The principle in detail
Three steps through the principle: grasp it, place it, put it to work. Open each topic on its own.
The core messageCore statement and 3 clarifications
A good mission contains objective, intent, means and limits, but no prescribed way.
- It does not say
- That you stay out of it. Freedom without a clear intent is not trust; it is an empty mission.
- It does not say
- That fixed procedures are always wrong. Where many steps have to mesh precisely, as in an operating room, they are often better.
- It also says
- Freedom requires training and trust, and you build both beforehand.
The explanationA home care manager prescribes every home visit for her team down to the minute.
This only works if the intent is clear, the people are trained for their task and mistakes are not punished. If any of these is missing, freedom turns into disorientation, or everyone prefers to wait for instructions.
What do you have to specify so that others can decide well, and what can you leave open?
The signs3 signs when you heed it · 3 when you overlook it
- Your people can say why they are doing something, not just what.
- When surprises come, they act and inform you afterward.
- You ask about results, not about every step.
- Every deviation brings a query, and work stops until you answer.
- You say “Go ahead” and then step into the details after all.
- Or everyone pulls in a different direction because no one knows the intent.
The backgroundTradition T1 Classical Theory of War
- 1869OriginHelmuth von Moltke the Elder
Verordnungen für die höheren Truppenführer
- 2011SupplementedStephen Bungay
The Art of Action
- Tradition T1TraditionClassical Theory of War
Carl von Clausewitz, Antoine-Henri Jomini, Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, Frederick William Lanchester
See the tradition on the Origin page
Read more: the full background
From the “Verordnungen für die höheren Truppenführer” (1869) by Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, prepared by the Prussian army reformers after 1806. Supplemented by Stephen Bungay, “The Art of Action” (2011), and the self-determination theory of Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci.
The research3 sources: 1 classic, 1 theory, 1 review · 1869–2011 · with limitations of the research
- weak
- moderate
- strong
Self-determination theory gives good support to the motivational core; that mission command produces better results rests on military experience and case examples.
- 2000Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci
“Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being”: autonomy, competence and relatedness are basic psychological needs; those who experience their actions as self-determined are more engaged.
- 2011Stephen Bungay
“The Art of Action: How Leaders Close the Gaps between Plans, Actions and Results”: carries the Prussian army’s practice of mission command over to business.
- Mission command presupposes well-trained people, a shared intent and trust; if any of these is missing, freedom turns into disorientation.
- Where steps have to mesh precisely, as in a launch sequence, fixed procedures are often better.
- Modern technology tempts people into micromanagement, because headquarters can seemingly see everything.
- The principle is misused when leaders set only objectives in order to shift responsibility for unrealistic targets onto others.
Read more: what research shows
The principle that an order should contain what the subordinate commander cannot determine for himself to achieve his purpose, and nothing more, is traced back to Helmuth von Moltke the Elder and his 1869 “Verordnungen für die höheren Truppenführer” (Instructions for Large Unit Commanders). The name “Auftragstaktik” was coined only later, by opponents of the concept. In “The Art of Action,” Stephen Bungay carried the idea over to business; the subtitle names his theme: closing the gaps between plans, actions and results. One core element has empirical support: according to the self-determination theory of Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci, people are more engaged and persistent when they experience their actions as self-determined. None of these sources directly measures whether leading through mission-type orders produces better results than detailed instructions.
The related principles18 Friction · 21 Plan and Adaptation · 23 Unity of Command · 24 Simplicity
To go deeper, see 21 Plan and Adaptation (because no plan survives reality, you need people who are allowed to adapt in line with the intent) and 18 Friction (on the ground, something always goes differently than planned)
24 Simplicity makes sure a mission is so clear that everyone understands it
23 Unity of Command sets the frame: freedom in the way needs clear responsibility for the objective
Read more: the full text
To go deeper, see 21 Plan and Adaptation (because no plan survives reality, you need people who are allowed to adapt in line with the intent) and 18 Friction (on the ground, something always goes differently than planned); 24 Simplicity makes sure a mission is so clear that everyone understands it. 23 Unity of Command sets the frame: freedom in the way needs clear responsibility for the objective.
The action steps5 action steps: Phrase your next assignment in four parts: objective, intent (“so that …”), means and limits.
- Phrase your next assignment in four parts: objective, intent (“so that …”), means and limits. Leave out the way.
Have the person play the assignment back to you in their own words, especially the intent.
Say explicitly when you want to be asked beforehand and when you only want to be informed afterward.
When someone acts in line with the intent but differently from how you would have, acknowledge it, even if the result isn’t perfect.
- Before every assignment, check whether the person is trained for it. Where they aren’t, train them first or draw the limits more tightly.
The reflection questions3 questions for you or for a conversation
- In which assignment last week did you prescribe the way, even though the others knew the situation better?
- Could your people state the intent behind their most important task in one sentence?
- What happens in your team when someone acts in line with the intent and makes a mistake in the process?
Take your time with one question. Write down your answer – or talk it over with someone you trust.
The picture to rememberThe animation once more, with an explanation
- At the top, a large circle as headquarters
- At the bottom, a small group of dots
- Between them, a band of teal lines as a river with a bridge of two strokes
- In the first version, a dashed line leads step by step across the bridge
- The bridge breaks, the dots stand still, and a signal shuttles up and back
- In the second, only a golden arc comes down from the top to the goal on the far bank
- The bridge breaks again, the dots look for a crossing themselves and reach the goal
How the principle shows up in practice
Buurtzorg
In 2006, Jos de Blok founds a home care organization without care managers, in which small teams know the objective and choose the way themselves. The model becomes the market leader in the Netherlands.
Lenore Skenazy
In 2008, the columnist gives her nine-year-old son a map, a fare card and money and lets him ride the subway home alone. The debate shows how unfamiliar such trust is.
Miles Davis
For “Kind of Blue” in 1959, he brings only sketches and scales into the studio. The musicians shape the way themselves, and a classic is born.
Do your people know why?
Get your profile across all 12 groups in about 10 to 15 minutes.
Start the Strategy CheckGroup 3: Knowledge, Uncertainty and Leadership
Guiding question: What do you know, and how do you lead when you don’t know?
Stage 2 of 5: Understand the situation
- TraditionClassical Theory of War
Carl von Clausewitz, Antoine-Henri Jomini, Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, Frederick William Lanchester
- Related principles
Where the 92 principles come from: eight traditions of strategy, from classical war theory to dealing with uncertainty.
More about the originBackground: WEGVISOR’s own selection from the strategy literature · More about the origin
