I think of “command and control” as one thing. Is there a difference?
That common phrase notwithstanding, command and control are two alternative structures, more opposites than synonyms!
Command (like in the military) allocates responsibilities to parts of the hierarchy. So a general is tasked with winning a war, and each officer under them is assigned some objectives that contribute. The officers understand what they’re trying to achieve and why. At each level, leadership decides how to get there, breaking it down to smaller units. In the field, each unit reacts to what’s happening. The general doesn’t tell any particular soldier what to shoot and where to run.
The command tradition… presumes nested spheres of responsibility within which detailed planning and control devolve to the lowest level of authority.
Paul N. Edwards, The Closed World
Control is fine-grained. Each plane and missile is assigned a target by ground control, coordinated by computer. Global optimization specifies the demands on each participant.
These paradigms clashed in the 1950s and 1960s, during the Cold War in the US. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara overrode the command structure of the military with a control structure optimized by data, for data. “Cost-benefit analysis” ruled over experience and history.
This led us to failure in Vietnam. Since then, the military has reasserted the command structure, at least in combat.
A control hierarchy tends to be flat, optimized for responding quickly to pre-arranged instructions. It’s efficient, if you really can predict what you’re going to do in every detail. Upward information flow is limited to aggregates.
A command hierarchy has as many levels as it needs to break down responsibilities with richness of understanding. It supports conversation, responsiveness to information, and connection to a reality that varies under the feet (or fingers) of each team.
Control or command?
If a piece of a business is so predictable that management to numbers works for more than the short term, then a control structure makes sense. You don’t need a lot of middle management chasing numbers, so go with a flat hierarchy.
If you’re leading a business that responds to a dynamic market and serves humans, then the command tradition is stronger. Data is one category of input, balanced with experience and situated observation. Higher quality is possible.
There are other reasons to choose control, but I don’t like them. Some industries choose control over command, even when delegating authority to local experts improves efficiency and effectiveness. They value reproducibility, for more predictable scaling.
The phrase “command and control” actually sprang from a misinterpretation of the Air Force 465L computerized control system. Instead of understanding its name as ‘the Strategic Air Command’s Control System,” some officers apparently read it as “the Strategic Air Command-Control System,” hence the phrase “command and control.”
Les Earnest, quoted by Paul N. Edwards, The Closed World.
The meanings of words shift and change, so we’re stuck with this conflating phrase. I like the useful distinctions these older definitions offer. Yay history books!