"Auftragstaktik"

Have you heard this term before -- “Auftragstaktik?” It sure is fun to say. Give it a try -- it is a mouthful! While you may not know the word (unless, of course, you are a student of German Army tactics), you are no doubt familiar with the concept. At least you should be.

Auftragstaktik is the German expression for “mission-oriented command.” It relies upon decentralized leadership and is the basis for decision-making at the lowest possible level, where the knowledge of the situation is always best.

Auftragstaktik requires a leader’s belief in a subordinate's ability to creatively solve problems without always having to approve every decision or explicitly direct each step. Key elements of this approach to leadership include:

-- Mutual trust among teammates based on each person's intimate personal knowledge of the capabilities of the others.
-- Repetitive training to reinforce confidence in the decision making capabilities of each other.
-- A willingness to act on the part of all leaders and...all followers.
-- Simple, sound fundamentals (policies, procedures, etc.).

-- Regular use of mission orders.

Key to this empowering approach to leadership is the use of these mission orders. If it is creative solutions that we seek, then we need to unleash people to join in the problem solving process. Leaders must avoid telling everyone how to address every assigned task. We don't always have to be the "smartest person in the room!"

Using mission orders, leaders focus on defining the problem to be solved and the parameters or criteria that they want in a solution. Focus on the why and the what – empower others to determine the how.

Taking the mission order approach for even the simplest tasks will develop the muscle density necessary for application to more challenging problems. That's the repetitive training piece. Empowering people to make decisions, trusting that they will do the right thing, accepting some failure in order to learn and grow -- that's the rest of this German Army leadership philosophy.

Lest we think this is some secret tactic that died with the Wehrmacht back in WWII, know that the US Army definitely embraces this leadership philosophy of Auftragstaktik. It is the basis for decentralized decision making. It is also what makes success possible with many sports teams, businesses, government agencies, and non-profits groups. So let's give it a more common English term. Let's call it...Leader Business.

Mission Planning III

In any moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.

-- Theodore Roosevelt

A recent study by the US Army War College investigated critical behaviors of senior military leaders. Few skills ranked higher on the required attributes list than the ability to plan missions, solve problems and make decisions. In the last post on this series, we looked at the first two steps of mission planning. We continue with those steps that translate intentions into action.

Step 1. Analyze the mission.

Step 2. Develop alternatives.

Step 3. Analyze alternatives.

Once alternatives are identified, they should be deliberately analyzed and debated with respect to their relative strengths, weaknesses, and risks. Potential courses of action should be measured against critical evaluation criteria (again, those criteria that will differentiate one alternative from another – i.e. cost/speed of implementation, savings, risk, etc.). Criteria with greater relative importance should be weighted accordingly.

Military leaders conduct a deliberate war game for each course of action. These are free-play exercises conducted on a map or in a computer modeling scenario that analyze alternatives by looking at enemy actions and friendly reactions, much like a game of chess. These movements are carried all the way through the final objective with notes taken, casualties assessed, and relative positions recorded. This is an effective way to understand second and third order effects of proposed courses of action.

War game results are entered into a “synchronization matrix” with entries for the enemy and each subordinate unit in relative time and space. Should a particular course of action be selected, this matrix becomes the basis for the detailed orders issued to each unit. While deliberate and somewhat time consuming, there is no substitute for seeing anticipated actions “play out” to enable an understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and associated risks with the proposed alternative.

Step 4. Make a decision and communicate the results.

Leaders make decisions. That is what they get paid to do. After analysis of alternatives, it is ultimately the leader’s role to select a preferred alternative. If the recommended solution is not adequate or does not meet the intent of the mission, go back to the drawing board or, more likely, modify it as necessary to make it adequate. And while clearly the leader’s prerogative, exercise caution when rejecting subordinate recommendations (i.e. learn how to say no). Leaders must not destroy the creativity and motivation of the subordinate team.

Once an alternative is selected, move out. Leave no doubt about the decision and state, “OK, here is what we are going to do.” Issue mission orders and instructions to the entire team. Communicate task and purpose with guidance that is specific when specificity is required, and intentionally vague when subordinates have the latitude to work out the details on their own. Leaders must ensure that subordinates understand the big picture as well as their own individual requirements.

