Military Review English Edition November-December 2013 | Page 28

Chief among the risks in trying to implement mission command is that Army leaders at various levels
simply do not implement it. Those who brush off such
risks may not fully appreciate the effect that incomplete or incorrect implementation may have. Simply,
that a failure to practice the principles of mission command is a willful decision to revert to those practices,
which are anathema to it, namely: micromanagement,
risk-aversion, and the zero-defects mentality. If we
wish to have agile and adaptive leaders who can
execute complex tasks in uncertain environments,
these behaviors will guarantee we get just the opposite. Should we be concerned about this risk?
Recent critics in the public sphere have voiced
their concern that the mission command system
(the technological and organizational aspects of
the warfighting function) will ultimately undercut
the philosophy by empowering commanders with
an unprecedented capacity for micromanagement.
Given the choice between the art of command and
the science of control, the argument goes; the leaders
we have traditionally tended to develop will gravitate toward retaining greater control. For example,
Gregory Fontenot and Kevin Benson assert in The
Conundrum of Mission Command that a command
philosophy that treats command as an art is unrealistic. “Really—command is an art? If . . . the analogy
of command to art is valid, then we need to examine
our human resources and education systems, for they
produce far more scientists than artists.”10 Donald
Vandergriff similarly points out that the Army’s personnel system may not be best suited to the mission
command philosophy.11
Such assertions might raise a few eyebrows, if
for no other reason than they suggest the Army is
incapable of change. Are there skeptics in uniform,
echoing the criticism found in print and circulating
throughout the media, who doubt the Army can fully
inculcate the mission command philosophy within our
culture?12 Anyone deeply familiar with Army culture
may conclude that there are such skeptics; probably
many do doubt the days of micromanagement and
risk-aversion are behind us. However, the Mission
Command Strategy acknowledges this point; this
is the Army’s strategy, and therefore it is incumbent
upon leaders at every level to clarify the intent of
mission command, to ensure understanding, and to
see that subordinates have the opportunity to exercise
disciplined initiative.
26

The Army Mission Command Strategy recognizes that a cultural change must occur, and that
there are risks involved, and should now give
some reassuranc