The main reason to use Auftragstaktik is to come to terms with the complexity of war and to ensure command and control in combat. Based on the fact that in Prussian-German terms strategy was a “system of expedients” (Moltke) and that the friction of war made it impossible to fully stick to an operational plan, leadership responsibility had to be decentralized in order to cope with chaos. It was therefore the commanders at the frontline who became the real key players and who got much more freedom of action for individual initiative and independent decision making. The commander on the ground assumed such an important role because, in Prussian-German thinking, he was the only one to be able to directly oversee the foggy conditions and to react in an adequate and timely manner to fast changing situations. And that is the decisive advantage of Auftragstaktik - the commander was in a position to react immediately to any changes of the situation on the ground and did not have to wait for further instructions and orders. Decentralizing leadership therefore meant multiplying their own forces, speeding up the command and control process and seizing the initiative before the enemy could act. At the same time such a leadership principle freed higher command levels from dealing with minute details of how to implement an operation and enabled them to concentrate on the overall command of an operation and the interaction between all the forces involved. It is self-evident that such a leadership principle attached considerable weight to the personality of commanders, because it was he who ultimately had a decisive influence – good or bad - on the course of whole campaigns (German military history is also full of examples of commanders acting in a high-handed manner).
Auftragstaktik and NCW As we have seen, the major challenge of leadership has always been to reduce the complexity of the battlefield. This also holds true in the age of modern information technology and network centric warfare (NCW). Therefore, the leadership principle of Auftragstaktik has not lost its relevance in current military operations. The objection that is often raised saying that Auftragstaktik has become obsolete against the backdrop of modern threat scenarios and technological means tends to forget one thing: When telegraph, telephone and radio communication was introduced in the First and Second World War, there were high hopes that with the aid of these means of communication the complexity of modern warfare could be overcome. But this has never materialized. Even the Revolution in Military Affairs in recent years up to the development of network-centric warfare has not reduced complexity. War still remains a field of frictions. A focus only on the technological possibilities of NCW and a belief that digitalisation provides full transparency of the battlefield can lead to a pseudo security which could have devastating effects. The command level could be confronted with various problems: A flood of information can easily lead to a blurring of important and unimportant things or it can slow down or even paralyze the decision-making process. The technological possibilities also lead to micromanagement and “helicopter syndrome”, i.e. commanders monitor several levels of command, deal with details, issue orders outside their remit and overrule decisions. Other dangers lurk in
Conditions to Implement Auftragstaktik Common ground is therefore highly important. A principle such as Auftragstaktik, which heavily relies on the idea of initiative and flexibility, is strongly based on common values and perceptions. In order to enable Auftragstaktik to become effective professionally trained commanders are required. This issue seems to be self-evident, but it mustn’t be underestimated. It is only when all military leaders have absorbed the tactical conception as common ground and are able to implement the tactical guidelines in practice that Auftragstaktik can be used. Unity in thinking and reliability in operations are therefore decisive to prevent initiative and freedom of action from being misused for high-handed actions. The relationship between superiors and subordinates is another weighty issue. There is a need for a leadership culture that fosters independence and, rather than punishing subordinates for making mistakes, honours good will and creativity. This requires an atmosphere of trust: superiors must trust in their subordinates’ ability to carry out tasks independently – and subordinates must not use this freedom of action to act in a high-
advert.indd 1
Flight Simulation Group Conference
The ConTribuTion of flighT SimulaTion To aviaTion SafeTy
London / 9 - 10 november 2011
The Conference sessions will address the latest developments in upset recovery research and training for large passenger aircraft, with particular reference to simulator-based training as well as discussing other aspects of Simulation. www.aerosociety.com/conference Sponsored by:
ISSUE 5.2011
The Goal of Auftragstaktik
handed manner, but to keep the overarching objective in mind. An essential prerequisite for trust is to know each other and to know what the other thinks and intends to do. In order to achieve a common goal it is decisive to cooperate mentally on all levels of command.
19 MS&T MAGAZINE
applied on the strategic chessboard. On the contrary, Clausewitz compared war with chaos, insecurity and friction. The most characteristic element of war was therefore its unpredictability. That is why a war cannot be fought according to rational rules. In any future war it would therefore be decisive for each side to be able to act effectively under such conditions. According to the Prussian-German view this should be possible through leadership by Auftragstaktik.
26/08/2011 11:46:02