Friday, 12 October, Brigadier General Gordon B. Davis, Deputy Commanding General, Combined Arms Center for Leader Development and Education and the Deputy Commandant of the US Army Command and General Staff College, provided an introduction to Mission Command activities scheduled the week of 15 October. The briefing began with a detailed review of 15-19 October where guest speakers will include, among others, General Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps. Importantly, it appears that the Mission Command focus week is a grounding of the principle which is expected to permeate the CGSOC curriculum. Should this week have occurred earlier in the student year in order to set the stage for the entire course?
Immediately after the introduction, and an explanation that Mission Command week was directed by General Odierno, USA Chief of Staff, a video was shown of General Odierno outlining his intent for the Mission Command focus week. General Odierno went on to stress a couple of key points to consider during the week. The first was the recognition an ever changing enemy no longer confined to stable nation states. He mentioned contested & failing states, criminal organizations, and those that would exploit technology as some of our biggest threats. The second was the need to exploit fleeting opportunities with confidence. The last point the Chief of Staff made was to ultimately consider three things throughout the Understand, Visualize, Describe, and Direct cycle: #1) Communicate—early & often #2) Lead, think, change and adapt #3) Constantly assess the operational environment to ultimately achieve unity of effort. Finally, General Odierno requested feedback from the students at the end of the week. Will feedback from these sessions help shape how the Army implements the concept of Mission Command throughout not only the officer corps, but also the enlisted force?
Following the Chief of Staff video Brigadier General Davis gave a short breakdown of what he wants the students to concentrate on during the coming week. He first emphasized that he believes Mission Command is the right framework for operating in the uncertain operational environment we find ourselves in. Subsequently, he hit on four major concepts for the week. #1) Mission Command is NOT a new concept #2) Mission Command is part of a much larger Army effort #3) Mission Command is a key joint force concept #4) Mission Command is not appropriate in all situations. Interesting concept; are there really situations where the concepts of mission command should not be applied?
In conclusion, Brigadier General Davis asked the class to consider three questions of themselves during the Mission Command week. #1) How do commanders and staff build trust and shared understanding? #2) How do you set conditions for mission command in training and education? #3) How do you integrate essential leadership traits and attributes into Mission Command? The training aspect is interesting here as well as the idea of allowing subordinate leaders to FAIL in order to learn. Has the Army embraced a culture of learning from failures in training in order to succeed in war?
–MAJ Chad Steipp, SG 23A, CGSOC
8 Comments on "BG Davis Briefs Mission Command to CGSOC"
MAJ Steipp, you did an excellent job encapsulating what the CSA and BG Davis discussed during Mission Command Week. I would like to first comment on whether Mission Command was scheduled during the right time in the CGSOC curriculum. Yes, I believe Mission Command was scheduled appropriately because the initial portion of CGSC/ILE focused on attaining the critical thinking skills necessary for understanding and executing Mission Command successfully.
With regards to BG Davis’ areas of concentration, yes, I agree with him that Mission Command is not a new concept. However, I disagree that Mission Command is a key joint force concept, at least not yet. Case in point, the Joint Publications (JP) still refer to Command and Control and the Mission Command concept is absent from all the JPs that I have looked through. In this respect, I feel that the joint force is behind the Army in both codifying and educating the principles of Mission Command. I believe BG Davis’ is mostly correct in his assertion that Mission Command in not appropriate in all situations. I believe Mission Command is exercised in all situations, however, the level of supervision varies based on the amount of trust between leader and subordinate. A leader that does not trust his subordinate will exercise greater amounts of supervision giving the impression that there is no Mission Command. Nowhere in the Army can a leader solely accomplish every mission his/her unit is assigned. Tasks must be delegated with some intrinsic level of trust. The level of trust will determine exactly how much latitude a subordinate receives when accomplishing a mission. The concept of Mission Command has its foundation built squarely on trust and can only be gained through effective leader development. Whether leader development occurs through informal/formal counseling, leader professional development (LDP) instruction, or by assigning tasks of increased responsibility leaders will inherently learn their subordinate’s capability and potential. As time progresses and capabilities and potential increases, leaders will be more comfortable exercising Mission Command. This concept requires a top down approach and an emphasis by leaders to bolster leader development programs within their formations.
