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.
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.