Enter your search text in the box above

Select a result to preview

Commanders intent - formulate, communicate, interpret and implement

Summary

Details

References

Quotes

From Feel-Good Productivity - How to Do More of What Matters to You - Ali Abdaal

Commander’s intent is rooted in the German military tradition, dating back to the Prussian Army of the late nineteenth century. German military strategists realised that no battle plan could ever predict the chaotic realities of war. ‘No plan survives first contact with the enemy,’ as Field Marshal Moltke the Elder put it. (To be precise, he said, ‘No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy’s main strength.’ But that’s not as catchy.) So instead of obsessing over every step their soldiers might take on the battlefield, German officers embraced the concept of Auftragstaktik – mission-type tactics – a philosophy that prioritised a clear sense of why over an excessively detailed sense of how. Commander’s intent, as outlined in the Field Manual, consists of three crucial components – all built around the basic point of the mission:

  1. The purpose behind the operation
  2. The end state that the commander was aiming for
  3. The key tasks that the commander felt should be taken to accomplish the objective
    Commander’s intent suggested that the goal of generals is to answer only the highest-level ‘why’ questions: identifying the purpose behind the operation, and, at a push, vaguely sketching out the sort of stages that might be necessary. The troops were then given the flexibility to adapt their decisions to the changing circumstances at the front.

From The Great Mental Models Volume 2 - Physics, Chemistry and Biology

After the Germans kept getting humiliated by Napoleon on the battlefield, they realized that his methods in war were different than any they had previously come across. If they wanted to win, they needed to change and try new tactics. Early in his career Napoleon employed the strategy of inserting his army between two opposing forces then striking at both before they could coordinate and combine. He wrote, “it is contrary to all principle to make corps which have no communication act separately against a central force whose communications are open.”8 The traditional German armies, with “their linear tactics, iron discipline, blind obedience and intolerance of independent action,”9 were initially unequipped to deal with Napoleon’s approach. Recognizing the need for a new strategy, the Germans developed Auftragstaktik or what we now call commander’s intent, which is the idea of sharing the information necessary “to empower subordinate commanders on the scene.”10 The theory underpinning commander’s intent is all about trying to construct the right circumstances for replication.

Any given side in a confrontation wants to replicate their strategy to the point of execution. What is the best structure for this? Too rigid and the guy on the ground can’t adapt and innovate to execute the strategy when the circumstances change—which they will. There is a direct connection with the challenges of replication in biology: “Rigid specialization—by a genetic code, for example—is not feasible, simply because the code would be excessively large, prone to breakdown, and inadequate for anticipating the many challenges and opportunities an economic entity is likely to encounter during its lifetime.”11

When the Germans faced Napoleon, they were experiencing problems related to their rigidity of organization. The guys on the front lines couldn’t adapt. Discouraged from ever considering the why or the rationale behind an order, the German troops had nothing to draw on when Napoleon changed his tactics mid-battle.12 The environment always changes, which is why successful replication has a bit of flexibility built in.

How do you hit the sweet spot between execution of strategy and flexibility to adapt to changing conditions? There are four elements of commander’s intent: formulate, communicate, interpret, and implement. The first two are the responsibility of the senior commander, the latter two the job of the subordinate commander. In order to develop these skills commanders must consider four criteria:

  1. Explain the rationale (not just the what and why, but how they arrived at a decision)
  2. Establish operational limits (identify what is completely off the table)
  3. Get feedback often (a continuous loop between levels)
  4. Recognize individual differences (the unique psychological makeup of each subordinate)

From Clear Thinking - Turning Ordinary Moments into Extraordinary Results - Shane Parrish

Commander’s intent has four components: formulate, communicate, interpret, and implement. The first two components—formulate and communicate—are the responsibility of the senior commander. You must communicate the strategy, the rationale, and the operational limits to the team. Tell them not just what to do, but why to do it, how you arrived at your decision, so they understand the context, as well as the boundaries for effective action—what is completely off the table. Subordinate commanders then have the tools for the last two components: interpreting the changing contexts and implementing the strategy in those contexts.