The Mission Command briefing to ILE Class 13-01 by MG Gordon B. Davis on Friday, 12 October 2012, provided an insight into the US Army’s attempt to exercise freedom of thought and innovation within the field grade ranks. The last decade of counterinsurgency operations has become somewhat draconian in nature and was exacerbated with the implementation of the latest high tech gadgets. Mission Command addresses the immediate concern of innovative thinking, freedom of thought, and the incorporation of fresh ideas into operational planning. More to the point, the Mission Command briefing given by MG Davis provided ILE Class 13-01 with an understanding of the US Army’s future vision for its leaders.
This is not a new concept and occurred repeatedly throughout the last century. The US Army’s history appears cyclical in its attempt to grant its young leaders the freedom necessary to grow and develop. It would seem that only during periods of a non-threatening nature is the concept of Mission Command accepted and then, hesitantly. The issue at hand is how current leaders will address Mission Command. Will they embrace it as ILE Class 13-01 has been briefed, or will it become another check-the-block exercise? Throughout Mission Command Week, the concept of individual initiative and a consciously absent “zero-defects” mentality was reinforced. Upon careful reflection of the week’s events and the spirit of Mission Command, I am not entirely convinced it will be embraced as Friday’s briefing suggests. One possible recommendation is the enforcement of Mission Command based on a combination of rating, reflecting its incorporation of performance, command climate, and potential on the individual level. Though the concept of Mission Command is nothing more than leadership by another title, perhaps it is something to be amalgamated into the leadership and ethics classes rather than as a separate concept.
MAJ Brian A. Kline
SG 20A
Maj Steipp, excellent summary of BG Davis’ kickoff of Mission Command week.
I agree that Mission Command is going to be the right framework to operate in the rapidly evolving operational framework that we all face in the future. As officers, we need to make sure we understand the commander’s intent and be willing to lead in scenarios where communication links and nodes have been lost due to varying unforeseen factors. I don’t see many situations where Mission Command wouldn’t apply. Even in situation where operations involve high-level coordination and control from higher, subordinates units must understand and internalize the operational intent in situation where close coordination and control is lost.
I have attempted to answer one of BG Davis’ questions that he asked class 13-01 to consider below.
How do commanders and staff build trust and shared understanding? I see this as the traditional problems leaders and subordinates face when organizational teams are initially formed. The only way to build this trust and shared understanding is through training and demonstrated competence among subordinates. Leaders will be responsible for initiating this training in order to build a level of confidence in their subordinate leaders. In addition, certain amount freedom to make individual decisions and related mistakes must be accepted and understood.
LCDR Michael Rutherford
Staff Group 23A
I do agree with the CSA’s point of view on the changing operational environment and requirement for the mission command philosophy. The concept of mission command has been utilized for many years but just named something else. I do believe the implementation of the six principles from the mission command philosophy is extremely important. The first principle of building cohesive teams through mutual trust is an extremely important piece to facilitate the mission command philosophy.
I also think this block of instruction should be focused into the L100 Leadership course. Since the mission command philosophy is the focal point for leadership in the army then it should be taught early as a building block for all other courses to expand upon. As senior leadership visits to discuss mission command philosophy the CSMs should be invited as well to provide their feedback and thoughts on the topic.
I do believe feedback will shape how the army implements the philosophy or art of mission command. It by no means will be a fast process but, as a field grade officer we can impact how this will play out. I do believe that the commanders must be educated and willing to use this philosophy since the commander is a large part of mission command. The hard part will be the measurement of how well the army is actually utilizing the mission command philosophy.
How do we train the art of mission command? I believe it is done with everything we in the army today. We must empower our subordinates with the trust and responsibility in order for them to learn. Training is where failure should occur if at all not in a combat environment. Making a mistake is alright as long as we learn from it. Mission command should be implemented (if not already) into all PME (CCC & PCC) in order to teach our younger soon to be company commanders as well as our new battalion commanders the philosophy and direction of the army is moving towards.
MAJ Shane Weller SG, 16D
In response to establishing Mission Command Week earlier in the academic year, I think CGSC needs to align overall course objectives with the Army priorities for professional military education. When looking at the philosophy of Mission Command, essentially we are examining the fundamental principles of leadership. Before students progress through the CGSOC curriculum objectives, students should be permitted the first week of the course to review recent leadership experiences and overlay them with the Mission Command philosophy. The week could then transition into the core curriculum and understanding of both Army and Joint Doctrine to progress from the small unit leadership role to the staff and commander’s role.
