I don’t have a reference available but the concept of ‘Mission Command’ used by the UK Army amongst others contains the best and most succinct description I’ve seen of how to delegate a task to a subordinate. And is perfectly suited to many civilian situations as well. From memory, and paraphrasing, it boils down to

State what you, as the leader, are trying to achieve, and why ('the big picture')

State what you want the subordinate to achieve

Define the resources available to the subordinate, and any constraints

Say how you want progress / issues to be reported

You don’t define how the subordinate should carry out the task – if they are competent and you trust them, they should be able to figure this out themselves.

[Edit] - the military distinction between command and control is also relevant to the civilian distinction between leadership and management. Paraphrasing slightly: Command is getting people to do something. Control is stopping them from doing something else.

This is actually addressed in a rather identical manner in _The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People_ by Stephen Covey. He talks about giving his son a task, outlining success and failure outcomes, and providing constraints and boundaries.

> You don’t define how the subordinate should carry out the task – if they are competent and you trust them, they should be able to figure this out themselves.

I would argue that this isn't always the case. When tasking a subordinate you should also consider where they fit in a matrix of competency and confidence. If they are competent and confident in their ability to carry out the task then what you described is fine. If they aren't competent I'd give them the task but keep a very close eye on progress and be ready to step in with feedback before things spiral out of control. If they're competent but lack confidence I'd probably have them walk through their plan with me first. This can help them feel more confident in the approach that they planned to take. If they are neither competent or confident in their ability to perform the task I'd question why they're being assigned it.

Totally agree - I should have unpacked 'trust' in more detail :-). It includes competence and confidence as you say, whether their experience is current or out-of-date, whether they have been trained by an organisation that you trust, and several other factors. If I was tasking someone who lacked any of these, I'd definitely want to keep an eye / mentor / etc.

The Mission Command concept actually stems from the German concept of auftragstaktik which was a contributing factor in their early successes during the Blitzkrieg campaigns early in WW2. See for example https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/how-germans-defined-au...

This is great. Would love to read a longer version from where this comes from.

There is a dedicated publication on mission command here https://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/misc/doctrine/CD...

It looks like there's a newer version (July 2019) available here: https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/adp6_22.pdf

Ebook is available too! https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/Details.aspx?P...

Brilliant. Thank you.

“Leadership is influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improve the organization.”

I was taught a lot of bullshit in my Army days but the definition on the first page of that book is seared into my brain. It’s succinct and I still refer to it when evaluating myself and my efficacy as a leader. It’s a great little manual to start with, especially when most books on leadership are 90% marketing garbage.

This paragraph speaks to perhaps the most common mistake I see business leaders make, especially at startups:

"Because subordinates learn best by doing, leaders should be willing to take prudent risks and accept the possibility that less-experienced subordinates will make mistakes. Risk assessment and risk management help determine existing risks and mitigation strategies. If subordinate leaders are to grow and develop trust, it is best to let them learn through experience. Effective leaders allow space for subordinates to experiment within the bounds of intent-based orders and plans."

As a team lead I was completely surprised by the consequences of this. Most of the time when you indulge a junior engineer trying to stretch their wings they end up failing as you might expect. As long as they aren't going to throw a sprint completely out of whack, cause massive deadline slips or damage critical code modules I usually let them have at it, often with some boundary on the time I'm willing to allow them to make the attempt. My experience is that preventing someone from "scratching an itch" leads to them losing motivation very quickly. But the surprises are the successes. I've seen junior engineers pull off some extraordinary efforts resulting in objective improvements that positively affect the entire team. Those moments are among the most rewarding and memorable of leadership. I thought they were going to learn a lesson but they end up teaching me one about trust.

Good advice for parenting, too.

"Small Unit Leadership" is also excellent and also from the US Army.

Good ones are also: "Duty" (Robert Gates) "Call Sign Chaos" (Mattis) "Extreme Ownership"

The one about Mattis has a very long list of book recommendations at the end.

Extreme Leadership is interesting if contrived. It clearly hones in on 2 qualities of leadership often overlooked: 1. Clear communication of desires and expectations, 2. Ownership of results, not of success. The stories will feel contrived to anyone who has read similar books as they seem constructed to prove a point instead of lived in.

I loved the SUL book, and it's on Audible too:

https://www.audible.com/pd/Small-Unit-Leadership-Audiobook/B...

1-91. Everyone has an identity or a way they see themselves. Leaders internalize the roles, responsibilities, and actions that they understand of a leader to be, know, and do. Leaders who are unsure of themselves filling the role of a leader will be limited until they have confidence. Without a clear leader identity, others will question the type of leader they are, what they stand for, and the way they conduct themselves. What a leader believes about their role as a leader serves as a constant guide to behave as a leader of good character. Practice identifying as a leader—doing the right things in the right way—becomes habitual and helps junior personnel along the path to becoming seasoned, effective leaders.

The military is an org that has a chain of command in which strict adherence to orders from your superiors is a question of life and death. I don't know if it's a good idea that managers in an office environment attempt to emulate the military.

As a former military leader, the ability to lead is built on a foundation of trust and competence prior to combat. The Army leadership manual is designed as a framework for developing those skills. The military just generally has a higher acceptance of risk up to and including the loss of life. In war, death is expected and factored into the decision making process. You would not see such risk taking in a corporate world. Strict adherence to orders in a life or death situation is required but often those orders are entirely reasonable.

Leading troops in combat is as much a tactical challenge as it is a logistical challenge. As cheesy as it sounds, leadership skills developed prior to and during combat are directly translatable to the corporate world. A great military leader is equally capable of being a great corporate leader. There is nothing specifically in the Army leadership style that could not be applied to a corporate setting.

