> we emphasise explaining the context two levels up. I may tell my soldiers to raid a compound, but I would also tell them that the reason for this is to create a distraction so that the Colonel can divert the enemy away from a bridge, and that the reason the Brigadier wants the Colonel to divert the enemy is so that the bridge is easier to cross.
many organizations could benefit from more of that.
The term is communicating the "Commanders Intent". It's exactly I how work with my teams. Giving the people doing the work as much information as possible, lets them make better decisions as all the little decisions pop up.
I wasn't in the military, and have always led this way because it seemed more effective and tbh, less work for me. Ideally I don't need to micro-manage anyone when they have all the same information that I do. If a big issue comes up, I trust my team to surface it me.
I've watched other managers deal in information (only sharing bits and pieces to certain people), and it just never made sense to me IMO. Everyone was always a little confused and things were never done quite right.
That's how I do things with my group. How do you expect people to learn to see the bigger picture if you never admit or make them aware there is one in the first place?
many organizations could benefit from more of that.