army task and purpose examples

Commanders intent & end state – the military’s solution for “why”

by Edward Beyne | Leadership

Commander’s intent and end state are given by leaders, so their team understands the purpose and outcome intended.

Armed with this information, a team can make decisions in a dynamic environment without needing leadership involvement., their decisions will be made with the knowledge of whether their original plan is out the window. they just need to work towards meeting the intent and end state that they received from their leader ..

The commander’s intent and end state are important concepts in military leadership. Many objectives were lost because these concepts were not understood. 

Let’s start with the definitions. 

Commander’s intent:

  • Commander – a person in authority
  • Intention – an aim or plan.

When they are combined, it results in “a person of authority’s aim.” The commander’s intent is the leader’s desired outcome.

  • End – come or bring to a final point; finish.
  • State – the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time.

When they are combined, the result is “the final condition of someone or something at a specific time.” The end state is the vision for the outcome.

The best official definition of these concepts can be found in an Army publication: 

“The commander’s intent succinctly describes what constitutes success for the operation. It includes the operation’s purpose, key tasks, and the conditions that define the end state. It links the mission, concept of operations, and tasks to subordinate units. A clear commander’s intent facilitates a shared understanding and focuses on the overall conditions that represent mission accomplishment. During execution, the commander’s intent spurs disciplined initiative” (ADRP 5-0, pg 2-19)

A clear commander’s intent and end state will empower a team to make decisions. They will be confident in their decisions because they will understand the purpose and goal behind them. This will remove the need to confirm every decision with leadership.  

Examples of Commander’s Intent

The best way to explain the impact of a commander’s intent is through examples. 

  • Friendly situation : You are a squad leader. You have three teams in your squad. Each team has four infantrymen, one corporal team leader, and three riflemen. Your squad totals 13, including yourself. You are currently located on Hill 11 (below reference).
  • Enemy situation : There is a likely enemy fire team on Hill 22. The enemy fire team consists of one corporal team leader and three riflemen.
  • Mission : Your mission is to destroy the enemy on Hill 22
  • Commander’s Intent : None

army task and purpose examples

Your squad approaches Hill 22. When you get within visible distance, you see that the enemy IS NOT on Hill 22.

You can see them on Hill 33.

army task and purpose examples

As the leader, what do you do?

  • Attack Hill 22 hoping that taking the hill was the intent of the mission. 
  • Attack Hill 33 to destroy the enemy fire team that is there.

Without the commander’s intent or end state there is no correct answer. 

The commander may have wanted you to attack Hill 22 because it is key terrain in the area. In this case, you should take Hill 22. 

The commander may have wanted you to attack Hill 22 to destroy the enemy. In this case, you should change headings and attack Hill 33 to destroy the enemy. 

Let’s add the commander’s intent and end state to our original mission.

  • Mission: Destroy the enemy on Hill 22.
  • Commander’s Intent: In order to clear all enemy presence in the area of operation.
  • End State: No enemy is able to attack friendly installations in the area of operation.

Now, you are faced with the same situation. The enemy has moved to Hill 33.

What would you do? 

army task and purpose examples

With the intent of clearing the enemy and the end state of the enemy not being able to operate, you should attack Hill 33. 

  • Mission: Destroy the enemy on Hill 22
  • Commander’s Intent: In order to control the observation post on Hill 22
  • End State: Friendly forces are able to freely use the observation post on Hill 22 to observe the surrounding area

What would you do with this intent?

army task and purpose examples

With the intent of taking the observation post , you should attack Hill 22, no matter what. This applies, even if the enemy has moved to Hill 33. 

Hopefully, these examples made it clear how powerful these concepts are. Understanding the purpose and end goal of a task will change how people execute it. 

Format for commander’s intent 

In the Marine Corps, the commander’s intent is woven into the five-paragraph order. The five-paragraph order is the format that leaders use to communicate their plan.

In the five-paragraph order, there are a few wa ys that intent is given.

First, in the execution paragraph, there is a subparagraph designated specifically for the commander’s intent and end state. In their plan, the commander will literally say “my commander’s intent for this mission is to…” and then “the end state for this mission is…”

Commander’s intent – My intent for this mission is to destroy the enemy on or near Hill 22 to allow for friendly movement on Highway 5.

