Tag: higher education leadership

  • Who Has the Mic? OPORD Step 4 – Command and Signal

    “I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.” — Robert McCloskey

    The final major portion of an Operations Order (OPORD) that I will discuss is the Command and Signal paragraph. I will continue writing about OPORDs and how they can be applied to higher education, including appendices and fragmentary orders. For those keeping score, the one section I am leaving out of this series is Sustainment. This logistical section is less applicable to the day to day operating environment of higher education.

    In Army doctrine, Paragraph 5, Command and Signal, defines the location of key leaders during the mission, the chain of command and chain of succession, and instructions for communication, reporting, and coordination. The communication and coordination portions are certainly more applicable to our work in colleges, but a discussion of command is also warranted.

    For mission success, everyone needs to know the plan

    Decision Makers

    The command portion of an OPORD specifies the location of key leaders during the mission, the chain of command, and the chain of succession: who is in charge, where they are, and who takes over if they cannot continue. In combat, this clarity is not administrative; it is lifesaving. When conditions change rapidly, units cannot pause to debate authority or search for guidance. Decisions must be made instantly, and everyone must know who has the authority to make them.

    The absence of clear command leads to hesitation, duplication of effort, or catastrophic gaps in action. In a community college, the stakes are different, but the principle holds. During moments of operational stress such as enrollment pushes, campus security incidents, system outages, or large events, unclear leadership leads to conflicting messages, delayed decisions, and frustrated staff and students.

    Establishing clear command ensures that when something goes wrong, or simply needs to move quickly, the institution responds with coordination instead of confusion. In particular, having a plan for responding to active threats on campus is where understanding who the decision makers are, and where they are, can mean the difference between safety and catastrophe.

    Keeping the Team Informed

    If the command section establishes who is in charge, the signal section provides the instructions for communication, reporting, and coordination that allow the mission to function. In an OPORD, signal ensures that information moves clearly and reliably: who needs to know what, how it is shared, and how units stay aligned as conditions change.

    While command defines authority, signal is often where organizations succeed or fail in execution, making it especially relevant to the day to day work of a community college. In the sections that follow, we examine each component of signal, communication, reporting, and coordination, and explore how deliberate planning in each area can turn intent into consistent action.

    In a previous post, I introduced the concept of PACE planning as a way to bring discipline and redundancy to communication. The idea was simple but powerful: do not rely on a single method and hope it works. Instead, establish a primary, alternate, contingent, and emergency path so that critical information continues to move even when one channel fails.

    A shared understanding of the battlefield is critical to disciplined reporting

    In a combat environment, this redundancy can be the difference between coordination and chaos. In a community college, the consequences are less dramatic but still meaningful, as missed messages lead to missed opportunities for students and breakdowns in service. What PACE adds to the signal conversation is intentionality. It forces us to decide in advance how communication will occur, how quickly responses are expected, and when to shift from one method to another. Signal builds on that foundation by expanding the focus beyond individual exchanges to the broader system of communication that keeps an institution aligned and moving forward.

    Standardizing Formats for Sharing Information

    Reporting, finally, is the structured way information moves up and across an organization, turning individual observations into shared understanding. In Iraq and Afghanistan, reporting was constant and disciplined. Situation reports, spot reports, and significant activity reports ensured that leaders at every level had a clear, current picture of what was happening on the ground.

    These were not optional or informal updates. They followed standard formats, were delivered on expected timelines, and allowed decisions to be made with speed and confidence.

    In a community college, reporting serves the same purpose, even if the content looks different. Committee minutes, enrollment updates, advising metrics, and briefings to supervisors or cabinet provide the institutional picture that guides decision making. When reporting is inconsistent, delayed, or unclear, leaders are forced to operate on assumptions rather than facts.

    When reporting is timely, accurate, and standardized, it creates alignment, reduces friction, and ensures that the right decisions are made at the right level. It also keeps the institution focused on its mission and reduces the tendency to jump from one initiative to another in a haphazard way that frustrates staff and faculty and stalls progress toward strategic goals.

