Page xi:

Commanders today are not better than Julius Caesar or Napoleon. Things that have been mastered are forgotten. Each generation has to relearn old lessons and acquire old skills. They just apply the same principles to new situations. To learn the art of strategy and the art of creating organizations capable of executing strategy, we have to study the past and develop our skills through practice.


Page 21:

Each of the principles addresses one of the three gaps, but all of them reinforce and are dependent on each other.

  1. Decide what really matters. … work out the outcomes you really want the organization to achieve. Formulate your strategy as an intent rather than a plan.
  2. Get the message across. … be as clear as you can about your intentions. Say what you want people to achieve and, above all, tell them why. Then ask them to tell you what they are going to do as a result.
  3. Give people space and support. … encourage people to adapt their actions to realize the overall intention as they observe what is actually happening.


Page 45:

The problem: three critical gaps.

  • Effects Gap: the difference between what we expect our actions to achieve and what they actually achieve.
  • Alignment Gap: the difference between what we want people to do and what they actually do.
  • Knowledge Gap: the difference between what we would like to know and what we actually know.


Page 60:

… the surest way of achieing your goal is through the single-minded pursuit of simple actions. …

Having issued some warnings about what what not to do, von Moltke formulates his positive guidance on giving direction as follows: The higher the level of command, the shorter and more general the orders should be. The next level down should add whatever further specification it feels to be necessary, and the details of execution are left to verbal instuctions or perhaps a word of command. This ensures that everyone retains freedom of movement and decision within the bounds of their authority.


Page 65:

Von Moltke’s insight is that there is no choice to make. Far from it, he demands high autonomy and high alignment at one and the same time. He breaks the compromise. He realizes quite simply that the more alignment you have, the more autonomy you can grant. …

The insight is that the alignment needs to be achieved around intent, and autonomy should be granted around actions. Intent is expressed in terms of what to achieve and why. Autonomy concerns the actions taken in order to realize the intent; in other words, about what to do and how. By requiring his commanders to distinguish between “what and why” on the one hand and “how” on the other, von Moltke creates an organization which is positioned at the top right of this chart.


Page 74:

The basis of leadership are the mission (Auftrag) and the situation.

The mission identifies the goal to be achieved and must always be the point of focus. A mission which tries to encompass multiple tasks can all too easily obscure what really matters.

An uncertain situation is normal. It will rarely be possible to gain more acccurate information about the state of the enemy. While you should obviously try to find out as much as possible, waiting for more information in a critical situation is seldom a sign of incisive leadership, and often a serious mistake. …

A leader must grant his subordinates freedom of action as long as doing so does not compromise his intention. He must not, however, allow them to make a decision for which he is responsible.


Page 86:

So the “plan-and-implement model” of strategy becomes a “do-and-adapt” model. Strategy development and execution merge into one circular process. The thinking-doing loop is kept as short as possible so as to reduce uncertainty and increase tempo. …

With great consistency, mission command allows armies to make rapid decisions in an uncertain, fast-changing environment and to translate them, without delay, into decisive action. They can act faster than their opponents and keep on doing so, because speed is built into them structurally. …

A German officer, confronted by some task, would ask: what is the core of the problem? An American one, trained in the “engineering approach” to war, would inquire: what are the problem’s component parts?


Page 104:

Clausewitz’s comments are worth quoting: If he is to successfully prevail in this constant struggle with the unexpected, then two qualities are essential: firstly a mind which even in this heightened darkness is not without some shafts of inner light which lead him to the truth, and then the courage to follow that dim light. The first can be characterized with the French experssion coup d’oeil (glance of a practiced eye/gut feeling) and the second is conviction.


Page 136:

However, following the example of von Moltke’s “directives”, it is possible to formulate a statement of intent which contains “all, but also only, what subordinates cannot determine for themselves to achieve a particular purpose.” The quality of the direction coming from the very top can make an enormous difference to performance.


Page 168:

In the backbrief three things happen. The first obvious thing is that the unit being briefed checks its understanding of the direction it has received or worked out. Secondly, and less obviously, the superior gains clarity for the first time about what the implications of their own directions actually are, and may revise them as a result. Thirdly, it provides an opportunity to ensure alignment across the organization as well as up and down it. … It is normal for them to get it slightly wrong the first time around. IT is also quite normal for a strategy brief to require revision.


Page 170:

Although closing the alignment gap involves a process, the process is merely a way of linking together briefing and backbriefing between levels. The essence of briefing is not a process, but a skill. Although the strategy briefing template looks like a form, it is really a set of concepts to help structure thinking. …

The steps required to achieve alignment in the context of friction have been famously and memorably enumerated by the Austrian psychologist Konrad Lorenz. Drawing on his observations about what is needed to make people change, we might modify them for an organization as the following:

  1. What is said is not yet heard.
  2. What is heard is not yet understood.
  3. What is understood is not yet believed.
  4. What is believed is not yet advocated.
  5. What is advocated is not yet acted on.
  6. What is acted on is not yet compelted.


Page 188:

Statements and documents should be used to reinforce and consolidate rather than lead change. The best ones are short, simple explanations of the principles guiding behavior which help people to make choices, and are best illustrated with stories.


Page 232:

Directing as “command in business”:

  • Ready: I understand what I have to do and why (Directing)
  • Willing: I am prepared to go along with this/I am committed to making it a success (Leading)
  • Able: I have the skills and resources to make a start/carry it through (Managing)

Executives who master the disciplines of formulating and giving good direction can explain to people what they have to achieve and why, and so make them ready to act. By mastering management they can put people into a position in which they are able to act. And by leading them effectively they can sustain people’s willingness to carry on until the job is done.