Looking at how the Army considers feedback from the Mission Command week and whether it will help shape both officer and enlisted implementation of Mission Command, I believe strongly that SNCOs (particularly Command Sergeant Majors) should be included as part of the course. As future staff officers and commanders, further development of our leadership attributes and understanding of Mission Command depends strongly on the role of the SNCOs. Small group discussions focusing on roles, responsibilities and expectations of SNCOs implementing the Commander’s Intent and working closely with the staff offers adds value to the overall ILE experience.
This leads into how commanders and staff build understanding and trust. Reflecting on recent combat experiences both from an officer and senior enlisted perspective validates the significance of mutual trust and shared understanding. The core curriculum needs to incorporate relationship building and communications between the commander, staff and senior enlisted leaders. Having this established in the curriculum from the beginning would eliminate divergence from the course objectives and overloading of requirements on the students, ultimately resulting in dilution of the significance of essential concepts.
Maj Gibson, SG 16D
MAJ Steipp, Agreed, Mission Command is not a new concept. The CSA is absolutely spot-on when he stated that this is important for our Army to understand and apply this concept. Although, the discussions we have had in our small group, with senior leaders this week, have all resonated the negative outcomes when working for a toxic leaders/Commanders. I think this concept should be tied more into the Leadership & Ethics blocks in order to facilitate the linkage and importance of Mission Command qualities of art rather than science are personality driven.
Furthermore, our SG instructor did a great job by having our small group apply Mission Command in several practical exercises, which brought us to the hardest portion of this concept the “how.” I think the key to understanding and comprehending this concept is working on more practical exercises on the “how” to apply this art.
However, what is the measure of effectiveness being used to ensure that this concept is being utilized by Commanders out in our Army today? Secondly, I know we are being instructed here at Fort Leavenworth for week on this concept, but what is the overall plan to assist us graduates, in accomplishing the CSAs task on implementing Mission Command with/for our Commanders? Both were left unclear following our discussions.
MAJ Keith Barclay, SG 23A
Great questions in regards to Mission Command.
Are there situations where the concepts of Mission Command should not be applied?
It is difficult to think of situations where concepts of Mission Command shouldn’t be applied. After discussing this question with my small group we concluded that Mission Command may not be applied in targeting. Targeting involving specific high payoff targets or perhaps targets that could lead to collateral damage could also be added to the list.
How do commanders and staff build trust and shared understanding?
You build trust and shared understanding by working together. Actions gain credibility and trust between subordinates and leadership. Leaders empowering and supporting subordinates and subordinates delivering with actions is critical to building trust.
Commander’s actions promote and lead an environment built on trust and empowerment. Commanders that trust and empower subordinates and decentralize power allow subordinates to seize and exploit the initiative.
How do you set conditions for Mission Command in training and education?
First task is we need to educate the field on what Mission Command is. Multiple leaders have already tasked us with “promoting and building understanding” of Mission Command at our next assignment. Promoting and empowering others to follow Mission Command will set the conditions for Mission Command.
How do you integrate essential leadership traits and attributes into Mission Command?
Mission Command provides the framework to build or strengthen leadership. The principles of Mission Command provide further foundations for essential leadership traits and attributes.
MAJ Troy Reiter, SG 23A
MAJ Steipp, great synopsis of BG Davis brief. With regard to your first question of whether MC week should have occurred earlier in the schedule; I think that it is just about right because we have had time to think about the various topics such as MDMP, Warfighting functions, etc. For many of us those topics were new so it may have been a little more difficult to fully engage on the topic if it was programed earlier in the course.
The concept of allowing subordinates to fail in order for them to learn is important but I think that it is easier said then done. With resources and time tightening, there is not as much latitude to allow for this in certain training. Another difficulty is our military culture shrieks at failure even if there are greater victories which follow. The pressure and bar does not allow for failure but those failures at home station training reveal and can shape leader’s character which is another important part of MC. I am not certain if this is ever done, but perhaps the training (opposing force in a simulation) should be so overwhelming that the leader will fail so that their response and character can also be tested. Regarding to your last question, I don’t think that the Army has embraced a culture of learning from failures in training in order to succeed in war.
CH (MAJ) Luis Kruger, SG 23A