These days, probably because we have a few wars underway, using military or sport analogies is fairly popular. I occasionally indulge in analogies but I would strongly caution against believing they directly apply to reality. Often times all you get is a great buzz word or expression; looks good and sounds good but does not stand to scrutiny. A Hummer is not quite a HMMWV (Hum-Vee) nor is a kid wearing pink/blue/yellow camo pants a real commando. These are not cases of if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck…
So, when you read project management blogs or business books and you see the expression “commander’s intent” you may want to exercise caution. What the blogs and books will tell you is that this military concept is great and that you should apply it to your communications with your team as it allows you to unleash your team without planning their every move because they will do what is needed to realize your intent. It is like magic. Well maybe, maybe not...
The US DOD definition of commander’s intent is:
A concise expression of the purpose of the operation and the desired end state that serves as the initial impetus for the planning process. It may also include the commander's assessment of the adversary commander's intent and an assessment of where and how much risk is acceptable during the operation.
To make things a little bit more concrete, here is an example of a commander’s intent, slightly adapted from GlobalSecurity.org:
End state of D+5 is the brigade that has preserved combat power with Mechanized Infantry, Armor and Infantry assets to conduct follow-on combat operations vicinity AO Shield. Maneuver units will conduct search and attack operations to destroy all enemy that can interdict the brigade as it consolidates and prepares for follow-on operations. We will destroy all enemy aviation assets to protect brigade HVTs and secure PZs used for follow-on operations. At the end of D+5, we will have cleared route HONDA and eliminated CLF minefield caches to prevent reseed capability. We will have inserted the brigade reconnaissance package into AO Shield NET D+4 and have air-assaulted the brigade's supporting effort to isolate the Shughart-Gordon MOUT site.
Crystal clear, no? If I dressed you in green and sat you in a Hum-Vee you’d be good to go, right? If I was your commander and my intent was to “prosecute the enemy” would you know that I am not suggesting sending in the lawyers but rather that I want you to go on a search and destroy mission?
Substitute your own acronyms in there and run your own commander’s intent by team members; how comfortable are you that they know what needs to get done? What if the commander’s intent came from your client or bosses? Read Communicating Intent and Imparting Presence; it is written by a US Army Lcol so we can safely assume he knows what “commander’s intent” means. Some interesting tidbits:
- You can’t “fire and forget”; the commander’s intent, however clear it actually is, does not mean that you will not have to direct the efforts in some way.
- A non-statistically significant test showed that, at best, 53% of outcomes met the original commander’s intent.
- It is not enough to tell subordinates what to do and why. When situations permit, commanders should explain how they arrived at the decision. Explaining the rationale helps subordinates understand and develop similar patterns of thought. Frequent interaction, formal and informal, professional and social, will provide subordinates additional opportunities to learn how their commanders think.
Maybe sticking to statements of work and requirement documents is not so bad after all...
What do you think? As always comments are welcome.
Connect with me on LinkedIn. I am a LinkedIn Open Networker (LION); you can use “Friend” to add me to your network, please mention the blog in your request.
