Inappropriate Centralization Of Authority

Centralization of authority comes naturally to bureaucracy. Real or imagined policies preventing subordinate initiative remain a major source of frustration at both senior and junior organizational levels. Finding the proper balance between essential centralization and desirable empowerment of subordinates remains a challenge. When operational success depends heavily on subordinate initiative, finding such balance becomes a necessity. Inappropriate centralization of authority penalizes doubly. It reduces the ability of subordinate leaders to exploit their skill and situational awareness; and it diverts focus and energy at higher echelons from their unique responsibilities.

Clarifying who has the authority to make what kind of decision is worth discussion at any level from platoon to army and in all staffs. The time to do it is well before the action begins. Erroneous assumptions about the boundaries of action abound even in good organizations. The issue is sensitive, emotional, central to a coherent climate, and too often not openly addressed.

Institutional recognition of a continuing problem

Granting subordinates the authority to accomplish assigned missions has been long recognized as necessary for a high-performing organization.

In fact, decentralization in the administrative arena holds as much potential for strengthening organizational productivity as initiatives in field operations. When particular activities—such as attendance at certain seminars-- must be reported regularly, those absolutes move to the head of the list whether deserved or not. Having an “administrative mission command” environment where end-states are described but methods left to local commanders should be as important as the tactical “mission command” mindset. For example, in an administrative “mission command mode” problems with sexual harassment or bullying might be deal with