Military Review English Edition November-December 2013

E M B R AC I N G M I S S I O N CO M M A N D they work in practice. If a subordinate is trusted to make prudent risk judgments, do we not stand by our original decision to trust that person if those judgments prove wrong? Will subordinates in turn trust their leaders enough that they Operational Domain Institutional Domain will assume risk and take initiative Training Education when the opportunity arises? On Experience Experience Education Training the other hand, will experience teach them that it is better to play it Leader safe, take a center-of-mass evaluDevelopment ation, and move on? The Army sees itself as a learning institution, and as such, we Self-Development Domain should never stop asking quesExperience tions. As we search for those Education Training answers, each of us would do well to ponder how mission command would affect the manner in which we think, act, and lead. We can Abstract Conceptualization look within our organizations and decide how best to promote Figure 4 and reward adaptive, bold, and Hypothetical model of experiential learning across all leader development domains. imaginative leaders. 23 Maybe this is the appropriate juncture in which the Army could examine our human resources system, continuous learning, and in turn provide feedback and find ways to look at careers holistically. Gen. in the institutional domain at every opportunity. Robert Cone, commander of U.S. Army Training This best informs how to approach changes to and Doctrine Command, recently stated, “Such doctrine, training, education, and leader devel- leaders cannot be mass produced. Our personnel opment. systems are going to have to resist the temptation to treat people as a commodity and evolve to look Opportunities for the Next Turn at each as an individual.”24 We have established mission command as a Of course, we will have further questions to ask philosophy of command codified in doctrine. if we wish to contemplate such a change. Have we Leaders in every situation and every setting must really considered the question of who is number practice it. If we only partially employ it in cer- one among our subordinates? Did the leader make tain contexts, then surely it will never permeate mistakes and not assume risk? Alternatively, did our leadership culture, and accordingly it will die the leader take risks and make mistakes, but learn a quick death as another bygone catchphrase. It from them, correct them, and ultimately succeed? is a philosophy that values those who take risks, Should we expect to find a great number of subbut who do so deliberately and prudently. While ordinates who assume much risk and somehow leadership doctrine as currently written recognizes never make mistakes? it is only prudent to make checks and corrections, Perhaps there are opportunities to inculcate good organizations are founded on trust in expe- further mission command that we have not conrienced and empowered subordinates.22 Presently sidered. An important first step may be to address as always, leaders will judge theories by how well the concern that the philosophy is taking a back Concrete Experience Active Experimentation Reflective Observation MILITARY REVIEW • November-December 2013 29

Military Review English Edition November-December 2013 | Page 31