{"id":6560,"date":"2015-07-20T11:53:55","date_gmt":"2015-07-20T03:53:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/elijahconsulting.com\/?page_id=6560"},"modified":"2018-05-20T22:19:27","modified_gmt":"2018-05-20T14:19:27","slug":"traditional-command-and-control","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/elijahconsulting.com\/traditional-command-and-control\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cTraditional\u201d Command and Control?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a>It has been said that on the eve of the 1815 Battle of Waterloo, the Duke of Wellington was asked what he thought its prospects would be. Pointing to an obscure British Rifleman, the Iron Duke replied \u201cSee that fellow over there. He will decide.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n That was a remarkable statement from someone who was used to the highly disciplined formations, intricate manoeuvring, and possessing the ability to throw in Brigade-size forces at a moment\u2019s notice, so common in\u00a0 that period. Tight, virtually unquestioned Command and Control systems were the order of the day. Yet, like Sir John Moore before him, the Iron Duke knew that, for all its intricate construction and great reliability, any Command and Control System would only work as well as the Men in its mechanism and as well as the Men the system purported to command and to control. The Man was, and remains, the ultimate deciding factor. All Command and Control systems existed in order to give as much advantage as possible to the obscure Man doing the actual fighting.<\/span><\/p>\n The world of business borrows much from the world of warfighting. However, in general, the levels of leadership competency in the business world don\u2019t seem to match those in the warfighting world. If they did, things like specious calls for the abolition of \u201ctraditional\u201d Command and Control systems wouldn\u2019t even be heard. \u201cNew\u201d models of leadership exalting the leadership of each and every person in the business are actually nothing new. They were already being practiced in the world of warfighting for ages. There is an aspect of the world of warfighting that contributes to this. Nowadays it is fashionable for people to quote idiocies like \u201cI always win. If I don\u2019t win I In the world of warfighting, \u201cbest practices\u201d will very often kill you. The only way to work around this is to use \u201cbest practices\u201d for what they are: case law<\/strong>. Case law are examples of how principles are manifested in practice. What worked? What didn\u2019t work? Why did it work or not work? What were the characteristics of the operating environment of the time? Were any principles violated, and what were the results? How can we apply what we have observed today? How do we see ourselves applying what we have learned five years down the road? Modern-day battlefield detectives have asked whether Wellington was actually a surveyor, based on how he used terrain to his advantage so often. In today\u2019s context, how is the principle of using terrain, in this instance, taking advantage of the reverse slope, applicable? Of course, it depends on who has access to satellite information and has the ability to shoot based on that information, for one thing. In business, how does it apply? Well, one thing for sure is the principle that others may decide to copy your system to a \u201ct\u201d, but they will have a very tough time copying your very-well-established culture, of which excellent strategy formulation is aready a part!<\/span><\/p>\nlose<\/del> learn.\u201d That\u2019s fine if all you lose when you do lose is a couple of million bucks. It works in the world of warfighting also, except that whatever you learn when you lose in the world of warfighting isn\u2019t going to be of much help when you\u2019re dead.<\/span><\/p>\n