I think frankly, what they thought was [we had] an industrial age model that existed and as we move into the 21st century and what is going to be required of our Army in the future, I think that they believed that it had become something of an outdated model because the connection, unity, and clear direction and focus was not occurring. I think that based on the conversation with [Army Futures Command] General Murray, he has indicated that his intent is to operate under mission command, which is to provide mission intent type direction and guidance to his subordinate organizations to allow them to carry out and meet his intent. I think that’s a good thing.
That was Combat Capabilities Development Command’s commanding general Cedric Wins on the USArmy CCDC In the Lab Podcast. I agree and think mission command is a good thing, not just in military operations but also in acquisition where uncertainty is just as great, although it is of a different kind.
There’s one thing I’m struggling with, which is the reconciliation of unity of command with mission command. Certainly centralizing power and delegating it through a straight line hierarchy, such as CCDC under AFC, creates a unity of command. But if the delegation were true to a mission command concept, devolved to levels well beneath CCDC’s commander, then their interpretation of the mission command will vary and should create an emergent order rather one that the commander would have designed.
So unity of command under mission command is really just a broad statement of intent, which can be expressed in a wide variety of outcomes across the organization. Unity then results in emergent order of independent and often competing cells at the lower level.
Leave a Reply