The Importance of Following Directions Following directions is one of the most basic and fundamental skills necessary to maintain order in today’s society. From the most basic “No!” to a little child to “Don’t drink and drive,” following directions can save a life and maintain safety, create efficiency in the home, the workplace and at school, and keep basic order to avoid chaos and disarray. “Following directions is an important skill to learn in …show more content…
During the American Civil War (1861-‐65), General Ulysses S. Grant had a colonel on his staff. (English is sometimes very weird. "Colonel" is pronounced "kernel," as in corn.) The colonel was a dolt. (That's pronounced exactly as it's spelled: dolt, as in "dummy.") Grant knew this, which is why he kept him on his staff. The colonel had one major responsibility: interpreting Grant's orders for Grant. Grant would write an order and hand it to the colonel. The colonel's job was to explain this order in his own words to Grant. If he explained the order wrong, Grant would re-‐write it. When, finally, the colonel could explain accurately what Grant was really telling his commanders to do, Grant would issue the order. Grant knew his own limitations as a writer of commands. He compensated for this by using his dim-‐witted colonel.” There are many consequences that
The military is comprised of leaders and followers: this concept of leadership is the foundation of the military, leaders are the decision makers, and followers carry out their decisions. These decision makers are the role models the followers have a great deal of respect for and should admire. A good leader is decisive, has integrity, and leads by example. Being entrusted to lead, to mold the individuals around you into a cohesive unit is a special opportunity and only a few in respects to the total population are commissioned. General Colin L. Powell stated, “The most important thing I learned is that soldiers watch what their leaders do. You can give them classes and lecture them forever, but it is your personal example they will
This paper displays the impact in battle and on troops of key characteristics that differentiate the distinction between an effective and ineffective leader. Using the analysis of the Battle of Chattanooga and various memoirs from General Sherman and Grant, biographies about Grant, and reliable resources from researchers, such as J.F.C. Fuller, and the Library of Congress, this paper details the events of the battle and the events that preceded the battle in direct correlation with the leadership decisions that impacted the outcome of these events. The leaderships being directly compared in this analysis are that of General William S. Rosecrans and Major-General Ulysses S. Grant. For the purposes of this comparison, these leaderships at Chattanooga are divided into two phases: Phase I being Rosecrans’, and Phase II being Grant’s impact at Chattanooga.
“Ulysses S. Grant was the opposite of that he didn’t that the training and the proper skills for this he only worked with slavery”. So this was hard for Grant without the skills or knowing how to work with people
Operational leaders down to the platoon level have and will face complex missions in uncertain operational environments. Accordingly, Army doctrine shifted to recognize mission command, which enables leaders at the lowest level to exercise disciplined initiative in the accomplishment of a larger mission. General George S. Patton Jr. stated, “never tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.” In the simplistic sense, mission command has been around for a significant while. It was not until the dawn of larger armies and lethal weapons that the practice of mission command was displayed. As a result of larger armies, commanders could not properly command and control their entire army; therefore,
During the course of my career, I have had the pleasure of working for many talented leaders. In many cases, it wasn’t until years later that I realized how they guided and shaped my development as an officer. However, these revelations didn’t come to me as I reflected on their actions, rather they came to me as I reflected on the actions of those officers who demonstrated the poorest example of what a leader should be. One field grade officer in particular stands out as someone who conflicted with the mission command philosophy of command at every turn and serves as an enduring example of what a leader should not be.
