Best Practices: Mission Command
Acting in the absence of orders or direct guidance from senior leadership is a tough philosophy to instill in a culture that incorporates a hierarchical rank structure, such as the U.S. military and intelligence community (IC). Both the military and government civilian employment systems utilize pay and rank bands that directly subordinate the “doers” to the “deciders”. However, as our national culture has grown and matured, the idea of empowering subordinates to undertake disciplined initiative to achieve strategic goals has proven successful time and time again; most notably by a new generation of military commanders such as in the burgeoning technology sector, as exemplified by companies such as Google,
…show more content…
Army General David Petraeus exemplify the approach of Mission Command recently undertaken by a new generation of military leaders. Guided by Army Doctrinal Publication 6-0, the concept of Mission Command seeks to eliminate micromanagement and empower subordinates – the “doers” – to take action using a decision-making model incorporating senior leaders’ intent and legal guidelines. According to Petraeus, “Implementing big ideas typically requires empowering people and organizations to execute ideas at their levels without the need for constant approval.” Petraeus sought to enable disciplined initiative within his commander’s intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders. He would seek to empower brigade and battalion commanders in particular, but also the “strategic lieutenants” whose tactical actions would have strategic …show more content…
Petraeus wanted to break the Taliban’s control over the Kandahar region of Afghanistan, and chose Colonel Arthur Kandarian and his 2nd Brigade Combat Team to lead the effort. Just as Petraeus emphasized decentralized leadership based on the initiative of subordinates, Kandarian expected his subordinate commanders to take bold action, exercise initiative and accept reasonable risks. According to then-Lieutenant Colonel Peter Benchoff, one of Kandarian’s subordinate commanders, Petraeus and Kandarian’s command philosophies were akin to “drawing a circle on a map, announcing task and purpose, and letting subordinate commanders achieve the intent without slavishly following a dictated plan.” Utilizing the six principles of Mission Command – build cohesive teams through mutual trust, create shared understanding, provide clear commander’s intent, exercise disciplined initiative, use mission orders, and accept prudent risk – Petraeus and Kandarian successfully led tens of thousands of military forces against an entrenched and sophisticated enemy and achieved the desired strategic outcome.
Leaders built cohesive teams through mutual trust by developing and implementing a standard operating procedure (SOP) that they trained and taught to the lowest level of soldiers within the unit. The SOP was very focused on
On July 30, 2008, a bloody battle involving Coalition forces took place in the mountainous eastern Afghan province of Nuristan. This was the Battle of Wanat and the devastating amount of Coalition casualties began a vigorous investigation by the United States Army. The village of Wanat, defended by Second Platoon, Chosen Company, Second Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team would fall victim to numerous bad decision made by higher command. Although the men of Chosen Company fought hard, they ended up surrounded, vastly outnumbered, and without any Battalion assets. This paper will argue the reasons for the disastrous outcome of the Battle of Wanat; examining the effective company leadership exploiting effective
The Organizational Management of Operation Anaconda The shortfall of Operation Anaconda was due to organizational management. General Tommy Franks, Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander, was also the Coalition/Joint Force Commander for Operation Enduring Freedom and his headquarters located at MacDill AFB, Florida (Fleri, 2003). First, the organizational concept of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan was very unclear and caused major confusion (Fleri, 2003).
Realizing the need, Major General Petraeus soon began to employ the division to work local nationals to restart water and electricity and working to reopen schools (Lundberg, 2008). Lacking any guidance from his leadership, Petraeus took many prudent risks in order to further see these plans through by utilizing his own assets. For example, according to Lundberg, he utilized assets such as Army engineers to begin clearing rubble and debris from cities, villages, and roadways. Conclusion Providing a strong leadership approach and willingness to take risk, Major General Petraeus was put on a mission to develop and implement strategy to establish stability in Mosul, Iraq.
Leaders at all levels of the Army are faced with difficult decisions every day, decisions that can affect the lives of everyone around them. The thought processes used by individual leaders to make decisions can be as far reaching as their imagination; however, it is every leader’s responsibility to make these decisions using the tenants of mission command. Mission command is not an easy skill to master, however great leaders understand it and the proper use of it when planning a mission. Mission command is broken down into six major principles: Build cohesive teams through trust, create a shared understanding, provide a clear commanders’ intent, exercise-disciplined initiative, use mission orders and accept prudent risk . General Douglas
Direct Mission Command Introduction General David Petraeus utilized prudent risk to combat the enemies in Iraq through the mission command process. He led soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Kentucky into Kuwait, with further onward movement to Iraq. The division had minimal knowledge on what to expect in a foreign country. General Petraeus knew that he would need assistance from his staff as well as the elements of combat power. The six-warfighting functions that empowered General Petraeus to remain agile and adaptive during his operations in Iraq were mission command, movement and maneuver, intelligence, fires, sustainment, and protection (ADRP6-0, 2012).
