What is the unity of command charter? Why is there unity of command in the army?

33. Unity of command is one of the basic principles of the construction of the Armed Forces, their leadership and relationships between military personnel. Unity of command consists in vesting the commander (chief) with full administrative power in relation to his subordinates and imposing on him personal responsibility to the state for all aspects of the life and activities of a military unit, unit and each serviceman.

Unity of command is expressed in the right of the commander (chief), based on a comprehensive assessment of the situation, to make decisions individually, give appropriate orders in the prescribed manner and ensure their implementation.

34. According to their official position and military rank, some military personnel in relation to others can be superiors or subordinates.

The boss has the right to give orders to his subordinate and demand their execution. He should be an example of tact and restraint for his subordinate and should not allow familiarity and bias towards him. The boss is responsible for actions that humiliate the honor and dignity of a subordinate.

A subordinate is obliged to unquestioningly follow the orders of his superior.

Civilian personnel of the Armed Forces filling military positions are superiors to subordinates in accordance with the regular position being filled.

35. The superiors to whom military personnel are subordinate in service, even temporarily, are direct superiors.

The direct superior closest to the subordinate is called the immediate superior.

36. According to their military rank, commanders are passing military service:

marshals Russian Federation, army generals, navy admirals - for senior and junior officers, warrant officers, midshipmen, sergeants, foremen, soldiers and sailors;

generals, admirals, colonels and captains of the 1st rank - for junior officers, warrant officers, midshipmen, sergeants, foremen, soldiers and sailors;

senior officers in the military ranks of lieutenant colonel, captain 2nd rank, major, captain 3rd rank - for warrant officers, midshipmen, sergeants, foremen, soldiers and sailors;

junior officers - for sergeants, foremen, soldiers and sailors;

warrant officers and midshipmen - for sergeants, foremen, soldiers and sailors of the same military unit;

sergeants and foremen - for soldiers and sailors of the same military unit.

37. Military personnel who, by their official position and military rank (Articles 35 and 36 of this Charter) are not their superiors or subordinates in relation to other military personnel, may be senior or junior.

Seniority is determined by military ranks of military personnel.

Seniors in military rank, in case of violation by juniors of military discipline (rules of behavior, wearing military uniform clothing, performing a military salute, etc.) should require them to eliminate this violation. Juniors in military rank are obliged to unquestioningly fulfill these demands of their elders.

38. When performing duties jointly by military personnel who are not subordinate to each other, when their service relationships are not determined by the commander (chief), the senior of them in military position, and in case of equal positions, the senior in military rank is the commander.

Order (command), the procedure for its issuance and execution

39. Order - an order from the commander (chief), addressed to subordinates and requiring the mandatory performance of certain actions, compliance with certain rules, or establishing any order or regulation.

The order may be given in writing, orally or by technical means communications to one or a group of military personnel. An order given in writing is the main administrative official document (normative act) of military command, issued on the basis of unity of command by the commander of a military unit. All commanders (chiefs) have the right to give verbal orders to their subordinates.

Discussion (criticism) of an order is unacceptable, and failure to comply with an order from a commander (superior) given in the prescribed manner is a crime against military service.

40. An order is a form of communication by the commander (chief) of tasks to subordinates on private issues. The order is given in writing or orally. An order given in writing is an administrative official document issued by the chief of staff on behalf of the commander of a military unit or by the military commandant on behalf of the garrison commander.

41. The order (order) must comply with federal laws, general military regulations and orders of higher commanders (chiefs). When giving an order (order), the commander (chief) must not allow the abuse of official powers or their excess.

Commanders (chiefs) are prohibited from giving orders (instructions) that are not related to the performance of military service duties or aimed at violating the legislation of the Russian Federation. Commanders (chiefs) who gave such orders (orders) are held accountable in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.

The order is formulated clearly, concisely and clearly without the use of language that is subject to different interpretations.

42. Before issuing an order, the commander (chief) is obliged to comprehensively assess the situation and provide measures to ensure its implementation.

Orders are given in order of command. If absolutely necessary, a senior superior can give an order to a subordinate, bypassing his immediate superior. In this case, he reports this to the immediate superior of the subordinate, or the subordinate himself reports receipt of the order to his immediate superior.

43. The order of the commander (chief) must be carried out unquestioningly, accurately and on time. A soldier, having received an order, answers: “Yes,” and then carries it out.

If it is necessary to ensure the correct understanding of the order given by him, the commander (superior) may demand that it be repeated, and the serviceman who received the order may contact the commander (superior) with a request to repeat it.

Having carried out the order, a serviceman who disagrees with the order can appeal it.

The serviceman is obliged to report the execution of the received order to the superior who gave the order and to his immediate superior.

A subordinate who fails to comply with the order of the commander (superior), given in the prescribed manner, is brought to criminal liability on the grounds provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation.

44. The commander (chief) is responsible for the given order (order) and its consequences, for the compliance of the contents of the order (order) with the requirements of Article 41 of this Charter and for failure to take measures to ensure its implementation.

Only the commander (chief) who issued it, or a superior direct superior, has the right to cancel an order (command).

45. If a soldier executing an order receives a new order from a senior commander (chief) that would prevent him from executing the first one, he reports this to the superior who gave the new order, and if the new order is confirmed, he carries it out.

The boss who gave the new order informs the boss who gave the first order.

In order to successfully complete the task assigned to him, a serviceman is obliged to show reasonable initiative.

Military salute

46. The military salute is the embodiment of the comradely cohesion of military personnel, evidence of mutual respect and a manifestation of politeness and good manners.

All military personnel are obliged to greet each other when meeting (overtaking), observing the rules established by the drill regulations of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Subordinates (junior in military rank) greet their superiors (senior in military rank) first, and in an equal position, the one who considers himself more polite and well-mannered greets first.

47. Military personnel are obliged to perform a military salute, paying tribute to:

Tomb of the Unknown Soldier;

The State Flag of the Russian Federation, the Battle Banner of the military unit, as well as the Naval Flag upon each arrival on and departure from the ship;

48. Military units and subunits, when in formation, salute upon command:

the President of the Russian Federation, the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation and the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation;

marshals of the Russian Federation, army generals, fleet admirals, colonel generals, admirals and all direct superiors, as well as persons appointed to manage the inspection (check) of a military unit (unit).

