Mission Command

– A toolkit for leadership under pressure

By Adam J Riley

“The leader builds dispersed and diverse leadership – distributing leadership to the outermost edges
of the circle to unleash the power of shared responsibility.”
- Frances Hesselbein
______________________________________________________________________________________

Management is about dealing with complexity while leadership, by contrast, is about coping with
change1, and as technology speeds the pace of this change, this fundamental challenge will become
ever more testing. With leaders required to perform in ever more diverse, dynamic and high pressure
environments, there is certainly no single leadership model or skill-set to guarantee success.
Increasingly leaders require a diverse set of leadership and management competencies combined
with an intuitive knowledge which can be used in any given environment. This of course must be
underpinned and supported by associated soft and interpersonal skills, allowing leaders to
communicate and inspire. Moreover the leader today must be able to demonstrate these
competencies not just while undertaking routine tasks, but must be able to deliver the same level of
high performance leadership under pressure and in high stakes environment.

Mission Command is a style of military leadership developed to allow leaders to continue to perform in
complex, change intensive and high pressure environments, by promoting decentralised command,
alignment, speed of action, and initiative. In essence, it is a methodology allowing staff to understand
their leader's intentions, their own part in them and the effect of their actions on the overall strategic
intent. Staff are told what effect they are to achieve and the reason why it needs to be achieved, then
use delegated freedom of action to decide how best to achieve their missions. Simply the key
discipline for leaders is that their staff are told what needs to be achieved and why but not how. It is
this key concept that encapsulates Mission Command and allows a leader to fully harness the skills of
his team – by giving them this freedom, leadership is encouraged at all levels and as Hesselbein
suggests, the leader can “unleash the power of shared responsibility” for his whole team.

At its core, Mission Command is a methodology underpinned by a set of practices and behaviors
aimed to provide clarity of task and purpose and to simplify complex environments. Its effectiveness is
well documented and has been proven in some of the most complex, dynamic and high pressure
environments available. It’s applications have risen in recent years as the battle-space in which
modern militaries operate changes from a traditional “war-fighting” scenario to encompass an ever
broader spectrum of peace-keeping, peace enforcement and nation-building operations. Mission
Command has remained a bedrock for the success of its leadership practitioners. With this
proliferation of employment we should consider Mission Command’s methodology, associated
behaviors and practices as of potential relevance in the “business-space” and assess transferable best
practice. This Strawman paper aims not to sell the methodology, but to provide an overview and
consider the associated behaviors. It will afford the reader both overall understanding and an
opportunity to asses the value of areas of best practice with-in their own environment. The
methodology behind Mission Command does not claim to be a single solution ensuring success, but
its development and use in some of the most complex and highest pressure environments around
make it worthy of study.

1 Kotter, J.P. 1998. What Leaders Really Do. HBR on Leadership. Boston. HBS Press

1
Historical Context – two centuries of development
“Every French soldier carriers a marshal’s baton in his knapsack.”

Napoleon

Mission Command was first documented and developed in the 1800’s by the Prussian Army 2 in
response to their crushing defeat at Jena in 1809. Centralized command had stifled their ability to
move and react quickly and leaders’ performance dropped significantly as their plans unraveled and
pressure grew. The Prussians were renowned for their ability to strictly execute central plans so after
their defeat, they took a serious look at the way they fought battles and the highly effective way in
which Napoleon had crushed them. The Prussian Army stood at 130,000 men the French at 56,000,
the Prussians suffered 25,000 casualties against a French loss of only 5,000. History has repeated
itself many times with numerous examples of such overwhelming defeats by minority forces simply
through better leadership enforcing clarity and alignment of the missions and by maintaining
performance in the face of change and pressure.

The Prussians took fundamental steps to reposition their whole philosophy of war-fighting and how
they led. They called the concept they developed “Auftragstaktik”, what we today call Mission
Command. The Prussians realized that the battlefield had changed – it had become fast moving and
unpredictable. Holding all decision making at central command was suffocating their ability to make
decisions. They reorganized their forces; senior officers who had been promoted due to time served or
worse still family lineage were replaced, officer recruitment broadened to advance the development
and promotion of officers and NCO’s on merit and performance. The entire military machine
underwent an overhaul which had at its heart the concept of “Auftragstaktik”. Senior Officers were
encouraged to give broad direction and junior officers were encouraged to exploit the freedom that
they had been given which would enable them to take advantage of unexpected opportunities and
deal with the inevitable crisis that occur the moment you embark upon your plan.

