Companies should always look for an edge. Markets and competitive environments are changing faster than ever. In almost every industry across the board, there are countless organizations trying to solve both timeless and newly evolving issues. Without the ability to innovate, companies will lose their competitive advantage, even if every other proven process is put into place.
So, how to innovate? This where many leaders run into a problem. When it comes to the way we approach business, most of us are trained to take a command and control approach: a hierarchical, top-down method that concentrates authority at the top and relies on direct guidance flowing downward. Even in companies perceived as innovative, when they grow, bureaucracy and processes are added to manage the increase in size and complexity. These dynamics subconsciously add to command and control management approaches. It’s a model designed for predictability (e.g. quarterly earnings reports) and assumes that the person with the most context should dictate execution.
In very specific, high-risk contexts where precision is critical, command and control can be effective. But more often than not, this approach only serves to stifle innovation. It over-specifies the “how” while under-defining the “why.” The intent is usually to reduce risk, but the effect is the opposite. When the control of information flows from management and management alone, they quickly become a bottleneck. Over time, that makes innovation harder not because people lack ideas, but because the culture begins to hinder the bottom-up flow of ideas. As a result, competitive risk inadvertently increases.
A Different Model
On the flip side is a mission command approach, the leadership style I relied on for more than thirty years in the military. A frequent misconception about the U.S. Army is that it is command and control driven. In reality, because the combat environment is so complex (and growing more so) the Army strives to create a culture that can harness the innovation and initiative of all the people at its disposal. At its core, mission command is built around the idea that no single person, regardless of experience, can control everything or know the best answer to every problem. Under mission command, leaders define who, what, when, where, and why, and leave their teams to determine the how. This is not a lack of structure, but a system that enables decentralized execution and innovation at scale.
Clarity of intent is the primary decision-making filter within this model. To be successful, everyone must be on the same page about what success looks like and what outcome they’re trying to achieve. When intent is vague, leaders run the risk of their teams interpreting organizational goals through their own lens, optimizing for what they believe matters most, and pursuing disparate outcomes. Effort is expended, but not in a coordinated direction. In these cases, leaders might find themselves stepping back in to course correct, reinforcing the same centralized patterns that slow the company down. But when it’s done right, innovation becomes a byproduct of the mission command approach.
Framing Trust as the Conduit, Not the Objective
In the military, we assume trust. Our lives are quite literally in the hands of our team members, and we aren’t always given the time to prove we will do what we say before those stakes are set. So, we operate at the highest level of trust unless proven otherwise.
In civilian life, it’s the opposite. We start from a place of zero trust and work our way up based on our experiences with one another. If someone follows through on their promises, our level of trust grows (or vice versa).
But trust is critical to mission command. It’s the conduit that enables the system, not the goal itself. As leaders, when we over-index on earned trust, it slows execution.
To find a happy medium, we can focus on structured trust, reinforced by professional candor. That means saying what needs to be said, when it needs to be said, in service of the outcome. When leaders and team members operate with that level of candor, the assumption of trust begins to become reliability. People are trusted not because of their track record, but because their behavior is predictable and aligned with the company’s desired outcome.
As a result, teams move faster and more efficiently because they’re not second-guessing intent or dealing with hidden expectations. They are given the trust to act within certain clearly defined parameters without waiting for validation at each and every step.
Replacing Control with Clear Guardrails
Mission command only works when everyone involved is employing what the military calls disciplined initiative. Instead of blindly following instructions, people make decisions based on the desired end goal. It’s like following a map but having the information you need to pivot off course and make it to the destination even if a road is closed.
The key is moving from total control to creating a shared understanding of the mission. That might be something like “Grow revenue by X amount in Y number of months without cannibalizing existing revenue.” Then, there’s the shared understanding of why the objective matters and how everyone across the company can do their part, knowing that there will be flexibility in how the outcome is ultimately accomplished. The structure comes not from constant supervision, but from clear boundaries on strategic priorities.
Normalizing Disagreement as a Function of Duty
In the military, disagreement is considered loyalty. It is our duty to speak up, especially if we see something wrong with the plan. Agreeing with superiors for the sake of avoiding confrontation can be detrimental to the mission and result in catastrophic outcomes.
In business, we have a tendency to equate disagreement with disloyalty. Team members may suppress their feedback in order to maintain cohesion or avoid being perceived as difficult. Leaders, in turn, may interpret a lack of pushback as alignment, even if that’s not necessarily the case.
If we shift our perspective to view respectful and productive dissent as opportunity, we change the function that disagreement serves. It enables the use of disciplined initiative and becomes a mechanism for innovation. After all, only those who care enough about the objective at hand will take the time to challenge assumptions and point out the gaps.
Innovation is not about control. For leaders who want to unleash innovation at scale across their organizations, the opportunity is clear: lay the groundwork for teams to act without waiting for permission, and let disciplined initiative become your greatest competitive advantage.
Featured image by Frame Stock Footage/Shutterstock
