Summary
Commander’s intent and end state tell the team the purpose of a task and what done looks like.
Armed with that, a team can make decisions in a dynamic environment without waiting on leadership.
When the original plan falls apart, they keep working toward the intent and end state they were given.
WAR
The commander’s intent and end state are two of the most important concepts in military leadership. Many objectives have been lost because they were not understood.
Let’s start with the definitions.
Commander’s intent:
Commander — a person in authority.
Intention — an aim or plan.
Combine them and you get “a person of authority’s aim.” The commander’s intent is the leader’s desired outcome.
End state:
End — come or bring to a final point; finish.
State — the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time.
Combine them and you get “the final condition of someone or something at a specific time.” The end state is the vision for the outcome.
The best official definition comes from an Army publication:
The commander’s intent succinctly describes what constitutes success for the operation. It includes the operation’s purpose, key tasks, and the conditions that define the end state. It links the mission, concept of operations, and tasks to subordinate units. A clear commander’s intent facilitates a shared understanding and focuses on the overall conditions that represent mission accomplishment. During execution, the commander’s intent spurs disciplined initiative. (ADRP 5-0, p. 2-19)
A clear commander’s intent and end state empower a team to make decisions. People act confidently because they understand the purpose and the goal — and they no longer need to confirm every decision with leadership.
Examples of commander’s intent
The best way to show the impact of a commander’s intent is through examples.
Example 1:
Friendly situation: You are a squad leader with three teams. Each team has one corporal team leader and three riflemen — thirteen Marines in total, including you. You are currently on Hill 11 (see figure below).
Enemy situation: A likely enemy fire team on Hill 22 — one corporal team leader and three riflemen.
Mission: Destroy the enemy on Hill 22.
Commander’s intent: None.
End state: None.
Your squad approaches Hill 22. When you get within visible distance, the enemy is not on Hill 22. You can see them on Hill 33.
As the leader, what do you do?
Do you:
Attack Hill 22, hoping that taking the hill was the point of the mission.
Attack Hill 33 to destroy the enemy fire team that is there.
Without the commander’s intent or end state, there is no correct answer.
The situation: your squad on Hill 11, an empty objective on Hill 22, the enemy now on Hill 33. Without intent, both axes are defensible.
The commander may have wanted Hill 22 because it is key terrain in the area — in that case, you should take Hill 22. Or the commander may have wanted Hill 22 because the enemy was on it — in that case, you should change direction and attack Hill 33.
Let’s add the commander’s intent and end state to the original mission.
Mission: Destroy the enemy on Hill 22.
Commander’s intent: In order to clear all enemy presence in the area of operations.
End state: No enemy is able to attack friendly installations in the area of operations.
Now you face the same situation — the enemy has moved to Hill 33. What do you do?
With the intent of clearing the enemy and an end state where the enemy cannot operate, you attack Hill 33.
Example 2:
Mission: Destroy the enemy on Hill 22.
Commander’s intent: In order to control the observation post on Hill 22.
End state: Friendly forces are able to freely use the observation post on Hill 22 to observe the surrounding area.
What do you do with this intent? You attack Hill 22, no matter what — even though the enemy has moved to Hill 33.
Same situation, two different intents, two different correct answers. The intent — not the original task — tells you where the arrow goes.
Same mission statement, opposite answers. That is how much these two sentences change execution. Understanding the purpose and the end goal of a task changes how people execute it.
Format for commander’s intent
In the Marine Corps, the commander’s intent is woven into the five-paragraph order — the format leaders use to communicate their plan. Intent is given in a few ways.
First, the execution paragraph has a subparagraph reserved specifically for it. The commander literally says, “My commander’s intent for this mission is to…” and then “The end state for this mission is…”
Example:
Commander’s intent — My intent for this mission is to destroy the enemy on or near Hill 22 to allow friendly movement on Highway 5.
Key tasks — Destroy any enemy that can affect Highway 5. Breach enemy obstacles on Hill 22. Integrate fires within the attack.
End state — Charlie Company consolidated on Hill 22, monitoring and disrupting enemy activity around Highway 5.
The Marine Corps also expresses intent with an “in order to” clause in mission and tasking statements:
Destroy the enemy on Hill 22 in order to protect civilian movement on Highway 5.
Suppress the enemy on Objective 1 in order to allow 2nd squad to breach the obstacle.
The cue does two things. It reminds leaders to put intent into their tasks, and it forces a pause to consider the purpose. I always stop and think for a few seconds after writing the “in order to” — am I giving the right intent for this task?
I like using questions as prompts. For commander’s intent and end state, some good ones are:
Commander’s intent — Why are we doing this? How does it help the team reach its goals?
End state — When it’s complete, what will it look like?
And here is the commander’s intent and end state for the commander’s intent itself:
Intent: your team understands the reason behind a task, in order to make accurate decisions when the environment changes.
End state: your team completes tasks successfully, without leadership intervention or supervision.
BUSINESS
We are not attacking hills in the civilian workplace, but the business world is complex enough to need intent and end state — we can drop the “commander.”
Decisions are made constantly, from the executive team to the hourly worker, and every one of those decisions rests on that person’s understanding of their leaders’ intent and end state. They may never have heard the terms; the concepts still apply.
Procurement managers, merchandisers, and engineers are all making decisions based on their understanding of what the CEO, the vice presidents, and the directors actually want. The better they understand it, the more accurate their decisions will be. If they do not understand it, their decisions suffer.
Ask ten different people for the intent and end state of the company’s most important project, and you will probably get ten different answers.
You should get one.
Ten understandings of the goal produce ten directions of effort. One clearly stated intent aligns them on a single end state.
The practice: give your intent and end state for every task and meeting, and ask your people for theirs. Repetition is essential for retention.
Examples:
Giving intent and end state on a project: “The intent of this project is to produce the best pair of men’s running shoes in the $100–$150 range, with an end state of 30% market share in that segment by the end of the year.”
Intent and end state of a meeting: “My intent for this meeting is to get input on the team structure for this project. The end state is a decision on the team, so we can move forward.”
Intent and end state of a task: “Hey, Jess — I need some help processing this ticket. My intent is to get it closed today or tomorrow, so I can start working on the platform again.”
Asking for intent and end state: “Just to be clear — the intent of this spreadsheet is to compare Q1 and Q2 income statements, so our director can report it to the VP in next week’s meeting?”
Intent and end state can be used in almost any situation. They are an excellent framework for clarifying the purpose of nearly anything.
Key takeaways
The intent gives the reason behind the action, so when the environment changes, the team can still make good decisions without further guidance.
The end state describes what done looks like, so everyone can judge their own progress against it.
Give both clearly, and subordinate leaders and individual contributors will make the right decisions rapidly, without supervision, in dynamic environments.
References
“ADRP 5-0, The Operations Process.” Headquarters, Department of the Army. May 2012. Link
Stouffer, Jeff, and Farley, Kelly. “Command Intent: International Perspectives and Challenges.” 2008. Link
Dempsey, Maj. Richard, and Chavous, Maj. Jonathan M. “Commander’s Intent and Concept of Operations.” Military Review, November–December 2013. Link