Army Ranger school is a lot more than surviving for two months on no sleep and one meal per day. It was a small unit leadership laboratory that emphasized the value of clear, detailed mission orders in the following format:

-- Situation – a detailed description of the big picture (both friendly and enemy perspectives). This provides the context for the mission.

-- Mission – the restated problem (from step 1). This section of the mission order gives subordinates the “5 Ws,” the most important of which, “Why?” provides the purpose and motivation for the mission.

-- Execution – includes a description of the overall concept of the operation along with specific tasks for completion and contingency activities based on friendly or enemy actions. All units receive both a task and purpose and understand whether they are in a support or a supported role. Coordinating details (time lines, mission rehearsal schedules, issues common to multiple units) further clarify subordinate requirements.

-- Resources– organizations are provided the necessary resources to meet the demands of the mission. Leaders understand the importance of their role as chief alignment officers and ensure that supplies and mission essential resources are sufficient to accomplish the mission. Forecasted resource demands are a critical output from the war game / alternative analysis step and help leaders proactively address key logistics issues.

-- Command/Communications – addresses critical communication issues pertinent for the mission such as the location of the leader on the battlefield and radio frequencies for communications during the mission.

Mission plans that result from this process are likely to be well thought out and reasonable solutions. They will synchronize the activities and responsibilities of the entire team. Most importantly, this approach to planning should produce a consensus decision, crafted by team members who take ownership of that which they must ultimately execute. Stay tuned for one more post in this series that looks at some other techniques for mission planning and decision-making.

Leaders who fail to plan – plan to fail. They ensure that the mission is well understood and that available alternatives are identified before moving to a solution. These are skills we demand from our leaders, no matter the operational context. That makes the planning process…Leader Business.

Mission Planning II

When you cannot make up your mind which of two evenly balanced courses of action you should take - choose the bolder.
-- General William Joseph Slim

A recent study by the US Army War College investigated critical behaviors of senior military leaders. Few skills ranked higher on the required attributes list than the ability to plan missions, solve problems and make decisions.

Times like these demand leaders who can plan, make decisions, and maintain a steady hand, especially under duress or during times of crisis. This series of posts on decision-making will highlight the four step planning process. These steps can be applied to any problem, whether to start a business...or to save one, whether to deploy an Army or to deploy a new product.

Step 1. Define the Problem

Mission planning cannot start without a deliberate effort to define the problem. Thus, this step begins with a thorough understanding of the big picture and the operational context for the mission. Leaders must have good situational awareness and be able to “see themselves” (organizational capabilities, individual skills and strengths, and activities of other “friendly” units with potential impacts on the mission), “see the enemy” (competitor actions), and “see the terrain” (operational environment, future trends, customer demographics). The business equivalent might be a formal SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis. This becomes a base from which mission planning can begin.

Next, facts and assumptions that apply to the problem must be analyzed and understood. Quantify what is known and make logical conclusions about what is not. Good situational awareness (SA) about the operational environment will generally allow for assumed future conditions that are close enough to support decision making.

Problem definition must then define specified and implied tasks and address:

-- What tasks are specifically required to complete the mission?
-- What tasks are not specifically required but are implied in order to reach the intended objective?
-- Of these tasks, which are absolutely essential, and must be highlighted as such in the final problem statement?

As with facts and assumptions, write out this list of tasks and make a special designation for those tasks deemed as “essential.” All tasks, whether specified or implied, must be assigned to some member of the team in order to successfully complete the mission.

Finally, restate the problem. Write out a mission statement that addresses the “Five Ws” – Who, What, Where, When, and Why? Ensure it addresses all essential tasks. The restated mission should be posted throughout the problem solving process to eliminate energy and time applied against the wrong problem – a common shortcoming in mission planning.

Following a detailed mission analysis and definition of the problem, leaders must provide the input that will shape the final plan. Issuing guidance later in the process results in wasted time and subordinate frustration.

