Mission command Decision-Making Biases 1
Mission command Decision-Making Biases
Author
Affiliation
Course
Instructor
Date
Mission command Decision-Making Biases 2
Mission command Decision-Making Biases
A mid-level leader's ability to make wise decisions might be negatively impacted by a
number of heuristics and biases that are highlighted in the Mission command white paper. Given
its unparalleled complexity and uncertainty, the new operating environment detailed in the white
paper inherently fosters a variety of cognitive biases. Going through the paper, the confirmation
bias, recency bias, and availability heuristic stand out as potentially being the most harmful of
these.
To begin with, confirmation bias, a tendency to interpret new information as confirmation
of one's existing beliefs, could significantly impede the application of mission command. As
articulated in the paper, the core attributes of Mission command are 'understanding' and 'trust.'
Regrettably, a leader ensnared by confirmation bias might disregard or distort information that
contradicts their preconceived notions. Such a leader might thereby forfeit a comprehensive
understanding of the mission and the operational environment, and erode the integral principle of
trust in the process. This distortion can lead to ill-judged decisions. In the context of the paper's
emphasis on the accelerated pace of operations and the increasingly complex and uncertain
operational environment, these misguided decisions could rapidly spiral into calamitous
outcomes. The leader's role in continuously re-framing the context of operations and challenging
assumptions thus becomes even more crucial in counteracting this bias and fostering an accurate
understanding of the mission landscape. By doing so, the leader ensures the application of
Mission command principles remains grounded in an accurate perception of reality, facilitating
effective decision-making and robust mission outcomes.
Additionally, recency bias which is the propensity to prioritize the latest information over
older data, could also impede effective decision-making. While the ability to rapidly respond to
Mission command Decision-Making Biases 3
fresh information is crucial, overreliance on recent information might cause leaders to overlook
valuable historical insights or larger patterns. This is particularly concerning in the light of the
paper's discussion on the accelerated pace of change and the necessity for leaders to 'frame and
reframe' the context of operations.
Lastly, the availability heuristic which is the cognitive shortcut that prompts individuals
to base decisions on readily accessible or vividly remembered information, might significantly
skew a leader's judgement. As the paper repeatedly underscores, the future security environment
will be laden with intricate, diverse threats and an escalating reliance on technological
superiority. In such a context, over-prioritizing the most visually striking or easily retrievable
information could engender a warped perception of threats, thereby distorting the risk assessment
process. Furthermore, an overemphasis on technology, driven by its accessibility and tangibility,
could result in an overreliance on technological solutions, which contradicts the balance between
the 'art of command' and the 'science of control'. This balance is a cornerstone of mission
command, with the former centered on intuitive judgement and the latter rooted in systemic,
often technologically-driven, processes. This bias could thus potentially create an imbalance,
sidelining the 'art of command' and fostering a disproportionate focus on the 'science of control',
a shift that would unduly prioritize system over strategy and potentially compromise the
operational efficacy.
Nonetheless, the mission command doctrine, with its emphasis on 'understanding,'
'intent,' and 'trust,' could serve as an antidote to these biases. By encouraging leaders to
continuously challenge their assumptions, to build trust at every echelon, and to give and receive
mission-type orders based on a clear intent, mission command prompts them to counteract their
innate cognitive biases. Therefore, while the cognitive biases inherent in the new operational
Mission command Decision-Making Biases 4
environment pose significant challenges to mid-level leaders, the core tenets of mission
command provide a robust framework for overcoming these challenges. Effective decision-
making, then, will not only require the recognition and mitigation of these biases but also the
relentless application of the principles of mission command.
Mission command Decision-Making Biases 5
References
Dempsey, M. E. (2012). Mission Command White Paper. U.S. Army
