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
For every objective, it must be clear who decides when in doubt and to whom each person is accountable.
- It does not say
- That all power should lie in one place. For the gravest decisions, there are deliberate checks such as the two-person rule.
- It does not say
- That dual leadership always fails. It can work if the tasks are clearly separated and the two really trust each other.
- It also says
- Responsibility needs means. If you are in charge but may not decide anything, you are responsible in name only.
The explanationThe principle doesn’t make conflicts impossible, but it makes them decidable.
The principle doesn’t make conflicts impossible, but it makes them decidable. A clear head can pool resources, set priorities and act quickly in a crisis.
Who decides here when the people involved can’t agree?
The signs3 signs when you heed it · 3 when you overlook it
- Ask “Who decides this?” and you get a name right away.
- Employees don’t receive contradictory instructions.
- Responsibility for an emergency is settled before it happens.
- Decisions are postponed because everyone is waiting for someone else.
- Employees pick and choose whom to ask.
- Who is in charge gets negotiated only once a crisis hits.
The backgroundFrom the classic principles of war, as listed today in the U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-0 “Operations” (2022).
- 1916SupplementedHenri Fayol
Administration industrielle et générale
- 2022OriginU.S. Army
Operations
- 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 classic principles of war, as listed today in the U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-0 “Operations” (2022). Supplemented by Henri Fayol’s “Administration industrielle et générale” (1916).
The research3 sources: 1 theory, 1 classic, 1 review · 1916–2023 · with limitations of the research
- weak
- moderate
- strong
Military doctrine and classical administrative theory formulate the principle from experience; the sources cite no measurement, and it is disputed even within military theory.
- 2022U.S. Army
Field Manual 3-0 “Operations,” appendix “The Principles of War”: unity of command among the nine principles of war, supplemented by unity of effort.
- 2023Garrett Chandler
“Unity of Command or Unity of Effort?” (Modern War Institute): doctrine concedes that unity of command is not always possible; the author proposes replacing it with unity of effort.
- Unity of command is not a license to concentrate power; for the gravest decisions, there are deliberate checks.
- Dual leadership can work if the tasks are clearly separated and there is trust, and where a common chain of command isn’t possible, coordination has to take its place.
- A clear head does not guarantee good decisions; it only makes visible who is answerable for them.
Read more: what research shows
Military doctrine lists unity of command among its classic principles. In essence, the nine principles of the U.S. armed forces say that for every objective, unity of command and unity of effort should be sought; the U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-0 discusses them in its appendix on the principles of war. Where no common chain of command is possible, as between allies, the parties should at least work in coordination toward the same objective. In management theory, Henri Fayol formulated two rules in 1916: unity of command, under which each employee receives orders from only one superior, and unity of direction, meaning one plan and one head for all activities with the same objective. Both are maxims drawn from experience, not measurements. In 2023, Garrett Chandler proposed replacing unity of command in doctrine with unity of effort.
The related principles01 Primacy of Purpose · 07 Concentration of Force · 22 Mission Command · 24 Simplicity
To go deeper, see 22 Mission Command (freedom in the way presupposes that it is clear who sets the objective) and 07 Concentration of Force (only a unified command can concentrate forces on one point)
24 Simplicity shows that clear responsibility is the simplest way to avoid friction between units
01 Primacy of Purpose supplies the common purpose by which everyone aligns themselves
Read more: the full text
To go deeper, see 22 Mission Command (freedom in the way presupposes that it is clear who sets the objective) and 07 Concentration of Force (only a unified command can concentrate forces on one point); 24 Simplicity shows that clear responsibility is the simplest way to avoid friction between units. 01 Primacy of Purpose supplies the common purpose by which everyone aligns themselves.
The action steps5 things you can actually do
For your most important objectives, write down which person decides when in doubt, and check whether everyone involved would give the same name.
Where two people share a task, set down in writing who makes which decision.
Give the responsible person or body the means and authority they need to decide.
Settle responsibility for emergencies now, not once they are here.
Where a single head isn’t possible, for example between partners, at least agree on a common objective and regular coordination.
The reflection questions3 questions for you or for a conversation
- For which project in your area would three people involved give three different names when asked, “Who decides?”
- Where are you responsible without being allowed to decide, or where do you leave someone else in that position?
- Who is in charge in your organization if an emergency happens tomorrow?
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
- A ring of six dots is the boat
- A golden dot sits at the front and another at the back, and from both, arrows point in opposite directions at the same time
- The dots in the ring pull apart, and the ring spins in front of a mist-blue edge
- Then only one dot stays golden
- The second moves alongside it in teal and points to a map with a line, all the dots move in one direction, and the ring glides through a gate to the shore
How the principle shows up in practice
Council of Constance
Three popes lay claim to the Church at the same time. The council disposes of each claim individually and, in 1417, elects a single, broadly recognized head again in Martin V.
EADS
After costly delays to the Airbus A380, the group abolishes its Franco-German dual leadership in 2007. Louis Gallois runs it alone, and the national balance is preserved through different offices.
Hurricane Katrina
In 2005, the city, the state and the federal government are all responsible at once, but no one leads the whole. The investigations afterward identify the lack of a single person in overall charge as the core problem.
Who decides in your area when in doubt?
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
