Tag: Organizational Strategy

  • 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.

  • Communicating the Plan: OPORD Step 2 – Mission

    “The mission is the task and the purpose. If you do not understand both, you do not understand the mission.” Gen. William DePuy

    The purpose of an Operations Order (OPORD) in the military is to provide a detailed set of instructions for how a given operation is to be executed. This begins by grounding the team in a shared understanding of the current situation (context, the subject of my previous post), followed by an actionable mission statement, the commander’s intent for carrying out that mission, detailed guidance on how it is to be executed, and finally clear direction on communications, sustainment, and chain of command.

    Everyone must know the mission

    We can do the same thing in higher education. We have already discussed Step 1, the situation portion of the OPORD. Once a team is grounded in a common understanding of where it stands, it is time to give it a mission. That mission is an actionable statement—usually a sentence or two—that defines exactly what is to be accomplished.

    Because things rarely unfold exactly as planned, the mission will be paired in the next section (Execution) with the commander’s intent. This is critical, and it will be a central focus of my next post. It gives subordinate leaders a clear understanding of what their boss is trying to achieve and allows them the flexibility to adapt when circumstances change and the original plan no longer fits reality. Deviating from the plan in order to accomplish the mission is never without risk. But with a well-trained team, that very flexibility is often what makes the difference between success and failure when the moment of execution looks nothing like the rehearsal.

    The mission statement itself is strongest when it is forged through a deliberate decision-making process, such as the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) I have written about previously. While the OPORD’s Situation section draws primarily from mission analysis, the mission statement is the product of developing, evaluating, wargaming, and comparing multiple courses of action. In the OPORD, the mission stands alone as its own section, ideally only a sentence or two long. It is designed to give subordinates the Who, What, Where, When, and Why of the upcoming operation, and it should be short enough for everyone involved to commit it to memory.

    Remember your five W’s from school? In the Army they might look like this:
    Who – the unit responsible for executing the plan.
    What – the tactical task to be accomplished (for example, seize, destroy, secure, occupy).
    When – the time of execution, often given as a deadline or a “Not Later Than” (NLT) time.
    Where – the specific location or objective, often a grid coordinate or named area of interest.
    Why (Purpose) – the reason for the mission, indicating the desired end state, often introduced by the phrase “in order to” (IOT).

    We have a mission statement at our community college, Kalamazoo Valley, that comes surprisingly close to this military clarity: “Kalamazoo Valley Community College creates innovative and equitable opportunities that empower all to learn, grow, and thrive.” In a single sentence, you immediately know who we are, what we exist to do, and why we do it. The timeline is intentionally open-ended, for a higher education institution, that makes perfect sense. Where we do it is assumed, and a part of the name of our college.

    Every day on a convoy mission started with a reminder of the mission

    At its core, the mission section of the OPORD is about disciplined clarity. It forces leaders to express their decision in language simple enough to be remembered and strong enough to guide action when conditions inevitably change. Whether on a battlefield or on a college campus, a well-crafted mission aligns effort, empowers subordinate leaders, and provides a shared touchstone when plans collide with reality. In my next post, I will turn to the Execution section of the OPORD, where intent and mission are translated into concrete tasks, sequencing, and control measures—the point where planning finally gives way to action.

  • PACE Yourself: The Overlooked Importance of Communication in Community College Student Development

    Two is one. One is none. – My Dad, probably a parent or guardian of yours, too…

    Communication Redundancy is vital to mission success

    Part of going on any mission outside the wire in Iraq or Afghanistan was the pre-mission communication brief. Every Soldier heard the same reminder: know the PACE plan—your Primary, Alternate, Contingent, and Emergency methods of communication.

    Like so many military acronyms, I’m fairly certain someone came up with the catchy word first and assigned meaning later. We loved our acronyms almost as much as our laminated checklists.

    But behind it was a brutally simple idea: redundancy keeps people alive.

