Article about mission command: Your thoughts?

MAJ (Join to see)
Mission command is just a buzz word used by commanders these days. They all talk about it but even if a mission is accomplished but, it's not accomplished the way they would have done it or thought it should be done the subordinate leader gets the brunt. Courses of action are mostly directed these days so you could really call mission command, micromanagement command.

NCOs dismiss mission command because the word commander is so prevalent in the doctrine. When I give NCOPDs on mission command I replace the word commander with leader so junior NCOs can relate better.

A lot of commanders confuse mission command with policy or SOP or they are just confused in general. If a battalion commander or any commander tells their subordinate leaders that they are not going to dictate a field uniform because they are exercising mission command and then get pissed off when Soldiers are running around in t-shirts and skivvies well who is at fault there?

If leaders actually applied the principles of mission command at whatever level they lead, the Army would run much smoother and the Soldiers would have a greater understanding of why they are doing the things that they are told to do.

Commanders Intent & Commander's Guidance, and proper knowledge of the mission objectives. These were what we used to ensure appropriate "mission command" usage.

The US uses a decentralized Command & Control structure, which supports mission command down to the lowest level. For the Marine Corps that was the Fire Team. If everyone knew the Commander's Intent (What he wanted to do), and the Commander's Guidance (How he "generally" wanted to get it done), as well as the mission objectives, small unit leaders were able to exercise initiative "as needed" based on changing circumstances. The old adage of "no plan survives first contact."

The way it was initially explained to me was:

A BLT has been assign to secure an Air Field, and surrounding environs. One of the mission objectives is neutralizing a mobile radar station (location unknown).

Company A while enroute, spots the mobile radar station. Commander following "Intent" and "mission objective" takes out station, and continues with rest of mission, if it will not interfere with current tasking. If it will delay his current tasking beyond reason, he calls for reinforcements to handle it instead. Basically, he has the initiative and enough authority to make the call, based on previous guidance.

CPT Boling, this is a great article! Thanks for sharing! As a Mission Command OC/T in my current assignment, the embracing of the MC concept has been slow and painful. We attribute this to the high OPTEMPO at the time at which the Army as an institution first adopted and implemented the MC concept as doctrine; it's akin to building an aircraft while in flight. As with many innovations, MC was implemented from the top downward. As a Company Commander in 2006-07, I can recall BDE and BN-level staff officers throwing around the term, but to me without any training at that point, it held no value.

When we evaluate a BN or BDE staff exercise now, the organization would be deemed combat-ineffective if it's subordinates have not been trained in the application of MC. CSM Oldsen is right, MC gets bastardized into buzz for many things that it is not, and this further muddies the waters, particularly for your junior leaders. It is also essential to safeguard the integrity of the definition of MC if it is to work as intended.

Oh yeah, this is not a process a unit and a staff is likely to "get" in one try. This is where we have to set aside that aversion to failure and be cognizant of the fact that that why we train in the first place. This is the only thing that can differentiate between the amazing processes or the slow-motion train wrecks MAJ Guy refers to.