Army's Definition Of Mission Command

The Army’s definition of leadership can be universally accepted and applied to civilian and military leaders alike. The difference between the two leaders is that Army leaders can never be anything less than the best. Army leaders are entrusted with planning and executing decisions that have far-reaching consequences. During his visit to IUP, Major General Piatt stressed how complex today’s battlefield is and that the Army needs leaders who are well-rounded. ADRP 6-22 states that the “ideal Army leader has strong intellect, physical presence, professional competence, moral character and serves as a role model” (p. v, 2012).
While I agree with the Army’s definition of an ideal leader, I would add that the finest leaders take care of their subordinates
and accomplish missions in accordance with the guidance they were given from their superiors. From the lowest level of leadership to the highest level, leaders ought to proactively provide for their soldiers while still completing the mission. The Army is an organization built on people (soldiers). If leaders abuse authority or neglect their soldiers’ needs, the ensuing distrust and lack of confidence will cause mission failure.
It is imperative for leaders to understand mission command and the Army’s approach to mission command.
Today’s conflicts are multifaceted, and leaders must be ready for the inevitable: missions will go wrong. In the civilian world and in the military training I have had thus far, no plan has ever been executed without some dilemma requiring the plan to be altered. This is why good leaders have to understand mission command. ADP 6-0 defines mission command as, “the exercise of authority and direction by the commander using mission orders to enable disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations” (p. 1, 2012). Leaders will be more effective and have stronger teams by acknowledging uncontrollable variables exist and using the six principles of mission
command.
Another aspect of good leadership is balancing direct, organizational, and strategic levels leadership, which is something Major General Piatt also touched on.
A successful leader needs to be a positive member of three “teams.” The three “teams” include subordinates, peers, and superiors. ADRP 6-22 explains this concept in similar terms that focus more on a leader’s area of control. The direct level is “face-to-face or first-line leadership,” usually involving dozens of people (ADRP 6-22, p. 2-4, 2012). Organizational level leadership is one step up and the leader’s influence covers hundreds to thousands of people. The strategic level focuses on the force structure, joint operations, and impact global politics (ADRP 6-22, p. 2-5, 2012). Maintaining positive relationships with these “teams” and fulfilling your responsibilities that come with each one are essential to being an Army leader.
So far, I have described a good Army leader as someone that protects their soldiers and is capable of adjusting to the complexities of conflict. The last aspect I believe describes an excellent leader is someone that has a balance of character, presence, and intellect. An unbalanced leader is no leader at all. While everyone has different strengths and weaknesses, a good Army leader can identify these traits in their soldiers and themselves. Everyone, but a leader in particular, must continually strive to develop their weaknesses in an effort to achieve well-rounded
attributes.
Good Army leaders are of high moral character and live the Army values in everything they do. This is non-negotiable. The Army values “are fundamental to helping Soldiers and Army Civilians make the right decision in any situation” (ADRP 6-22, p. 3-1, 2012). Leaders are the moral compass of their units. The Army wants soldiers to emulate their leaders, thus it should not be a surprise when soldiers imitate the poor behavior exhibited by toxic leaders. It is no secret what the Army looks for in regards to character, since the Army values are a list of exactly what is expected of each soldier. Good leaders are disciplined and have the fortitude to do what is right even when no one is looking. Not only do Army leaders possess these qualities, but a good Army leader continually instills them into his/her subordinates. Set the example, be the example, and develop others.
A leader influences others, and a leader’s presence is a quintessential part in getting others to follow them. ADRP 6-22 (2012) claims that military and professional bearing, fitness, confidence, and resilience will drastically enhance a leader’s effectiveness (4-1). I do agree that these are incredibly important to making a great Army leader, however, I think the emphasis is heavily weighted towards fitness. ADRP 6-22 does not list any of these areas as more important than another area, yet the Army uses fitness as a strong indicator to determine presence. I believe this is because fitness can be quantified, whereas it is much more arduous to quantify professionalism, resilience, and confidence. Nonetheless, a balance between all areas makes for the best Army leaders.
The last characteristic of a good Army leader is intellect; this extends beyond IQ. The Army expects its leaders to be mentally agile, have sound judgement, be innovative, have interpersonal tact, and be an expert in their field (ADRP 6-22, p. 5-1, 2012). Simply put, a respectable leader can assess situations, develop creative solutions, and interact with their team. No one expects a leader to know everything, however, a leader must be proficient in tactics and technical skills as well as have an understanding of the larger world around them. Furthermore, a good leader manages their emotions and “…[models] the emotions for subordinates to display—calm and rational under pressure” (ADRP 6-22, p. 5-3, 2012). I value well-roundedness and balance when describing a reputable Army leader. It is easy to take the path of least resistance and be selfish, however, the Army demands its leaders to be the best at all times. The Army is a dangerous profession and poor leadership can result in the loss of life and other adverse consequences. Leadership applies to officers, non-commissioned officers, and Army civilians that are responsible for others. A good leader balances the three levels of leadership, their personal attributes, and works for the betterment of the Army. Being a distinguished leader means going above-and-beyond the tasks required of them to lead and develop others. From my personal experiences in ROTC and civilian organizations, leadership can make or break a group’s success. Toxic, self-centered leaders dissolve unit cohesion and cause failure, whereas one good leader can drive a group to achieve success otherwise unobtainable as individuals.