Training the tactical brain: where cognitive science meets military excellence

Total uncer­tainty, the clock tick­ing, lives at stake, an ava­lanche of con­tra­dict­ory inform­a­tion: mil­it­ary decision-mak­ing brings togeth­er everything that makes choices dif­fi­cult. Far from being a mar­gin­al case, it rep­res­ents the most extreme scen­ario in human decision-mak­ing – a real-life labor­at­ory for research­ers study­ing how we make decisions in urgent situ­ations. Amer­ic­an research­er Gary Klein unrav­elled this mys­tery in 1993 with his nat­ur­al­ist­ic decision-mak­ing mod­el¹. Con­trary to con­ven­tion­al wis­dom and clas­sic­al ration­al the­or­ies, exper­i­enced decision-makers do not metic­u­lously weigh the pros and cons of each option. They instantly recog­nise a famil­i­ar pat­tern in the situ­ation, men­tally visu­al­ise the con­sequences of their first intu­ition, and then adjust it in real time.

On mil­it­ary frig­ates equipped with the AEGIS sys­tem, the facts con­firm the the­ory. Kaem­p­f’s 1996 work² is unequi­voc­al: faced with inform­a­tion­al chaos and extreme time pres­sure, officers rely on their expert intu­ition rather than exhaust­ive ana­lys­is. This is not out of lazi­ness or approx­im­a­tion, but rather cog­nit­ive adapt­a­tion: when events unfold faster than the capa­city for ana­lys­is, intu­ition forged by exper­i­ence becomes the most effect­ive tool. Anoth­er cru­cial les­son, too often over­looked, is that phys­ic­al and psy­cho­lo­gic­al state makes all the dif­fer­ence³. Accu­mu­lated fatigue, lack of sleep, pro­longed stress… Recent stud­ies by Sekel⁴ and Man­tua⁵ prove this bey­ond doubt: these factors massively impair the qual­ity of decisions in com­bat. An exhausted com­mand­er mis­judges risks, pro­cesses inform­a­tion less effect­ively and makes more dan­ger­ous decisions.

These find­ings are of interest far bey­ond the bar­racks. Cyber­se­cur­ity, health crisis man­age­ment, mar­ket fin­ance, inter­na­tion­al dip­lomacy: all these sec­tors face unpre­dict­ab­il­ity, urgency and com­plex­ity on a daily basis. Train­ing decision-makers cap­able of act­ing effect­ively in these dynam­ic and mor­ally demand­ing envir­on­ments has become a major cross-cut­ting issue. Gen­er­al Emmanuel Phelut, head of the Centre de l’En­sei­gne­ment Milit­aire Supérieur-Terre, (CEMS‑T) explains how the insti­tu­tion trains seni­or officers to make decisions in today’s com­plex world, integ­rat­ing decision-mak­ing sci­ences, tech­no­logy, oper­a­tion­al exper­i­ence and edu­ca­tion­al transformation.

Gen­er­al Emmanuel Phelut. CEMS‑T is the bench­mark struc­ture for train­ing seni­or army officers. It com­mands and over­sees four schools: the Staff Col­lege, the Land War­fare Col­lege, the High­er Mil­it­ary Sci­entif­ic and Tech­nic­al Col­lege, and the High­er Col­lege for Reserve Staff Officers. Its mis­sion is to sup­port officers in a pro­cess of pro­found intel­lec­tu­al trans­form­a­tion. The aim is to train lead­ers who are cap­able of act­ing in volat­ile envir­on­ments, under­stand­ing the inter­ac­tions between polit­ics, eco­nom­ics and the mil­it­ary, and integ­rat­ing tech­no­logy and human factors into a single com­mand logic. Mod­ern com­mand is not simply a mat­ter of execut­ing a man­oeuvre; it involves think­ing about the glob­al sys­tem, anti­cip­at­ing dis­rup­tions and main­tain­ing con­sist­ency while integ­rat­ing the con­tra­dict­ory demands of the cur­rent times.

Recent wars have shown that decision-mak­ing is not simply a tech­nic­al pro­cess. It res­ults from the abil­ity to reas­on in com­plex situ­ations. Teach­ing meth­ods have there­fore been reori­ented: before learn­ing how to man­age a crisis, one must learn how to think about it. Train­ees work on real-life situ­ations: con­tem­por­ary con­flicts, hybrid cam­paigns, inform­a­tion crises, cyber­at­tacks. The exer­cises com­bine high-intens­ity war­fare, influ­ence oper­a­tions and polit­ic­al con­straints, par­tic­u­larly in the con­text of a major coali­tion engage­ment scen­ario. Cooper­a­tion and the exchange of ideas are encour­aged: officers from dif­fer­ent branches of the armed forces, civil­ians, reserv­ists and some­times for­eign­ers learn togeth­er. Assess­ment is no longer based on con­form­ity to a mod­el, but on the qual­ity of reas­on­ing. Com­plex­ity can­not be elim­in­ated; it must be nav­ig­ated. Train­ing a lead­er means train­ing them to remain clear-headed in the midst of uncertainty.

