Admiral Horatio Nelson reviews the plan for the Battle of Trafalgar with his Captains. For Nelson, ensuring that his subordinates understood his intent was critical to enabling them to execute the disciplined initiative required for victory at sea.
With the operating environment of the 21st century’s multi-domain battlefield being one in which situational awareness and communications will be greatly degraded, the war fighting function of command and control (C2) will become extremely difficult to execute. Therefore, leaders at all echelons must start preparing themselves and their subordinates to overcome these critical challenges and continue to operate effectively. One of the often cited solutions to this problem is the proper implementation of the elusive concept of mission command (MC).
For the United States Army, MC is supposed to be the practice by which leaders empower “subordinate decision making and decentralized execution appropriate to the situation.” It would seem that this is the right answer, yet although the Army has defined what MC is through its principles, and why it is important by framing the inherent nature of war, it has not done a great job explaining how to actually make it work in practice. Perhaps the missing link can be found in leader development, not the once a month, dry PowerPoint briefing type that we all know and love, but something more robust and effective. Newsflash: Leader development is happening all the time whether you like it or not (or make it a priority). A reassessment of how we approach leader development and its linkage to enabling mission command might be worthwhile as we enter into a new era of great power competition. Our success or failure in this endeavor might be the difference between victory and defeat on a battlefield in the not too distant future.
Historical Context: Trafalgar and the Age of Sail
Like all generations of military professionals that have come before us, we would like to believe that the difficulties we face are unique to our time. But history, that great mentor of all warriors, would beg to differ. If we look back through the annals of armed conflict, we can find numerous examples in which leaders were faced with problem sets similar to the ones we encounter today. In regards to the dilemma of achieving mission command through the fog and friction of battle, one of the most beneficial periods for us to explore for possible solutions is that colorful and daring stretch of time known as the age of sail.
In late October 1805, near the cape of Trafalgar, an outgunned and outnumbered British Fleet achieved a decisive victory against the combined Franco-Spanish naval forces of the Emperor Napoleon. This watershed moment would shape the course of history not just for Europe but the world. For the following century the Royal Navy would go uncontested and as Britannia ruled the seas, the sun never set on her Empire. So, why does this swashbuckling tale from over 200 years ago matter to leaders trying to prepare their subordinates to operate efficiently in the high-tech, fast-paced battle-spaces of modern warfare? Well, precisely because this overwhelming British achievement was not decided by technology, but rather by leadership. To be clearer, by superior leader development. The man responsible for giving the Royal Navy this tactical edge, was the legendary Lord Horatio Nelson. If one were searching for the Captain who best mastered how to navigate the chaos of late 18th/ early 19th Century naval combat, all channels lead to Nelson.
Lord Nelson’s body bore the scars of a life leading from the front. In 1797 his right arm had to be amputated just below the shoulder after he was wounded leading an amphibious assault against the Spanish in the Canary Islands.
To take part in just one decisive naval victory in the age of sail was a remarkable achievement, due to the fact that most engagements were inconclusive. However, Admiral Horatio Nelson stands at the top of great sea captains with having three credited to him (Cape St. Vincent, The Nile & Trafalgar). It would be safe to say that it wasn’t luck, but technique. What set him apart from many of his contemporaries was that he understood a simple truth about the character of naval combat in his time. He knew that once battle was set upon his fleet, the speed in which the situation would develop, the inherent fog of war and the limited means he had to quickly communicate orders, would greatly inhibit his ability to personally influence the fight. His solution was to trust and empower his subordinates, in which unity of effort could be achieved by decentralized actions. Sound familiar? The authors of ADP 6-0 would be proud. Although the Royal Navy didn’t have a field manual ordering Nelson to apply the concept of mission command, he was instinctively doing it, because it worked. But you might be wondering how he made it a reality? The answer, “The Nelson Touch.”
The Nelson Touch: Mission Command Actualized
It has been well documented that Lord Nelson had the unique capability of rapidly building trust and confidence among the members of his command. His infectious assurance became known as the “Nelson Touch” and it is the foundation on which his victories at sea were built. As the Captain of a ship at the battle of Cape St. Vincent, Nelson executed a daring maneuver which did not fall in line with the exact scheme of attack his commander had ordered, but did meet his intent. The calculated risk he took to seize the initiative arguably won the day. Miraculously his career remained intact. This experience had a profound impact on Nelson, and when he was given command of his own fleet, he would see to it that he enabled this same audacious spirit in his subordinates.
