Misinterpretation of Command and Control
Till a year ago, I used to think of command & control as micro-management. Last year I heard Mary Poppendieck give a different perspective about it in her keynote(pdf). That’s when I realized that Command & Control means quite opposite of micro-management.
We all know Command and Control comes from US Army. During wars, the Commanders would direct (command) the troops on ground about the next move (goal/mission). And then the staff (troops) on ground would figure out the best strategy to achieve the mission. This is very different from micro-management.
Once the Commanders gives the commands, there is no way s/he can control the situation on ground. Tactical decisions are made by the staff on the war field and strategic decisions are made by Commanders and others outside the war fields, based on their knowledge about situation on the ground.
(no plan survives contact with the real enemy).
The heart of mission command:
Commanders should issue only the most essential orders. These provide general instructions outlining the principal objective and specific missions. Tactical details are left to subordinates.“The advantage which a commander thinks he can attain through continued personal intervention is largely illusory.”
