The new mission command approach to command and control identified a confusing gap in command techniques for Army leaders.  Prior to the revised 2019 publication of ADP 3-0 Operations and ADP 6-0 Mission Command, mission command and command and control were presented as two techniques for leaders to accomplish their mission.  Both techniques had guiding principles, but the commander ultimately chose how much to empower or control a subordinate’s initiative. Both Mission command and command and control, as described in doctrine prior to 2019 strove to reach a similar endstate.  A commander wants his subordinates to understand what they have to do and what information he needs to know throughout an operation. He understands that the “fog” of war will present unforeseen challenges to his unit. The two previous concepts were simply different ways to manage multiple subordinates working towards an end state.  Today, these concepts have been codified into Mission Command doctrine. The new Mission Command doctrine lays out what the Army wanted to emphasize all along which is the importance of leadership.

Seven years after replacing command and control with mission command, the Army decided to bring it back. There was an oft-stated problem that mission command was a confused concept. It was a group of communications systems, a warfighting function, and a philosophy. The rewrite aimed to clear the ambiguity. In addition, the Army was on its own doctrinal island and the rewrite realigned the Army with sister service, joint, and allied doctrine that had retained the concept of command and control. Finally, the Army had an opportunity. We were planning to consolidate ADPs and ADRPs anyway.

The problem in the Army wasn’t understanding the difference between a CPOF, using mission orders and intent to get things done, and tasks and processes needed to produce orders. The problem was that we misunderstood the philosophy. Most commonly, leaders interpreted mission command as a hands-off approach to let subordinates figure it out. Mission command was decentralized command and control.

Photo Credit: Eric Pilgrim, Fort Knox News

In full disclosure, if you think this article will provide some sort of insight to gain a foothold at the Battalion Commander’s Assessment Program (BCAP); it won’t.  What it will do is provide some of my thoughts based on my attendance as part of FY20’s BCAP Cohort 002.  There is a lot of mystery surrounding the program and within the scope I’m allowed, I will share my impressions on my involvement.

Perhaps due to my 16+ years within the legacy command slating process, I was skeptical on the utility of the BCAP.  While the BCAP introduces multiple “vectors” of additional information for a board to consider, it also only presents a snapshot in time of an officer.  You have a bad day, and your physical fitness test score is not as high as usual.  You didn’t sleep well, and your assessments suffered.  The reality is, although it is only a snapshot, it is also real life for a Battalion Commander.  Not every day is a great day; sometimes it’s just okay.  If the BCAP can provide some additional insight into the “wholeness” of an officer, or even just identify an officer who may potentially derail an organization with an abusive or toxic attitude, then I think it is worth a try.