Military Review English Edition July-August 2015 | Page 75

COMMUNICATION PARADOX

(Photo by Sgt. Travis Zielinski, 1st Cavalry Division PAO)

Soldiers from1st Cavalry Division rush forward on a simulated battlefield during a joint air assault demonstration 29 March 2010 on Camp
Taji, Iraq. After spending several months training, soldiers from the 1st Air Cavalry Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, conducted the demonstration to show Iraqi army leaders the effectiveness of air assault assets.

A small change to the Army’s definition of mission
command could express the central importance of communication. The current definition reads as follows:
Mission command is the exercise of authority and direction by the commander using
mission orders to enable disciplined initiative
within the commander’s intent to empower
agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of
unified land operations.”39
An improved definition would read as follows (bolding added to emphasize the proposed modification):
Mission command is the exercise of authority
and direction by the commander using clear
communication and mission orders to enable
disciplined initiative within the commander’s
intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders in
the conduct of unified land operations.
In addition, the Army’s definition of mission orders
could be amended to reflect the importance of communication. According to ADP 6-0, mission orders are
defined as “directives that emphasize to subordinates
the results to be attained, not how they are to achieve
them.”40 This definition could be strengthened by the
MILITARY REVIEW  July-August 2015

addition of a few words: clear and concise directives
that emphasize to subordinates the results to be attained, not how they are to achieve them.

Conclusion
Communication forms the core of every leadership
interaction in the Army. Robust modern communication tools can support leaders at all levels, but only
when used by skillful speakers and writers. When used
improperly or overused, these tools can cause important information to be misunderstood, taken out of
context, or neglected. Even worse, they can lead to poor
leadership practices that are contrary to the philosophy
of mission command. Leaders who rely too heavily on
communication tools, rather than personal skills honed
by study, reflection, and practice, run the risk of failing
to apply analytical skills or of relying on technology to
the detriment of effective communication.
The key is for the Army to recognize the paradox of
modern communication and modify doctrine and the
Army officer education system to better equip leaders
to harness, rather than be harnessed by, communication technologies.
73