  • Destroy any enemy that can affect Highway 5.
  • Breach enemy obstacles on Hill 22.
  • Integrate fires within the attack.

End state – The end state of this mission will be to consolidate Charlie Company Marines on Hill 22 monitoring and disrupting enemy activity around Highway 5.

The Marine Corps also expresses intent by using an “in order to” format in their mission and tasking statements.

Some examples of this format are:

  • Destroy the enemy on Hill 22 in order to protect civilian movement on Highway 5.
  • Suppress the enemy on Objective 1 in order to allow the 2nd squad to breach the obstacle.

Using a cue, such as “in order to,” does a few things. First, it prompts leaders to remember to put intent in their tasks. Second, it forces the leader to pause and consider the purpose of the task.

I always stop and think for a few seconds after writing the “in order to” in my tasking statements. I must make sure that I’m writing or saying the right intent within this task. 

I like the use of questions to prompt me to consider the correct things. 

For commander’s intent and end state some good questions are:

Commander’s intent  

  • Why are we doing this? 
  • How does it help the team reach its goals?
  • When it’s complete, what would it look like?

This is the commander’s intent and end state for the commander’s intent: 

  • The commander’s intent and end state allows your team to understand your reason for executing a task, in order to allow them to make accurate decisions when the environment changes.
  • The end state of the commander’s intent and end state is for your team to successfully complete tasks, without leadership intervention or supervision. 

I understand that we’re not attacking hills in the civilian workplace. The business world is sufficiently complex to benefit from intent ( commanders are not used for business applications) and end state.  

Decisions are constantly being made by everyone from the executive team to the hourly worker. These decisions are based on their understanding of their leaders’ intent and end state. Even if they have never heard of these terms, they still apply. 

The senior procurement manager, merchandising managers, and engineers are all making decisions based on their understanding of CEOs, vice presidents, and directors’ intent and end state. The better they understand it, the more accurate their decisions will be. If they do not understand it, their decisions will be adversely affected.

If you asked ten different people what the intent and end state of the most important project in the company is, you would probably get ten different answers. 

You should get one.  

army task and purpose examples

The best practice would be to provide your intent and end state for every task and meeting and ask for intent and end state from your associates. 

Repetition is essential for retention. 

  • Giving intent and end state on a project : The intent of this project is to produce the best pair of men’s running shoes between $100 – $150, with the end state of reaching a 30% market share in that segment by end of the year. 
  • Intent and end state of a meeting : “My intent of this meeting is to get input on the team structure for this project. The end state is to make a decision on the team, so we can move forward with the project”
  • Intent and end state of a task : “Hey, Jess. I need some help processing this ticket. My intent is to get this ticket closed today or tomorrow, so I can start working on this platform again.”
  • Asking for intent and end state : “Just to be clear, the intent of this spreadsheet is to compare Q1 and Q2 income statements, so our director can report it to the VP in next week’s meeting.”

Intent and end state can be used in almost any situation. They are an excellent framework for clarifying the purpose of almost any situation. 

The commander’s intent is to provide the reason for actions.  Therefore, if their environment changes, they can make good decisions without further guidance. The end state is that everyone can make decisions on their own as effectively as possible.

If they receive a clear definition of the commander’s intent and end state, subordinate leaders and individual contributors will be able to make the correct decisions rapidly and without guidance in dynamic environments.  

REFERENCES:

  • “ADRP 5-0 THE OPERATIONS PROCESS.” HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. May 2012. Link
  • Stouffer, Jeff and Farley, Dr. Kelly. “Command Intent: International Perspectives and Challenges”. 2008. Link
  • Dempsey, Maj. Richard Dempsey and Chavous, Maj. Jonathan M. “Commander’s Intent and Concept of Operations.” MILITARY REVIEW. November-December 2013. Link

SUBSCRIBE FOR EMAIL UPDATES

Enter you best email address in the field below to join my mailing list and receive the latest updates right in your inbox.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Submit a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Submit Comment

army task and purpose examples

SUBSCRIBE TO MY BLOG

Join my mailing list to receive the latest news and updates right in your inbox.

