Difference Between Traditional Command And Control

Traditional versus New Concepts
Analysis of Command and Control and their relationship with Leadership provides base for further examination of Command and Control relevance. In this section the validity of both traditional and new concepts will be scrutinized through the discussion how they can be applied in dealing with complex problems presented by contemporary operational environment and in support of achieving the higher tempo or shorter OODA loop that is critical for success dealing with other competitive actors.
The contemporary operating environment is fluid, constantly changes and creates complex situations that require different solving methods ranging from authoritarian or direct command in case of critical problems to managerial,
8 - 12) in contrast to the limited implementation decision rights in case of traditional Command and Control. But is it feasible in military operations? Smith (2010 p. 11) argues that though decision rights may be delegated to certain extent there are still some decisions associated with great dangers or grave consequences that would be not possible to make in collaborative or consensus manner and would require single authority. And indeed, who will decide to send some units in to harm’s way and put soldiers’ life at risk? Regrettably Focus and Convergence concept is quite narrowly based on good will of actors involved and it does not foresee such instances when one or more entities would be not willing to comply. Thus, the traditional concepts are more appropriate for military operations as they include the delegation of decision rights but also to certain degree prevent making of sub-optimal decisions by retaining Authority
3 - 6) in his critique to Command and Control concept argues that it is difficult or even impossible to establish single authority in contemporary coalition based groupings, incorporating governmental, non-governmental, international, military and civil bodies, that could be often seen in contemporary operations, as there is no one who could assign that authority. However, McCann and Pigeau (Clarifying the Concepts of Control and of Command, 1999) argue that authority is not necessarily should be assigned as authority is comprised of formal or legal and informal or personal components, and while there may be no legal authority history has many examples how authority is achieved through personal aspect. Smith (2010 pp. 11-12) concurs with that opinion asserting that though maintaining informal authority requires constant interaction and demonstration of personal competence the Authority achieved that way has even more power than formal. One may ask question how person can demonstrate his or her competence to others with whom he or she has no direct contact or interaction but this issue already covered in paragraph discussing direct and indirect leadership. Therefore, there is no need for someone who has right or power to assign authority as even in case of coalitions one or another entity will achieve it through demonstration of it