Mission command is more than just a leadership philosophy; it is a culture that is built on trust, empowerment and decentralized execution. It demands leaders who can clearly articulate intent, allow their teams freedom of action, and focus on outcomes rather than rigid control of processes. Throughout my career, I have turned wrenches on the flight line as a jet engine mechanic, and as an Enlisted Professional Military Education (EPME) instructor, shaped future leaders in the classroom. I have witnessed firsthand how critical it is to foster mission command culture. A key to doing this successfully is learning to micro-engage, not micro-manage.
At its core, mission command emphasizes three fundamental tenets: building trust, shared understanding and clear intent. Leaders set the vision, define objectives and empower subordinates to determine how best to accomplish the mission. This contrasts sharply with micro-management, where supervisors control not only the state of the end but also the step-by-step process, often stifling innovation and ownership.
During my early days working on the flight line, maintaining the engines of E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) and B-52 Stratofortress aircraft, I experienced both sides of the building trust spectrum. On one hand, I had supervisors who trusted their Airmen. They would outline the mission and leave it to us to plan inspections, coordinate parts and execute the task. These leaders would periodically engage by checking status, offering resources, or removing barriers, but they never hovered or dictated our every move. This trust empowered our crew to think critically, solve problems and take pride in our workmanship.
On the other hand, I also encountered leaders who micromanaged every step. They would stand over our shoulders, question every torque value and second-guess our decisions. Although their intentions were good, ensuring safe, quality maintenance, their style often led to resentment, hesitation and a lack of confidence among the team. The stark difference between these leadership styles stayed with me, shaping my philosophy as I transitioned from wrench-turner to instructor.
Today, as an EPME instructor, I strive to embody mission command in the classroom. Instead of dictating every aspect of student learning, I set clear expectations, provide resources, and then step back, allowing students to take ownership of their education. When they struggle, I engage, not to control, but to coach, guide and encourage. This is the heart of micro-engaging: checking in intentionally and purposefully without robbing individuals of the chance to lead themselves.
Micro-engagement, when done correctly, supports mission command by reinforcing trust and accountability. It requires leaders to remain actively aware of their team's progress without inserting themselves unnecessarily. Micro-engagement means asking open-ended questions like, "What challenges are you facing?" or "What support do you need to meet the objective?" instead of giving a laundry list of instructions. It signals to the team, that their leaders not only care about the outcome but also about their development and that they respect their judgment and competence as an Airman.
In contrast, micro-management often arises from fear: fear of failure, fear of blame or fear of looking bad. Yet ironically, it is this very fear-driven control that stifles performance and increases risk. In high-stakes environments like aircraft maintenance, we must train Airmen to think and act decisively, not wait for permission at every turn. Similarly, in the classroom, we must develop critical thinkers, not passive note-takers. Mission command provides the framework to do this by pushing decision-making authority to the lowest capable level.
An important part of fostering mission command is building shared understanding. As a jet engine mechanic, this meant ensuring everyone on the crew understood the aircraft’s condition, the mission requirements and the timeline. It was not enough for only the expeditor or the flight chief to know the plan, every Airman turning a wrench needed to understand how their work connected to the larger mission. Likewise, in the classroom, it is critical that students not only know what the end goal is (graduation) but also understand how each lesson, activity and discussion ties into their professional development and joint warfighting readiness.
Clear communication of intent is equally vital. In maintenance, clear intent often sounded like, "This jet must be fully mission capable by six a.m. for an intelligence sortie; priority is on radar and engines." In the classroom, it sounds like, "By the end of this lesson, you will be able to apply ethical decision-making principles in leadership scenarios." With clear intent, teams are empowered to make decisions aligned with the mission without needing step-by-step instructions.
Transitioning from the flight line to the classroom has given me a deeper appreciation for how critical developmental engagement is. On the flight line, an Airman might develop technical proficiency through hands-on tasks and mentorship. In the classroom, students develop cognitive and leadership proficiency through dialogue, critical thinking exercises and real-world application. In both areas, leaders must provide enough engagement to mentor and develop their teams but resist the temptation to micromanage them.
Fostering a mission command culture also requires patience. Mistakes will happen, just as a young Airman may miss a step in an inspection, a student may struggle with public speaking or critical analysis. When this happens, leaders must micro-engage to correct, coach, and build resilience, not swoop in to take over or shame. Every engagement should be a steppingstone to greater competence and confidence.
Ultimately, mission command is about creating an environment where people are trusted to act, empowered to think and supported to grow. It is about leading with purpose, not control. My experience maintaining engines on the flight line taught me the importance of empowering others to own their craft. My experience instructing in the classroom reaffirmed that true leadership is about guiding, not gripping tightly.
As leaders, we must replace the fear that drives micromanagement with confidence to micro-engage meaningfully. We must trust our teams enough to let them think, act and even fail. In doing so, we will build not just compliant followers, but agile, resilient and mission-ready Airmen.