  • Recent Articles
  • Journal Authors
  • El Centro Main
  • El Centro Reading List
  • El Centro Links
  • El Centro Fellows
  • About El Centro
  • Publish Your Work
  • Editorial Policy
  • Mission, Etc.
  • Rights & Permissions
  • Contact Info
  • Support SWJ
  • Join The Team
  • Mad Science
  • Front Page News
  • Recent News Roundup
  • News by Category
  • Urban Operations Posts
  • Recent Urban Operations Posts
  • Urban Operations by Category
  • Tribal Engagement
  • For Advertisers

Home

Disciplined Initiative and The Commander’s Intent

Brian C. Leakey

Commanders drive planning by describing their understanding and visualization of the Operational Environment (OE) to staffs and subordinate commanders.  The Commander’s Intent is clearly the major inject point of conceptual planning from Army Design Methodology (ADM) into detailed planning.  Yet many commanders struggle to write effective Intent statements in a manner that clearly describe their visualization, facilitates effective planning, and provides for disciplined initiative.  This article addresses only the Commander’s Intent, specifically the “Key Tasks” portion. 

Commanders describe their visualization in terms of Commander’s Intent, planning guidance (including an operational approach), Commander’s critical information requirements (CCIR), and essential elements of friendly information (EEFI) (ADRP 5-0, page 1-5).  Commanders develop their intent statement personally using the following components:

Expanded Purpose (not the same “why” as shown in the mission statement, but the b-r-o-a-d-e-r purpose of the operation and its relationship to the force as a whole). Key Tasks – those activities the force must perform as a whole to achieve the desired end-state. End-state – desired future conditions of the friendly force in relationship to desired conditions of the enemy, terrain, and civil considerations.

Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 5-0, The Operations Process, states that “Key tasks are not specified tasks for any subordinate unit; however, they may be sources of implied tasks… Examples of key tasks include terrain the force must control or an effect the force must have on the enemy” (ADRP 5-0, page 2-19).  Over the last two decades, the Key Tasks portion of Commander’s Intent had, in too many instances, become a lengthy “laundry list” of everything the Commander thought necessary for mission accomplishment.  The Key Task “list” was oftentimes so long that staffs were unable to discern what was genuinely “Key” to the commander.  Many staffs interpreted the lengthy Key Task “list” as the Commander prescribing or directing a course of action (COA) to them.  Staffs also struggled with using these Key Tasks as a basis for evaluation criteria (i.e., how many to use, which should be weighted, etc.).  As a result, Army doctrine writers removed Key Tasks from Commander’s Intent in the March 2010 edition of FM 5-0, The Operations Process (Key Tasks were brought back into the Commander’s Intent in the May 2012 version of ADRP 5-0).   

Further complicating this challenge, Army doctrine is inundated with the term “task.”  Variations include: Commander’s tasks, staff tasks, offensive tasks, defensive tasks, stability tasks, tactical mission tasks, critical tasks, essential tasks, ad infinitum .  Planning staffs routinely struggle to differentiate between tactical mission tasks, critical tasks, essential tasks, and key tasks; is it any wonder that the concept of key tasks is abused/misused?  This article proposes replacing the term “Key Tasks” with a term that emphasizes the relationship between Key Tasks and the operational approach: “Approach.”  The Approach would consist of a short list of tasks, efforts, or effects with corresponding purposes or level of importance.

It is important to understand how the operational approach, developed either in the Design Concept or through the commander’s personal visualization, informs development of the Key Tasks (Approach) in the Commander’s Intent.  Mission Command philosophy facilitates bridging existing gaps between the art of command and the science of control.  According to ADRP 6-0, Mission Command , the Mission Command concept provides commanders a mechanism to “counter the uncertainty of operations by reducing the amount of certainty needed to act.”  This is profound; mission command provides staffs and subordinate leaders the ability to act on a concept, rather than rely on a detailed plan for execution.  This further validates the importance of the Commander’s Intent.