Throughout history, the United States military has given birth to many highly successful leaders and generals. General Douglas MacArthur has long been considered as one of these leaders. Although historians have scrutinized his failures , he has maintained a prominent reputation as an extraordinary military leader. His father, General Arthur MacArthur, famously told him, “There are times when a truly remarkable soldier must resort to unorthodox behavior, disobeying his superiors to gain the greater glory.” Consequently, Douglas MacArthur established his reputation by disobeying direct orders. These incidents in many ways defined and although made him controversial also helped to make him famous. MacArthur’s
“The United States Army is structured on several values and principles that it upholds, among these are military bearing, discipline and respect. These principles represents what the organization strongly believes in and governs the most basic customs and courtesies that all its members should abide by, otherwise legal repercussion and punishment is enforced that could ultimately result in separation from the organization.” The standards must be met by Soldiers or they can face a number of repercussions such as, barring from re-enlistment or even separation. Non commissioned officers should always uphold the standards so that all Soldiers know what they are and what can happen to them if they do not meet the standard. “One is to observe a sense of calmness even in the most stressful situations, leaders of the United States Army should maintain their military bearing even in situations where it seems chaotic, out of control or a civilian would respond in panic.” The reasoning behind this goes back to situations where non commissioned officers would have to make fast decisions in a war zone that may impact the lives of their Soldiers. In a battlefield situation their Soldiers are relying on their non commissioned officer to make a quick decision and trusting that decisions made are the best out of all situations given. Non commissioned officers should be able to make big decisions with all his confidence projecting with his military bearing. “A leader should look like a
HW Crocker, a longtime student of Robert E. Lee, embarks on a story of his teacher Lee in the book; Leadership: Executive Lessons in Courage, Character, and Vision. Crocker uses the life story of Robert Lee to pinpoint important observations that would change the lives of many people who come across this inspiring read. The book which is organized in eleven chapters begins with accomplishments made by Lee. Through these success stories, Crocker manages to establish an initial image of Lee as a unique leader who is governed by high moral principles, and to ensure this comes out clearly as intended, Crocker puts primary focus on three important periods in the life of his subject. These periods begins with the life of Lee as a soldier in the Mexican-American army where success was his story. This evolves into the second period of Civil War, a time of turmoil in the history of America, and a time when Lee led the Confederacy Army (Crocker, 2000). Finally, Crocker crowns the book with Lee as the President of Washington University. Through these three areas of interest, Crocker manages to bring the kind of character that any modern leader would want to emulate his rich character traits and personality. Through these stories, Crocker remains particularly keen on bringing to reader 's attention key elements that make a leader great. The lessons are even much easier to learn and articulate since they are indicated at the
The purpose of this essay is to expand my understanding of the importance of following instructions and why is it critical in a military setting. The United States Military is the most lethal and well trained armed force on this planet. It did not start out this way, it was started out by a handful of colonists that had unresolved grievances with their king. A few hundred years later, that very same military is able to drop a bomb or move troops anywhere in the world within a day. I will be explaining why discipline, the value of teamwork, the chain of command, and the importance following orders all play essential roles in ensuring the United States military “machine” continues to function in every theater it operates in.
Having forty individuals under my “command”, I was able to experiment with the superior-subordinate relationship, similar to the role of a Division Officer in the Fleet. Given a general mission to train the Plebe class to be ready for Youngster Year at the Naval Academy by the Company Officer, I was given flexibility in doing whatever I saw fit to meet those ends. In my role, I would frequently issue orders (through the training sergeants). Sometimes, things went according to plans. Sometimes, they did not. It became very important, when issuing new orders for the Plebe class, that I had a specific purpose and intent. Analyzing both my reasoning, the means in which the command was implemented, and the reaction from its implementation, were important facets of reflection. When issues arose, it was my responsibility to accept failure, resolve a quick and sound solution, and implement it effectively to prevent or further issues.
Nevertheless, these added stressors do not negate the importance of consistent even-keeled leadership; nor does it change the principles of leading. While in an environment of pure chaos that is so often combat, it is of paramount importance to be able to respond accordingly to any situation that presents itself. To prepare for this, Soldiers train relentlessly for any foreseeable event so as their reactions become muscle memory, and their response is natural. This action to reaction relationship enables America’s Army to fulfill its primary mission “to fight and win the Nation’s wars through prompt and sustained land combat” (U.S. Army,
This at first seems antithetical to my role as a leader and a manager in the United States Air Force. As I stated before, I am an officer directly in charge of personnel charged with completing mission and duties. As an officer, I very regularly have to be vocal and give orders and directives, which are necessary to advance the mission of my organization. As an introvert, I often spend a good deal of time shaping exactly what I want to say when I need to give an order. I cannot just say something on the spot, unless I suspect I notice something illegal or unethical. Other than those two circumstances, I make sure my directions are clear before I say it, in fear that my subordinates might not understand my order. In one example of this, I was tasked with my first major government contract: an expansion and addition of the base gym, which had an estimated value of $15 million. Every day I had to relay the latest information to my subordinates from the meetings that I had with the leadership of the stakeholders for the project-gym managers, my organizational leadership, and the construction contractors. I would often receive a large amount of new information that I needed to explain to those I was in charge of in order for them to execute the government contracting side of things. Early on, I would spend more time than I would like crafting what I needed done by other people. As an introvert, I need the time process large amounts of information before I
As an officer in the United States Army, one is charged with leading soldiers, this is no simple task and comes with its fair share of difficulties. The difficulty of this task is no excuse for reckless behavior nor is it an excuse for overbearing standards. An officer should expect the best from his soldiers, but one must not act in a way that Sobel did by expecting the impossible. A way in which one prevents this from happening is clear communication with the chain of command and self-discipline. An officer must possess the self-discipline and self-regulation when he is dealing with anyone, especially his own soldiers. It is very important to set a maintainable bar for his soldiers to reach, and only when there is a clear deviance from these standards should an officer take action.