Found a very interesting but some what lengthy article on the differences in command styles and the reasons for such, between the three services (Army, Navy, Air Force). As the article is geared toward Navy leadership is gives quite an excellent look at pro's/con's of "their" system. It also delves into the education leadership issues and different service philosophies.
Command Styles in The Canadian Navy; Principal Authors: Dr Allan English, Dr Richard Gimblett, Vice-Admiral (retired) Lynn Mason
Mr Mervyn Berridge Sills. http://pubs.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/inbasket/ahawton.050331_1440.CR_%202005%20-096_final.pdf
Some quotes:
"The army is proud to proclaim, “The army equips its men, whereas the navy (and the air force) ‘mans’ its equipment.” In fact, the army has it exactly right. Whereas the army tends to focus primarily on the equipment needed by an individual soldier or a group of soldiers, the navy focuses on the capabilities of the ship or the submarine. The design of these fighting systems is driven by technological and doctrinal imperatives. The navy then trains its sailors to “man” and fight the ship or submarine."
"Like the army, and to a significant extent unlike the air force, the “warrior caste” of the navy encompasses all ranks. Unlike the army, however, support MOCs are equally on the front line (literally in the same boat) with the operational MOCs. This is perhaps the greatest single difference in the three main leadership systems of the Canadian Forces. The naval leader, isolated in command, does not have to motivate the crew to follow in the sense that the army leader must."
"A brief comment on the differing hierarchies of loyalty in the three services based on cultural differences may be appropriate here, because the order in which military personnel perceive their loyalties to lie may shed some light on differences in service leadership and command. It appears that because people change units (ships and squadrons) frequently in the navy and air force their hierarchy of loyalty is:1) service (navy or air force), 2) job/occupation (maritime engineer, pilot, etc), then 3) unit (ship or squadron). There is some culturally based evidence for this assumption, as in the pre-unification RCN and RCAF the officers’ cap badges were the same for all officers in each service.145 For the Canadian infantry, and to some degree the armoured corps, it seems to be 1) regiment 2) branch (infantry or armoured), then 3) the army as a service. For other army branches, because of their relatively high technical leadership
component, it may be: 1) job/branch 2) service 3) unit."