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 It includes competence and confidence as you say, whether their experience is current or out-of-date, whether they have been trained by an organisation that you trust, and several other factors.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...