Veteran Lesson II: Stay In Your Lane (Ten Veteran Lessons for Every Day)

Topic: Leadership

Lesson 2

Stay In Your Lane

            Military operations orders specify tasks to subordinate units.  Each subordinate unit issues its own internal orders within the constraints of what is known as “commander’s intent” from the highest command’s order.  The commander expresses his desired end state for a mission, specifying any specific tasks and orders, and identifying any constraints placed upon subordinate commanders.  Upon receipt of said order, subordinate commanders craft their own unique operational plan from the framework of the higher order. 

            A captain receiving an order from his commanding lieutenant colonel has no choice but to obey a lawful order unless he desires a court martial and prison time.  It does not matter if the captain thinks his colonel is a horse’s ass, or has different personal or spiritual beliefs.  A lawful order is a lawful order.

            Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain had a seemingly boring task on Little Round Top in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on July 2, 1863.  His regiment was to serve as the far left flank of the Union Army, providing security for the main defensive force against an expected Confederate attack.  Had Chamberlain resented his assignment and abandoned it for pursuit of glory, directing his soldiers toward the main Rebel offensive, the Union Army would have been routed from the side.

            As history records, Chamberlain stayed focused on his mission and in his lane in what proved to be the decisive battle of the American Civil War.  His regiment was highly decorated for fending off a hellish assault from Confederate forces, saving the day for the Union and making Chamberlain himself a hero.  What would have become of the United States had Chamberlain called his own mission and abandoned what his assignment was?  The Union would have likely been routed at Gettysburg, invigorating the Confederacy and demoralizing the Union.

            Similar analogies exist in sports.  If a special teams player covering a kickoff leaves his defensive lane to pursue a ballcarrier across the field, he allows for a cutback and skillful blocking to score a touchdown for the opposition.  If an outfielder ignores a fellow defender calling responsibility for a fly ball, he may collide with that defender and allow the baseball to fall in for a hit.  Acting outside of one’s designated responsibilities may cause serious problems when the mission is at stake, distracting others from achieving time-sensitive goals and objectives in the best case, and destroying morale, effectiveness, and entire organizations in the worst case.

            All military leaders are outranked by people they both like and dislike and outrank people they both like and dislike.  In many cases, they may not trust those individuals to act outside of selfish interests and promotion potential; however, accomplishment of the mission comes first, and this requires unity of command and effort in deploying all resources and personnel toward the end goal of victory.  Superseding another leader’s authority and responsibilities serves to create internal division within the organization, and discredits that leader in the eyes of the soldiers he is assigned to lead. 

            In this regard, it is best to let people experience failure if the consequences of that failure are not so severe as to prohibit accomplishment of the mission.  Stepping in the way to prevent a non-catastrophic failure prevents valuable lessons from being learned and paints the interfering party as meddlesome and interested only in self-promotion.  One of my best learning moments happened when I was a second lieutenant in charge of giving intelligence briefings on enemy activity for my battalion’s soldiers prior to deployment.  The captain overseeing the training instructed me as to what needed to be briefed but gave me room to either succeed or fail in delivering the training.  I prepared my presentation but did not assure that the disc I burned the presentation onto would be compatible with the computer that would receive it in the briefing room.  I wound up having to brief soldiers from memory without any training aids or slides.  I never made that mistake again.

            Had the captain left his lane and interfered in my task to ensure perfect delivery, I may have learned this lesson in a much more consequential environment, such as a combat zone.  In an environment like that, those intelligence products are much more important for imparting knowledge to soldiers and are not easily done without.  Similarly, if the intelligence officer spends too much time intertwined in other staff planning activities, such as logistical support, the intelligence picture will be malnourished and fail to serve the needs of the unit, which needs an accurate picture of enemy strength and composition, terrain and weather, and overall intelligence preparation of the battlefield to match up successfully.

            Staying in one’s lane is also a Biblical concept.  Moses wanted to handle everything himself, too, but was too worn out from the constant management of nagging everyday issues to deal with his main purpose, which was to lead the people to the Promised Land.  It took a sit-down session with his father-in-law, Jethro, to realize the importance of delegation.  Moses was pushed in the direction of appointing subordinate leaders to handle manageable tasks, and they were to come to him only for things involving his expert wisdom and leadership.  The art of delegating, which will be discussed at length in a future lesson, allowed Moses to stay in his lane and get the job done with great effectiveness.

            The pursuit and realization of maximum effectiveness is why, at speaking engagements, I always encourage leaders to pick their lane, and stay in it.  Sometimes I get asked to contribute heavily, beyond my boundaries, to causes outside of my area of expertise.  I surely care about these causes but limit my ability to make substantial impact when I get out of my lane.  Most “patriots” care about all issues impacting liberty and freedom but struggle to make serious impacts when they don’t stick to their guns and focus on one field.  The effect is that of a shotgun spray rather than a cannonade of brutal precision.

            Infighting is another important topic when it comes to staying in one’s lane.  Everyone normally has a horse in a fight, but it is not productive to take the bait and lunge headfirst into those fights if it will distract from the higher purpose of getting the mission done.  Most of the main generals in America’s notable wars had serious rivalries.  Eisenhower and Patton hated one another’s guts, but still got through the main offensives that won World War II.  The founding fathers themselves hated each other, as evidenced by the writings of Hamilton, Jefferson, Washington, Madison, and Adams.  Had they been incapable of staying in their respective lanes during the founding of the Republic, who knows what would have become of the idea of the American experiment, which is now in turbulent waters after a quarter of a millennium.

            Staying in one’s lane is not a sign of cowardice or weakness.  Instead, it is a mark of discretion and discipline, realizing the strategic picture and its importance just as Colonel Chamberlain did in that pivotal battle in Gettysburg.  Stay on point, focus on the mission, and concentrate all firepower on the objective.