Mission Command Concepts and Principles

Applying the Philosophy and Concepts of Mission Command in My Future Duty Assignments Following Graduation from the SMC
Mission command is defined as “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” (ADP Mission Command, 2012, p. 1). The philosophy of mission command is based on the idea that during operations, opportunities will arise and threats will emerge: in order to accomplish the mission, the mission commander must be able to respond effectively both to opportunities when they present themselves and to threats when they appear. This philosophy requires attention to detail, an ability to make good and right decisions “at the point of action,” and the integration of military functions and actions in order to effectively achieve a mission accomplished status (ADP Mission Command, 2012, p. 1). This paper will discuss how I will apply the philosophy and concepts of mission command in my future duty assignments following graduation from the SMC by using: the art of command as well as 1) mutual trust, 2) shared understanding, 3) purpose, 4) disciplined initiative, 5) mission orders, and 6) an acceptance of prudent risk to make effective decisions at the point of action with the end goal of accomplishing the mission always foremost in mind.
Mutual Trust
Mutual trust is one of the principles of Mission command that is essential fulfilling the mission. As Sharpe and Creviston (2013) point out, “trust is the glue that binds mission command.” To utilize trust, commanders have to know its parameters and dimensions among their soldiers: they have to know that trust is a two-way street, just as communication is a two-way street. Information comes from the navigation of this two-way flow, trust is built through the shared experience of that flow. A commander has to be able to trust his soldiers and units; and the soldiers and units have to be able to trust their commander. Trust is built by sensing that the two-way channels are open and not closed off in one direction or another.
Trust is also established day in and day out by simply doing what is expected of one no matter where one is in the chain of command. Hutchings (2018) notes that “ADRP 6.0 puts it best: ‘Trust is gained or lost through everyday actions more than grand or occasional gestures.’  This is also true in building a cohesive team. The best teams are formed by doing routine, mundane, daily tasks together.” When members of the team come together to acknowledge and do their respective duties, trust is effected: the mission commander must keep a watchful eye on his soldiers to make sure the daily jobs assigned to them are being accomplished and, likewise, the commander must be sure that he is doing his duties to them as well.
In my own future duty assignments following graduation from the SMC, I intend to develop mutual trust with my soldiers to make sure we are all on the same page, all capable of doing our jobs and completing our tasks, so that when the time comes for decisions to be made at the point of action, we are all ready and willing as one to believe in and trust one another. My goal, therefore, is to build trust by setting myself as an example to others of one who does his duty every day. I intend also to build trust by making it clear that I expect every soldier to accomplish his daily duties with alacrity and mindfulness as well.
Shared Understanding
Trust is based, moreover, on the concept of shared understanding—another important principle in mission command. Shared understanding depends on everyone in the chain of command knowing what he is supposed to do, how he is supposed to do it, and being able to do it. Shared understanding, for example, of how to maintain the operational environment and what the purpose of that maintenance is provides the unit with an effective orientation towards completion of a mission.
In my own future duty assignments following graduation from the SMC, I intend to develop shared understanding among my soldiers by promoting collaborative leadership. This is the idea that everyone is responsible for his own actions and that everyone’s actions impact the unit as a whole. It is about teaching accountability: “leaders must visualize and communicate an understandable plan before boots hit the ground; their subordinates must be ready to implement the plan right away” (Sharpe & Creviston, 2013). This is only possible if shared understanding has been built and trust has been achieved. Trust and understanding go together like hands and gloves—and it would be my goal to make sure every soldier in my unit understands his place, his duty, and has shown he knows what it takes to accomplish the mission.
Purpose
The intention of the commander should always be clear and understood to facilitate the development of cohesion within the unit. The purpose of a command has to be conveyed in the intent—and that will vary depending on the audience receiving the command. For instance, “‘go sweep the hangar floor’ is enough for a sergeant who has swept many a hangar floor. However, if you are telling the specialist who has never done it before, more details may be needed” (Hutchings, 2018). The point is that for a commander to be effective, there has to be a clear enunciation of ideas and those ideas must be received with complete understanding on the part of the receiver.
In my own future duty assignments following graduation from the SMC, I intend to clearly define the purpose of all missions as appropriate to the audience receiving the communication. This will require an understanding of the audience on my part—what that audience knows, does not know, and where and when explanation is required of particular details. In knowing my audience, I can be better prepared to explain and convey the purpose of a mission concisely and precisely—and that will go a long way in ensuring that my future duty assignments are completed effectively. Another tool, of course, is the communication of the boundaries of disciplined initiative: the areas within which a subordinate may take the initiative to make decisions on his own regarding contingencies that pop up. As not all contingencies can be foreseen and as there is not always time to communicate with the commander, defining the purpose of the mission must take into consideration the extent to which others may take the initiative to act and make decisions appropriately.