To welcome the indicated persons into the ranks, the senior commander gives the command “Attention, alignment to the RIGHT (to the LEFT, to the MIDDLE)”, meets them and reports.

For example: "Comrade Major General. 46th tank regiment built for the general regimental evening verification. Regiment commander Colonel Orlov."

When constructing a military unit with the State Flag of the Russian Federation and the Battle Banner (at a parade, drill review, during the Military Oath (taking an obligation), etc.), the report indicates the full name of the military unit with a list of honorary names and orders assigned to it .

When greeting the ranks while on the move, the chief gives only a command.

49. Military units and subunits greet each other upon command when meeting, and also perform a military salute, paying tribute to:

Tomb of the Unknown Soldier;

mass graves of soldiers who died in battles for the freedom and independence of the Fatherland;

the State Flag of the Russian Federation, the Battle Banner of a military unit, and on a warship - the Naval Flag when it is raised and lowered;

funeral processions accompanied by military units.

50. The military greeting by the troops in formation on the spot to the President of the Russian Federation, the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation and the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation is accompanied by the performance of the “Counter March” and the National Anthem of the Russian Federation by the orchestra.

When greeting military unit direct superiors from the commander of their military unit and higher, as well as persons appointed to supervise the inspection (check), the orchestra performs only the “Counter March”.

51. When out of formation, both during classes and in free time from classes, military personnel of military units (units) greet their superiors with the command “Attention” or “Stand up. Attention.”

Only direct superiors and persons appointed to supervise the inspection (check) are welcomed at headquarters.

During classes outside the formation, as well as at meetings at which only officers are present, the command “Comrade officers” is given as a military greeting to commanders (chiefs).

The commands “Attention”, “Stand at attention” or “Comrade officers” are given by the eldest of the present commanders (chiefs) or the serviceman who first saw the arriving commander (chief). At this command, all those present stand up, turn towards the arriving commander (chief) and take a combat stance, and with the headdress on, they also put their hand to it.

The senior commander (chief) present approaches the arriving commander (chief) and reports to him.

The arriving commander (chief), having accepted the report, gives the command “At ease” or “COMRADE OFFICERS”, and the one who reported repeats this command, after which all those present take the “at ease” position, with the headgear on, lower their hand from the headgear and then act according to instructions of the arriving commander (chief).

52. The command “Attention” or “Stand at attention” and a report to the commander (chief) are given upon his first visit to a military unit or unit on a given day. The command "Attention" is given to the ship's commander each time he arrives on the ship (disembarks from the ship).

In the presence of a senior commander (chief), the command for a military greeting is not given to the junior and no report is made.

When conducting classroom lessons, the commands “Attention”, “Stand at attention” or “Comrade officers” are given before the start of each lesson and at its end.

The commands “Attention”, “Stand at attention” or “Comrade officers” before reporting to the commander (superior) are given if other military personnel are present; in their absence, the commander (superior) is only reported.

53. When performing the National Anthem of the Russian Federation, military personnel in formation take a formation stance without a command, and unit commanders from platoon and above, in addition, put their hand to their headgear.

Military personnel who are out of formation, when performing the National Anthem of the Russian Federation, take a drill stance, and when wearing a headdress, put their hand to it.

54. The command to perform a military salute is not given to military units and subunits:

when a military unit (unit) is raised on alert, on the march, as well as during tactical training and exercises;

at control points, communication centers and in places of combat duty (combat service);

at the firing line and firing (launching) position during firing (launching);

at airfields during flights;

during classes and work in workshops, parks, hangars, laboratories, as well as when performing work for educational purposes;

during sports competitions and games;

when eating and after the “End Light” signal before the “Rise” signal;

in rooms for patients.

In the listed cases, the commander (chief) or senior only reports to the arriving commander.

For example: “Comrade Major. The 1st motorized rifle company is performing the second shooting exercise. The company commander is Captain Ilyin.”

Units participating in the funeral procession do not perform a military salute.

55. At ceremonial meetings, conferences in a military unit, as well as at performances, concerts and movies, the command for a military greeting is not given and is not reported to the commander (chief).

At general meetings of personnel, for a military greeting, the command “ATRIC” or “STAND AT ATTENTION” is given and reported to the commander (chief).

56. When a superior or senior addresses individual military personnel, they, with the exception of the sick, take a military stance and state their military position, military rank and surname. When shaking hands, the elder shakes hands first. If the elder is not wearing gloves, the younger one takes off his glove before shaking hands. right hand. Military personnel without a headdress accompany the handshake with a slight tilt of the head.

57. When greeted by a superior or senior (“Hello, comrades”), all military personnel, in or out of formation, respond: “We wish you good health”; if the boss or senior says goodbye (“Goodbye, comrades”), then the military personnel answer: “Goodbye.” In this case, the word “comrade” and military rank are added without indicating the words “justice” or “medical service”.

For example: “We wish you good health, Comrade Junior Sergeant,” “Goodbye, Comrade Chief Petty Officer,” “We wish you good health, Comrade Midshipman,” “Goodbye, Comrade Lieutenant.”

58. If a commander (chief), in the course of his service, congratulates or thanks a serviceman, then the soldier answers the commander (chief): “I serve the Russian Federation.”

If the commander (chief) congratulates the military personnel of a military unit (unit) who are in the ranks, they respond with a drawn-out triple “Hurray”, and if the commander (chief) thanks them, the military personnel respond: “We serve the Russian Federation.”

The procedure for presentation to commanders (superiors) and persons arriving for inspection (checking)

59. When a senior commander (chief) arrives at a military unit, only the commander of the military unit is introduced. Other persons introduce themselves only when the senior commander (chief) directly addresses them, stating their military position, military rank and surname.

60. Military personnel introduce themselves to their immediate superiors in the following cases:

appointment to a military position;

surrender of a military post;

assignment of military rank;

awarding an order or medal;

departures on a business trip, for treatment or on vacation and upon return.

When introducing themselves to their immediate superior, military personnel state their military position, military rank, last name and reason for the introduction.

For example: “Comrade Major. Commander of the 1st Motorized Rifle Company, Captain Ivanov. I introduce myself on the occasion of my being awarded the military rank of captain.”

