Mission Command

Introduction
There is no assigned definition for mission command. This is to say that there are various definitions that have been floated in the past in an attempt to express this particular warfighting function. As a matter of fact, there are different definitions assigned to mission command under Army doctrine and the Joint Doctrine. In addition to highlighting what I learnt about mission command, this discussion will also assess how I intend to apply the philosophy as well as concepts of mission command in my future duty.
Discussion
What I learnt about Mission Command
As per the Army Doctrine Publication 6-0, “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” (U.S. Army, 2012, p. 1-3). On the other hand, mission command as per the Joint Publication 3-31, I said to be “the conduct of military operations through decentralized execution based upon mission-type orders” (Join Chiefs of Staff, 2012). It should be noted that in seeking to promote clarity, the former definition will be utilized in this context.
In as far as the army doctrine terminology is concerned, mission command happens to a relatively new construct. However, I learnt that great military strategists and leaders have for a long time applied key mission command principles. This is more so the case when it comes to the principle of mutual trust – which happens to be a prominent mission command principle. Indeed, according to the U.S. Army (2012), the relevance of trust cannot be overstated in as far as successful mission command is concerned. To a large extent, “subordinates are more willing to exercise initiative when they believe their commander trusts them” (U.S. Army, 2012, p. 1-7). It is important to note that commanders derive the conviction as well as certitude to engage in decisive course of action from their trust in subordinates. This is particularly the case when the said subordinates are capable of not only planning, but also coordinating and executing commitments in diverse, multiplex, and challenging environments. I am convinced that commanders ought to further promote their understanding of how units and soldiers are impacted upon by trust. This would call for the development of proper perspectives of the dimensions of trust. Mission command cannot be executed successfully without what Stewart (2010) refers to as distributed leadership. I am of the opinion that this would be largely impossible without the promotion of trust. However, it should be noted that for mission command to succeed, we must not only focus on a single principle. Instead, there is need to incorporate and apply the other principles as well.
According to the U.S. Army (2012), war is in its very nature and construct uncertain and chaotic. For this reason, there is no course of action that can accurately map all the possibilities relating to war – effectively meaning that situational changes must be incorporated into the planning equation as they unfold so as to further promote better execution. It is also important to note that according to the U.S. Army (2012), in combat scenarios, no single person possesses the ability to make or keep track of all the important decisions. For this reason, there is need to ensure that the ability of subordinate leaders to make decisions is promoted. In my own understanding, this is what mission command is all about. As I have pointed out elsewhere in this text, sustainment commanders must in their execution of mission command ensure that they envisage the operational area in proper format. This calls for the development of proper understanding as well as broad perspectives of the various undertakings of great relevance on that front. However, this understanding, in my opinion, should be anchored on the outlook of subordinate leaders. This is more so the case given that according to the U.S. Army (2012), “subordinate leaders often have a better understanding of what is happening during a battle, and are more likely to respond effectively to threats and fleeting opportunities if allowed to make decisions and act based on changing situations…” (1-3). Thus, ideally, understanding ought to be ‘bottom up’ as per mission command principles.
With my broadening comprehension of mission command, I am now aware of the fact that the relevance of having superior understanding of diverse aspects of the operational area cannot be overstated. Sustainment commanders ought to be able to share their viewpoints on this front so that the end state desired can be properly understood. From my exposure to class materials as well as further research, I have also come to learn that mission command is not without a few problems. For instance, according to Hill and Niemi (2017), mission command must not be perceived as an end in itself – which appears to be the case as at the moment. According to the authors, doing so “misses a crucial point about the nature of command—namely, that situational understanding is the rarest of all command characteristics.” The authors are of the opinion that this is a conceptual failure that could leave the military exposed to considerable risk especially given that we are likely to experience contextual changes in the conduct of warfare with the increased utilization of systems that are not only autonomous, but also lethal. It is, however, important to note that the underlying philosophy of mission command makes it possible for commanders to exercise adaptability and agility in diverse contexts. Further, there is nothing wrong with distributed leadership or decentralized execution if this is adopted as an approach to promote the achievement of the commander’s intent. The application of mission command is likely to be even more pronounced and relevant in the future. This, according to Vandergriff (2017) is more so the case given the potential for threats that are largely asymmetric. It is via the utilization of mission command that commanders can reconcile the concepts of control and command.
