PRINCIPLES OF MISSION COMMAND
2-1. The mission command philosophy helps commanders counter the uncertainty of
operations by reducing the amount of certainty needed to act. Commanders
understand that some decisions must be made quickly and are better made at the point
of action. Mission command is based on mutual trust and a shared understanding and
purpose between commanders, subordinates, staffs, and unified action partners. It
requires every Soldier to be prepared to assume responsibility, maintain unity of
effort, take prudent action, and act resourcefully within the commander’s intent.
2-2. Through leadership, commanders build teams. They develop and maintain mutual
trust and a shared understanding throughout the force and with unified action partners.
Commanders understand that subordinates and staffs require resources and a clear
intent to guide their actions. They allow them the freedom of action to exercise
disciplined initiative to adapt to changing situations. Because mission command
decentralizes decision making authority and grants subordinates’ significant freedom
of action, it demands more of commanders at all levels and requires rigorous training
and education.
2-3. In exercising mission command, commanders are guided by six principles—
Build cohesive teams through mutual
Create shared understanding.
Provide a clear commander’s intent.
Exercise
trust.
disciplined initiative.
Use mission orders.
Accept prudent risk.
BUILD COHESIVE TEAMS THROUGH MUTUAL TRUST
2-4. Mutual trust is shared confidence among commanders, subordinates, and
partners. Effective commanders build cohesive teams in an environment of mutual
trust. There are few shortcuts to gaining the trust of others. Developing trust takes
time, and it must be earned. It is the result of upholding the Army values and
exercising leadership, consistent with the Army leadership principles.
2-5. Trust is gained or lost through everyday actions more than grand or occasional
gestures. Trust is based on personal qualities, such as professional competence,
personal example, and integrity. Soldiers must see values in action before they
become a basis for trust. Trust comes from successful shared experiences and training,
usually gained incidental to operations but also deliberately developed by the
commander. During shared experiences, the two-way communication and interaction
between the commander, subordinates, and Soldiers reinforces trust. Soldiers expect
to see the chain of command accomplishing the mission while taking care of their
welfare and sharing hardships and danger.
17 May 2012 ADRP 6-0 2-1
Chapter 2
2-6. Trust must flow throughout the chain of command. To function effectively,
commanders must trust their subordinates, and subordinates must trust their
commanders. Subordinates are more willing to exercise initiative when they believe
their commander trusts them. They will also be more willing to exercise initiative if
they believe their higher commander will accept and support the outcome of their
decisions. Likewise, commanders delegate greater authority to subordinates whose
judgment they trust.
2-7. Commanders initiate team building, both inside and outside their organizations,
as early as possible and maintain it throughout operations. Team building requires
hard work, patience, time, and interpersonal skill from all leaders and team members.
Commanders must trust and earn the trust of their unified action partners and key
leaders within the operational area. Building trust with unified action partners and key
leaders requires significant effort by commanders and staffs to overcome differences
in cultures, mandates, and organizational capabilities.
2-8. Effective commanders build teams within their own organizations and with
unified action partners through interpersonal relationships. Unified action partners are
those military forces, governmental and nongovernmental organizations, and elements
of the private sector that Army forces plan, coordinate, synchronize, and integrate
with during the conduct of operations (ADRP 3-0). Uniting all the diverse capabilities
necessary to achieve success in operations requires collaborative and cooperative
efforts that focus those capabilities toward a common goal. Where military forces
typically demand unity of command, a challenge for building teams with unified
action partners is to forge unity of effort. Unity of effort is the coordination and
cooperation toward common objectives, even if the participants are not necessarily
part of the same command or organization—the product of successful unified action
(JP 1).
CREATE SHARED UNDERSTANDING
2-9. A critical challenge for commanders, staffs, and unified action partners is
creating shared understanding of their operational environment, the operation’s
purpose, problems, and approaches to solving them. Shared understanding and
purpose form the basis for unity of effort and trust. Commanders and staffs actively
build and maintain shared understanding within the force and with unified action
partners by continual collaboration throughout the operations process (planning,
preparation, execution, and assessment). They collaboratively frame the operational
environment, frame problems, and visualize approaches to solving them. Red teams
help commanders understand the alternative perspectives of unified action partners,
adversaries, and others.
2-10. Collaboration is not merely coordination. Collaboration is two or more people or
organizations working together towards a common goal. Through collaboration,
commanders establish human connections to create a shared understanding. They use
dialogue to build trust and facilitate information sharing. Effective commanders and
staffs use collaboration and dialogue to create a shared understanding of the
operational issues, concerns, and approaches to solving them. Commanders gain
valuable insight and while also sharing their own vision and commander’s intent.
2-11. Establishing a culture of collaboration is difficult but necessary. Through
collaboration and dialogue, participants share information and perspectives, question
assumptions, and exchange ideas to help create and maintain shared understanding,
resolve potential misunderstandings, and assess the progress of operations. Shared
understanding takes time to establish. Successful commanders invest the time and
effort to visit with Soldiers, subordinate leaders, and partners to understand their
issues and concerns. Through such interaction, subordinates and partners gain insight
into the commander’s leadership style and the issues and concerns of the commander.
