Command and Control

All organizations require some form of direction and focus to achieve their goals and fulfill their purpose. The reason for this is straightforward; organizations are composed of people, and people have their own ideas about what they ought to do. Direction and focus within the organization’s structure avoid the chaos of individual agendas within an organization. Someone or some entity in the organization needs to decide what to do, when to do it, where to do it, and how to do it. Thus, musical orchestras need conductors; schools need principals or superintendents; corporations need chief executive officers. That entity, whether identified as a person or a group, uses information to make the direction and focus real. Generally, the function of direction is called leadership, an exquisitely human idea; the function of focus is called control. Leaders can be understood to manage or structure the flow of information in organizations in pursuit of organizational goals and to focus individuals within the organization to effectively work toward those goals. This entry discusses the development and forms of command and control.

In the military, the activities that leaders do are consolidated under the term command and control (often referred to as C2). Command refers to the [Page 366]provision of leadership direction of armed forces’ behaviors; control refers to the provision of focus to those behaviors. The various advanced technological and/or organizational means to assist military leaders perform command and control are referred to as command and control systems. For example, the leader in charge of an army battalion is called, as one expects, a commander; the battalion staff, serving the commander, manage and provide the command and control systems necessary to make the battalion work. The commander directs the battalion’s work through orders that capture what the commander wants done, when, where, and how. The staff publish the orders, see that they are implemented (executed), and assess how well the battalion has performed. Together, a commander and a staff of a military organization can be understood to provide organizational command and control. Military organizations such as battalions can be combined to form larger formations. In armies, combined battalions become brigades or regiments, combined brigades and regiments become divisions, combined divisions become corps, and combined corps become armies. In navies, squadrons merge into task groups, which merge into task forces, which in turn merge into fleets. For air forces, the relevant organizational building blocks typically are squadrons, groups, wings, and air forces. All the levels of military organizations, regardless of specific military service, are referred to in a general nomenclature called units. Each level of command and control has its own commander and staff, as well as armed forces members who do the work in the units.

In most nation-states, the military is the largest public organization; command and control thus becomes not only a necessary function but a vital one for the future well-being of the nation and the military organization. Major command and control tasks are design, plan, direct, manipulate, communicate, coordinate, learn and adapt, monitor, and evaluate. There are many ways a military organization can execute these tasks. They can be accomplished in centralized or decentralized fashion. Centralized command and control means all flows of information within the organization go through the highest level commander and staff; decentralized command and control enables lower level units to manage their own flows of information and perform their tasks in their own way as long as the higher level orders are accomplished. There is a range of possible centralization-decentralization command and control options. Historically, the Prussians/ Germans have opted for a decentralized command and control approach; the Soviets/Russians chose a highly centralized approach. Americans, British, and French armed forces’ command and control traditionally have fallen somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. To have effective centralized command and control, military organizations must have highly reliable and capable communications systems that carry the flows of information, typically orders and related documents, to all units. To have effective decentralized command and control, military organizations must have highly trained commanders and staffs at all levels, and the overall commander must have a clearly stated and understood direction and focus.

...