The Marine Corps Way: Using Maneuver Warfare to Lead a Winning Organization

The commonalties and differences among the examples raised in this chapter reveal three valuable insights regarding decentralized decision making.

First, successful decentralized decision making requires not only trust and open communications but also clear commander s intent and supervision. In the cases of Patton and Smith Newcourt, both successes, all four traits were present. Leaders willingly placed their trust in those who were closest to the action and who possessed superior local information. Communications flowed freely throughout the organizational structure. Those closest to the action clearly understood the larger context into which their actions fit and acted in accordance with the commander s intent. And leaders were able to maintain an adequate level of supervision without squelching individual initiative. In the unsuccessful case of AES, however, clear commander s intent and supervision were notably absent.

Second, decentralized decision making can be employed to increase decision making speed, and in rapidly evolving situations on-the-spot decision making may be the only way to achieve sufficient speed of response. Patton and Smith Newcourt both delegated significant decision-making authority because they knew that requiring subordinate leaders to ask for permission at every critical juncture would result in missed opportunities. By not waiting for orders from higher headquarters, Ripley was able to destroy the bridge at Dong Ha just before the North Vietnamese attempted to cross. We will see in the next chapter how decentralized decision making begets another principle of maneuver warfare , tempo.

Third, while commander s intent originates from the top, it is actually a mutual agreement between the leader and the members of the organization. The leader agrees to provide a vision and to integrate the actions of subordinates, while subordinates agree to act in a manner most likely to obtain results that support this vision. When one party does not honor the agreement, decentralized decision making falters. Bakke s failure to provide his people with clear commander s intent undermined AES s decentralized approach, whereas the junior Smith Newcourt traders willingness to ask for help in difficult situations averted disaster and no doubt resulted in invaluable lessons learned.