An excellent historical example of command based on trust and shared understanding
is Grant’s orders to Sherman in 1864 (page 2-3).
2-2
ADRP 6-0 17 May 2012
The Mission Command Philosophy of Command
Command Based on Mutual Trust and Shared Understanding— Grant’s Orders to Sherman, 1864
In a letter to MG William T. Sherman, dated 4 April 1864, LTG Ulysses S. Grant outlined his 1864
campaign plan. LTG Grant described MG Sherman’s role:
“It is my design, if the enemy keep quiet and allow me to take the initiative in the Spring Campaign to
work all parts of the Army together, and, somewhat, toward a common center. . . . You I propose to move
against Johnston’s Army, to break it up and to get into the interior of the enemy’s country as far as you
can, inflicting all the damage you can against their War resources. I do not propose to lay down for you a
plan of Campaign, but simply to lay down the work it is desirable to have done and leave you free to
execute in your own way. Submit to me however as early as you can your plan of operation.”
MG Sherman responded to LTG Grant immediately in a letter dated 10 April 1864. He sent Grant, as
requested, his specific plan of operations, demonstrating that he understood Grant’s intent:
“ . . . Your two letters of April 4th are now before me . . . That we are now all to act in a Common plan,
Converging on a Common Center, looks like Enlightened War. . . . I will not let side issues draw me off
from your main plan in which I am to Knock Joe [Confederate GEN Joseph E.] Johnston, and do as much
damage to the resources of the Enemy as possible. . . . I would ever bear in mind that Johnston is at all
times to be kept so busy that he cannot in any event send any part of his command against you or [Union
MG Nathaniel P.] Banks.”
The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, Volume 10: January 1–May 31, 1864, by Ulysses S.
Grant, edited by John Y. Simon. Ulysses S. Grant Foundation. ©1982.
Excerpt from pages 251 through 254, used by permission.
PROVIDE A CLEAR COMMANDER’S INTENT
2-12. The commander’s intent is a clear and concise expression of the purpose of the
operation and the desired military end state that supports mission command, provides
focus to the staff, and helps subordinate and supporting commanders act to achieve
the commander’s desired results without further orders, even when the operation does
not unfold as planned (JP 3-0). The higher commander’s intent provides the basis for
unity of effort throughout the larger force. Each commander’s intent nests within the
higher commander’s intent.
2-13. Commanders articulate the overall reason for the operation so forces understand
why it is being conducted. They use the commander’s intent to explain the broader
purpose of the operation beyond that of the mission statement. Doing this allows
subordinate commanders and Soldiers to gain insight into what is expected of them,
what constraints apply, and most importantly, why the mission is being conducted.
2-14. The commander’s intent becomes the basis on which staffs and subordinate
leaders develop plans and orders that transform thought into action. A well-crafted
commander’s intent conveys a clear image of the operation’s purpose, key tasks, and
the desired outcome. The commander’s intent provides a focus for subordinates to
coordinate their separate efforts. Commanders personally prepare their commander’s
intent. When possible, they deliver it in person. Face-to-face delivery ensures mutual
understanding of what the commander wants by allowing immediate clarification of
specific points. Individuals can then exercise disciplined initiative within the
overarching guidance provided in the commander’s intent. The shorter the
commander’s intent, the better it serves these purposes. Typically, the commander’s
intent consists of three to five sentences. A clear commander’s intent that lower-level
leaders can understand is key to maintaining unity of effort. Soldiers two echelons
down must easily remember and clearly understand the commander’s intent. (See
ADRP 5-0 for the format of the commander’s intent.)
17 May 2012 ADRP 6-0 2-3
Chapter 2
2-15. Successful commanders understand they cannot provide guidance or direction
for all contingencies. Commanders formulate and communicate their commander’s
intent to describe the boundaries within which subordinates may exercise disciplined
initiative while maintaining unity of effort. Commanders collaborate and dialogue
with subordinates to ensure they understand the commander’s intent. Subordinates
aware of the commander’s intent are far more likely to exercise initiative in
unexpected situations. Under mission command, subordinates are required to use their
initiative to make decisions that further their higher commander’s intent. Subordinates
use the commander’s intent, together with the mission statement and concept of the
operation, to accomplish the mission. Empowered with trust, authority, and a shared
understanding, they can develop the situation, adapt, and act decisively under fluid,
dynamic conditions.
EXERCISE DISCIPLINED INITIATIVE
2-16. Leaders and subordinates who exercise disciplined initiative create opportunity
by taking action to develop the situation. Disciplined initiative is action in the absence
of orders, when existing orders no longer fit the situation, or when unforeseen
opportunities or threats arise. Commanders rely on subordinates to act. A
subordinate’s disciplined initiative may be the starting point for seizing the tactical
initiative. This willingness to act helps develop and maintain operational initiative
used by forces to set or dictate the terms of action throughout an operation.