Working with leaders at the Army's National Training Center, mission planning can be an exasperating exercise. Frequently, commanders would express their frustration about plans that were not what they wanted or that they knew would not achieve their intentions. Unfortunately, they never shared their intentions with anyone else! They failed in this critical step and had not provided the guidance necessary to shape the final plans. This is a critical leader task that cannot be delegated…or skipped.

Nor can this input be provided later in the process. I have watched numerous subordinate staffs “implode” after an all night planning effort was destroyed by commanders who interjected their guidance long after the “train had left the station.” Not only was critical planning time lost; so was the staff’s confidence in their leader.

Leaders influence the problem solving process by giving their vision for the end state and their general intentions for a solution. They identify what they are looking for in a viable course of action and those evaluation criteria (i.e. cost, speed, impact on customers, etc.) that have the greatest importance in the final evaluation. If leaders are willing to accept risk in some areas, and not in others, they make it known. Budget or time limitations are identified. The goal is to empower subordinates, to give them the freedom to develop creative solutions. Subordinates generally need only their left and right limits, if there are any. They’ll figure out the rest.

Step 2: Develop alternatives.

In mission planning, leaders should attempt to identify at least three possible courses of action, all of which must be viable alternatives for solving the problem. Each course of action must meet the following criteria:
-- Is it feasible? Don’t waste time on alternatives that have no possibility of accomplishment.
-- Is it sufficient? Does it address all the elements of the problem statement outlined above? A half-solution is no solution at all.
-- Does it meet the leader’s intent? If not, don’t consider it as a viable alternative.
-- Is it bold? At least one alternative should be audacious and blow through the boundaries of “business as usual.”

We'll review the final two steps (Step 3 - Analyze alternatives; Step 4 - Make a Decision and Communicate the Results) in the next post.

Leaders who fail to plan – plan to fail. These first two steps get the process rolling. They ensure that the mission is well understood and that available alternatives are identified before moving to a solution. These are skills we demand from our leaders, no matter the operational context. That makes the planning process…Leader Business.

Mission Orders

Enter the continent of Europe, and undertake operations aimed at the heart of Germany and the destruction of her armed forces.
-- Mission Order to General Eisenhower from the Combined Chiefs of Staff


Too often, leaders get overwhelmed with operational details and miss the proverbial "forest for the trees." We spend so much time immersed in who does what...and how they do it...and neglect what is really important -- namely what it is that we are supposed to do...and why it matters.

Military leaders use Mission Orders. These express to subordinates the commander's intent, providing key tasks and outlining the purpose for the mission. In other words, they express what must be done, and why. Mission orders empower subordinates to do the rest, to determine how they will accomplish the mission to meet the commander's intent.

The directive to General Eisenhower for the invasion of Europe is a classic example of a mission order. He wasn't told to invade at Normandy (or Africa or Italy). He was not told what composition of forces he would need nor how and where to position them. His task was to enter the European continent and to undertake operations. His purpose was the destruction of German forces. It was up to Ike to figure out the rest. Of course he would keep his superiors informed while planning, preparing, and executing his mission, but his orders were clear from the beginning.

Leaders who understand the value of mission orders can spend their limited time enabling the success of subordinates to whom mission orders are assigned. They do this by "checking alignment:"

-- Are assigned tasks aligned with each other? Will the accomplishment of subordinate missions allow the securing of overall goals?

-- Are supporting effort tasks clearly aligned with main effort ones -- and identified as such? Does everyone understand which tasks are most critical and must be accomplished in order to be successful? Are subordinates fully aware of what each other is doing, and how they are proceeding toward mission accomplishment?

-- Are people and organizations aligned against each task, leaving nothing undone?

-- Does the empowerment to accomplish the mission come with the requisite skills and tools, to be successful? Do subordinates have the training, experience, and resources they need to accomplish the mission?

Are you interested in minimizing frustration (yours and your subordinates) in your organization? Stay focused on mission orders. Empower teammates to do what you pay them to do: Figure out how to accomplish the mission...and "git 'er done." Assign mission orders and get out of the way. I am learning that to do so frees me up to do what I am supposed to do -- see the forest, get the right people, promote our brand, build and sustain relationships, and accomplish the mission.

It worked for Ike. That's Leader Business.