- 21.1.2026
The Commander of the Land Forces of the Army of the Czech Republic, Major General Josef Trojánek, describes his concept of command and his experiences from his first year in office.
Leading the main combat unit of the Army of the Czech Republic places extraordinary demands on a personal approach, the ability to make decisions and bear responsibility. General Trojánek considers these aspects to be key to the functioning of an organization that must be prepared to respond to the changing security environment and increasing demands on performance and professionalism.
According to him, one fundamental finding was confirmed during his first year in office. Without quality communication, effective leadership is impossible. And not only towards subordinate units, but across the entire army. He assesses the internal flow of information at the Land Forces level as functional, although with natural room for improvement. However, he perceives a more fundamental problem on a broader scale.
“The problem I see is communication across the army in general. It’s mainly about the willingness to communicate, to state the problem, not to believe various guesses, not to correspond through files, but to explain. We are in the 21st century, we have video conferences, unified workstations, simply enormous possibilities, so why not use them,” he says openly.
His command style is based on long-term personal experience and is based on a simple but fundamental principle. He considers honesty to be a necessary prerequisite for trust. A commander must be readable by his subordinates. As soon as he starts to act in a way that is not open, he loses credibility. This cannot be regained.
“A colleague of mine once said that a commander must be legible. It’s not rocket science. If you start acting in a way that’s out of line, you lose credibility. And in this case, you can’t get it back,” he explains. According to him, it’s not a question of position or rank, but of long-term consistency. Command is not a role that can be played once and then postponed. Indecipherable behavior undermines the fundamental relationship that underlies trust in the entire chain of command.
He is equally straightforward in the area of decision-making. He makes it clear that speed is not a virtue in itself if it is bought off by poor-quality decisions. In an environment where decisions are made about unit capabilities, training development, and people’s safety, he considers it essential to rely on analysis and a realistic assessment of the situation.
“A quick decision without sufficient analysis is always a waste,” he states bluntly. He reminds us that a commander must not only be pressured to react immediately, but must be responsible above all for the quality of his decisions. In practice, this means working with information, asking about connections, verifying, and only then drawing conclusions.
An important element of his command style is also a clear division of roles between individual levels. The higher level is to define what and why. The way to achieve this is the responsibility of subordinate commanders. This approach corresponds to modern principles of command and control, based on the initiative, expertise and experience of commanders in units.
“I try to define what and why. And commanders are there to find a way,” he says. At the same time, he reminds us that subordinate units are commanded by brigadier generals and colonels with many years of experience. In such an environment, it is not about checking every detail, but about common direction and mutual trust.
He does not consider a mistake to be something that should be automatically punished. On the contrary, he emphasizes that making mistakes is a natural part of the learning process, as long as it is accompanied by self-reflection and learning. “Making a mistake, admitting it and learning from it is not wrong,” he states. According to him, the key is that the organization does not freeze in fear of making a mistake, but remains able to learn and adapt.
His entire approach is based on three pillars: open communication, clarity of the commander, and trust in the professional abilities of subordinates. He sees these elements as key prerequisites for the further development of the Land Forces and their ability to respond to the challenges of the changing security environment.
