Evolutions of Mission Command

Seven years after replacing the term command and control with mission command, the Army decided to bring it back. There was an oft-stated problem that mission command was a confused concept. The term described a group of communications systems, an organizational function, and a philosophy. The rewrite aimed to clear the ambiguity. Additionally, the Army had been on its own doctrinal island. Comparable sister service, joint, and allied doctrine had retained the concept of command and control. The rewrite brought the Army into line with those it would work with. Finally, the Army took the opportunity to simplify its body of knowledge and we consolidated two levels of doctrinal manuals (Army Doctrinal Publications and Army Doctrinal Reference Publications) into one.

The problem in the Army, however, wasn’t understanding the difference between a digital command and control system like CPOF, using intent to get things done, and following a process to produce plans. The problem was that we misunderstood the philosophy. Most commonly, leaders interpreted mission command as a hands-off approach to leadership that let subordinates figure-out what to do on their own. Mission command was considered decentralized command and control.

“We preach mission command, but we don’t necessarily practice it…We have to live and operate like that on a day-to-day basis, even on daily administrative tasks you have to do in a unit area.”

When I read General Milley’s statement, I thought he was asking why we don’t decentralize more of the day-to-day drudgery in garrison. I don’t know if he meant that, but if he did – I think he’s wrong. Mission command is not decentralized command and control. The philosophy of mission command is an approach that determines the degree of control, by the leadership of the command.

The new doctrine does a much better job of laying out this concept with its principles of mission command and elements of command and control, but it’s still confusing. Mission command is the Army’s approach to command and control. Command and control is fundamental to all operations and is executed through the command and control warfighting function. So our approach to command and control is mission command, and we conduct mission command using command and control. Circular? Maybe, but let’s come back to the meaning of mission command.

Mission command makes us think about decentralized decision-making. This improves flexibility because the person with the information has the authority to make the decision. It does at the expense of synchronization and efficiency.

Mission command “…empowers subordinate decision making and decentralized execution appropriate to the situation.” This approach to command and control assesses a situation with a preference for decentralization. The big idea is that decentralization provides the flexibility essential to deal with uncertainty. War is uncertain, but sometimes it isn’t. Experience tells us there are times in combat where the situation is incredibly clear! Calling for artillery? Pretty clear. In fact, that is why we have synchronization as a tenant of Unified Land Operations. Synchronization is the arrangement of military actions in time, space, and purpose to produce maximum relative combat power at a decisive place and time – impossible without specific knowledge. Sometimes decentralized decision-making is not useful. A river crossing, a combined arms breach, or medical readiness (Periodic Health Assessments and dental exams) come to mind; in these cases, adaptation is as problematic as the enemy. During one operation I took part in, my commander told his subordinates and staff, “This is a wet-gap crossing. This is not the time for disciplined initiative.” The more efficient the operation, the faster through the chokepoint. In that situation, a well-intentioned but unchoreographed move could cause a traffic jam putting the entire river crossing at risk.

Now don’t take this to the extreme. In the previously mentioned examples, bottom-up refinement is always useful. The point is, mission command is an approach or process to think about control. The principles of mission command supply some things to ponder when deciding how much control is needed for a given situation.

Some might argue that decentralizing is always good but I beg to differ. There will be times on the future battlefield when our radios do work, when the artillery and tanks are in the right place, and we see the enemy clearly. This is when a synchronized approach is critical; the efficient massing of effects requires control.

So how do we help make mission command work? A couple of things come to mind:

First, understand the principles of mission command and figure out how to operationalize them in your unit, both to higher and lower. Figure out how to build trust and communicate the intent so everyone understands what needs to be done.

Second, ensure you seek context. The only reason the Army seized the first bridge over the Rhine in 1945 was that those who came upon the bridge knew the context. The Rhine is a big river and crossing it was problematic. Those leaders saw an opportunity only because they understood the bigger picture.

Third, empower others whenever you can. In WWI, the German rifle company in the first trench had responsibility for calling the battalion reserve. Makes me wince but it worked. The responsibility was on that leader to know the context. It gave that leader the responsibility and authority to use their boss's only hedge against uncertainty. Think of the mission command principles…the Germans had to understand all seven to make this approach work.

Fourth, coach more as a leader. Coaching is better than being directive because if you’re doing it right, the student comes to the answer on their own. You helped them get there. This allows decentralized decision-making without throwing away the seniors’ hard-won experience. Don’t leave your experience on the table either.

Fifth, make certain your orders tell your subordinates what to do, but not how to do it. Ensure the staff does the same. Synchronize only what you must. Your intent must be relative to the other units on the battlefield and must also encompass the larger objective.

Sixth, fight for situational awareness from higher and lower. There is a huge volume of information available today. Figure out how to use your CCIR to sift through the mass of information and find what you need.

Lastly and most importantly, have an affinity for action. For mission command to succeed, subordinates must act in the absence of orders or new information; they have the responsibility to act. To do this better, look at how you’ve operationalized the mission command principles before the fight.

Mission command is an approach for determining the level of control, but a trap exists in the decentralization and synchronization spectrum. Some actions require synchronization, while others require the flexibility inherent in decentralized operations. Efficiency matters in combat because resources are scarce. In every case, we should empower our subordinates and decentralize execution as much as possible. We should synchronize only what we must. The question is whether we can educate ourselves well enough to make the right call.

Originally published by the Field Grade Leader February 29, 2020 at https://fieldgradeleader.themilitaryleader.com/evolutions/#more-2085