Using the Philosophy and Concepts of Mission Command
As one can tell from the discussion above, I regard trust as the guiding principle of mission command. For this reason, in my embrace of the concepts of mission command in the future, I will seek to ensure that a trusting environment is created and sustained. It is also important to note that trust is critical in the development of cohesive teams. However, trust is not a one-way concept. Instead, it must be mutual – in which case it ought to be the guiding philosophy between subordinates and commanders. This, according to Shamir (2011), could be conceptualized as the human dimension of trust. However, when inter-unit trust is brought into the equation, we could talk of the organizational dimension of trust (Shamir, 2011). In as far as my understanding of mission command is concerned, mission command cannot be successfully implemented or accomplished without trust. In essence, the successful execution of mission command is largely dependent upon leadership distribution or execution decentralization. These cannot be possible without the development of trust. Towards this end, as a commander, I will seek to ensure that I sustain and promote an environment of mutual trust. This is more so the case given that to boldly implement specific courses of action, I will be relying on subordinates’ ability to not only execute, but also coordinate action plans even in those operational environments that are rather complex.
Next, it is important to note that I would, in my application of the philosophy and concepts of mission command, want people to work autonomously. However, I am fully aware of the fact that people cannot work autonomously if they fail to properly comprehend the overall goal being pursued. In other words, the overall goal could simply be conceptualized as the intent of the commander. In that regard, therefore, the relevance of providing a clear and concise intent of the commander cannot be overstated. In this case, the outcomes that the commander intends to achieve must be explained and expounded in certain terms. The commander’s intent is defined as the “clear and concise expression of the purpose of the operation and the desired military end state that supports mission command, provides focus to the staff, and helps subordinate and supporting commanders act to achieve the commander’s desired results…” (U.S. Army, 2012). I am fully aware of the fact that poor or improper understanding of the commander’s intent by the units could negatively impact unity of effort. I would also be seeking to provide broad guidance so as to ensure that units perform with enhanced autonomy. My main intention in the entire setting and as per the tenets of mission command would be ensuring that subordinates are not in need of constant supervision. This would be my basis for ensuring that the intent of the commander is well understood.
Lastly, it should also be noted that in all military operations, uncertainty often reigns supreme. For this reason, in making decisions in an uncertain environment, commanders must accept prudent risk. Thus, in as far as the application of the philosophy as well as concepts of mission command is concerned, the principle of risk acceptance would come in handy. In its most basic form, “risk is the exposure of someone or something valued to danger, harm, or loss” (U.S. Army, 2012). I am well aware of the fact that in military operations, risk is a fact of life and cannot be avoided. For this reason, in my future duty, I would embrace the need to conduct risk assessment so as to properly perceive risk levels and engage in actions meant to mitigate identified risk. It is important to note that in so doing, I would be keen to bring subordinates onboard so as to better improve my judgment. As the leader, however, I would be responsible for the final evaluation as well as acceptance of prudent risk. This I would do with the full understanding that risk cannot be totally eliminated. This is why prudent risk should be accepted. For this reason, as a leader, I may be called upon to allow deliberate exposure in those instances where in my estimate, costs are minimal in comparison to the rewards associated with the accomplishment of the mission.
Conclusion
In the final analysis, it should be noted that the various mission command tenets have been utilized since the early 19th century. This is despite mission command being a relatively new construct in the army terminology. If there is anything that is clearly apparent from this discussion, it is that the relevance of trust and communication cannot be overstated in as far as the conduction of decisive action is concerned. From the wider perspective, it is the power of mission command that further promotes the ability of military units to be more effective and adaptive regardless of the complexities of the operational environment.










References
Hill, A. & Niemi, H. (2017). The Trouble with Mission Command: Flexive Command and the Future of Command and Control. Retrieved from https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/1223929/the-trouble-with-mission-command-flexive-command-and-the-future-of-command-and/
Join Chiefs of Staff (2012). Mission Command White Paper. Retrieved from https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Publications/missioncommandwhitepaper2012.pdf
Muth, J. (2011). Command Culture: Officer Education in the U.S. Army and the German Armed Forces, 1901-1940, and the Consequences for World War II. Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press.
Shamir, E. (2011). Transforming Command: The Pursuit of Mission Command in the U.S., British, and Israeli Armies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
U.S. Army (2012). ADP 6-0: Mission Command – Command and Control of Army Forces. Retrieved from https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN19189_ADP_6-0_FINAL_WEB_v2.pdf
Vandergriff, D.E. (2017). Adopting Mission Command: Developing Leaders for a Superior Command Culture. Washington, DC: Naval Institute Press.