Given the complexity and ambiguity of operations, the Commander’s Intent must provide focus to staffs and subordinate leaders as they “wade” through uncertainty.  Current and future operations are nebulous; conditions change often and rapidly.  Subordinate leaders must often make decisions that have strategic implications without first talking to their commanders; an engagement with a local tribal leader, followed by an offensive operation, transitioning to partnering with a host nation police chief, then conducting an assessment of local infrastructure capacity.  Constantly confronted with unanticipated conditions or events, subordinate leaders must routinely make decisions without instructions written in an OPORD from higher headquarters (think of the Rapid Decision Making and Synchronization Process [RDSP]).  TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1, Army Operating Concept – Win in a Complex World, stresses that Army leaders must improve and thrive in ambiguity; rather than seeking favorable force ratios at a decisive point, leaders must achieve cognitive dominance to prevent, shape, and win in the future OE.  Concise, understandable Commander’s Intent statements, with a clearly understood Approach, will drive cognitive dominance.

Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Operations , describes the operational approach as a commander’s description of the broad actions the force must take to achieve the desired military end state .  It is the commander’s visualization of how the operation should transform current conditions into the desired conditions at the end state—how the commander wants the operational environment to look like at the successful conclusion of operations.  This should sound familiar since the Army adopted the joint definition in ADRP 5-0, The Operations Process (May 2012).  ADRP 5-0 expands on this definition by stating that the operational approach describes the broad, general actions that will resolve the problem.  ADRP 3-0, Unified Land Operations, defines operational approach as “a description of the broad actions the force must take to transform current conditions into those desired at end state” (JP 5-0).  Commanders use a common doctrinal language to visualize and describe their operational approach.  The operational approach provides a framework that relates tactical tasks to the desired end state.  It provides a unifying purpose and focus to all operations.”  In his book Planning for Action: Campaign Concepts and Tools, Dr. Jack Kem states that commanders develop the operational approach or “theory of action” to “bridge the gap” in order to transform the current environment to the desired end state.

army task and purpose examples

Remember the importance of Warning Orders (WARNORDs); while staffs directly receive planning guidance for COA development and subsequent planning, subordinate commanders do not, and they are also “consumers” of the Commander’s Intent.  Removal of “Key Tasks” from the Commander’s Intent in the March 2010 version of FM 5-0 was an overly hasty response to leaders who wrote a litany of prescriptive tasks.  The doctrinal result was a neutered statement containing an optional “Purpose”, coupled with a “cookie cutter” end-state that provided little to nothing for subordinate commanders to use for planning.  When a division headquarters published WARNORD #2, what description of the division commander’s visualization did BCT Commanders use to conduct parallel planning?  ADRP 5-0 The Operations Process , May 2012, rightly reintroduced Key Tasks back into Commander’s Intent. 

In the interests of common understanding, facilitating planning (and parallel planning by subordinate units), and overall improvement in Mission Command as the integrating warfighting function, “Approach” should replace the term “Key Tasks” of Commander’s Intent.  Developed by the commander either individually or assisted by a “Design Team,” the Approach can address specific actions to be accomplished, conditions to be established, use of defeat or stability mechanisms, and potential lines of operation or lines of effort (Kem).  Since the Approach is a broad conceptualization to resolving the problem, staffs would be less constrained in planning, yet be enabled to translate the Approach (along with the broader purpose and end-state) into feasible, acceptable, suitable COAs.

The terminology used for describing the Approach should be clear, concise, unambiguous words and should state the “why.”  Phrases like “ Aggressively mass effects on OBJ BRAVO ” are useless (would a unit timidly mass effects?).  Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) or obvious implied task phrases like “ Conduct river crossing,” “Conduct RSO&I IAW Annex W,” “Protect the population – take all precautions to limit civilian casualties,” or “Conduct forward passage of lines” are specified or implied tasks that would be described in the Concept of Operations.  On the other hand, the following examples of Approach events state the “why” and describe tasks, efforts, or effects with corresponding purposes or levels of importance that would enable staffs to plan and subordinate leaders to execute with disciplined initiative:

“Rapidly generate combat power south of the XXXX River to sustain offensive tempo.” “Sever ENY LOCs in the vicinity of OBJ XXXXX to isolate his offensive capability.” “M inimize collateral damage to key infrastructure and cultural sites to set conditions for stability. ” “Focus IO on influencing the population to not interfere with Coalition operations.” “Control border to dissuade ENY intervention and isolate [insurgent] from sources of support.” “Restore essential services to acceptable levels to facilitate a return to normalcy.” “Influence local leadership and power brokers to support the government and denounce [insurgency].”

