How do you relay orders?

The way I deal with it myself is to "own" the order, even if I disagree, with something like, "Here's what we need to do ..." I don't think we should ever fall back to "higher said," because that clearly sends the message that I disagree with higher, but I'm forced to follow their orders. If I do have a problem with an order, I need to voice that disagreement (if appropriate) to higher, and not to the people I lead.

These days, verbally, from the customer side of the counter at Subway. :-)

I rarely relay where orders come from. I take the orders, review my plan, and issue my order. It's that simple. If I have been ordered to do something that does not violate the legal, ethical, or moral test...then I carry that order forward in the best manner that I can. My job is to try to influence the order before it is given or shortly after if I feel it does not meet my criteria or may result in other issues. Once the order is issued and any debate is resolved, that becomes my mission, even if I lose the battle on what the appropriate order should be.

I'm with CW5 (Join to see) and Cpl (Join to see) on this. Own it. If you have a problem with it, take it up with your higher-ups, not those who you are supposed to lead.

I would always state the message in the form of a task. "This is what we need to do." Whether it came from me or someone higher than me was irrelevant. If my troops questioned me or my methods, I would pull them aside for one on one counseling, if they persisted we took the matter up the chain. But the message is "the" message, my endorsement of it or the pedigree of the sender should be irrelevant in a competently trained force with a leader in position of authority. If my troops disagreed, they knew they could bring me their concerns after they had accomplished the task. I rarely had problems.

1SG (Join to see) my Commander and First Sergeant told me that they needed me to comment on this post....

I'm pleased to see how largely unified everyone has been on this. I also agree that you should "own" the order and execute. Although I, too, have slipped up, I try to keep the explanation of the order's origination only to those cases where the authority of their office is relevant to completing the order without difficulty.

For example, HHC CDR & 1SG are in a meeting, and you get the BC's tasker to get something done "yesterday." If I'm doing something that would be perceived as outside my lane (and in the HHC CDR's) but is necessary to accomplish the task, whether that be because of using HHC resources or personnel, mentioning the source of authority is germane to the order I'm then giving.

You could also make a case for mentioning it in the context of special instructions, but you should be careful. "The BC wants these floors clean enough to eat off" is a bad use, while "The BC will be coming to inspect these floors in one hour" is not.

I fall into the majority point of few of "folks, this is what we need to do". I've slipped up on a few occasions - using that exact quote 1SG (Join to see) - but only with my SNCOs in earshot or at the table. The troops HAVE to see and know that the CofC is unified even if I don't agree with the order, which I have on several occasions. I've been questioned by my SNCOs on handed down orders and the bottom line is, its got to be done. I've never been given an order even close to immoral or illegal, but sometimes the elevator of the thought process seems to have gotten stuck between the floors of the issuer. I've had to question or disagree with orders mainly dealing with technical signal stuff. A few instances in Korea I wanted my RETRANS site in a certain location, but the boss wanted it where he wanted it despite my LOS overlays, data and reasoning. Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full sir, salute, about face, drive on.

Well there is the daily FRAGO, but who reads those and complies up until the day or hour before the suspense?

I think it depends on the environment. As an officer I can generally give the orders as my own. Although sometimes in an environment where you lead people to be closer to your peers, generally I would give them the orders originating authority. Not because I am afraid to give a task but to make sure people know where to place them in the list of priorities in things to do. Whether we like it or not people will put more onus in prioritizing a task that is being handed down from a higher echelon. If they know it is something that is being considered a "Hot" Issue they will be less likely to blow it off.

This is because the style of leadership is typically different in a flying squadron in the Air Force versus a ground combat unit in the Army.

It is more or less the norm in the Air Force than probably the Army. I have even heard squadron commanders higher use language such as "Well guys we all have to do X, I don't make these decisions, but my hands are tied. So salute smartly and get the job done."

Not sure ones if its right or wrong. sometimes people feel better in doing a task that they know isn't just arbitrarily being placed on them.