What it is
Imagine others carry out your plan and cannot reach you. When things change, what do they need from you to decide alone?
Commander’s intent is a short note you write before people set off. In it you name the purpose: why the work is being done. You name what must stay true, whatever else changes. And you describe the end state: what the finished result looks like. The details of the plan can change. The purpose cannot.
Where it comes from
Helmuth von Moltke the Elder ran the Prussian General Staff from 1857. He set out the idea in his 1869 Instructions for Large Unit Commanders. He argued that detailed orders are usually useful only for the present situation. Every move of the troops changes the conditions the orders were written for. So an order should open with the aim. Lower-ranking commanders add the details they can see. They act on their own judgement, without waiting for orders, as long as they serve that aim. In Germany the method later got the name Auftragstaktik, roughly “mission tactics”. The name came from officers who opposed it.
The English name comes from the US Army. Its field manual on operations, FM 100-5, first included rules close to Auftragstaktik in its 1982 edition. In 1986 the Army fully adopted orders of this kind. In 1993 it asked commanders for the “willingness and ability to act independently within the framework of the commander’s intent”. In today’s manual, ADP 6-0 of 31 July 2019, intent is a short, clear statement of the purpose and the desired end state. With it, lower-ranking commanders can act “without further orders, even when the operation does not unfold as planned”. Chip and Dan Heath brought the term into business writing in Made to Stick (2007).
What it corrects
Picture many people carrying out a decision at once, while things change faster than they can check with the boss. A capable manager answers with a thorough plan, and that is the trap. The more detailed the plan, the more it rests on facts that will have changed within days.
When the facts change, the team splits two ways. Some keep following instructions that no longer serve any purpose, because those are their orders. Others improvise sensibly, each with their own idea of the goal. Working harder does not help. The effort goes into detail, and detail goes out of date first. In a long plan, nobody can tell which lines matter and which are one way of many.
How it works
- State the purpose in one sentence: why this is being done.
- Describe the end state in things people can see or measure, so they can tell when it has arrived.
- Name the two or three conditions that must hold, whatever else changes.
- Say by name who may decide what, including who may leave the plan.
- Give a default rule for when people cannot reach you and the plan no longer fits.
- Cross out every instruction that people on the spot could decide for themselves.
Worked example
On 9 October 1805 the British admiral Horatio Nelson wrote a secret memorandum aboard his flagship Victory, off Cadiz. He planned for forty ships: two lines of sixteen and an advanced squadron of eight. His purpose was an end state, not a manoeuvre. He wanted the enemy fleet “captured or destroyed”, not driven off. He handed over control plainly: “The second in command will, after my intentions are made known to him, have the entire direction of his line.” Something must be left to chance, he wrote. So he gave a default rule: “in case signals can neither be seen nor perfectly understood, no captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of an enemy.”
Twelve days later almost none of those figures held. At Trafalgar on 21 October the British had 27 ships of the line against 33. No advanced squadron was formed, and the fleet attacked in two columns. Nelson was shot early and died three hours later, at half past four. Collingwood, his second in command, took over. Of the 33 French and Spanish ships, 18 were captured or destroyed. The British lost no ship of the line. The plan’s numbers were wrong before the first shot. But the purpose, the handover and the default rule held, so no captain waited for an order that could no longer come.
In a Business Case Weekly case
The McDonald’s case is set in the 2024 “value war” between fast-food chains over cheap meal deals. About 95 per cent of McDonald’s restaurants belong to franchisees: local owners who run them under the brand. So headquarters cannot simply order a discount. Owners pay for it out of their own profits, and each judges by their own numbers. Here, writing the intent means answering three questions. What must stay true for the whole chain, whichever deal runs? Which end state would tell you that customers see McDonald’s as good value again? When may an owner leave the company’s plan without breaking the chain’s promise of good value? As a franchisee, you still have to vote on the $5 meal deal and name the number that would change your vote. Writing the intent only makes clear what you are voting on.
In your answer
- “The purpose of this decision is …, and it holds even if the method changes.”
- “Whatever else changes, these two things must stay true: …”
- “We will know we have reached the end state when …”
- “If the plan cannot be followed, the default is …, and … decides on the spot.”
Common misuse
The common mistake is a slogan. “Win on value” sounds like a goal but decides nothing. People will quote it to justify a trade-off, but nobody can tell from it which one to make. To test your intent, give it to two capable people separately. Give each the hardest choice they could face on the spot. If they reach the same answer without calling you, you wrote intent. If they call, or come back with different answers, you wrote a slogan. A subtler mistake is an intent with ten conditions that must never change. That is a detailed plan with a purpose written on top. You meant to let people judge for themselves, but with that list there is nothing left to judge.
References
- Julian S. Corbett, ed., Fighting Instructions 1530–1816 (Navy Records Society, 1905). Nelson’s memorandum of 9 October 1805 in full: two pages, the quickest way to see the method on paper. gutenberg.org/ebooks/16695
- ADP 6-0, Mission Command: Command and Control of Army Forces (Headquarters, Department of the Army, 31 July 2019). The definition is in paragraph 1-45. The official link has moved; a copy is at irp.fas.org/doddir/army/adp6_0.pdf
- Michael J. Gunther, Auftragstaktik: The Basis for Modern Military Command? (School of Advanced Military Studies, US Army Command and General Staff College, 2012). From Moltke’s 1869 instructions to FM 100-5, in an evening: the DTIC record
- Wikipedia, Battle of Trafalgar, for fleet sizes, losses and the hour of Nelson’s death.