Army Mission Command Philosophy
The Army’s Mission Command philosophy is a strategic cultural and intellectual shift in how to run the Army of the future. The Army is a large and complex organization founded in policies and procedures, derived from tradition and past success. Even though the army hasn’t realized the overall adoption of Mission Command, it is imperative to continue to lead the organizational change in pursuit of that vision since Mission Command provides the only known advantage in future complex environments because it promotes creativity and strategic thinking, fosters innovation and communication and empowers leaders at all levels. In order to achieve this change, the Army should strive to remove barriers to change, encourage praise and recognition
…show more content…
“The creation of a culture that is supportive of continuous innovation within the organization underlies all other elements of the innovation process”. Mission Command is a cultural change within the Army, which fosters innovative thought. The continuous evaluation and striving to gain and retain a position of relative advantage allows teams to constantly examine the environment searching for those areas providing that advantage. When inculcated, it will resonate through all organizations at all levels within the Army to create that culture. It crosses all boundaries because a position of relative advantage can be applied virtually anywhere, militarily, economic, diplomatic, or informational, what is important is realizing that it is temporary and that the environment and competition is always affecting it. Mission command continuously focuses on the initiative and how to exploit …show more content…
The managerial style of the Army has long dominated the organization. The focus was on business and managerial tasks such as logistics, manpower, mobilizations, and other quantifiable items. Leaders used standardized procedures, detailed planning and analysis to maximize efficiency and minimize risk and uncertainty. The desire to quantify everything in an effort to display it on spreadsheets and slides spread through all functions of the army. The management bureaucracy engulfed all aspects, training, personnel, maintenance, logistics, and readiness. Throughout the years, leaders have identified its deficiencies and attempted to minimize the impacts. The phrase “train to standard not to time” was surely developed to promote leading training as opposed to managing it. Ironically, large-scale change becomes even more difficult with size, tradition, and relative success all of which apply to the Army. A cultural change of this magnitude may well have been virtually impossible because it required individuals in the appropriate positions to attempt the enormous task of establishing a new vision and leading such large-scale organizational change. This requires strategic leadership and a unique self-awareness to understand the complex adaptive system and its barriers to change. General Dempsey set this in motion in 2012, by explaining
“The creation of a culture that is supportive of continuous innovation within the organization underlies all other elements of the innovation process”. Mission Command is a cultural change within the Army, which fosters innovative thought. The continuous evaluation and striving to gain and retain a position of relative advantage allows teams to constantly examine the environment searching for those areas providing that advantage. When inculcated, it will resonate through all organizations at all levels within the Army to create that culture. It crosses all boundaries because a position of relative advantage can be applied virtually anywhere, militarily, economic, diplomatic, or informational, what is important is realizing that it is temporary and that the environment and competition is always affecting it. Mission command continuously focuses on the initiative and how to exploit …show more content…
The managerial style of the Army has long dominated the organization. The focus was on business and managerial tasks such as logistics, manpower, mobilizations, and other quantifiable items. Leaders used standardized procedures, detailed planning and analysis to maximize efficiency and minimize risk and uncertainty. The desire to quantify everything in an effort to display it on spreadsheets and slides spread through all functions of the army. The management bureaucracy engulfed all aspects, training, personnel, maintenance, logistics, and readiness. Throughout the years, leaders have identified its deficiencies and attempted to minimize the impacts. The phrase “train to standard not to time” was surely developed to promote leading training as opposed to managing it. Ironically, large-scale change becomes even more difficult with size, tradition, and relative success all of which apply to the Army. A cultural change of this magnitude may well have been virtually impossible because it required individuals in the appropriate positions to attempt the enormous task of establishing a new vision and leading such large-scale organizational change. This requires strategic leadership and a unique self-awareness to understand the complex adaptive system and its barriers to change. General Dempsey set this in motion in 2012, by explaining