During Operation Anaconda all six mission command principles were present and the mission was deemed successful regardless of the deficiencies found within the mission command structure. The first principle, building team cohesiveness, Operation Anaconda displayed this principle or lack thereof due to the command structure being multiheaded instead of the unity of the command being lead by one single senior officer with the appropriate amount of staff and components under them to accomplish the
ADRP 6-0 states, “Mission command is the exercise of authority and direction by the commander using mission orders to enable disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations.” Effective mission command enables mission success. However, ineffective mission command can dismantle a well-designed plan. Major General Roberts failed to build cohesive teams through mutual trust, create shared understanding, use mission orders, and accept prudent risk.
Pearl Harbor in relation to mission command structure Introduction Mission Command has some important facets that ensure the proper execution of commands within the military. The first mission of any military endeavor is to stay alive while protecting the interests of its nation (S.Alberts). The human race from primitive times has always sought to procure resources for their own survival. This situation created the need for fighting so as to end conflict through the use of force. Ensuring the survival of a combat group makes it necessary to have structure, organization and leadership (Creveld).
Scribbles on Scrap: A Mission Command Analysis of the Battle of the Little Bighorn The massacre at the Little Bighorn in 1876 was one of the most recognizable battles in American history. The defeat of the 7th Cavalry Regiment and the slaughter of 268 Soldiers by the Sioux serves as an enduring subject of study for contemporary military professionals. The basic modus operandi for command principles in the times of the Indian Wars loosely mirrors the mission command philosophy of today; however, if we still lay credence to the efficacy of the mission command philosophy, how was it that a conventional force under the direction of a battle proven leader was defeated by an irregular enemy? In the end, Lieutenant Colonel George A. Custer’s complacent
By definition, “mission command is the exercise of authority and direction by the commander using mission orders to enable disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations,” according to ADRP 5-0. Mission command is about knowing when to change the task to fit the purpose. This paper is intended to analyze the mission command of one side of the battle, focusing on the commander’s role in the operations process. The Battle of Bunker Hill was the most important battle of the American Revolution because of Colonel Prescott’s superior command and control.
Issued Mission Orders As a hierarchical organization, the Army relies on orders to emphasize desired results to subordinates. “Commanders use mission orders to provide direction and guidance that focus the forces’ activities on the achievement of the main objective, set priorities, allocate resources, and influence the situation” (Wade, 2015, p. 5-5). General Harrison’s army repulsed disparate Indian attacks because of the guidance and orders issued by the general. Harrison initially ordered his men to stay on high alert and to sleep with their weapons loaded and within reach, indicating to his men that a pre-dawn attack was likely.
Returning to the 4th Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) to assume command as the brigade commander brings me much joy to be reunited with great Non-Commission Officers and Officers that I have previously served with. Unfortunately, this brigade is no longer the brigade I remember when I commanded a battalion within the 4th ABCT not so long ago. In the last 30 days, I have had the opportunity to observe the ABCT and review a multitude of historical documents to assess the state of the brigade. During my observation, I believe the critical leadership problem in the 4th ABCT’s is the lack of vision for the brigade. Therefore, this critical problem has led to other challenging issues within the brigade.
Among these five characteristics; military expertise, honorable service, trust, esprit de corps, and stewardship of the profession, I believe that military expertise and stewardship of the profession are the two characteristics that make a leader excel in the presence of their peers. ADRP 1 defines military expertise as, “Military expertise is the design, generation, support, and ethical application of land power, primarily in unified land operations, and all supporting capabilities essential to accomplish the mission in defense of the American people”. In order to gain trust from your subordinates for them to follow your guidance, a leader must have military expertise. Without being an expert in your field, subordinates will not trust your guidance provided unto them. ADRP 1 defines Stewardship of the Profession as, “Stewardship is the responsibility of Army professionals to ensure the profession maintains its five essential characteristics now and into the future”.
In present contemporary operation environment (COE), military actions alone is not the sole guarantee for dealing with security challenges. Today’s conflicts are characterized by complex and interdependent issues which range from traditional war-fighting to disaster relief missions, peace keeping and enforcing operations and, humanitarian assistance. This makes management by a single organization or agency whether government or non-governmental difficult. The “internationalization of military life” has thus confronted military personals to challenges which are no longer limited to combat operations but involve social, ethnic, religious and ideological dimensions requiring winning hearts and minds. Operations by today’s armed forces cannot
After a few weeks to observe the 4th ABCT, I have had the opportunity to gather the facts that will facilitate my overall assessment and way ahead for the BCT. The unit still has the legacy of greatness that I remember serving with as a battalion commander, and has the potential to regain that prowess. Sadly, a failure in leadership at the senior field grade level is the reason this BCT is not reaching its full potential. ADP 6-22 defines leadership as, “the process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish the mission and improve the organization.” The current leadership of 4th ABCT has failed to provide the purpose, direction, and motivation to the Soldiers in order to accomplish the mission,