GENESIS OF MISSION COMMAND

The Mission Command concept originated from the Prussian Army in the 19th Century when the concept of Auftragstaktik (mission tactics) emerged in response to the expanded volume, speed and reach of combat operations, and the introduction of more lethal and longer range weapons. Prussian commanders found that they could no longer maintain direct situation awareness or exert direct command over their forces.

So the Prussian General Staff identified the need to encourage flexibility and independent action at lower levels of command so that they could still operate effectively on the battlefield. Their solution was to introduce “mission-type orders” which focused on outcomes rather than tasks - the what to be done rather than the how to do it. This would allow subordinate commanders maximum flexibility to achieve their commander's intent even when they did not receive instructions.

AQI's very structure — networked and non-hierarchical — embodied this new world. In some ways, we had more in common with the plight of a Fortune 500 company trying to fight off a swarm of start-ups than we did with the Allied command battling Nazi Germany in World War II.

CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION OF MISSION COMMAND

One of the more popular case studies of Mission Command in recent military history is that described by General Stanley McChrystal in his book, Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World. McChrystal tells a story of how the well-equipped and well-trained Joint Special Operations Task Force in Iraq struggled to defeat the Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) insurgency network. In McChrystal's view, the key problem was that the operating environment had shifted decisively from one that his 20th Century military outfit was designed for, to one that was defined by 21st Century internet, social, and organisational networking.

McChrystal's approach to reorganising the Task Force took lessons from Mission Command. His key intervention lay not in the manoeuvre on the battlefield, but in a restructuring that leveraged on his staff's and commanders' “competence and adaptability”. He focused on building the necessary structures and culture that would allow the Task Force to respond quickly and adaptively in a complex and uncertain operating environment. Among other things, he instituted daily Operations and Intelligence briefs, which provided a structure around which the Task Force's various entities could share information and improve collective situational awareness. He created liaisons between sub-units to encourage closer cooperation and sharing. These structures engendered greater trust and built shared understanding.

These formed the foundations for what McChrystal called the “Team of Teams”. They provided a bottom-up view of how team members would experience Mission Command culture. McChrystal added that in order to enable this culture to work, the mindset should be to empower teams closest to the problems, as they were in the best position to decide and act decisively.

The key words that McChrystal used are familiar. It is clear that Mission Command is indeed alive and relevant in the 21st Century. Leaders of modern Mission Command can see themselves as shepherds, whose job is to create the best environment possible for their flock to grow and flourish.