War command is a practice, which ought to be exercised continuously so that an army can operate or exist. This definition is positive because it serves to bring out the unique aspects of authority. The few functions that can be carried out either by the army or inside the forces are of benefit in terms of respect, existence and operations.
Just like anything else, authority can vary with either complexity, size or even the differentiation of a given army. This can be reflected in a situation where there can be an army that consists of large troops and that with few members since both troops cannot be managed the same. An army that does not have other subdivisions among it is easier to manage or rather control. Coordinating a subdivided army is rather difficult.
With the sophistication of the forces, it is possible to account for the attention paid to it, the role of chain of control increases. First, this role should coordinate and arrange everything the army needs so as to exist such as the food supply, system justice and also the sanitary services etc. Second, it enables carrying out of responsibilities and also strategize on the maximum amount of death and damage on the enemy within a remarkably short period of time and ensure no or minimum loss to itself.
Responsibilities are an ability to determine what is true from what is a false, relevant thing from irrelevant, material from immaterial. In this case, authoritative responsibilities can be subdivided into two sectors. They can be determined as functional related and output related responsibilities. There are qualities that make an ideal control system, and they include the ability to gather information accurately, fast, comprehensively, and selectively.
With it, there are some pros that include coordination, harmony and peace among the troops, management of given tasks among the force members, cooperation between the commander and the troop members and also between the troop's members among themselves. The outcomes enable determine the progress of the force.
Though it may be of benefit to the army and the society, there is the other side of the coin.Authority can be the source of enmity between several commanders even in the same force which can cause a lot of dispute and damage. It is to the best interest of every person to know that it is not always that a commander is right. Some do not know how to manage anger or be lenient to the troop members who sometimes defy what they wanted done. Even leaders can be the cause of conflicts.
Differentiating various systems of control can be used to base how the above problems can be solved. The steps taken to deal with the increased complexity, attention paid to both the output related and function related responsibilities, emphasis attributed to any control process and also the strengths and weaknesses displayed are qualities that define the nature of an authoritative system.
Aspects like command are distinguished as stated earlier. They establish a standing ground of either positivity or negativity based on how it can be laid down. War command is a way of looking organized but if not put into proper use can be disorganized. Favorable outcomes come from reputable leadership
Just like anything else, authority can vary with either complexity, size or even the differentiation of a given army. This can be reflected in a situation where there can be an army that consists of large troops and that with few members since both troops cannot be managed the same. An army that does not have other subdivisions among it is easier to manage or rather control. Coordinating a subdivided army is rather difficult.
With the sophistication of the forces, it is possible to account for the attention paid to it, the role of chain of control increases. First, this role should coordinate and arrange everything the army needs so as to exist such as the food supply, system justice and also the sanitary services etc. Second, it enables carrying out of responsibilities and also strategize on the maximum amount of death and damage on the enemy within a remarkably short period of time and ensure no or minimum loss to itself.
Responsibilities are an ability to determine what is true from what is a false, relevant thing from irrelevant, material from immaterial. In this case, authoritative responsibilities can be subdivided into two sectors. They can be determined as functional related and output related responsibilities. There are qualities that make an ideal control system, and they include the ability to gather information accurately, fast, comprehensively, and selectively.
With it, there are some pros that include coordination, harmony and peace among the troops, management of given tasks among the force members, cooperation between the commander and the troop members and also between the troop's members among themselves. The outcomes enable determine the progress of the force.
Though it may be of benefit to the army and the society, there is the other side of the coin.Authority can be the source of enmity between several commanders even in the same force which can cause a lot of dispute and damage. It is to the best interest of every person to know that it is not always that a commander is right. Some do not know how to manage anger or be lenient to the troop members who sometimes defy what they wanted done. Even leaders can be the cause of conflicts.
Differentiating various systems of control can be used to base how the above problems can be solved. The steps taken to deal with the increased complexity, attention paid to both the output related and function related responsibilities, emphasis attributed to any control process and also the strengths and weaknesses displayed are qualities that define the nature of an authoritative system.
Aspects like command are distinguished as stated earlier. They establish a standing ground of either positivity or negativity based on how it can be laid down. War command is a way of looking organized but if not put into proper use can be disorganized. Favorable outcomes come from reputable leadership
