Mission Command in the Age of Human-Autonomous Teaming
Every technological revolution has promised commanders better decisions through better information. Yet fog of war remains constant, writes Josh Wineera.
Mission command has endured because it is a philosophy of leadership rather than a method of control. Built on trust, commander’s intent and disciplined initiative, it recognises that combat is too uncertain and dynamic for continuous centralised direction.
While the character of warfare continues to evolve, the principles underpinning mission command have proved remarkably resilient. What is changing is not mission command itself. It is the nature of the team to which it applies.
In a recent Australian Army Journal article, “Mission Command in a Multi-Domain Littoral Environment: Key Ingredient or Holdover?”, Charles Miller asks whether mission command remains fit for purpose in a multi-domain littoral environment. He argues that increasing integration across land, maritime, air, space, cyber, the electromagnetic spectrum and autonomous systems may require commanders to move along a spectrum between decentralised mission command and more prescriptive command.
It is an important contribution to a debate that both the Australian and New Zealand armies will increasingly confront.
Miller frames the debate around the littoral environment. I contend that the more enduring challenge is human-autonomous teaming. Littoral operations describe an operating environment; human-autonomous teaming changes the nature of command itself. It shifts mission command from the delegation of authority towards the orchestration of distributed cognition across human and autonomous teams in order to achieve shared cognition.
Mission command begins with shared intent
Mission command has always depended on commanders creating sufficient shared understanding for subordinates to exercise disciplined initiative in accordance with the commander’s intent.
Sixteen years ago, the Commanding Officer of 1st Battalion, Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment (1 RNZIR), commissioned me to independently evaluate Exercise Absolute, a combined-arms live-fire deliberate attack.
Rather than observing from headquarters, I followed commanders through the entire orders process and accompanied them during execution. From battalion headquarters through company and platoon headquarters to an infantry section. It provided a rare opportunity to observe mission command as it unfolded in planning, decision-making and combat training.
One observation has remained with me ever since. Mission command succeeded not because orders became progressively more detailed, but because commanders at every level progressively interpreted and internalised the commander’s intent.
The clearest example occurred at section level. A medium-range anti-armour weapon threatened the battalion’s plan. By the time the task reached the section commander, he understood not only what had to be done, but why it mattered. Destroying that weapon was not simply another task in his orders. It enabled the platoon commander, supported the company commander’s manoeuvre and ultimately contributed to the battalion’s success.
The orders mattered. More importantly, they created shared understanding. That comprehension remains as relevant today as it was then. Human-autonomous teaming does not replace mission command. It extends it. Mission command still begins with the commander’s intent and a shared understanding of purpose. Without that foundation, neither people nor autonomous systems can exercise disciplined initiative when circumstances inevitably change
Human-autonomous teaming distributes cognition
Mission command has traditionally distributed authority. Human-autonomous teaming distributes cognition.
Autonomous systems are no longer simply sophisticated equipment. Increasingly they sense, process information, identify patterns, recommend actions and execute delegated tasks alongside human teammates. AI-enabled decision support contributes speed, prediction and pattern recognition. Autonomous systems contribute persistence, sensing and delegated action. Human operators contribute judgement, experience and operational context.
None is sufficient alone. Mission command now depends on integrating these different forms of cognition into coherent operational action. The commander’s role is no longer simply to delegate authority. It is to orchestrate these distributed cognitive contributions into coherent operational effect.
Throughout my Army career, I learned mission command first as a subordinate, as a commander, and then teaching as a tactics instructor at the Australian Land Warfare Centre. In these roles, the expectation was the same: understand the commander’s intent, apply judgement and exercise disciplined initiative. Human-autonomous teaming does not change that philosophy. It extends it.
Mission command has always depended on commanders creating sufficient shared understanding for subordinates to exercise disciplined initiative in accordance with the commander’s intent. In the age of human-autonomous teaming, that responsibility evolves. The commander’s task is no longer simply to ensure subordinates understand the commander’s intent. It is to orchestrate distributed cognition so the entire human-autonomous team develops sufficient shared cognition to exercise disciplined initiative together.
That makes human commanders more – not less – important.