61. Officers and warrant officers newly appointed to the regiment are introduced to the regiment commander and then to his deputies, and upon receipt of appointment to the company - to the battalion commander, company commander and their deputies.

The regimental commander introduces newly arrived officers to the regiment's officers at the next officers' meeting or regimental formation.

62. When inspecting (checking) a military unit, its commander introduces himself to the arriving person appointed to lead the inspection (check), if the inspecting (checker) is an equal military rank with the commander of a military unit or senior in rank; if the inspector (checker) is younger in military rank than the commander of the military unit, then he himself introduces himself to the commander of the military unit.

Before the start of the inspection (check), the commander of the military unit introduces the commanders of the inspected (checked) units to the inspecting (verifying) officer.

63. When an inspector (inspector) visits a unit, the commanders of these units meet him and report to him.

If the inspector (checker) arrives at the unit together with the commander of the military unit, then the unit commander reports to the inspector (checker) if the latter is of equal military rank with the commander of the military unit or is senior in rank to him.

If a senior commander (chief) arrives during an inspection (check), then the commander of the military unit (unit) reports to him, and the inspecting (verifier) introduces himself.

64. When visiting a military unit (ship) by the President of the Russian Federation, the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation, the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation and his deputies, the commander of the military unit (ship) meets the indicated persons, reports to them and accompanies them to the location of the military unit (ship), and members of the Government Russian Federation and veterans of the Great Patriotic War who arrived at the invitation to the military unit (ship) Patriotic War, veterans of military operations on the territory of the USSR, on the territory of the Russian Federation and the territories of other states, veterans of military service, as well as honored figures of science, culture and art, representatives public organizations The commander of the military unit (ship) meets the Russian Federation, foreign states and other honored visitors, introduces himself to them and accompanies them without reporting to them.

In memory of the visit to the military unit (ship), honorary visitors are provided with the Book of Honored Visitors (Appendix No. 4) for the corresponding entry.

65. When military personnel arrive at a military unit (unit) to carry out individual official assignments of senior commanders (chiefs), the commander of the military unit (unit) introduces himself only as the senior military rank. In other cases, arrivals introduce themselves to the commander of the military unit (unit) and report on the purpose of their arrival.

66. All instructions from inspectors (inspectors) or military personnel performing individual official assignments from senior commanders (chiefs) are transmitted through the commander of the military unit. The named persons are obliged to inform the commander of the military unit (unit) about the results of the inspection (check) or the fulfillment of the official assignment assigned to them.

When conducting a survey of military personnel of a military unit (unit), inspectors (verifiers) are guided by the requirements provided for in Appendix No. 6.

On military politeness and behavior of military personnel

67. Military personnel must constantly serve as an example of high culture, modesty and restraint, sacredly guard military honor, protect their dignity and respect the dignity of others. They must remember that not only they, but the Armed Forces as a whole are judged by their behavior.

Relationships between military personnel are built on the basis of mutual respect. In matters of military service, they must address each other as “you.” When addressed in person, the military rank is called without specifying the words “justice” or “medical service”.

Chiefs and elders, when addressing matters of service to subordinates and juniors, call them by military rank and surname or only by military rank, adding in the latter case the word “comrade” before the military rank.

For example: “Private Petrov”, “Comrade Private”, “Sergeant Koltsov”, “Comrade Sergeant”, “Midshipman Ivanov”.

Military personnel studying in the military educational institutions vocational education and sergeants, foremen, warrant officers, midshipmen, officers who do not have military ranks, as well as military personnel studying in military training units, are called by the military position to which they are appointed.

For example: “Cadet (listener) Ivanov”, “Comrade cadet (listener)”.

Subordinates and juniors, when addressing matters of service to superiors and elders, call them by military rank, adding the word “comrade” before the military rank.

For example: “Comrade Senior Lieutenant”, “Comrade Rear Admiral”.

When addressing military personnel of guard formations and military units, the word “guard” is added before the military rank.

For example: “Comrade Guard Sergeant Major 1st Article”, “Comrade Guard Colonel”.

Outside the ranks, officers can address each other not only by military rank, but also by name and patronymic. IN everyday life officers are allowed to use the affirmative expression “the officer’s word” and when saying goodbye to each other, instead of saying “goodbye,” they are allowed to say “I have the honor.”

When addressing civilian personnel of the Armed Forces holding military positions, military personnel call them by their military position, adding the word “comrade” before the name of the position, or by their first and patronymic names.

Distortion of military ranks, use obscene words, nicknames and nicknames, rudeness and familiar treatment are incompatible with the concept of military honor and the dignity of a serviceman.

68. When out of formation, when giving or receiving an order, military personnel are required to take a formation stance, and when wearing a headdress, put their hand on it and lower it after giving or receiving an order.

When reporting or accepting a report, the serviceman lowers his hand from his headgear at the end of the report. If before the report the command “Attention” was given, then the reporter, at the command of the chief “At ease”, repeats the command, and with the headdress on, lowers his hand.

69. When speaking to another serviceman in the presence of a commander (chief) or senior, he must be asked for permission.

For example: “Comrade Colonel. Allow me to address Captain Ivanov.”

When an affirmative answer must be given to a question from a superior or senior, the serviceman answers: “That’s right,” and when it is negative, “No way.”

70.V public places, as well as in a tram, trolleybus, bus, metro car and commuter trains If there are no free places, the serviceman is obliged to offer his place to the superior (senior).

If during a meeting it is impossible to freely part ways with the boss (senior), the subordinate (junior) is obliged to give way and, when greeting, let him pass; if it is necessary to overtake the boss (senior), the subordinate (junior) must ask permission.

Military personnel must be polite towards the civilian population, show special attention to the disabled, the elderly, women and children, help protect the honor and dignity of citizens, and also provide assistance to them in case of accidents, fires and other natural and man-made emergencies.

71. Military personnel are prohibited from keeping their hands in their pockets, sitting or smoking in the presence of a superior (senior) without his permission, as well as smoking on the streets while moving and in places not designated for smoking.

72. A sober lifestyle should be the daily norm of behavior for all military personnel. Appearance on the streets, squares, parks, vehicles public use, other public places while intoxicated is a disciplinary offense that disgraces the honor and dignity of a military personnel.

73. Military uniforms and insignia are established for military personnel. All military personnel, as well as citizens discharged from military service with the right to wear military uniforms, have the right to wear military uniforms. Military uniforms are worn strictly in accordance with the rules for wearing military uniforms and insignia, determined by the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation.

Military personnel performing military service under a contract have the right not to wear military uniforms during the time free from performing the duties of military service, determined by the regulations of service time, and military personnel performing military service on conscription - outside the location of a military unit upon discharge or on leave.

74. The rules of military politeness, behavior and performance of the military salute are also mandatory for citizens discharged from military service when they wear military uniforms.

30. Unity of command is one of the principles of building the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, their leadership and relationships between military personnel. It consists of vesting the commander (chief) with full administrative power in relation to his subordinates and imposing on him personal responsibility to the state for all aspects of the life and activities of the military unit, unit and each serviceman.

Unity of command is expressed in the right of the commander (chief), based on a comprehensive assessment of the situation, to make decisions individually, give appropriate orders in strict accordance with the requirements of the laws and military regulations and ensure their implementation.

Discussion of an order is unacceptable, and disobedience or other failure to comply with an order is a military crime.

31. According to their official position and military rank, some military personnel in relation to others can be superiors or subordinates.

The boss has the right to give orders to his subordinate and demand their execution. The boss should be an example of tact and restraint for his subordinate and should not allow either familiarity or bias. The boss is responsible for actions that humiliate the human dignity of a subordinate.

A subordinate is obliged to unquestioningly follow the orders of his superior. Having complied with the order, he can file a complaint if he believes that he has been treated incorrectly.

Civilian personnel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are superiors to subordinates in accordance with their regular positions.

32. The superiors to whom military personnel are subordinate in service, even temporarily, are direct superiors.

The direct superior closest to the subordinate is called the immediate superior.

33. According to their military rank, the commanders are those in military service:

Marshals of the Russian Federation, army generals, fleet admirals - for senior and junior officers, warrant officers, midshipmen, sergeants, foremen, soldiers and sailors;

Generals, admirals, colonels and captains of the 1st rank - for junior officers, warrant officers, midshipmen, sergeants, foremen, soldiers and sailors;

Senior officers in military ranks: lieutenant colonel, captain II rank, major, captain III rank - for warrant officers, midshipmen, sergeants, foremen, soldiers and sailors;

Junior officers - for sergeants, foremen, soldiers and sailors;

Ensigns and midshipmen - for sergeants, foremen, soldiers and sailors of the same military unit;

Sergeants and foremen - for soldiers and sailors of the same military unit.

34. Military personnel who, by their official position and military rank (Article 32,) are not their superiors or subordinates in relation to other military personnel, may be senior or junior.

Seniority is determined by military ranks of military personnel.

Senior military ranks, if juniors violate military discipline, public order, rules of conduct, wearing military uniforms and performing military salutes, must demand that they eliminate these violations. Juniors in rank are obliged to unquestioningly fulfill these demands of their elders.

35. When performing duties jointly by military personnel who are not subordinate to each other, when their service relationships are not determined by the commander (chief), the senior of them by position, and in case of equal positions, the senior by military rank is the commander.

One of the most important, in fact fundamental principles of the functioning of the Armed Forces is the principle of unity of command. We believe that what needs constructive-critical analysis today is not the principle itself, but its content - modern content management activities commanders and chiefs.

The Internal Service Charter defines that unity of command consists in vesting the commander (chief) with full administrative power in relation to subordinates and imposing on him personal responsibility to the state for all aspects of the life and activities of a military unit, subdivision and each military personnel. A similar definition is given in the military encyclopedia. Let us draw attention to two important, but, in our opinion, ambiguous points of this provision: the sole commander is responsible to the state and for all aspects of the life of his subordinates.

However, another point of view is also possible, usually presented in so-called “non-military” sources. Thus, in the encyclopedic dictionary “Organization Management”, unity of command is defined as a management principle, meaning the provision of broad powers to the head of any body necessary to perform its functions, as well as the establishment of his personal responsibility for the results of work. In this case, it is assumed that the manager is given broad, but functionally limited powers. He bears responsibility for the achieved results of work.

Is the noted difference between these two approaches important for understanding what is happening today in the Russian Armed Forces? I think so. But at the same time, it is necessary to understand why a manager in a military team is responsible for everything and how he can be accountable to the state.

THEORY OF MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY

Modern management practice organically follows from Soviet times. The scientific foundations of Soviet management activities were formed in the 20-30s. last century. Thus, the famous specialist E.M. Alperovich noted that the forms and methods of management are essential, if not decisive, for any enterprise. Scientist I.M. Burdyansky emphasized that planning and control are inevitable companions of every rational person, and even more so scientific management, but this does not mean that the manager or apparatus is obligated to directly engage in both planning and control. A.M. Ginzburg (Naumov) wrote that management must be combined with the leadership and regulatory role of the state: “The planning principle cannot have universal application and cannot extend to all areas of activity without exception... and to all daily work. Such planned management would actually be reduced to to administrative regulation."

Also F.E. Dzerzhinsky noted: “It is necessary to reduce meetings and commissions as much as possible, since the system of personal responsibility is expanding. It is necessary to replace the system of centralized responsibility with the responsibility of all employees. There must be clarity and clarity about who is doing what, what they are studying and what they are responsible for.” E.K. Dresen believed: “The habit that many administrators and workers possess should be called bad: holding all the work in their hands, arranging it in such a way that in their absence no one knows anything, can find nothing and can do nothing.”

Already in those years, there was an active discussion of the pros and cons of linear and functional management models. It was believed that a linear organization presupposes the exceptional multilateral competence of a manager who must perform administrative, administrative, political, commercial, production and technical, accounting and control, planning and other functions. The functional structure was considered more preferable by most specialists, primarily because it is based on a rational division of functions between individual managers and the chief manager retaining only the role of organizer and “unifier” of these individual functional managers. Actually distinctive feature functional system is the creation, instead of a single manager, of a collective one, based on the principle of strict division of management functions between several persons.

E.K. Dresen wrote in 1925: “The main thing is to clearly define the functions, with the identification of which one can rightfully consider the task of forming an organizational structure of management to be largely completed. Unfortunately, existing organizational structures are not based on the preliminary identification of functions. The overwhelming predominance of linear principles has as the inevitable consequence is excessive bureaucratic red tape, when the manager is overloaded with solving petty issues that he simply physically cannot focus on with due attention.” Isn’t it true: this is so similar to the workload of a modern leader or commander/boss?!

Apparently, we can agree with the opinion of the famous management specialist F.R. Dunaevsky. He believed that with the increase in the governed population between the central bodies and grassroots administrators, the intermediate link of governing bodies, which is designed to compensate for the excess of “administrative capacity,” will catastrophically swell. An administrative hierarchy arises, each subsequent level of which seems to expand the “administrative capacity” of the higher one. The problem of the continuously growing intermediate link is becoming more acute, and the fog of paper production is thickening between the center and the periphery.

In fact, the so-called “classics” of domestic management science advocated a synthesis of linear and functional types management with the understanding of the greater efficiency of the latter. However, in practice it turned out differently.

WHY THE LINEAR APPROACH HAS PREVAILED

We are forced to enter the political plane, because in the conditions of a party state (and the USSR was definitely one), real competition, collegiality (not imaginary, but essential), clear functional certainty objectively could not help but disappear. Since the USSR was actually one economic syndicate, this led to the withering away of competition in the economy. Competition in politics disappeared along with representatives of the political opposition. Collegiality in decision-making came down to general irresponsibility, when it was often not clear: who was doing what and who was responsible for what.

Administration and bureaucratization, spread on behalf of the state leadership, have absorbed independent and creative shoots at all levels of the social organism: from politics to management of the smallest team. So I.V. Stalin even political administration imagined it as hardware control. The words he said in 1920 are known: “The country is not actually governed by those who elect their delegates to parliaments under the bourgeois order or to congresses of Soviets under the Soviet order. No. The country is actually governed by those who have actually taken control of the executive apparatus of the state who run these apparatuses." Such a system was clearly described by the modern scientist A.V. Klimenko, believing that politicians set goals for the bureaucracy not “from the outside” (on behalf of society), but “from the inside” (from superior to subordinate).

The entire system of public administration in the USSR was based on political control, which was exercised by political bodies plus the party and intelligence services. It seems that management in Soviet Army fully fit into the proposed scheme. And the responsibility to the state, which we have already mentioned, was borne by commanders/chiefs to political agencies and party organizations. It was the institution of party-political leadership that was the main “questioning” instrument, so to speak, the “sovereign eye” in the army.

So, in the organization of management in the army, as well as in the country as a whole, a linear scheme prevailed. This required from military managers, as we wrote above, multilateral competence and forced comprehensive responsibility. Today, it seems natural to many that the commander/boss is responsible for everything. After all, usually an officer has people subordinate to him, he is responsible for equipment, material assets, etc. But is this situation really absolutely normal?

Let's look carefully at intra-army relations from the point of view of radically changed social relations and contacts between the army and society:

At present, there is no obvious distrust on the part of the state leadership towards military specialists, which clearly existed after the coup of 1917. It is not for nothing that commissars/political instructors/political officers were assigned to military specialists in 1918, and retained them until 1991 inclusive;

There is no doubt that the military community is quite apolitical and for the most part always supports the leadership of the state;

So far, the military profession in Russia is not socially significant or prestigious.

There is no point in continuing this list, since it is clear: relationships in Russian society have changed. But intra-army relations and the management system based on the principle of unity of command essentially remain the same.

But it is also clear that the existing management system is not reformed or transformed on its own (the army is a rather closed public institution). Moreover, this is impossible in the army - state institute, created and maintained by the state to solve the most important problems of security and war. It turns out that intra-army relations can be changed only by decision of the political leadership of the state. Today, the president of the country and other heads of government bodies are demonstrating political support for the Armed Forces. However, support and effective management influences are completely different things. Let's emphasize one more important point: nothing has been created to replace the institution of party political leadership. So who can and will reform the army control system from the inside?

Let’s offer our own, highly debatable, option, let’s call it managerial. Theoretically, it axiomatically follows from the Constitution of the Russian Federation and one of the provisions of the Basic Law of the state that the only source of power in Russia is its people. Who is a manager? The dictionary gives the following definition: 1) a member of an organization who manages people, determines work goals, develops and makes decisions on the effective interaction of people to achieve their goals; 2) hired professional manager. So, the commander must be a manager. But what does this mean practically? And can the manager be responsible for everything?

It seems that here we are facing a serious terminological problem. We believe that only the owner, but not the manager, can be responsible for everything. It is no coincidence that the dictionary defines the “owner” (in economic terms) as the sovereign manager of his property, his life, as a person who can act independently in a given situation. It is obvious that objectively the role of the owner in the army belongs to the top leadership of the state, but not to the commanders/chiefs.

Thus, management in the army must ensure the effective provision of services (primarily in the field of security and defense) to citizens and government authorities. Consequently, commanders/chiefs are, in fact, hired managers (in any case, they should be positioned and be such) who were hired by the state to carry out clear management functions. But they are not the masters of army collectives, because they are really limited by the current legislation and should be limited functionally. Let us once again emphasize this important, in our opinion, idea. Charters and laws limit the activities of the commander/chief in the legal field, but, apparently, today they are not fully capable of limiting him in the functional field. In many countries, such a limiter is a contract. In a number of countries, the contract more clearly details the responsibilities of each soldier for his specific position.

WHAT SHOULD GOVERN THE CONTRACT

In our army, the contract still spells out the duties of some abstract military personnel. The provisions of the contract in Russia, in fact, do not actually differ from the statutory provisions in the clear functional regulation of the actions of the military personnel. And really, why do we need a contract when all the duties of a serviceman are set out in the regulations, and the commander/chief is already responsible for everything?!

We categorically disagree with the statement that the charter effectively regulates all intra-army relations. Charters cannot limit the autocracy of commanders, tyranny, subjective attitude towards subordinates, etc. I recently opened the January 1991 issue of the magazine “Communist of the Armed Forces” and became convinced that, in the context of the decline in the authority of party and Komsomol organizations, limiters of the omnipotence of commanders/chiefs have almost disappeared from army collectives. The authors describe the situation with Lieutenant Vasilenko, who knew the equipment and knew how to work with people, but one day, after his platoon was removed from training to restore order in the territory for the arrival of the next superior, he expressed his negative attitude to this practice to the unit commander. The response was immediate. For the slightest omission in service - punishment, the officer did not get out of business trips. Formally, it seems that the commander did everything correctly, within the framework of the regulations, but in essence...