Nelson’s system for developing this type of behavior among the captains of his command relied heavily on his interactions with them. First, he kept his plans simple, acknowledging that that the more complex he made them, the more likely they were to fail due to lack of control. Additionally, he would share his plans early and often with his officers and always encouraged their candid feedback, a radical method for the times. This non-threatening approach ensured that plans could be refined and that shared understanding of his intent for how the fight would unfold could be achieved. Over dinners that he hosted in his personal quarters, he would often discuss a myriad of potential tactical situations the fleet might encounter, and what contingencies he expected his leaders to execute. This gave Nelson’s officers a glimpse into his mind and reduced ambiguity during battle.
Maybe the most important outcome of these interactions was the relationship it fostered between Nelson and his men. He would famously refer to himself and his subordinates as a “Band of Brothers”, an admiration that no doubt stemmed from a special comradery that had been formed. By the time of battle, all of Nelson’s “band” knew what to do and they had the trust and confidence of their commander to execute disciplined initiative when opportunities arose.
At Trafalgar, just before his fleet joined battle with the enemy, Nelson sent one last message via his signal flags. It stated “England expects that every man will do his duty.” This is telling, because when he had one last chance to communicate a possible order, he instead transmitted a final inspirational reminder. The cohesion that had been built between the “band of brothers” transcended the chaos of battle and although Nelson was felled by a musket ball on the quarter deck of his flag ship, dying shortly after, England won the day and as they say the rest is history.
On 21 October, 1805, Admiral Horatio Nelson was shot on the quarterdeck of the HMS Victory. Although mortally wounded his “Band of Brothers” would fight on to victory at the legendary Battle of Trafalgar, a clear testament to the trust and competence cultivated by his leadership style known as the “Nelson Touch.”
Lessons from Admiral Nelson
Perhaps the biggest lesson that we can derive from studying Lord Nelson is that we each have a choice as leaders. We can either talk about it or be about it. We can pontificate about applying effective leadership philosophies like mission command or we can live them every day through our actions and interactions with our subordinates. Commanders must lead by example and prioritize the mentorship of their subordinates. More emphasis needs to be placed on the honing of war fighting skills through tactical discussion, table top exercises and rehearsals. Subordinates who execute disciplined initiative should be rewarded and encouraged, even if they stumble in the process. For Nelson, his scarred body was a testament to his willingness to lead by example in battle, having lost his right arm and vision in his right eye from wounds. Leaders today should be willing to take calculated risks in pursuit of truly achieving mission command even if it results in their careers taking some “professional shrapnel.”
Conclusion: Do your Duty as a Leader
The concept of mission command is not a lost cause. Its proper implementation is more important now than ever as we enter into a new era where the ability for commanders to apply direct control will be severely limited. The key to making it a reality is by investing in our subordinates at all levels. This requires time, energy and thought so that we can build cohesive teams that trust one another, can operate decentralized, can exploit the initiative and achieve unity of effort while not seeing or talking to one another. It requires the “Nelson Touch.” So, as the United States and its allies pursue military force modernization efforts focused on regaining our technological positions of advantage, it is absolutely critical that we don’t forget about investing in our leaders. They remain the most important factor to increase the lethality of our Forces. After all, the United States expects that every leader will do their duty.
MAJ Steve Orbon is an Armor Officer in the United States Army and is currently the Chief of Operations for 3rd Infantry Division, at Fort Stewart, GA. His operational assignments include Tank Platoon Leader in Iraq and Commander of the 82nd Airborne Division’s Pathfinder Company in the Horn of Africa, both in support of the Global War on Terror. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology and a Master of Arts in Defense and Strategic Studies.
For further reading about Admiral Nelson:
- The Great Admirals. Command at Sea 1587-1945, edited by Jack Sweetman
- The Life of Nelson, Vol. 1 by Alfred Thayer Mahan.
- The Pursuit of Victory: The Life and Achievement of Horatio Nelson by Roger Knight