Innov­a­tion is not a buzzword or a fad; it is an intel­lec­tu­al stance. It involves ques­tion­ing our habits, pro­ced­ures and rep­res­ent­a­tions. We incor­por­ate the con­tri­bu­tions of decision sci­ences and stra­tegic think­ing without con­fin­ing them to the­ory. The­ory still exists and is of course taught, but it is not an insur­mount­able dogma, rather a guide. These approaches shed light on how a lead­er builds their vis­ion, pri­or­it­ises inform­a­tion and main­tains con­sist­ency in their actions under pressure.

Our goal is not to pro­duce cook­ie-cut­ter decision-makers. We want lead­ers who are cap­able of dis­cern­ment, aware of the lim­it­a­tions of mod­els, and able to accept the uncer­tainty inher­ent in any crisis situ­ation. A lead­er must be both respons­ible and free: respons­ible for what they decide, free in how they con­ceive and defend it. This per­spect­ive and intel­lec­tu­al stance are embod­ied in com­mand by inten­tion. It is in this spir­it that we cre­ated the CEMS‑T teach­ing chair in 2024. It provides a space for dia­logue between mil­it­ary and civil­ian act­ors. This chair works on the links between sci­ence, industry, tech­no­logy and strategy, and dir­ectly feeds into the devel­op­ment of our pro­grammes. It illus­trates our desire to place lead­er­ship train­ing in an open and dynam­ic frame­work, where oper­a­tion­al exper­i­ence and sci­entif­ic and indus­tri­al think­ing rein­force each other.

In terms of teach­ing, we are exper­i­ment­ing with new meth­ods: flipped classrooms, digit­al sim­u­la­tions and col­lab­or­at­ive plat­forms. Each class becomes a real decision-mak­ing labor­at­ory, where we ana­lyse both the way of think­ing and the res­ults obtained. The exer­cises also gen­er­ate data that feeds into know­ledge bases to pre­pare for the arrival of AI.

Mil­it­ary com­mand can no longer oper­ate in isol­a­tion. A mil­it­ary com­mand­er must under­stand the soci­ety in which they are oper­at­ing: its eco­nomy, its tech­no­lo­gies, its polit­ic­al con­straints. Part­ner­ships with uni­ver­sit­ies, engin­eer­ing schools, busi­nesses and sev­er­al for­eign insti­tu­tions help to open up this per­spect­ive. Research­ers, engin­eers, eco­nom­ists, soci­olo­gists and pub­lic decision-makers reg­u­larly inter­act with train­ees. This diversity of per­spect­ives is invalu­able: it teaches them to listen, to com­pare and con­trast, and to think in terms of networks.

On an inter­na­tion­al level, these exchanges also strengthen inter­op­er­ab­il­ity. They allow for the com­par­is­on of doc­trines, pro­fes­sion­al cul­tures and com­mand prac­tices. Under­stand­ing oth­ers means under­stand­ing one­self bet­ter and mak­ing cooper­a­tion more effective.

Train­ing a lead­er means devel­op­ing a way of think­ing that is both open-minded and respons­ible. Open-minded, because lead­er­ship is not simply a mat­ter of fol­low­ing pro­tocol; it requires the abil­ity to be resource­ful, take risks and make decisions without cer­tainty. Respons­ible, because no decision is neut­ral: it involves lives, resources, and often the repu­ta­tion of the nation.

This train­ing is struc­tured around three areas: intel­lec­tu­al mas­tery, mor­al lucid­ity, and the capa­city for action. Intel­lec­tu­al mas­tery is the abil­ity to reas­on, to con­nect facts, to under­stand before act­ing. Mor­al clar­ity is accept­ing dif­fi­cult choices and main­tain­ing integ­rity des­pite the con­straints. Finally, the capa­city for action is trans­form­ing reflec­tion into clear decisions and stay­ing the course in the face of adversity. The CEMS‑T main­tains this stand­ard in all its courses. We want every officer in train­ing to leave with a meth­od of think­ing, rig­or­ous judge­ment and a sol­id eth­ic­al foundation.

It is essen­tial. Tech­no­lo­gies evolve, organ­isa­tions change, but decision-mak­ing remains human. An army is defined first and fore­most by the qual­ity of its officers. Train­ing lead­ers who are cap­able of ana­lys­ing, arbit­rat­ing and com­mand­ing in com­plex situ­ations strengthens the coun­try’s sov­er­eignty. The CEMS‑T does not teach recipes; it forges a way of think­ing and an inner dis­cip­line. The goal is not to pro­duce isol­ated experts but minds cap­able of mak­ing con­nec­tions: con­nect­ing man­oeuvres to strategy, tech­no­logy to pur­pose, action to responsibility.

Intel­lec­tu­al train­ing is a stra­tegic invest­ment. It pre­pares France to have clear-headed, rig­or­ous lead­ers who are cap­able of exer­cising their free­dom of judge­ment. Ulti­mately, this is the best guar­an­tee of resi­li­ence and con­sist­ency in an uncer­tain world.