Erosion of Mission Command in Barracks

Contributor: Nick has 12 years of infantry leadership experience.  He has worked at Company, Battlegroup and Divisional level, and deployed on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Within the British Army’s current doctrine, it describes how Mission Command requires the development of trust and mutual understanding between commanders and subordinates.[1]  The British Army is arguably good at Mission Command in the field but is less so within barracks.  Throughout many senior officers’ directives to subordinates, you will find the idea of ‘employing Mission Command’ in barracks.  The incentive being that if you get it right in barracks then it will become instinctive when it is needed in combat.  The reality, however, does not match the written intent.  It is the experience of the author that Mission Command in the home base is now more elusive than ever.

In recent years, the British Army has moved to use tracking systems inside white fleet vehicles.  This ensures that you drive safely and obey speed limits; however, it also keeps track of the exact location of the vehicle.  Soldiers are having to justify why they deviated from their destination and stopped at a supermarket or some other innocuous location.  It is understandable to use the tracking systems to improve driver safety but micro-managing soldiers’ location is a misuse.  This shows a lack of trust between those using a vehicle and the Chain of Command.  A more sensible approach would allow the Vehicle Commander the discretion to stop where he deemed suitable depending on the circumstances.  If there was a breach of trust then it would be appropriate to scrutinise individuals more heavily but up until that time there should be freedom of action.  Here is another example…

Time spent away from barracks on official business allows a soldier to claim for subsistence.  On return to camp, the Administrative Office may require you justify the expenditure.[2]  Many civilian firms take an opposite approach; they give you the money before you go and let you decide how to spend it.[3]  Maybe the British Army should trust soldiers and allow freedom of action when it comes to these sorts of decisions.  Perhaps if they explained the importance of these measures (mutual understanding) then we might be more considerate and feel less constrained by a seemingly punitive system.

More broadly, there is an upward trend to use Management Information Systems (MIS) to collect data, monitor and assure work-strands within the British Army.[4]  The proliferation of MIS feels like modern day Taylorism.[5]  Taylor could be insulting about some of his workforce and often did not trust them to deliver the task effectively.  Taylorism advocated higher levels of managerial control and increased automation.  Inputting of data into a MIS is comparable; the worker feels little value inputting data and often feels overly managed by the control/assurance exercised at a higher level.  An alternative approach would be to employ Mission Command.  Seniors should state their intent, describe an end-state, set a main effort and allow subordinates the freedom of action to manage the allocated resources to achieve a result.  This would take a mind-set change as the Chain of Command may feel they need a MIS to provide evidence.  Perhaps qualitative assurance and assessment from an empowered commander may build trust and prove that the MIS makes no difference to the outcome.

These are just a few examples of where trust and subsequently Mission Command is eroding in barracks.  The reason these processes and behaviours have come into being is in the past someone exploited or circumvented the system.  The natural reaction of any bureaucracy is to tighten the process so these ‘glitches’ cannot occur again.  Although this may reduce the amount of exploitation, it does nothing to encourage Mission Command.

So what is the answer?  The ‘blue pill’ approach would see more process or MIS.  A ‘red pill’ approach advocates more freedom where soldiers are trusted to make the right decisions.  Exploitation could still occur and these individuals should be held to account but the starting point for everyone else must be trust in their ability to ‘do the right thing’.  The resultant benefit will not only support Mission Command on operations but will also lead to greater job satisfaction.

[1] Army Doctrine Publication – Land Operations, October 2017.  The principles of British Mission Command include unity of effort; freedom of action; trust; mutual understanding; timely and effective decision making.

[2] Spending limits; restrictions on when you can claim; no alcoholic drinks etc.

[3] The Administrative Office may allow a cash advance up to 80% of the expected costs.


[5] Taylorism or Scientific Management analyses and synthesizes workflows to improve efficiency of labour.


The views expressed within individual posts and media are those of the author and do not reflect any official position or that of the author’s employees or employer. Concerns regarding content should be addressed to

Leave a Reply

6 Comments on "Erosion of Mission Command in Barracks"

newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Nick, seems to hit the point here. Industry leaders would not be able to scrutinise the actions of their staff in the same MIS infested manner the solider, sailor and airman is tracked. The examples provided are two of a significant number available today.

As the Army prides itself on championing Msn Cmd when deployed, more should be done at every level to empower those that are ‘Serving to Lead’. An interesting and well-articulated prognosis of the dilemma of a non-deployed Army.

A few years ago series of mods came out for a variety of comms kit. The direction to fit them came from the BATCIS fielding team who asked to know when they were completed so they could update thier records. That’s where the good mission command news ends. We all know he is meant to be forward looking, but my OC was cc’d in and decides he wants to be involved. He decided he wanted weekly updates and would forward them to the team himself. The dept head was asked to get the stats to him. I had to give… Read more »

An interesting and relevant topic, though not the area I thought you would focus on. A more pressing example would be as Oliver mentions below, the over involvement of the chain of command and subsequent neutering of junior leaders’ command in barracks.
I see the tracking of white fleet vehicles as something that came about precisely because the system was being abused, though maybe I’ve already had my ‘blue pill’!


I like your use of the phrase “neutering of junior leaders”.

A friend’s dog has just gone through the process: It truely invokes the cringing, painful nature of a situation where you are being micro-managed. I’m going to steal the line when discussing the issue in future! Cheers.


I can’t recall a time this century when a civilian employer of mine gave a ‘per diem’ up front. Every expense item prescribed and many (quite reasonably) forbidden, all those claimed itemised and paid in arrears, so you are effectively subbing the employer for any cash outlays. Even taking breakfast and/or lunch queried (only hotel or Pret – no Michelin) ‘as you would eat at home, why should we pay’. Grass not always greener, though your point about trust well taken.

Paul M
Consider that from about Sgt/Capt rank upwards we have to endure information overload in the form of dozens/hundreds of emails to micro manage every aspect of daily work. It’s no surprise that seniors no longer have the head space to plan, develop strategy, consider their approach to mission command. I believe that loss of mission command in barracks is simply an inevitable symptom of our ridiculous overdependence on email for comms. There are better ways of working, Many companies are increasingly turning to “enterprise social media” to provide good situational awareness without the need for pushing hundreds of emails at… Read more »