2-17. The commander’s intent defines the limits within which subordinates may
exercise initiative. It gives subordinates the confidence to apply their judgment in
ambiguous situations because they know the mission’s purpose, key tasks, and desired
end state. They can take actions they think will best accomplish the mission.
Subordinate leaders may need to act quickly to seize, retain, or exploit the initiative,
even as they report the situation to their commanders.
2-18. Encouraging disciplined initiative frees commanders to focus on higher-level
tasks and decisions. Using disciplined initiative, subordinates strive to solve many
unanticipated problems. Leaders and Soldiers do not need to be told exactly how to
accomplish missions. They perform the necessary coordination and take appropriate
action when existing orders no longer fit the situation.
2-19. Commanders and subordinates are obligated to follow lawful orders.
Commanders deviate from orders only when they are unlawful, risk the lives of
Soldiers, or when orders no longer fit the situation. Subordinates inform their
superiors as soon as possible when they have deviated from orders. Adhering to
applicable laws and regulations when exercising disciplined initiative builds
credibility and legitimacy. Straying beyond legal boundaries undermines trust and
jeopardizes tactical, operational, and strategic success; this must be avoided.
USE MISSION ORDERS
2-20. Commanders use mission orders to assign tasks, allocate resources, and issue
broad guidance. Mission orders are directives that emphasize to subordinates the
results to be attained, not how they are to achieve them (ADP 6-0). They provide
subordinates the maximum freedom of action in determining how to best accomplish
missions. Mission orders seek to maximize individual initiative, while relying on
lateral coordination between units and vertical coordination up and down the chain of
command. The effectiveness of this technique has stood the test of time. In 1939, FM
100-5 explained mission orders succinctly:
An order should not trespass upon the province of a subordinate. It should contain
everything that the subordinate must know to carry out his mission, but nothing more.
. . . Above all, it must be adapted to the circumstances under which it will be received
and executed.
FM 100-5 (1939)
2-21. The mission orders technique does not mean commanders do not supervise
subordinates in execution. Commanders provide direction and guidance required to
focus the activities on the achievement of the main objective, set priorities, allocate
resources, and influence the situation. However, they do not micromanage. They
intervene during execution only to direct changes as necessary to the concept of
operations.
2-4
ADRP 6-0 17 May 2012
2-22. Mission orders follow the five-paragraph operation order format (described in
ATTP 5-0.1). Under mission command, orders and plans are as brief and simple as
possible. Mission orders state the task organization, commander’s intent and concept
of operations, mission, tasks to subordinate units, and minimum essential coordinating
instructions. Tasks to subordinate units include all the standard elements (who, what,
when, where, and why), with particular emphasis on the purpose (why). The tasks,
along with the commander’s intent, guide subordinates’ initiative. Effective mission
orders limit the number tasks explicitly assigned to subordinates. They provide just
enough detail to coordinate the activities of the force. They seldom detail exactly how
subordinates must perform their tasks—unless the nature of the operation requires
precise synchronization.
2-23. When delegating authority to subordinates in mission orders, commanders set
the conditions for success, in part, by allocating subordinates the resources they need
to accomplish assigned tasks. Examples of resources are people, units, supplies and
services, equipment, networks, information, and time. Commanders allocate resources
through task organization and establishing priority of support in mission orders.
ACCEPT PRUDENT RISK
2-24. Commanders accept prudent risk when making decisions because uncertainty
exists in all military operations. Prudent risk is a deliberate exposure to potential
injury or loss when the commander judges the outcome in terms of mission
accomplishment as worth the cost (ADP 6-0). Opportunities come with risks. The
willingness to accept prudent risk is often the key to exposing enemy weaknesses.
2-25. Commanders focus on creating opportunities rather than simply preventing
defeat—even when preventing defeat appears safer. Reasonably estimating and
intentionally accepting risk are not gambling. Gambling, in contrast to prudent risk
taking, is staking the success of an entire action on a single event without considering
the hazard to the force should the event not unfold as envisioned. Therefore,
commanders avoid taking gambles. Commanders carefully determine risks, analyze
and minimize as many hazards as possible, and then take prudent risks to exploit
opportunities.
2-26. Commanders avoid inadequate planning and preparation. Successful
commanders use risk assessment and risk management to help determine what level of
risk exists and how to mitigate it. Additionally, they collaborate and dialogue with
subordinates when deciding how much risk to accept and how to minimize the effects
of that risk. Commanders also avoid delaying action while waiting for perfect
intelligence and synchronization. Experienced commanders balance audacity and
imagination with risk and uncertainty. They strike at a time and place and in a manner
wholly unexpected by the enemy. They seize, retain, and exploit the initiative to
achieve decisive results while accepting prudent risk.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment