3 ms·

That's actually an older (going back to 19th century) German army leadership style, called Auftragstaktik (mission style tactics, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w

That's actually an older (going back to 19th century) German army leadership style, called Auftragstaktik (mission style tactics, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics). It means that instead of giving concrete orders how to do something, the leader gives order to achieve a certain goal, and it is in the autonomy of the next level of leadership to decide about how to do it. This is directly related to Clausewitz' understanding of war as something that is very much up to chance and unpredictable outcomes, rather than something that can be planned completely beforehand.

theoh 10y ago
That's interesting. Two quotes from the Wikipedia page that I think are relevant to this discussion of management styles: "[There is the following] implicit requirement imposed on superior commanders: * to give their subordinates no more orders than are essential (every order given is regarded as an additional constraint upon its recipient), and: * to be extremely rigorous, absolutely clear, and very succinct in the expression of their commands." "Few armies seem to have mastered the approach. The Wehrmacht are perhaps the premier example—a degree of competence achieved only after rigorous training under Hans von Seeckt between 1919 and 1935." So Boyd's observations about WWII are corroborated by that account.
- elcapitan 10y ago
  I guess the big mental requirement there is the ability (on all command levels) to understand strategy and translate it into tactics, and to change from one tactic to another in order to achieve the same strategic goal. This was what Helmuth von Moltke (Chief of Staff of the Prussian Military) coined as "No plan survives contact with the enemy" (paraphrased). The battle between top-down and bottom-up management styles is still pretty alive in most companies, I guess.

theoh 10y ago

That's interesting. Two quotes from the Wikipedia page that I think are relevant to this discussion of management styles: "[There is the following] implicit requirement imposed on superior commanders: * to give their subordinates no more orders than are essential (every order given is regarded as an additional constraint upon its recipient), and: * to be extremely rigorous, absolutely clear, and very succinct in the expression of their commands." "Few armies seem to have mastered the approach. The Wehrmacht are perhaps the premier example—a degree of competence achieved only after rigorous training under Hans von Seeckt between 1919 and 1935." So Boyd's observations about WWII are corroborated by that account.

elcapitan 10y ago
I guess the big mental requirement there is the ability (on all command levels) to understand strategy and translate it into tactics, and to change from one tactic to another in order to achieve the same strategic goal. This was what Helmuth von Moltke (Chief of Staff of the Prussian Military) coined as "No plan survives contact with the enemy" (paraphrased). The battle between top-down and bottom-up management styles is still pretty alive in most companies, I guess.