The fundamental principle was that at each level of command a leader would articulate a clear mission
to his subordinates complete with a unifying purpose to explain how his individual mission was to
contribute to the organization goal – in simple terms ensuring the subordinate could answer both “what
am I to do?” and importantly “why am I to do it?”. Importantly the subordinate was not told “how” to
achieve his mission; he was instead given resources – the tools at his disposal to do the job (such as
men and equipment), and constraints – the “space” in which he was free to act, defined by limits such
as time or geographical boundaries. Within these resource limits and constraints or boundaries the
subordinate was free to manage and lead without reference to higher command, as long as his actions
were in support of the broader organizational direction articulated by the answer to the “why am I to do
it?” question.

The ability of the Prussians to react swiftly to change increased as junior leaders were able to make
independent and swift decisions supporting the organizational direction, while their opponents
continued to be inhibited by excessive layers of command and a culture of referring every decision to
the top. A culture that was comfortable with imperfect information, change and pressure developed.
The ensuing outperforming of the competition directly contributed to their military dominance during
the following period of history. The ability of the Prussian army to manage uncertainty and act in a
more agile manor than their opponents has a clear reflection in what business attempts to achieve
today in securing a competitive advantage in their markets.

2 The concept of Mission Command was first documented by Clausewitz in his book “On War”, based on his

experiences as an Officer in the Prussian Army of the 1800’s

2
Modern Developments
Since the first demonstration of its utility by the Prussians, Mission Command has developed and has
been employed by a range of successful military bodies. It was officially adopted by NATO forces in
the 1990’s, and although significantly developed, the basic tenants remain the same. The British
Army’s thinking in this area developed significantly during the 1980’s when it delivered it’s
“Manouverist”3 doctrine demanding empowerment of junior leadership and organizational agility on the
battlefield in order to counter the numerical superiority of the now defunct Warsaw Pact. In addition it
was employed to help combat the daily unforeseen activity that means even the best laid plans don’t
survive first contact with the real world. This is equally true in the business context.

More recently, since the beginning of the so-called “War on Terror”, the battle-space has transformed
almost beyond recognition. The historical two-dimensional model has morphed to an “asymmetric” or
3-block 4 environment. While detailed analysis of these concepts is beyond the scope of this paper, the
basic message is that modern militaries are being asked to deliver high performance on an ever
broader spectrum encompassing deployments from traditional war-fighting to nation building and
peace keeping. Importantly it is the same troops that are being asked to perform in these different
environments, and thus their leaders are expected to be able to utilize the same competency set to
deliver in them all. Moreover, increasingly leaders are required to make decisions faster, having
considered more information than ever before and with higher levels of uncertainty – in short under
ever greater levels of pressure. Despite the vastly different leadership environments and challenges
this presents, Mission Command remains the constant and basic building block on which success is
built. The proven versatility of Mission Command in these environments has increased the level of
interest from the broader Defense community, and indeed in the private sector, in possible leadership
best practices that can be exploited outside of the traditional Defense environments.

“The mental side of performance is massive. It isn’t necessarily the best team that wins, but the team that can
perform correctly under pressure.”

Sir Clive Woodward

Our lives are increasingly dominated by pressurized situations. In our business lives we can
experience pressure whilst meeting with our clients or customers, with our bosses, or subordinates.
Pressure can creep into our personal lives too, in managing relationships, or just coping with where we
live. How we cope with that pressure, then, becomes a major factor in determining the outcome of the
situation. One of the fundamental issues characterizing both modern military operational theatres and
the commercial world is the idea of what Clausewitz5 called ‘Friction’. Clausewitz stated that
"everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult". Specifically he commented that
problems will occur with misplaced communications, troops going to the wrong location, delays caused
by weather and it is the duty of the leader to do his best to overcome them. In business, as in war, life
simply happens and wreaks havoc with even the best laid plans.

