I agree with SFC B, J Mission Command Post that the extent to which a mission becomes successful is pegged on the kind of leadership offered by the mission's command. Leadership to subordinates is important but is dependent on what kind of lower rank soldiers make up the team. Soldiers are indeed just people who experience emotions and pain like everyone else. Therefore, as mission command, it is important to lead with the assumption that soldiers are normal people. Despite going through training, some elements of human nature cannot be eradicated unless the soldiers are machines that are impossible (Henderson, 2003). The mission command needs to be concerned with putting up a team that comprises the soldiers with the seven principles of mission command. The principles are indicative of having a team that can ride autonomously of micromanagement through orders.
The attributes of the seven principles are giving mission command the ease of planning a mission, stating the objective outcome, risks, and expecting results. How the results are achieved depends on the ability of teams to work together and being given the freedom to make on the ground decisions that are time-sensitive and vital to the mission; hence cannot follow the procedural chain of command for approval. For instance, the team may need to commence an attack on what was known as a non-hostile group. For the sake of the success of the mission and their lives, they would need to act fast.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Reference
Henderson, W. D. (2003). Cohesion, the human element in combat: leadership and societal influence in the armies of the Soviet Union, the United States, North Vietnam, and Israel . University Press of the Pacific.
