Mission Command: Problem Bounding or Problem Solving?

The ability to task subordinates using minimal explicit instruction is a key component of the philosophy of ‘mission command,’ variants of which are espoused by a number of western militaries. The adoption of such an approach to command confers considerable flexibility in dynamic situations. In particular, it allows the exploitation of opportunities, based upon subordinates’ creativity and appreciation of the immediate tactical situation without the need for new orders. Information Age scholars Donald S. Alberts and Richard E. Hayes have proposed a spectrum of command and control approaches in which they distinguish between ‘order specific,’ ‘objective specific,’ and ‘mission specific’ philosophies. These discussions have focused upon the levels of control centralization and  directive specificity in orders. ‘Order specific’ approaches tend to be adopted by command organizations that maintain centralized control and issue regular, detailed orders. The Chinese Peoples’ Liberation Army (PLA) and former Soviet armies are cited as examples. ‘Mission specific’ approaches are at the opposite end of the scale and describe low levels of central control such as employed by the Israeli Army and by the German Army during the Second World War. The centre of the spectrum is occupied by ‘objective specific’ approaches.

Keith Stewart is a Defence Scientist in the Adversarial Intent section at Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) Toronto. His recent work has included a theoretical analysis of command approach, an examination of non-technical interoperability in the command and control of multinational forces, and an investigation of organizational structures in net-enabled organizations.