Spot on Gen McCaffrey. This keeps the commanders informed but also keeps you from micromanaging, if done correctly. The other thing to keep in mind, is just because you see something does not mean you have to change or correct it. There are lots of good ideas and ways to do things and as long as it accomplishes the mission, it does not have to be done exactly the way the higher commander would have done it. The hardest thing for a leader to do is for him to allow his subordinates to do something their way as long as it gets the job done and keeping his mouth shut while they are doing it.

I'm surprised no one else has brought this up yet. The notion that one should command one level down while knowing the location of your subordinating units two levels down...George S. Patton said it first. He called it "the essence of command". It's in War As I Knew It.

I seem to have gotten rid of my copy and can't find it, but also found this reference :

"Finally, Patton's theory of command was that a commander should not rob a subordinate of his initiative by over- controlling him. He insisted that subordinates be told what to do, but not how to do it. He felt that a general should command one level down, but know the location of units two levels down."

From: COMMAND PRESENCE: WHERE SHOULD THE OPERATIONAL COMMANDER BE LOCATED ON THE MODERN BATTLEFIELD?

Major Howard L. Ware, III Field Artillery

School of Advanced Military Studies
United States Army Command and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

Ware's paper is available at DTIC, in PDF form. Google "patton "the essence of command" levels", it's the first thing that comes up.