From section commander through to brigade commander, leaders will increasingly determine which decisions remain exclusively human, which may be delegated, when autonomy should be constrained and when intervention becomes necessary. AI does not remove uncertainty. It reduces the time available to understand it. That is why shared cognition becomes the next challenge for mission command.
This first generation of autonomous systems will expose a leadership gap before it exposes a technology gap.
The commander’s task is shared cognition
Mission command is now evolving through three connected stages: (i) shared intent; (ii) distributed cognition; and (iii) shared cognition.
Shared intent provides purpose. Distributed cognition creates capability. Shared cognition creates coherent action.
Shared understanding assumes people develop the collective understanding required to accomplish the mission. Shared cognition recognises that understanding increasingly emerges from commanders, soldiers, AI-enabled decision support, autonomous systems, and networks working together. The common operating picture is no longer created solely by people. It is increasingly co-created by human and machine cognition.
Without shared cognition, distributed cognition simply produces disconnected intelligence, competing recommendations and fragmented action. With shared cognition, the entire human-autonomous team senses, interprets, decides, acts, and adapts in accordance with the commander’s intent.
This is the next evolution of mission command.
The littoral does not redefine command
Miller correctly identifies increasing operational complexity demands greater coordination across domains. Long-range fires, contested communications and autonomous capabilities inevitably increase complexity. Complexity, however, does not change why mission command exists.
A warship is a single integrated fighting system under one captain. Navigation, engineering, survivability and combat are inseparable responsibilities vested in one commanding officer because the platform itself demands centralised command.
Land forces are different. Mission command is exercised from section commander through to brigade commander because companies, platoons, sections and small teams routinely disperse beyond direct supervision. Human-autonomous teaming will not be confined to headquarters.
Section commanders, platoon commanders, and company commanders will increasingly employ autonomous systems as part of their own teams, requiring them to orchestrate distributed cognition in order to achieve shared cognition while exercising disciplined initiative in accordance with the commander’s intent.
Embarking soldiers on a littoral manoeuvre vessel does not alter that principle. Maritime command governs the ship. Mission command governs the land force.
The littoral changes how soldiers arrive at the battle. It does not change why they require mission command once dispersed.
For both the Australian and New Zealand armies, the greater danger is allowing the coordination demands of joint and littoral operations to normalise centralised tactical control. Better information has never removed uncertainty. It has simply increased the tempo and complexity of command.
Leadership before technology
This is not simply a doctrinal debate. It has implications for force design, experimentation, professional military education, training and capability development.
The New Zealand Army is already recognising this challenge. Exercise Crete 2026 placed a deliberate emphasis on commanders making critical battlefield decisions and capturing lessons learned at every level of command, a focus that human-autonomous teaming will only make more demanding.
Every technological revolution has promised commanders better decisions through better information. History suggests otherwise. The fog of war remains constant.
Better information rarely reduces uncertainty. Instead, it increases tempo, complexity and the number of decisions requiring human judgement. Human-autonomous teaming follows the same pattern. The challenge is no longer simply making decisions. It is ensuring the entire human-autonomous team develops sufficient shared cognition to make the right decisions together. Preparing commanders to lead cognitive teams will become as important as acquiring the technology itself.
Although this article begins with land warfare, its application extends much further. Maritime forces will combine crews with autonomous vessels. Air forces will integrate crewed and uncrewed aircraft. Emergency services, logistics organisations and critical infrastructure operators will increasingly rely on autonomous systems operating alongside people.
Each will confront the same leadership challenge. How do humans and autonomous systems develop sufficient trust, context and shared cognition to operate effectively as one team?
Mission command has endured for decades because it recognises a simple truth: uncertainty can never be eliminated. Human-autonomous teaming does not change that truth. It changes who contributes to understanding it. Technology can be purchased. Autonomy can be acquired. Shared cognition must be developed. The question is no longer whether organisations will adopt human-autonomous teaming. It is whether their leaders are being properly prepared to command cognitive teams.
About the Author
Josh Wineera leads Kōtui Dynamics, a New Zealand company specialising in the adoption and application of human-autonomous systems teaming. He is Director of Latent, a former Lieutenant Colonel in the New Zealand Army, and former tactics instructor at the Australian Land Warfare Centre, Canungra. Josh and his team developed a professional programme on Manned-Unmanned Teaming with Massey University.