There are certain things about military command structures that don't apply outside the military, sure.

But people are people, communication is communication and at the end of the day, regardless of what else they are, armed forces are large complicated organizations. It would be foolish to assume that because your organization(s) have different goals and mandates, they have nothing to learn about communication, leadership, training, etc. from decades (at minimum) of well documented armed forces experience.

Great point. Can you please indicate that you read it the linked text, and how the linked text emphasizes the criticisms you raise?

I understand where you're coming from, but realistically no one's going to read an over 100 page document for the purpose of commenting to hacker news. By the time they'd finished it, the thread would be dead for a long time.

From TFA:

> The principal audience for ADRP 6-22 is all leaders, military and civilian

You listen to Jocko podcast by any chance?

I listened to a few, maybe up to four, then I couldn't take it anymore, the war fetish just got too high. I think I hit the stop button for good when he said on the podcast how he "only read a book if it was about war". Don't get me wrong, the idead of owning up to the results of your team is great, but the constant high-intensity, treat-everything-in-life-as-if-you're-in-combat-and-you-have-to-crush-it mood seems too one-sided a view of leadership to take. The Army manual on leadership, on the other hand, I find very good.

Thank you that is great and very worth reading.

Something I've enjoyed as well which is a bit shorter and maybe quicker to digest is the chapter discussing leadership in the Art of Scalability https://www.amazon.co.uk/Art-Scalability-Architecture-Organi.... The authors have a military background no doubt influenced by DOD doctrine.

The Armed Forces Officer: Edition of 1950 is also excellent in this regard. Covers leadership and also personal career development. Many lessons for tech teams if you pay thoughtful attention. https://www.amazon.com/Armed-Forces-Officer-1950/dp/09883696...

"Serve to Lead" is the British Army's version. Unfortunately I don't think there is a PDF version available.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28437746-serve-to-lead

One user had shared a similar guide for British military few days ago. Haven't completed it. But it does seem promising.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21663431

Couldn't agree more. Read a couple of battle analysis by the USA army , which constantly compared decisions to what the decision should be accordingly to the USA army field manual to explain. You're absolutely right!

I'm reading through it and absolutely loving it so far. They're able to succinctly capture concepts I have had trouble defining.

Are there any specific parts you'll recommend? Or anything I should skip?

I'm glad you're finding it useful!

Regarding skipping, I can't recall anything that's counterproductive to read, but it's possible I skipped those parts, and, so, can't remember them. I wouldn't hesitate to jump into sections that seem especially relevant to your situation, and then jump back out.

In terms of parts to recommend, I thought Chapter 6 had especially practical/applicable content for me as a manager. Within that chapter, I felt that the "Counseling, Coaching, and Mentoring" section (beginning at section 6-52, through Table 6-3) is especially pertinent, as it laid out those particular roles and responsibilities far better than any of the internal resources I was given. The lines between those roles at startups are often muddy, if they're even laid out at all, and there's a lot of great work that senior engineers / tech leads can do to develop junior engineers they work with, outside the normal manager / IC dynamic.

Cannot download from Italy. "forbidden". Apparently only with Chrome (FF download properly)

What works in the "real" army is mentioned in counterproductive leadership in the book.

* Abusive behaviors—includes behaviors that involve a leader exceeding the boundaries of their authority by being abusive, cruel, or degrading others. These behaviors are contrary to what is required for the moral, ethical, and legal discharge of their duty. Specific examples include, but are not limited to, bullying, berating others for mistakes, creating conflict, ridiculing others because of the authority held, domineering, showing little or no respect to others, insulting or belittling individuals, condescending or talking down to others, or retaliating for perceived slights or disagreements.

* Self-serving behaviors—includes behaviors that result from self-centered motivations on the part of the leader, where they act in ways that seek primarily to accomplish their own goals and needs before those of others. Specific examples include, but are not limited to, displaying arrogance, lacking concern or empathy for others, taking credit for others' work, insisting on having their way, distorting information to favor own ideas, exaggerating accomplishments or abilities, putting own work and accomplishments ahead of others' and the mission, displaying narcissistic tendencies, or exhibiting a sense of entitlement.

* Erratic behaviors—includes behaviors related to poor self-control or volatility that drive the leader to act erratically or unpredictably. Specific examples include, but are not limited to, blaming others, deflecting responsibility, losing temper at the slightest provocation, behaving inconsistently in words and actions, insecurity, or being unapproachable.

* Leadership incompetence—includes ineffective leadership behaviors that result from a lack of experience or willful neglect. Incompetence can include failure to act or acting poorly. While incompetent leadership can arise from reasons unrelated to counterproductive leadership, it is included as a category often associated with arrogant or abusive leaders who are not aware of their shortcomings and do not seek to correct their shortcomings. Conversely, some leaders lacking competence are aware of their shortcomings, which lead them to behave in counterproductive or negative ways to cover up their shortcomings or mistakes. Specific examples include, but are not limited to, unengaged leadership, being passive or reactionary, neglecting leadership responsibilities, displaying poor judgment, poorly motivating others, withholding encouragement, failing to clearly communicate expectations, or refusing to listen to subordinates.

* Corrupt behaviors—includes behaviors that violate explicit Army standards, regulations, or policies. Violations may range from behaviors subject to administrative discipline to criminal actions subject to discharge or incarceration. Specific examples include, but are not limited to, dishonesty, misusing government resources or time, creating a hostile work environment, EEO/SHARP violations, or violating Section 3583 (Requirement of Exemplary Conduct), Title 10, United States Code, AR 600-100, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice.