Command vs. Control

A leader leads by example not by force.
Sun Tzu

Command and control are two activities that are often found hand in hand. Are these activities the same? Are they opposites? Are they two sides to the same coin? The military uses these terms together as Command and Control. From wikipedia command and control "can be defined as the exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commanding officer over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission." One definition of Control is somewhat different. Although one definition of control is the same I believe that each word has its own meaning. The definition of control I will use is "the method and means of governing the performance of any apparatus, machine or system, such as a lever, handle or button." So control is the authority to influence the situation and command is the application of the influence. When it gets down too it its this: The power to influence a situation and the means to order and direct this power.

Its about Power.

I think if we use these words a little differently then a more profound difference between them becomes apparent. Commander and Controller. One is a person who commands and the other is a person who controls. These two words invoke quite different feelings and images. A commander is a person which is often held in high esteem. The commander is the man of responsibility. He is responsible for his crew and for the success of the project. He is devoted to the cause of the supporting culture. He wants men of worth around him to better achieve the goal. He appreciates being challenged because he knows to grow is to learn. A commander must take into account the means of achieving the goal and cost. He has a right to be here. Previous actions of created the scenario. The quality of his total being will decide the outcome.

The controller on the other hand is not a well liked individual. His manipulations, though successful at first, are eventually discovered and held in contempt. He cares not for the people who he interacts with. His sole objective is the success of some individual scheme. He organizes people for the benefit of the few. A controller must be concerned with what his subjects think, because if they objectively sense and think then they will discover the sham. A climate of deception and unsensing fosters a climate of fear because to be unaware of reality is a dreadful situation. The controller is interested only in the outcome and not the means. The controller remains an outsider, is he trying to prove something to himself?

Both of these individuals affect change in situations. One of these individuals is a seed which can grow. The other is a machine.

The world needs commanders now. Every individual in every community must take command of oneself. Direction of your attention to the entire unified field of reality, the continued movement through feelings, the act of visualization and its communication (thought), and the physical action in response to the ever evolving situation is command. What right do you have to exercise this command? You were created with sensory organs, a heart, a brain, and legs, arms, hands, feet, and a mouth.

Why try to control the unified field? Its vastness dwarfs even our most inspired attempts of perception. Submission to total attention yields the ability to act profoundly, not manipulation. There is a time and a place for manipulation and its short term results. Its place is a small part of the entire field available for us to attend to.

Don't you think that there's a little of the commander and controller in each of us? Which is dominant in you? Are you aware of how you go about things and why?