Common themes throughout the development of Mission Command are the high pressure and change
intensive environments in which it has occurred. Supporting culture, behaviors and tools have been
refined to better support the leader and allow maximum benefit to be taken from the use of the
methodology. Increasingly we see this kind of environment across the leadership spectrum and

3 “Manouverist” Doctrine was developed during the Cold War and is based around the concept of defeating a
numerically superior enemy through greater agility on the battlefield.
4 The concept of the 3-block war was developed by General Charles Krulak of the US Marine Corps, based on

the notion that at any one time the same force could be war-fighting in one block of a city, engaged in counter-
insurgency in the next and assisting with nation-building efforts in a third.
5 Karl Von Clausewitz in his book “On War”; currently a key part of the syllabus considering leadership

competencies both at both US War College and UK Defense Academy

3
although not the “life and death” situation experienced on the battlefield, the pace of change, friction
and associated levels of pressure in modern business environments mean that the challenges are not
dissimilar and ensure that the drive to develop leaders who can still deliver high performance against
this backdrop of change and pressure becomes ever stronger.

Fundamentals
The fundamental principles of Mission Command are broken down into three key leadership activities
which form a continuous cycle of planning, communication and review. This process flow, shown
diagrammatically below, is a simple one – and deliberately so; complex models aimed at providing
simplicity are an oxymoron. Equally it is no accident that the process is designed to be repeated at
each level of command using the same format; this drives alignment.

Leadership in High Stakes Environs

Visioning / Communication
Methodology Planning

Briefing: De-Briefing:
Set of principles Mission Scenario Cascade Progress
promoting trust, Planning Rehearsal Alignment Review
decentralized Clarity Improvement
command, freedom of Direction Intelligence
action and initiative. Successes
Mission Scope
Development of
best possible
course of action

Figure 1 – Steps of Mission Command.

The methodology of mission command is a set of cultural norms, supported by a range of leadership
behaviors that will be considered in more detail later. Once the norms are established, the
methodology is supported by two fundamental processes, planning and communication. Importantly
communication encompases both the articulation of the plan (briefing) and an open review process
(de-briefing). These steps are not intended as a rigid template and a dynamic environment will
demand that they are often undertaken in parallel. Moreover the process of de-briefing or review can
often be linked in a cycle back to the planning activity if the review identifies a need for the plan to
change.

4
Mission Analysis – Visioning & Planning
"If you do not know where you are going, every road will get you nowhere."

Henry Kissinger

Visioning and planning are widely recognized as key leadership competencies and the methodology of
Mission Command labels the suite of activities therein as “Mission Analysis”. The leader conducts an
analytical exercise to understand his own mission in the context of overall strategic intent, allowing him
to visualize what success will look like and importantly how that success aligns to the strategic intent.
He will give detailed consideration to the freedoms and constraints he has been given and identify the
reporting milestones.

Once the mission is clearly understood, scenario planning is used to consider the impact of the
different courses of action a leader has open to him to achieve his goal. He will consider a number of
different ways in which he could use his resources and freedoms to achieve his mission and then
conduct an analytic exercise to consider possible reactions, both internally and of third parties to given
parts of his plan. This technique, know as “mission rehearsal” by the military, allows the leader to
consider each phase of his plan, assess risks and pitfalls and constantly refer back to the intent or
“reason why” to ensure he is acting in alignment with higher intent. This process can be conducted in
isolation or could be developed to include a range of other individuals, either contributing through
assessment or even by role playing other actors within the environment. For example, other team
members act as competitors, and assess what their reaction would be to a given action in the leader’s
plan. This allows consideration of who the environment may change as the plan progresses and
anticipation of the “friction” Clausewitz discusses starts to come into plan.

“Disaster” scenarios can be fed in at this stage, to consider for example the worst possible course of
action by a competitor of a significant change in legislation. This helps the development of contingency
plans in the event of such an eventuality occurring and also allows better performance under pressure
as the leader has already considered the impact of, and his reaction to, events that serve to contribute
to such pressure. A classic example of this is how the British Army has used the technique on current
operations in Iraq. The leader about to embark on a routine patrol, considers what would happen if
ambushed on each leg of the patrol and how he would react. By doing this he both develops
contingency plans and knows what he will do if the worst happens – when disaster strikes, he can
operate better under the associated pressure having already considered his reaction to the same.

At the end of the above analytical process the leader will chose the best course of action and a high
level plan will be developed as the leader visualizes the steps along the route to the end-state. He will
confirm that the end-state he has visualized is in line with the strategic direction that has been
articulated to him and that at all stages he supports the objectives of his own superiors. Armed with
this picture and outline roadmap, and confident of it’s contribution to the higher goal, the leader
conducts more detailed planning, allocating his resources within the boundaries and constraints he
has been set. He will develop the plan and identify what effect his subordinates are to achieve, what
resources he will allocate to them to do this and how to shape their business space.

