>> taking the form of commands, as opposed to actually conveying information that would enlighten the reader.

That's a key observation. BLUF is most used when officers are talking to non-officers. The assumption is that the non-officers need to know what to do, but do not need to know why they need to do something. Between officers, BLUF is not nearly as common. The assumption is that officers shall have wider latitude, the ability to even disobey the specific instructions, and so need greater background information.

Captain to corporals: All pickup trucks shall carry a fire extinguisher. [BLUF]

Captain to Warrant Officers: Provide fire extinguishers in all the pickup trucks because local law requires it. [BLUF + context to encourage compliance]

Captain to lieutenant: A new law was just past that looks to require fire extinguishers in all pickup trucks on public roads. Please make sure none of our trucks leave the base without one. [No BLUF. Explanation of situation and commander intent. Specifics of implementation left in hands of reader]

>The assumption is that the non-officers need to know what to do, but do not need to know why they need to do something.

I spent almost 2 decades in the Army. Its a terrible assumption. Except for combat situations, other emergencies, or really trivial tasks, everyone should know why they are doing something. It is physically impossible to make a non-stupid person care about a thing of which they have no knowledge. From my experience, the one thing that has the greatest impact on a person's ability to do a good job is a genuine desire to accomplish whatever their objective is. If they don't know what that objective is, they simply aren't going to give a shit. They might get it done adequately, but the military is a self-proclaimed meritocracy, so one would think that isn't enough.

It has been at least 50 years if not 100 since the majority of enlisted people didn't have a decent education. Now its incredibly common for enlisted Soldiers to have an undergraduate degree. Education isn't a guarantee of competence, intelligence, or even anything remotely useful, but that goes for officers and enlisted personnel.

Yet the military still insists on operating like they did in olden times when the average enlisted person was an illiterate farm hand. Their primary business is the physical enforcement of political interests (AKA combat), so in some ways it makes sense for them even though it also hurts them. However, businesses should be careful when evaluating their methodologies for civilian use, because there are certainly a ton of drawbacks.

The reason the US military is one of the most capable fighting forces in the world has more to do with technological sophistication (created by civilians) and a near unlimited budget than it has to do with the leadership of the military, the horrific bureaucracy that the leadership created/maintains, or the frequently alleged magical, inherent superiority of the American soldier.

You are overthinking the problem. It isn't that there is no advantage in explaining things, but often times the enlisted really don't want to listen to some officer drone on about why something is being done. For the trivial stuff, stuff like my example above, they really have no immediate interest in why something has to be done. That can come later. The published SOP, the checklist in the guard shack, doesn't need to include the history behind the decision.

One thing that most leaders ignore is that explaining a decision to people who have no real input into that decision can often be really bad for moral. It makes the decision maker look less than confident, like they are seeking reassurance in their decision by explaining all the background behind it.

I agreed above that for trivial things an explanation is unnecessary.

> It isn't that there is no advantage in explaining things, but often times the enlisted really don't want to listen to some officer drone on about why something is being done.

From my experience this mostly happens when the explanation is either blatant lying, or if its true and reveals that incompetence at a higher level than the officer delivering the message has generated a bunch of unnecessary work for the unit.

More commonly I hear Soldiers saying "This is stupid, why are we doing this?" to their comrades and NCOs. Usually followed by the Soldiers doing whatever it is to the minimal accepted standard.

>> BLUF is most used when officers are talking to non-officers.

I have seen it used by staff officers to quickly convey important information to commanders who need to make decisions and don't have time to read a novel of details.

Commanders need important information first and supporting details second. BLUF is an ideal format for this since it emphasizes concise, prioritized communication.

I find that most of the time those written statements between staff and commanders are just the tip of a huge iceberg. Lots of non-official communications back and forth have already happened. The commanders are already aware of the reasoning behind the decision because they probably briefed it to the staff. So the eventual official communication is indeed very brief.

> is that top-down communication ends up taking the form of commands

Another problem is that it’s not suitable for marketing. How are you going to hook the reader if the copy is clear? Same in private life: How do you get loved if you communicate clearly your intentions? That’s what people hate the most! The whole left brain is high on imagination (or emotions fed by imaginated expectations), as are most people, and as an Asperger it is very hard to talk to people on this channel.

I’m serious. Marketing mostly relies on unclear information when needed. Example with the front page of Atlassian: “Atlassian helps teams work smarter and faster, together.” is not BLUF at all. BLUF would be “Atlassian sells an intranet, an issue tracker, a Git repo and a build engine”...

I think the problem is that "give the whole context" is a clear directive in the military context but fairly tricky to figure out in a civilian context.