I don't think the authors understand the term "command and control" as it is traditionally used. I'd infer from this article that they believe it means, "provid

I don't think the authors understand the term "command and control" as it is traditionally used. I'd infer from this article that they believe it means, "provide overly detailed instructions, then micromanage". In fact it's a military term of art describing how to manage large teams in a chaotic environment in which leaders never have all the information they'd like (e.g., combat). The "command" part is leaders telling the people who work for them what end state they need them to achieve -- not only at the outset of the mission, but periodically throughout operations as the situation changes. The "control" part is subordinate units/leaders providing real-time feedback. This might be something like, "we are carrying out the mission as planned" or it might be, "hey you told me to stay on the north side of the river but I need to cross it to accomplish the mission"; importantly, deviation from coordinating instructions in accomplishing the mission is a key feature of the mission orders-based warfighting doctrine currently in place in most major militaries. In the words of US doctrine (which uses the common abbreviation for command and control): > C2 is not a one-way, top-down process that imposes control on subordinates. C2 is multidirectional, with feedback influencing commanders from below, from above, and laterally.[0] 0: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-0/chap1.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/f...