This process of analysis with consideration of strategic intent at all levels is the key to ensuring
alignment of tasks and teams. This alignment not only builds commitment but helps to simplify
complex, multi-stage projects. Moreover as the inevitable changes occur and pressure increases,
leaders at all levels have a clear understanding of, and confidence in, the overall intent which allows
them to retain a clear focus on the outcome they are seeking and its broader effect. The discipline of
the leader taking time to make sure he has understood the task given to him, what the successful end-
state will look like and to visualize a roadmap to that point is a crucial activity to mitigate pressure. Too
many leaders, under pressure to deliver “something now”, embark on a plan before they have clearly
analyzed it or thought it through to such an end-state. This is a classic false economy and will only
serve to add to the pressure as the ill-defined plan unravels; better to adhere to the disciple discussed

5
above and start slightly later with a clearly defined and workable plan that both delivers the desired
effect and is aligned with strategic direction.

Effective Communications – The Briefing Process

Communication or the “briefing” of the plan to subordinates follows the Mission Analysis phase.
Regardless of the process used, the passage of information from leader to subordinate is crucial to the
success of any plan. Many leaders favor face-to-face briefings where he can impart the force of his
personality and enthusiasm into the process, while others would argue the written form or a set
template ensures accuracy and understanding. While formats can be adjusted to suit organizational
needs and culture and should not be slavishly adhered to, at every given level staff should receive
from their leader at least an agreed minimum package of information. The means of delivery of this
information is of course a decision for the individual leader and will be based on the team, situation
and the leader himself.

The briefing process also provides a simple point of reference as the task develops and can be
referred back to as required. The headlines within the a briefing template can be developed to suit a
given organization, but in all cases will ensure that the leader supports Mission Command by giving
his subordinates all of the information required to allow them to develop their own plan to achieve
individual team tasks. It will also ensure the alignment of the same with the leaders’ own mission.
Again the example below is not aimed as a template, but shows an example of the British Army’s
orders process, which ensures that even under the most extreme pressure, leaders consider and
articulate all of the key issues during the briefing process.

Information Explanation
Mission What the junior leader is to achieve

Unifying Why the junior leader is to achieve the mission and how this will contribute
Purpose to the broader business / project goals

Broad Intent An overview of the broad intentions of the leader two levels up, to give a
two levels up broad understanding of the higher level issues

Detailed Intent A detailed explanation of what the leader giving the mission is trying to
one level up achieve, how that contributes to broader goals and a summary of the
contribution of any other business units that the manager is responsible
for giving missions to.
6
Main Effort The Critical Success Factor that will make or break the project towards
which all business activity will contribute.

Resources The resources (cash, manpower, equipment) that have been allocated to
complete the mission.

Constraints An articulation of the business space in which the junior leader can have
“freedom of action”, without the need to refer decisions upwards. This may
include time, financial limits of geographic boundaries.

Reporting Points as which the junior leader must report progress and articulate
Points / changes in his plan to his superior.
Milestones
Clarification & An opportunity at the end of the communication of the plan for
Questions subordinates to seek clarification where require and the leader to discuss
areas to confirm understanding.

Figure 2 – Mission Briefing Template.

6 The British Army defines the Main Effort as the single act or achievement that will ensure the success of the

mission.

6
Debriefing – Review & Development
Effective communications do of course not end with the initial briefing and allowing subordinates
freedom to develop their own plans does not mean that the leader does not maintain ownership of the
whole and therefore there remains a requirement to monitor progress, provide support and develop
process and performance. Mission Command employs the debriefing process to track progress and
performance in a high pressure and dynamic environment. The process is a combination of progress
monitoring performance assessment and executive coaching that allows the leader to provide review,
have oversight and give guidance at agreed points or at end phases of activity, although being careful
to allow subordinates the freedom to add value that they have been promised. It also affords the
opportunity to capture best practice.