What, actually, has changed since then? Meanwhile, more than 15 years have passed. Therefore, we note once again that in the fight against subjectivism in army relations, the weakness of the current regulations is clearly visible.

I believe that the relationship between the state, represented by the Ministry of Defense, and the manager of the army collective should also be regulated in as much detail as possible by the contract. It is important for everyone (society, authorities, officers) to restructure themselves psychologically and understand that an officer/manager cannot be the property of the state and should not be multi-factorially dependent on it. He is first and foremost a citizen with many private interests. Therefore, the economic and financial dependence and lack of independence of the officer corps is primarily disadvantageous to the state authorities, which are forced to cooperate not with an independent person, but with a dependent official in uniform. Does the state need such a manager in the army today? It is unlikely that such a commander/chief will take the initiative; on the contrary, he will rather expect the required amount of benefits from the state and his superior (that is, from those on whom he really depends).

I believe that the charters alone, which in fact (with the exception of some cosmetic changes) have remained the same since Soviet times, are no longer enough today. The essence of the principle of unity of command is not questioned in them. Still, a broad discussion in the Armed Forces about real unity of command and the impact of this principle on the effectiveness of the functioning of the Armed Forces is appropriate. Is such a discussion necessary today? Most likely yes. But recently, an acquaintance - the head of the regimental level - told me: “If you want to talk, let’s talk. But this won’t change anything.”

A lot will have to change. It seems to us that military leaders need to be prepared for the new demands of the state leadership. After all, at any moment it may demand that the Ministry of Defense make serious changes to the regulations, fundamentally change the essence of the contract, change the motivation educational process in military educational institutions. And the most important thing is to raise a smart, intelligent manager in the army environment, which will be very difficult to do.

Why do we believe that new demands from the state leadership will definitely follow? Because in fact, the managerial approach to management in the country has already been laid down by the government of the Russian Federation in the Concept of Administrative Reform. Experts have noted that the highest executive body is concerned about improving the quality and accessibility of public services. We emphasize: services. These services will be formalized in administrative regulations for execution. government functions and provision of public services. The Ministry of Defense will also have to develop regulations. The goal of all the activities of the ministry, it seems, should be to guarantee high quality services in the field of security and defense.

But to what extent the principle of unity of command in the army in its traditional sense will currently contribute to improving the quality of services provided by the state in this area is still an open question for discussion.

Unity of command is officially consolidated by the legislative bodies of the state in. For example, in the USSR and the Russian Federation regulatory legal act, confirming the commander’s right to unity of command in what is entrusted to him, is Internal Service Charter.

The commander (chief) has the right to single-handedly (without anyone’s intervention or instructions) make decisions, give orders, instructions and ensure their implementation in accordance with the provisions of military regulations, state laws and service instructions:

Article 33. Unity of command is one of the basic principles of the construction of the Armed Forces, their leadership and relationships between military personnel. Unity of command consists in vesting the commander (chief) with full administrative power in relation to his subordinates and imposing on him personal responsibility to the state for all aspects of the life and activities of a military unit, unit and each serviceman.
Unity of command is expressed in the right of the commander (chief), based on a comprehensive assessment of the situation, make decisions alone, give appropriate orders in the prescribed manner and ensure their implementation.
— Charter of the Internal Service of the RF Armed Forces. Section “Unity of command. Commanders (chiefs) and subordinates. Elder"

The commander (chief) has the right to give orders to his subordinate and demand their execution. The subordinate is obliged to carry out the order given to him.

The refusal of a subordinate to carry out the order of the commander (superior), depending on the legislation of the state, the level of consequences and circumstances, is considered a disciplinary offense or a criminal offense that undermines unity of command.

Unity of command in combat

Unity of command and centralization

The success of combat operations is based on centralization of military command. Combined arms combat is conducted in accordance with the plan of the senior commander, who, in order to carry out common task must coordinate the efforts of all forces and means participating in the battle.

Centralization of military command and control is the unification by the senior commander of all actions of subordinate and assigned units and units general plan combat operations in the direction of their efforts to accomplish the assigned combat mission. Centralization does not exclude, but presupposes broad initiative of subordinates. The desire for decisive action, the desire to find rational ways to carry out a combat mission, the desire for independence in a difficult situation play big role to achieve success on the battlefield.

Using unity of command

According to Soviet military theorists, the right to unity of command should be used in the following:

Each commander is required to exercise reasonable initiative in determining how to carry out assigned tasks;
In the event of a sudden change in the situation and in the absence of the ability to timely receive the necessary orders from higher command, the commander must assume full responsibility and, guided by the overall goal and intention of the senior commander, independently respond to changes in the situation and take the necessary measures to complete the combat mission;
Providing full initiative to officials in determining how to accomplish assigned tasks at all levels of command and control;
The officer must, without fear of responsibility, at a critical moment in the battle, use all available opportunities to achieve success.

The main condition effective use of all the advantages provided by unity of command, in the event of sudden and drastic changes in the situation and the absence of instructions from the senior commander, commanders and staffs of subordinates must be timely informed about the possible actions of troops during the battle.

Responsibility in unity of command

Unity of command is inextricably linked with the principle of personal responsibility of commanders (chiefs) for decisions made and the results of completing assigned tasks.

Single commanders at all levels bear full responsibility for all aspects of the life and activities of the troops subordinate to them. Despite the fact that each commander, when solving command and control tasks, relies on the military collective and uses the help of other command and control officials, the commander bears personal responsibility for the expediency decision taken for battle, for the correctness and validity of decisions made during the battle, for the effectiveness of the use of available forces and means in battle, and for the final results of the troops completing assigned combat missions.

When making inappropriate decisions, for inept and ineffective use of subordinate units and units in battle, for incomplete fulfillment of assigned tasks (in violation of time deadlines or failure to complete assigned tasks), the commander is held accountable under the laws of war.