Disciplined Initiative
Disciplined initiative is defined as “action in the absence of orders, when existing orders no longer fit the situation, or when unforeseen opportunities or threats arise” (ADP Mission Command, 2012, p. 4). One reason for engaging in disciplined initiative is that it allows both the commander and the subordinate to create opportunities that can then be used to gain an advantage or to move the unit more closely towards accomplishing the mission. A chain of command is useless if the ability to act is compromised. Surprise developments should not be obstacles to action. Rather, subordinates and commanders alike should be empowered to make quick decisions that will allow obstacles to be addressed so that the operational initiative is not blocked.
The commander’s intent or purpose statement should be given in such a way that subordinates know exactly what falls within their purview with regard to making decisions: they know if they may make a decision about x, y or z, or if they must relay the issue to their commander so that he may make the decision. Through the application of disciplined initiative, soldiers can make decisions on their own, when it is in keeping with the intent of the commander that certain unanticipated problems of a specific type or nature may be addressed by them without wasting time seeking approval from the commander.
In my own future duty assignments following graduation from the SMC, I intend to use the application of disciplined initiative by ensuring that I follow all lawful orders and that I explain to my subordinates exactly the circumstances in which they may make decisions on their own to prevent wasting time and resources. I also intend to safeguard against problems by never straying away from the legal boundaries that have been established with respect to orders and commands. Commands are to be followed and discipline initiative used only when permitted. In fulfilling my duties, my goal first and foremost is to execute the commands I am given and to see to it that my subordinates execute the commands given them by me.
Mission Orders
It must be remembered, however, that mission orders are not directives regarding “how” to accomplish the mission but rather directives that focus on the goal that is to be attained—i.e., what the results of the mission accomplished should be. As the ADP (2012) reports, “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” (p. 5). Mission orders enable the maximization of disciplined initiative, and they encourage the communication among soldiers in units to assist in the accomplishment of the mission.
In my own future duty assignments following graduation from the SMC, I intend to use mission orders to help give my subordinates the opportunity to think and lead for themselves. It is a good way to ensure that accountability is fostered and that soldiers grow and develop their own decision making skills. It is an expression of collaborative leadership, and it is exactly what helps one see to it that duties are executed according to commands.
Accepting Prudent Risk
Risk will always play a part in any mission. A commander has to accept prudent risk whenever he makes a decision because it is impossible to know all the outcomes of every move. However, prudent risk can be defined as “a deliberate exposure to potential injury or loss when the commander judges the outcome in terms of mission accomplishment as worth the cost” (ADP Mission Command, 2012, p. 5). There is a difference between taking unnecessary risk and taking prudent risk, and as a commander one has to know the difference. In my own future duty assignments following graduation from the SMC, I intend to accept prudent risk but avoid gambling with outcomes when the cost of failure would exceed the prudent acceptance of risk with regards to a particular decision.
The Art of Command
The art of command is “the creative and skillful exercise of authority through timely decision-making and leadership” (ADP Mission Command, 2012, p. 5). Commanders must know how and when to make the right decisions and how and when to lead effectively. Requirements for the art of command are authority, leadership, and decision-making capabilities. The art of command feeds into the science of control, which is the study of how to effectively manage forces. In my own future duty assignments following graduation from the SMC, I intend to use the art of command to muster my own decision-making and leadership skills in a way that enables me to communicate, motivate, and lead my subordinates to mission accomplishment, adhering to the principles of mission command. The art of command unites the various concepts of mission command—from the need to build mutual trust to the importance of evaluating risk—and directs them towards appropriate usage.
Conclusion
By implementing the principles, concepts and philosophy of mission command—namely 1) mutual trust, 2) shared understanding, 3) purpose, 4) disciplined initiative, 5) mission orders, and 6) an acceptance of prudent risk to make effective decisions at the point of action with the end goal of mission accomplishment—I intend to accomplish my own future duty assignments. Inherent in the application of the philosophy of mission command is the idea of the art of command, which essentially unifies the main concepts of mission command so that each is aligned with the other. Without the exercise of authority and direction according in accordance with mission orders, no soldier, unit or commander can be effective in the goal of accomplishing the mission. Every leader and decision maker must be able to think and act based on the intelligence he receives, the opportunities that arise, the threats that emerge, and the parameters within which he is permitted to take the initiative.
References
ADP Mission Command. (2012). Mission Command. Army Doctrine Publication,
Washington, D.C.
Hutchings, P. (2018). The philosophy of mission command and the NCO Corps.
Retrieved from https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2018/February/Philosophy-of-Mission-Command/
Sharpe, J. & Creviston, T. (2013). Understanding mission command. Retrieved from
https://www.army.mil/article/106872/understanding_mission_command