Some in the doctrine community advocate reducing the Commander’s Intent to simply the commander’s visualization of the end-state.  They argue that the current expanded Purpose is already contained in the mission and intent of the next two higher headquarters, and the Key Tasks are no different than the essential tasks specified in the mission statement.  While the definitions of Key Tasks and Essential Tasks are vague enough to create problems differentiating between the two (as stated earlier), the complexity of current and future operations requires commanders to articulate an Approach to staffs and subordinate leaders that provides them the ability to immediately exercise judgment based upon concepts, rather than waiting on detailed orders.  The “why” is key to creating opportunities for disciplined initiative.

About the Author(s)

Brian C. Leakey is an Assistant Professor and Staff Group Advisor in the Department of Army Tactics at the United States Army Command and General Staff College. He retired from the United States Army in 2005 after 21 years of active service as an Armor officer. During his career, he served with the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, TRADOC, and I Corps. He earned a M.A. in Education from Eastern New Mexico University. These are his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army or Department of Defense.

I've continuously struggled with what I have come to understand as the core idea behind mission command: unity of purpose in the absence of specific instructions. I struggle because on the one hand I understand and accept the idea. On the other hand, I have yet to see it expressed in a way that is intuitively understandable.

Take expanded purpose for example. What is the point of it? If my mission is to secure OBJ X, and its purpose is to disrupt enemy in vicinity Y, what is the need for me to account for the grand master plan? Am I so clueless otherwise that I could not understand why my Task Force is in the AO in the first place without this purpose? If my Task Force is defeated but my battalion or company is still intact, am I to prosecute the operation until I am defeated also? As it is currently constructed I Would imagine the expanded purpose for Operation Overlord would have been "defeat Nazi regime in order to restore international borders and deter aggression". True, yes...but a throw away line for sure.

I tend to agree with the article's critique of Key Tasks. But even here I find that the tasks presented in the concluding example are without a home in a narrative. Perhaps that is what the Expanded Purpose was supposed to be...the narrative explaining the raison d'etre of the operation and tying the tasks into a coherent whole. But I hazard to say that most commanders don't put much thought behind the narrative and are content with the mission statement. Thus, their narrative becomes a headline-style statement about the bigger "why" with a few seconds thought behind it.

If Mission Command is supposed to make us more lethal by enabling us to be more adaptable in execution, then we need to find ways of expressing purpose in meaningful ways. Otherwise, I would be tempted to argue that the Mission Statement by its self is sufficient when coupled with a standing orders issued at the beginning of the campaign . E.g. in the absence of orders all US Forces will seek out the enemy, ensure local populations are under control of X forces, and will obey the LOAC. Every thing else is details...

IMAGES

  1. FM 7-30: The Infantry Brigade

    army task and purpose examples

  2. PPT

    army task and purpose examples

  3. The Army Plan

    army task and purpose examples

  4. PPT

    army task and purpose examples

  5. Appendix C-- Army Terminology and Doctrine Relevant to Dismounted

    army task and purpose examples

  6. FM 7-0 Training the Force

    army task and purpose examples

COMMENTS

  1. Commanders intent & end state

    Example: Commander’s intent – My intent for this mission is to destroy the enemy on or near Hill 22 to allow for friendly movement on Highway 5. Key tasks: Destroy any enemy that can affect Highway 5. Breach enemy obstacles on Hill 22. Integrate fires within the attack.

  2. Mission Command

    A-24. Analyzing METT-TC is a continuous process. Leaders constantly receive information, from the time they begin planning through execution. During execution, their continuous analyses enable them...

  3. DOCTRINE SMARTCARD

    Develop an operational approach Develop the plan/transition to the military decision-making process OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK ADP 3-0 Area of operations Designate the deep, close, support, and...

  4. Disciplined Initiative and The Commander’s Intent

    Examples of key tasks include terrain the force must control or an effect the force must have on the enemy” (ADRP 5-0, page 2-19). Over the last two decades, the Key Tasks portion of Commander’s Intent had, in too many instances, become a lengthy “laundry list” of everything the Commander thought necessary for mission accomplishment.

  5. Army Operational Framework

    Provide examples of effective use of the operational framework to organize the battlefield. Describe the role of the operational framework within the operations structure. Familiarize the reader with the operational framework, its components, and the importance of assigning and managing AOs. The Operation Structure.