    When your convoys or patrol elements are spread across kilometers of routes, villages, irrigation ditches, and wadis—and the situation can change in seconds—you don’t rely on one channel and “hope it works.” You build multiple, reliable paths to pass critical information.

    • Primary was usually FM radio.
    • Alternate might be a GPS-based system with a built-in chat function that reached headquarters no matter how far we’d roamed.
    • Contingent included SAT phones, especially when terrain blocked line-of-sight.
    • Emergency was often visual signaling—smoke for medevac, panels, whatever would get the job done when all the tech failed.

    You could brief an entire PACE plan in less time than it took to spell out the acronym. That’s how you know the system works: simple enough to remember, redundant enough to survive friction.

    Operation Iraqi Freedom 2008

    PACE in Higher Education: Redundancy Isn’t Paranoia—It’s Professionalism

    In higher ed—and especially in student development—our communication practices often drift toward the opposite of deliberate redundancy. Too often the unspoken plan is:

    “I emailed them. If I don’t hear back… well… I’ll wait. Or maybe call. I guess.”

    That’s not a plan. That’s hope.

    And hope is not a communication strategy—not when we’re serving students who rely on timely, accurate information about enrollment, aid, advising, or crisis support.

    What if we adopted a simplified, civilianized PACE plan to build reliability into daily operations? Something like this:

    P: Primary – Email

    Email should be reliable, predictable, and treated with professional discipline.

    • Priority-labeled emails should receive a same-business-day response, regardless of when they arrive.
    • All other emails should be answered within 24 hours (weekends and holidays excluded).
    • Anyone out of the office for more than a day should use an automatic reply that includes an alternate contact for time-sensitive matters.

    If email fails—or the response window expires—move to the next tier.

    A: Alternate – Phone Call

    If email doesn’t get results: call.

    • Out-of-office voicemail should include who to contact for urgent issues.
    • Voicemails should clearly state:
      • your name
      • why you’re calling
      • when you emailed
      • when you need a response

    If there’s no callback—or phone communication isn’t possible—escalate to the next tier.

    C: Contingent – Text Message

    A controlled, professional use of texting can solve simple problems quickly.

    • Administrators should have each other’s cell numbers stored and updated.
    • Offices should maintain a group-text list for after-hours or inclement-weather notifications.
    • Supervisors should maintain contact lists for their teams, and team members should have their supervisor’s number as well.

    If texting still doesn’t get the job done, move to the final tier.

    E: Emergency – Supervisor Communication

    If the mission-critical message still hasn’t been delivered, elevate it.

    • Supervisors should foster a culture where quick in-person clarifications are normal, not interruptions.
    • Within the PACE model, supervisor engagement becomes the failsafe.

    Use this method when:

    • prior attempts went unanswered,
    • the response is now urgent enough to require immediate attention, or
    • every other channel has failed.

    This isn’t about tattling or escalating conflict—it’s about preventing operational gaps that negatively impact students and staff.

    Why This Matters: Mission Success Looks Different, but the Stakes Are Real

    No one in community colleges is dodging IEDs or calling in medevacs. But we are navigating complexity, resource scarcity, shifting policies, and upstream/downstream effects that impact real lives.

    When a student misses a scholarship deadline because someone “thought the email would be enough,” we’ve failed our mission. When a department goes days without clarity on a policy because communication drifted, student service suffers.

    PACE gives us a framework—not for battle, but for reliability.It prevents the quiet breakdowns that derail enrollment, advising, retention, and campus operations. A communication plan with built-in redundancy isn’t military paranoia.
    It’s professionalism, clarity, and respect for the students who rely on us.

    Operation Iraqi Freedom 2012

  • Step 2: Mission Analysis — Turning Information Into Understanding

    “It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best.”
    — W. Edwards Deming

    I first encountered the second step of the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP) as a staff officer with a Michigan National Guard cavalry squadron preparing to deploy in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As I shared in my previous post on Step 1: Receipt of Mission, I didn’t take it seriously at first, and my inattention to detail showed. It was a lesson I took to heart—and one that I’ve shared often in my work at the community college: researching a problem and paying attention to detail early in the decision-making process matters as much, or more, than anything else you will do.