According to the Charter of the Internal Service of the RF Armed Forces, the commander, who is the sole commander, is responsible for:

for failure to fulfill the tasks assigned to the formation he heads;
for the lack of order, described in military regulations and service instructions, in the formation entrusted to him;
for the lack of combat readiness of the formation subordinate to him;

Historical aspects of unity of command

It should be noted that in early historical periods, unity of command was not a mandatory attribute of the armed forces. In the states of ancient times, there were cases of the presence of troops in the administration. For example, this phenomenon took place in the era before military reform in the 1st century BC. Before the reform, 6 commanded in order of rotation, and two commanded. Collegiality at all levels was characteristic of the Roman Empire at that time. After the reform of Gaius Marius, aimed at professionalizing the Roman mercenary army, a transition was made to unity of command and the legion became commanded. These reforms strengthened the centralization of military command and control and its obedience to the commander.

It is believed that modern basis laid down unity of command in the German army in the 19th century.

In the subsequent history of Germany, the principle of unity of command was emphasized as the most important in the command and control of troops:

The principle of unity of command in command and control of troops, which did not allow side ways of issuing orders and commands, as well as freedom of decision-making, gave the combined arms commander the opportunity to confidently carry out his decisions. In the ground army, in contrast to the highest organs of the OKW, this principle of unlimited command power was carried out, as before, with sufficient consistency.

In the history of the USSR there were precedents for a departure from the proven principle of unity of command. This was due to the subjective perception by the Soviet authorities of some commanders as unreliable performers. This phenomenon appeared in the years.

Due to the acute shortage of personnel officers in, Soviet authorities were forced to accept into command positions the so-called " " ("former"), who were considered politically unreliable. An institute was established to control their activities. Moreover, commissars were assigned to all commanders, including those who were members of the Communist Party. In everyday life, this led to dual power: the order of the commander without the signature of the commissar was considered invalid, which could not but affect the functioning of the troops.

Even before the end Civil War on the initiative of a number of front commanders, the positions of military commissars were abolished. Thus, on January 24, 1920, the commander of the Turkestan Front, by his order, introduced unity of command in the troops entrusted to him, abolishing the positions of commissars under chiefs and commanders, and appointing political work assistants instead of commissars.

At the end of the Civil War, a gradual transition from the supervisory institution of commissars to unity of command began to take place. On January 23, 1920, order No. 117 “On the establishment of a unified structure of political bodies of the Red Army” was issued, which introduced unity of command in battalions. The position of assistant commander for political work remained at the level of regiment commander. By the same order, the post of commissar was retained only for the most important headquarters and institutions. Unity of command was also introduced for non-party commanders who were not members.

In 1922, at the XI Congress of the RCP (b), the gradual transition of the armed forces to unity of command was officially announced. Until 1925, the Soviet government introduced for commanders who, after verification, had the right to be sole commanders.

Conflicts in unity of command

The main and, in fact, the only factor undermining unity of command and, accordingly, discipline in the troops, disobedience or failure to comply with an order given by the commander (chief) is considered.

This factor acquired and is becoming especially important in war conditions, when situations arose and are arising in which commanders (superiors), due to prevailing circumstances, subjective reasons or other personal motivation, gave orders to their subordinates that clearly violated moral and ethical standards, rules of warfare and criminal law (knowingly criminal order). According to world practice, most often such criminal orders are given against civilians.

In this case, depending on the state affiliation, the commander’s unity of command may be legally limited.

For example, in the armed armies of many Western European states (as well as in), a subordinate has the right not to carry out the order of the commander (superior) if he considers it obviously criminal. In this case, the subordinate will not incur any administrative or legal liability if the unfulfilled order really was such.

According to international legal norms, the unity of command of the commander (chief) does not exclude the criminal liability of the subordinate international law for carrying out a deliberately criminal order. At the same time, the formulation of the possibility of not executing a criminal order reads as follows: “a conscious choice was actually possible for him.”

Unity of command and collegiality

Unity of command has a negative aspect. It lies in the consequences of irrational or rash decisions made by the commander (chief) due to a subjective assessment by coincidence, as a result of misinformation by the enemy, for health reasons or due to other personal motivation when considering the following issues:

assessment of the current situation during combat operations;
assessment of any aspect of the functioning of the formation he leads, whether peacefully or wartime;
assessment of the personal qualities of a subordinate (personnel issue).

In the armed forces, the consequences of making erroneous decisions during combat operations always lead to severe irrevocable human and material losses. In many cases, the wrong actions of a high-ranking commander affect the outcome of the war. Therefore, in the armed forces of many states it is envisaged to make an important decision on any issue. On top level formations ( , ) this manifests itself in the form . . At the level, and collegiality is represented by a working meeting at headquarters, at which the current situation, received combat orders are discussed and the opinions of unit commanders and service chiefs are heard. In this case, the decision made by the collegial council is not binding. It is purely advisory in nature and the final word in making the final decision remains with the commander. That is, unity of command in the armed forces is higher than collegiality.

IN in rare cases the decision of the collegial council may be outside the sphere of unity of command (influence of the commander). These include decisions that are made by members of the collegial council who are there on an elective basis. The formation commander cannot influence their decision, but can only appeal it.

Also, the commander’s unity of command (depending on affiliation with the armed forces) may be limited in personnel matters. For example, the commander () is obliged to make a decision of the certification commission, represented by senior officers, deciding issues about the next increase in military rank, about service suitability or the occupation of a higher position by any military personnel, etc.

Measures to maintain unity of command

In peacetime

Disobedience or failure to comply with an order in the armed forces (regardless of state affiliation) carries with it disciplinary or criminal liability.

In peacetime, such penalties are:

assignment of one or more extraordinary daily duties;
official sanction (reprimand, severe reprimand, announcement of official inconsistency);
material penalties (salary restrictions, fines);
restriction of official (career) growth;
temporary suspension from official duties;
demotion;
reduction in military rank;
and content on ;
dismissal from the armed forces.

In wartime

It is believed that severe consequences from disobedience or non-execution of an order most often arise in combat conditions, when the fulfillment of a combat mission and the life of military personnel are directly related to the strict implementation of all orders of the commander (chief):

Failure to comply with an order causes harm, and in a combat situation it is paid for in blood. Failure to comply with a combat order is a grave crime...
— Rights and responsibilities of a Red Army soldier

In this regard, in many states, particularly stringent measures were introduced by law to force unquestioning execution of orders.