    The BLAB (Bottom Line At the Bottom)

    Command and signal are not separate ideas. They are the conditions that make execution possible. Command establishes who decides and who leads. Signal ensures that information flows, that communication is intentional, and that reporting creates a shared understanding across the institution.

    Together, they prevent the drift, confusion, and fragmentation that so often derail progress in higher education. The lesson from the OPORD is straightforward but powerful. If we want to move from planning to outcomes, we cannot leave leadership and communication to chance. We must define them, practice them, and reinforce them.

    Because in both combat and community colleges, success does not just come from having a plan. It also comes from ensuring that everyone knows who is in charge, what is happening, and how to act when it matters most.

  • Executing the Plan: OPORD Step 3 — Execution

    “The commander must decide how he will fight the battle before it begins; then he must trust his subordinates to carry it out.” — Gen. George C. Marshall

    Supporting the main effort

    I wish I had a copy of the Operations Order (OPORD) my cavalry unit wrote for our convoy security mission during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) in 2008. It did not change much in the nine months we were there. We protected supply convoys leaving Kuwait for Iraq. Usually we handed the convoys over to other units in southern Iraq, turned around the next day, and did it all over again. It was not unusual to have over six convoy security patrols on the road on any given night. When missions went farther into Iraq, they could be gone for a week or more. Those were long days for everyone—from the troopers on the road to the ones ensuring vehicles were safe, maintained, and ready to roll again.

    While the Mission section of an OPORD emphasizes what and why an organization is doing something, Execution is where you get into the weeds on how it will happen. In my unit’s case, it is where the rubber literally met the road. This section identifies the main effort, assigns responsibilities to subordinate units, and explains how their actions combine to achieve success. Most importantly, it establishes what success must look like so that when carefully built plans fail to account for something unforeseen—as they inevitably do—the team can continue to operate and accomplish the mission.

    That shared understanding of success is where the Execution portion begins. Its first subsection is the Commander’s Intent. Commander’s intent describes the broad conditions that define success at the end of the mission through three elements: expanded purpose, key tasks, and desired end state. By clearly articulating how the friendly force, enemy, terrain, and civil environment should look when the mission is complete, it gives subordinate leaders the understanding they need to act decisively when plans inevitably change. Done well, commander’s intent aligns initiative across the force by clarifying acceptable risk, empowering disciplined flexibility, and keeping everyone oriented on the same operational vision. The commander is essentially saying: This is how you will know we have succeeded. When in doubt, keep this vision in mind and help us get there. The details that follow matter—a lot—but this section is foundational. In a community college, it is just as critical.

    For the 1-126 Cavalry in 2008 the main effort was moving supplies safely to Iraq

    Other elements in the Execution section include the Concept of Operations, a high-level description of how the mission will unfold; the specific Tasks to Subordinate Units; and Coordinating Instructions that apply across the force. In combat, these might include rules of engagement and phase timelines. The level of detail grows with the number of units involved and the complexity of the mission.

    How might an Execution section apply to a community college? The president might provide a narrative for the institution as a whole. In most cases, the main effort is instructional faculty teaching classes. Many other offices support this effort and must understand their roles clearly—Student Financial Services, Student Success Services, Information Technology, Admissions and Registration, cafeteria services, libraries, and others. An overarching order that explains how each office contributes to the main effort would be extremely valuable, and it would not need frequent revision. Like our cavalry squadron’s order in OIF, it becomes a standing reference and a tool for assessing institutional effectiveness. Strategic plans already exist and remain essential, but what I am describing is complementary: a mission-focused framework informed by the strategic plan and the college mission that clarifies roles and supports meaningful assessment across departments.

