future warfare. Drawing from hard-earned lessons and deeply personal experiences, Dave also explores how the Army has changed culturally — becoming more diverse, inclusive, and adaptable — while still holding fast to the fundamentals of discipline, humility, and excellence in leadership.

In this episode of Lives in Leadership, Dr Lucas Marie speaks with Major General Andrew Hocking about the personal and professional lessons learned from a distinguished career spanning military command, national disaster recovery, and senior leadership across government. Drawing on experiences from Afghanistan to the 2019–20 bushfires, Major General Hocking discusses the enduring importance of adaptability, humility, flexibility, and balance in leadership. He offers candid reflections on managing stress, maintaining perspective, and learning to “hold on loosely” in high-pressure environments. The conversation explores how leaders can cultivate self-awareness, surround themselves with honest voices, and practise humility amid authority. Hocking also shares insights from his Vanguard paper on lessons from the Afghanistan campaign, the value of social science expertise in Defence, and how Australia can strengthen national preparedness through whole-of-nation collaboration.

In the first part of this two-part Lives in Leadership episode, Brigadier John Fenwick speaks with Professor David Whetham, Director of the King's Centre for Military Ethics at King’s College London. Together they explore the growth of military ethics as a discipline, the practical and cultural drivers behind its rise, and how ethical education shapes leadership in modern armed forces. Professor Whetham reflects on his career and ongoing research in areas such as human–machine teaming, artificial intelligence, and organisational culture. The discussion also delves into the complex dynamics of civil–military relations, moral injury, and the enduring duty of the profession of arms to uphold both ethical standards and societal trust. This episode sets the stage for a continuation in Part Two, where these themes are developed further.

In this episode of Lives in Leadership, Dr Lucas Marie sits down with Dr Florence Gaub — Director of the Research Division at the NATO Defense College, futurist, and global security thinker — to explore the intersection of technology, strategy, and human judgment in defence. Dr Gaub challenges the idea that artificial intelligence is a true revolution in warfare, arguing instead that conflict remains a deeply human enterprise defined by continuity, emotion, and bias. She offers insight into the practice of strategic foresight, explaining how NATO uses “weak signals” and scenario-building to anticipate future risks. The discussion ranges from the cultural and historical roots of strategic identity to global recruitment trends and the myths surrounding younger generations’ “will to fight.” Drawing on NATO research, Dr Gaub presents a compelling, optimistic view of modern military society — one grounded in adaptability, understanding, and purpose.

In this Episode Dr Lucas Marie speaks with Doctor Leigh Ann Perry, an associate professor of psychology and behavioral science at the US Naval War College. She is a leading expert in the application of positive psychology for military leadership development. Dr Perry's work focuses on the area of wellbeing, resilience and mindfulness.

A new Senior Enlisted capability is emerging with a burgeoning form of influence-based leadership that embraces diversity and that can rapidly mobilise a workforce.

This paper will examine some of the cultural differences between uniformed military personnel and APS staff.

Since the enhanced trilateral security partnership of 16 September 2021, the Australian Government has considered its strategic environment to have permanently changed.

Every major power is investing in the development of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems. Now, before they are ready for deployment, is the time to form an ethical understanding that can guide the creation of laws to fairly and humanely regulate their use.

Were the values that came to embody the digger legend of the 1st AIF incompatible with the expectations of British command? Did the traits required to command a less-than-conventional military force during the First World War require a less-than-conventional style of military leadership? This article explores the questions that arise regarding the leadership of the 1st AIF during the Great War - particularly that of General William Birdwood. Was his command effective given the unique circumstances, and were his opponents right to express criticism?