Severe disciplinary punishments associated with the execution of military personnel for disobedience or failure to comply with combat orders have been recorded since ancient times. For example, in the Roman Empire such punishment was.

Military leaders resorted to similar measures, in which, for failure to comply with a combat order, the entire ten were executed by one horseman, and the entire hundred by one ten.

The use of weapons is a measure of last resort and is permitted if all other measures taken by the commander (superior) have proven unsuccessful or when, due to the conditions of the situation, taking other measures turns out to be impossible.
Before using weapons, if the situation allows, the commander (chief) is obliged to warn the disobedient person about this. The commander (chief) immediately reports the use of weapons upon command.
The commander (chief), who did not take measures to restore order and discipline, bears responsibility for this.
— Article 7 Disciplinary Charter of the USSR Armed Forces

This provision of the Disciplinary Charter actually meant on the spot without trial or investigation.

Of modern states, this method of maintaining unity of command and discipline in military formations at this historical stage I decided to introduce in February 2015:

Article 221 (in original): Commanders (chiefs) in a special period, including in the minds of the military situation, with the method of harassing military servicemen, who commit criminal offenses related to the unruly, the basis of the threat to the chief of the stagnation of violence, from the self-imposed deprivation of combat positions and importance The location of the deployment of military units (parties) in the areas of the victorious military commands, may have the right to especially stop the entry of physical influx, special forces, and in a combat situation, I will also refuse to we are talking about the establishment of such methods, since in any other way it is impossible to commit evil acts.
Translated into Russian: Commanders (superiors) during a special period, including during martial law or a combat situation, in order to detain military personnel who commit criminal offenses related to disobedience or threat to the commander using violence, with unauthorized abandonment of combat positions and certain places of deployment of military units (units) in the areas of combat missions, have the right to special use of measures of physical coercion, special means, and in a combat situation also with weapons, or to give orders to subordinates to use such means, if it is impossible to stop criminal actions in any other way

— LAW OF UKRAINE on making changes before the granting of additional rights to commanders and the provision of obligatory languages for special periods
- Law of Ukraine on amendments to vesting commanders with additional rights and imposing obligations during a special period

Notes

Military encyclopedic dictionary(VES), M., VI, 1984, pages 146 and 251
Charter of the Internal Service of the Russian Armed Forces. Articles 33 and 75
team of authors: Reznichenko V. G., Vorobyov I. N., Miroshnichenko N. F., Nadirov Yu. S., Sidorenko A. A. Chapter two. Troop control. Section 1. Fundamentals of command and control// Tactics / . - :

UNITY OF COMMAND

organizational form of leadership in public administration, in which the management body, division, institution or organization is headed by one official who is authorized to single-handedly adopt legally binding management acts. E. creates the possibility of prompt adoption management decisions and increases the personal responsibility of managers. The activities of ministries, other federal executive bodies, and federal services are built on the basis of E.

E. is one of the principles of building the RF Armed Forces and other militarized structures (federal security service, foreign intelligence, federal border service and border troops, internal affairs bodies and internal troops, etc.), their leadership and relationships between military personnel. It consists of vesting the commander (chief) with full administrative power in relation to his subordinates and imposing on him personal responsibility to the state for all aspects of the life and activities of the military unit, unit and each serviceman. E. is expressed in the right of the commander (chief), based on a comprehensive assessment of the situation, to make decisions on his own, give appropriate orders in strict accordance with the requirements of laws and military regulations, and ensure their implementation. Discussion of the order

for is not allowed, and disobedience or other failure to comply with an order that entails harmful consequences is a crime against military service. The subordinate is obliged to unquestioningly follow the orders of his superiors.

In peacetime and wartime, the commander is responsible for: combat and mobilization readiness of the military unit (unit) entrusted to him; successful completion of combat missions by a military unit (unit); combat training, education, military discipline, moral and psychological state of personnel and the safety of military service; internal order; condition and safety of weapons, military equipment and other material assets; technical, material, financial, social, legal and household support. The official activities of the commander-single commander are implemented in the following legal forms: issuance of orders and other legal acts; approval of the daily routine and regulations of service time for military personnel performing military service under a contract; appointment of administrative investigations and inquiries; bringing subordinates to disciplinary and financial liability, etc.

Shapinsky V.I., Kolodkin L.M.

Encyclopedia of Lawyer. 2005 .

Synonyms:

See what “UNITY OF COMMAND” is in other dictionaries:

Unity of command... Spelling dictionary-reference book

UNITY OF COMMAND, unity of command, plural. no, cf. (book). Sole management. In all factories and factories, instead of collegial management, unity of command was introduced. Dictionary Ushakova. D.N. Ushakov. 1935 1940 ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

A form of management organization in which the management body (its structural unit), enterprise, institution or organization is headed by one person who is authorized to make legally binding decisions. Dictionary of financial terms... Financial Dictionary

Single person, autocracy; sovereignty, autocracy Dictionary of Russian synonyms. unity of command noun, number of synonyms: 4 unity of power (4) ... Dictionary of synonyms

A principle that means granting the head of any body, institution, or enterprise the powers necessary to perform his functions, as well as establishing his personal responsibility for the results of his work... Legal dictionary

A management organization in which the head of a firm, company, or organization is empowered to make legally binding decisions for all employees employed in these firms and organizations. Dictionary of business terms. Akademik.ru. 2001 ... Dictionary of business terms

The principle of management, which means granting the head of any body, institution, or enterprise the powers necessary to perform his functions, as well as establishing his personal responsibility for the results of work... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

The principle of building an organization, according to which a subordinate must accept authority... Glossary of crisis management terms

UNITY OF COMMAND, I, cf. Sole control, autocracy. The principle of unity of command. Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

English one man management; German Einzelleitung. A management principle that provides the manager with broad powers necessary for the successful performance of his functions and establishes his personal responsibility for the results of his work. Antinazi... Encyclopedia of Sociology

Books

Heads of Russian state Outstanding rulers that the whole country should know about. This book tells about all the sovereigns of Russia who have ruled it over the past ten centuries. Of course, over time, the reign of sovereigns transformed, but one thing remained unchanged -... Category: