An Cosantóir

15 ABANDON PERFECTION: A PRACTITIONER'S GUIDE TO MISSION COMMAND courses) there is a traditional emphasis on attention to detail, following orders precisely, and the relentless pursuit of perfection. Perhaps because of this, some junior leaders struggle with the transition to a more participatory approach to achieving the mission, where their opinions count, and their experience is valued. Likewise, commanders can struggle to release control and devolve decision making downwards. Mission Command in Practice Whilst employed as the Officer-in-Charge and Chief Instructor of the NCO Training Wing (NCOTW), I was afforded the opportunity to command multiple company attacks. These occurred across a series of career courses for corporals from all Corps – but mostly Infantry – striving to become Sergeants. To examine and assess command and leadership ability, students rotate throughout command appointments as Platoon Sergeants, and Platoon Commander. To facilitate the high volume of command appointments, the NCOTW deploy on week-long field training exercises to execute multiple iterations of platoon attacks by day and night. These exercises typically culminate with deliberate Infantry company attacks in order to provide important sub-unit context to the platoon level actions. As it would be unreasonable to ask students pursuing the rank of Sergeant to fill appointments at company level, the instructors themselves constitute the Company Headquarters. This provides an excellent opportunity to expose them to Mission Command in practice. Prior to each deliberate company attack, role-playing instructors outlined the Situation, Mission, Execution, CSS, and Command and Signal paragraphs, with which most readers of this article will be very familiar. In addition, students were issued a printed copy of the Operation Order (OPORD) with various aerial photographs and given access to a terrain model. Control measures were carefully marked to clearly define each platoon's manoeuvre space. The correct explanation of commander's intent and platoon tasks was vital. As was emphasis on what effects (clear, capture, seize, destroy etc.) on terrain and enemy, each platoon was to achieve; but not how they were to achieve them. No Plan is Perfect The teaching model adopted by the NCOTW is one of mentoring and coaching, with instructors close by to provide students with advice and guidance. However, if later engaged in a real-life conflict, or deployed on peace support operations overseas, the students won't have this luxury. Therefore, the instructors afforded the students the space to design and execute their own plans using the military decision-making process appropriate to their level. In doing so, we discovered the absolute imperative to abandon perfection. That is not to say we accepted poor quality planning or incomplete plans; what it meant was deliberately giving the students the freedom of action to analyse, experiment, innovate, and flourish, all within a well-defined manoeuvre space, as free from instructor interference as possible. Through this experimentation we found that the students developed more rapidly. They produced results far more superior than if the instructors had provided them with textbook solutions at every decision point. This ultimately meant that students developed the mental agility to quickly re-orientate and rapidly devise a plan to meet a change in the situation. Seizing the Initiative One particular company attack we conducted during an Infantry Platoon Sergeants' Course, proves the efficacy of Mission Command. In this example, the lead platoon – whose role in this case was to secure the company forming up point (FUP) and line of departure (LD) – met unexpected enemy before the company reached its objectives. The instructor staff had positioned enemy in the FUP and as the platoon began their recce of the company LD, the enemy engaged. The quick-thinking NCO – who was acting as Platoon Commander – seized the initiative. He suppressed the enemy, conducted a rapid estimate of the situation, then executed an aggressive platoon attack. Crucially, he did all of this without seeking (or requiring) detailed orders from Company Headquarters. Why? Because it had been made clear in his platoon tasks that he was to secure the FUP, and feeling empowered to do so, he showed disciplined initiative to conduct a hasty platoon attack. He also showed sound judgement and decision making, acting in support of my intent. I simply adjusted my fire plan, moved H-Hr forward and assaulted our two objectives with the other two platoons, as we had rehearsed. Conclusion The relentless pursuit of perfect textbook solutions to tactical problems is both inefficient and unrealistic. Paradoxically, abandoning perfection, empowering subordinates, and letting them surprise you with their ingenuity will bring better results. Operating within a defined manoeuvre space, junior leaders should have significant latitude to exercise freedom of action and initiative. Early in the commander-subordinate leader relationship, this manoeuvre space will be tight and detailed orders with little room for interpretation will be the norm. As trust builds, the commander increases freedoms and the junior leader begins to grow exponentially, with less superior direction required. As we become more familiar with Mission Command, we become more comfortable, and we enhance our outcomes. NCO TW Officer Instructor testing students Platoon Attack FRAGO

• Cover