    Subordinate areas can—and should—build their own OPORDs and nested Execution paragraphs. I work in Student Development Services (SDS). At our college, this division is overseen by a cabinet-level vice president and includes Advising and Counseling, Event Services, Wellbeing and Thriving, Recruitment and Outreach, Workforce Readiness, and others. While nested under the college-level order, the SDS OPORD, and Execution paragraph, would specify how our area supports the president’s mission. SDS would identify its own main effort (likely advising), articulate the vice president’s intent, and publish coordinating instructions and shared SOPs. Capturing this in a deliberate format, following deliberate decision-making (see my posts on MDMP), would provide a powerful tool for executing Student Development Services role in the college mission.

    There is one more section of the OPORD that is especially important in higher education: Command and Signal. I will discuss that in my next post.

  • What the Military Got Right About Execution

    The art of command lies in making intentions clear. – Bernard Montgomery

    Operation Enduring Freedom 2012

    Most of us can think of a committee report or department directive that everyone agreed with—and then quietly moved on from. Execution is hard.

    The final step in the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) is issuing an order to execute the agreed‑upon course of action (COA). In the Army, the most formal way to communicate that plan is through an Operations Order, or OPORD. Creating and disseminating a commander’s approved plan is its own demanding process.

    One practical advantage the military has—especially before a deployment or during extended training cycles—is time. We were not constrained by an eight‑hour workday or the assumption that weekends were off‑limits. When the work needed to get done, we stayed until it was done. That reality makes producing something as detailed as an OPORD possible in a compressed window. Higher education quite reasonably operates under different constraints, and that places limits on how literally we can adopt the tool. But even in a simplified version, this is not trivial work.

    The underlying need remains the same in a community college. Having an executable plan for an approved course of action—one where everyone understands their role, the expectations placed on them, and how both individual performance and mission success will be assessed—is just as critical as coming up with a thoughtful strategy in the first place.

    Higher education institutions are full of good ideas: strategic plans, task forces, committees, initiatives with carefully crafted names and polished logos. And yet, execution often falters. The reasons are familiar—competing priorities, unclear roles, unshared assumptions, fuzzy communication, or a lack of clarity about what success actually looks like. An OPORD helps bridge the gap between planning and execution.

    At its core, an OPORD is structured without being rigid. It is designed for imperfect conditions. It assumes teams are distributed, busy, and not all sitting in the same room. Used well, it can be a powerful tool.

    Writing an OPORD does not guarantee success. History offers plenty of reminders of that reality, including the U.S. military’s withdrawals from Vietnam and Afghanistan. But a well‑written and well‑disseminated order does guarantee something important: no one on the team is confused about what is supposed to happen. Think of it as the transition point from vision to action.

    Action itself is never automatic. But one thing I see consistently in community colleges is strong leadership. Strong leadership combined with shared understanding of the mission will take you most of the way toward achieving meaningful outcomes.

    For the purposes of this series, I’ll use a simplified OPORD structure:

    Situation: The context, front and center.

    Mission: The short, specific, and time‑bound objective.

    Execution: Who does what, when, and why.

    Sustainment / Command and Signal: Resources, communication, and continuity. Remember the PACE plan from the last post? What happens when leaders move on in the middle of an initiative?

    I’ve written this before, but it bears repeating: the military does not automatically do things better. What it does have is experience earned in the ultimate school of hard knocks. There are lessons there that can be selectively and thoughtfully borrowed.

    Operation Enduring Freedom 2012

    One of those lessons is this: agreement is not the same as understanding. A course of action coming out of MDMP reflects alignment at the leadership level. Understanding is achieved only when everyone knows what the plan means for them. That is why we issued OPORDs—and why the concept translates so well beyond the wire.

    In the next post, I’ll start where every good OPORD starts: the Situation. Before we talk about tasks, timelines, or metrics, we need to be clear about context—what conditions exist, what constraints matter, and what assumptions we may be carrying without realizing it. Fortunately, a solid MDMP provides most of the context an OPORD needs. In higher education, getting the situation right is often the difference between a plan that looks good on paper and one that actually survives contact with reality.