    In the military, the second step of MDMP is called Mission Analysis (MA). We call it that because in Step 1 we receive a mission from higher headquarters. In higher education, what usually happens in Step 1 is that a problem—or opportunity—is identified. What some of us have been practicing at my college is something similar: problem analysis.

    We conclude this step with a mission statement that we craft from our analysis and the problem statement we were given in Step 1. In the Army, Mission Analysis begins with inputs such as the higher headquarters’ order, any initial guidance from the commander, details about the area of operations, relevant higher-level information, and current data about your unit (often called “running estimates”).

    These inputs can be voluminous. With this information, the commander’s team goes to work. That team includes personnel, intelligence, operations, communications, and logistics staff—as well as the chaplain, engineers, civil affairs, and anyone else with relevant expertise. Under the leadership of the battalion (or squadron) executive officer, this group prepares a formal briefing for the commander.

    Leaving the commander out of the room at this stage is intentional. The goal is to allow the staff to analyze freely and prepare an organized presentation so that, when briefed, the commander receives the best information possible—and can ask informed, targeted questions of a well-prepared team.

    When the time allotted for Mission Analysis ends, the staff conducts the Mission Analysis Briefing. When I served on that cavalry squadron staff, this was the most comprehensive briefing in the entire MDMP process—and one we constantly referred back to during later stages. It included the area of operations and interest, anticipated weather, enemy forces, civil considerations, and the friendly forces situation, among many other factors. We also briefed key facts and assumptions, critical information requirements, potential risks, constraints, and finally a proposed mission statement and timeline from the present moment through mission execution.

    OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

    Adapting the Framework to Higher Education

    At my community college, we’ve adapted this military model to our own context while keeping its core strengths: disciplined analysis and a shared understanding before moving forward. We call ours a Problem Analysis Briefing. It’s not yet a formal procedure, but more and more teams are beginning to use it.

    Our current Problem Analysis Briefing format includes:

    • Mission Statement of the College
    • The problem statement we’ve been assigned to solve
    • Constraints from leadership
    • Leadership’s criteria for evaluating proposed solutions
    • A proposed decision matrix or rubric for leadership’s use
    • Implied tasks
    • Available resources internally and externally
    • Research and case studies showing how other institutions addressed similar challenges
    • Critical facts related to the problem
    • Assumptions being made as we frame solutions
    • Risks and potential second- and third-order effects of our proposed solutions
    • A proposed mission statement to guide us in developing those solutions

    Leadership is seated for this briefing and asked to approve the proposed mission statement. As in the Army, approval is not guaranteed—they may ask for more data, modify our language, or even rewrite the statement themselves. Once approved, they may issue updated intent, constraints, or priorities.

    Why the Leader Should Stay “Out of the Room”

    Just as the commander remains out of the room during Mission Analysis, it’s often wise for the leader to remain out during the Problem Analysis phase. This isn’t about exclusion—it’s about clarity.

    When the leader steps back, it allows the team to examine the issue honestly, without shaping their findings around what they think the leader wants to hear. It encourages creative thinking, balanced critique, and a full airing of data and perspectives. When the leader later reenters the process, they encounter a cohesive, prepared team—one that has wrestled with the complexity, organized its findings, and can now brief the leader confidently and clearly.

    In both the Army and higher education, that separation builds trust. The leader demonstrates confidence in their team’s analytical ability, and the team, in turn, delivers sharper, more objective insights. The result is the same in both worlds: better understanding leads to better decisions.

    And then, just like in the field, we move on to Step 3: Course of Action Development—where artistry and creativity meet the discipline of analysis.
    That’s where ideas begin to take shape, built on the firm foundation of shared understanding.