Typically debriefing occurs at major milestones or at the end of phases in a task, but can be
programmed in as required. Format and style can be adapted to suit organizational cultures, but the
process involves an open and honest review of progress and performance identifying if both
individuals (including the leader himself) and the team are on track and continuing to support the
higher strategic intent. Where appropriate, mistakes are analyzed openly and solutions put in place to
prevent repeat; positives are brought out of this as best practice and processes refined. The process
allows leaders to effectively monitor progress and provide regular high-quality objective feedback on
collective and individual performance without limiting the freedoms that underpin Mission Command.
This also provides an effective system for knowledge management and transfer. An example of a
template for the De-briefing process developed within the Capability Development function in the MOD
is shown below:

• P – Progress to date
• R – Review of situation against plan
• I - Improvements - Quick wins, long term
• I - Intelligence - What have we learnt
• S - Successes - What went well
• M – Mission Scope - Was the mission achievable

Figure 3 – De-Briefing Template

Through regular debriefs the leader can also review the dynamic environment in which he operates
and consider the effect of internal and external change. Once significant change is identified he will
revisit the Mission Analysis process to consider how these changes may affect existing plans. If
required, the process can then be used to refine or develop these existing plans – the ingrained focus
on supporting the strategic intent ensures that decisions are made on the basis of the current situation
as opposed to inertia or emotional capital invested in existing plans. Honest debriefing focuses
decisions on the desired outcomes. Encouraging the development of processes to support this focus
on outcomes prevents process becoming an end in itself. Pressure is again a key factor, with
communications often being one of the first causalities of a worsening environment. A structured
debriefing process affords the leader an opportunity to keep lines of communication open and to
maintain a clear picture of the situation when the pressure of a given situation increases.

7
Supporting Behaviors & Culture
“Leadership is a combination of strategy and character. If you must be without one, be without the strategy"

General H. Norman Schwarzkopf

Having explored the basic mechanics of Mission Command, it is important to consider the underlying
leadership behaviors and culture that will facilitate its success. As Schwarzkopf 7 suggests, without the
appropriate character or culture to deliver a leadership strategy, the strategy itself is useless. It is no
co-incidence that the key traits or behaviors discussed below are common to many leadership
methodologies and indeed all are the subject of much research in the leadership development arena in
their own rights. There are of course numerous leadership behaviors that can be associated to Mission
Command, but those identified below are fundamental to developing a culture where Mission
Command can flourish and where leaders can effectively employ it.

1. Trust
Mission Command cannot succeed without trust in subordinates. Not only does engendering
this culture create a more positive working environment, but it also strengthens the bond
between leader and subordinate. Additionally it puts more onus on leaders at all levels to
develop their teams, as the greater the skill set of the team, the greater the trust the leader is
likely to put in them. Leaders must trust there subordinates by giving them sufficient recourses
and significantly wide constraints to allow them to achieve the mission they have been
allocated. Equally he must allow the junior leader to react to change and develop the plan
within those constraints without the need to apply the “long screwdriver”. Trusting subordinates
to deliver also removes the need for time intensive constant oversight referral of all decisions
for approval – allowing the leader time to focus his efforts where it is most needed and
reducing the overall level of pressure on him

2. Empowerment
By giving leaders at all levels greater autonomy we are allowing them to fully utilize there skill-
set and add maximum value by bringing all of their skills and experience to bear. Additionally
time wasted in top heavy decisions conferences or producing lengthy briefings for the next
level of management is reduced, allowing more time for gainful work and value creation.
Delegation in high stakes environments not only allows subordinates to feel they are critical to
the overall success of the mission but also means they have a clear understanding of the
bigger picture. Knowing what is expected of them, and why, means they can engage with and
contribute fully to the overall intent.

3. Responsibility
While leaders can devolve decision making, authority and accountability for project areas, they
can not and must not attempt to delegate responsibility. The overall responsibility for the
mission, a leader has been given, remains his and his alone regardless of what he has asked
his subordinates to do. Attempts to blame subordinates for failure through delegation of
responsibility is a major leadership failing, erodes trust and demonstrates an alarming lack of
integrity in a leader. It is key that leaders understand the difference between trusting a
subordinate and attempts to devolve ultimate responsibility to them. It is often a fine line and
developing this judgment is a key training issue if mission command is to be used successfully.

4. Integrity
Underpinning the controlled autonomy leaders at all levels have is an atmosphere of honesty
and integrity. It works both ways and the leader must be honest with him about the missions he

7 General Normal H Schwarzkopf in his autobiography “It doesn’t take a hero “

8
 gives to his subordinates and what level of accountability he can delegate. As explored above
maintaining ultimate responsibility is a key leadership function. Conversely the junior leader
must be honest with himself in terms of his ability to autonomously complete the mission he
has been given, but also be honest with his leader in terms of progress and issues.

