Army Communication - Better?
Submitted by gpgross on Fri, 09/18/2009 - 18:07.
Mark,
In your recent podcast you suggest that an Army is more effective in designing and implementing an organization than a private enterprise. I concur. You also claim that an Army is more effective in terms of internal communication than a private company. My gut feeling is that you are right. I wonder if you or your listeners could share specific examples of how they accomplish that, other than the already discussed "BLUF" method or the "Effective Writing for Army Leaders" Guide.
Thanks,
Gerhard
With 2 seconds (2 cents
With 2 seconds (2 cents worth) of though to this post that sits on a few months of thinking about military organization methods... I would say that its the clear hierarchy with clearly defined roles and responsibilities that makes the military good @ both organization and communication.
Joe
training!
The military is good at communication because they train like crazy in communication!
Army OCS spends a week on how read and write Operations Orders. Well, they also cover writing training plans, task list writing, and after-action reports that week, but it all centers around Op Orders. And that's just one week of 12. Other weeks they learn how to communicate in pairs, in small groups and in big groups, and how to communicate in classrooms, communicate in the field, communicate without speaking, and communicate when people are shooting at you.
Infantry school has modules on basic communication, teamwork development (which is a lot about communication), drill (which is a very formal, stylized communication) and "leader response" which is much more than just listening, it's also how to communicate to the leader that you understand his intentions and have a plan for achieving the mission.
The Navy Test Pilot School teaches flying experimental aircraft, but the students spend more time learning how to brief and report than flying. They learn six different types of reports and deliver a minimum of 26 briefings, plus group exercises.
Navy Reactor Emergency training spends more time on how to communicate during an emergency than on what to do with the reactor.
They train so much because it is essential that warriors be able to communicate in high-noise environments. (By "noise" I mean stuff that degrades the signal, not sound pressure.) Even without combat, much of what happens in the operational side of the military occurs in an environment of degraded signal and increased noise. (Think carrier landing, at night, in the rain.) If you add in the chaos created by high explosives and high-velocity chunks of metal, the ability to still move information around at every level is slightly amazing, and only occurs because people practice effective information exchange when it doesn't matter.
When communication fails, even in small ways, it can have really tragic consequences. The problems with Vincennes and Greenville were both communication failures. The commanding officer wasn't getting quality information (in both cases largely his own fault) and could not make good decisions as a result. Not communicating can really ruin your day.
Basically, they're good at communication because they work at it.
Thank you!
Guys,
Thank you both for your eloquent and insightful comments. I concur. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities together with practice, practice and more practice are probably the key elements of success in Army communications. Food for thought. The 64 tousand dollar question is how to translate this into a corporate environment. Enough to keep me busy for the next couple of months 7 years.
Thanks again,
Gerhard