5. Alignment
To achieve full value from the freedom allowed to junior leaders, they must be clear of the
bigger picture and how their actions are contributing to it. The briefing of leaders’ intent one
and two levels up together with the associated main effort (or critical success factor) allows
understanding of this bigger picture. This in turn will facilitate alignment of tasks and if
delivered correctly, ensures that as missions cascade down from senior to junior levels of
management. Although the detail and volume of information passed will change, effective
communication of key organizational goals and broad strategic direction will be maintained. In
pressured environments, this kind of alignment is crucial to performance as teams are able to
effectively support organizational goals, even if the situation changes, without constant and
time consuming referral of all decisions to leadership.

Outcomes & Benefits

"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity".

George Patton

If individual behaviors are in place and a supportive leadership culture can be achieved the benefits
from the most junior team to the strategic level of the employment of Mission Command can be
significant. In additional to an appreciative rise in the collective performance levels of its’ leaders, other
major benefits organizations employing the methodology, or parts thereof, note are a rise in
organizational agility, an improvement of communications, increased capture and use of best practice
and a rise in employee commitment.

Leadership performance has been seen to improve across the organization, both through the
supporting process and culture but also by the mitigation of the negative effects of pressure. In
addition to the alignment of his team with the strategic objective, which can significantly lessen the
pressure on a leader, tools to simplify a complex task, increasing contributions from junior leadership,
a focus on outcomes over process, provision of an effective communications template and the
acceptance of a suitable period of analysis prior to action provided by the Mission Command
methodology all have the same effect. Pressure on the leader is reduced allowing him to focus on key
strategic and leadership issues and maintain his performance levels.

At an organizational level, the ability to react quickly to change - its agility - is significantly improved.
This alone can give a significant competitive advantage as it will allow an organization to react faster
than its competitors. The embracing of a change culture ingrained into the Mission Command culture,
through among other things the delegation of decision making, means an organization’s ability to cope
with, and manage, change will be improved as traditional inertia and barriers are substantially
reduced.

The provision of an effective communications structure which supports Mission Command will also
develop the flow of information across the organization. The processes supporting alignment ensure a
better understanding and communication of the vision and direction and briefing / de-briefing activities
further support this. De-briefing also supports the capture of best practice by providing a forum in
which both the positive and negative of existing process can be discussed openly. Moreover a culture
which focuses on outcomes and embraces change is also one in which this best practice can be
implemented without significant resistance.

9
At all levels, but particularly the junior leadership level, the experience of organizations that have
embraced Mission Command suggests that commitment is significantly improved, as employees feel
trusted, engaged and can see how their efforts are contributing directly to the overall plan. It is also of
note that this cycle, which begins with leaders empowering and trusting their employees, has
enormous scope to be self-reinforcing. As trust is devolved and risk managed successfully at a lower
level, so the confidence of the leader in the subordinate position grows as does the self-confidence
and commitment of the latter. Performance improves and competencies develop as a result, allowing
more trust to be placed in the subordinate and the value he adds continue to grow. This is perhaps
best represented diagrammatically:

Objectives
align

Commitment Performance
rises Improves

Figure 4 – The Alignment Benefits Loop.

The development of the methodology or Mission Command is rooted within the military, however its
development over recent years has clearly demonstrated that it is not a rigid template for the
battlefield, but more a set of practices and behaviors that revolve around empowerment and alignment
of leaders right down to the lowest level. It is aimed at getting maximum value from all leaders in an
organization and at increasing commitment through the development of trust. Moreover it is aimed at
developing organizational agility and speed of response to change.

It is certainly not a catch all concept that will solve all leadership issues and is of course but one of a
myriad of leadership theories and models currently circulating. Its principles do however come with
extensive credentials from their use in a vast range of complex and challenging environments and this
certainly makes it worthy of further consideration. Its success depends on the creation of an
environment of trust and commitment, underpinned by an understanding of the “bigger picture” and
each team’s part in it – in essence the alignment of all business units with broader organizational
goals. It requires significant discipline and buy-in from leaders at all levels, but the rewards, if it is
implemented successfully, can be significant.

This paper does not seek to “sell” Mission Command, but simply to raise their awareness of it as a
methodology and challenge readers to consider areas of best practice derived from it that could be
employed in their own business space to increase their and their team’s effectiveness. The author has
used Mission Command, or parts of the associated methodologies, to support Leadership
Development interventions in the Defense, Public and Private sectors.

Adam Riley

10