The impact of communication failures on military supervisory effectiveness

¶ … supervisory experience. I army implement military supervision great I ethics supervisors communicate

Military Miscommunication by Supervisors

There are a number of diverse facets which directly influence the effectiveness of supervision, which is an essential component of the preservation and structuring of order within an organization, be it for private or public interests. One of the most influential factors which helps determine the degree of efficacy achieved in a managerial or supervisory position is the concept of communication, which is vital to the transference of ideas and both the designation and completion of tasks which are essential to the propagation of an enterprise. Flawed communication is oftentimes one of the primary reasons for insufficient supervisory conduct, which may manifest itself in a variety of ways including in a lack of employee productivity, internal and external conflicts within and involving an enterprise, respectively, and in insufficient organization and management of an organization's resources. These issues have the potential to become amplified when applied to military supervision, and its essential chain of command which is integral to its operation and efficiency. Therefore, the personal experience of the author with insufficient communication in a supervisory capacity within a military environment indicates that issues of communication need to be resolved for the preservation and propagation of effective management of the vast resources of one of the primary defense mechanisms of the United States of America.

Discussion

In order to properly diagnose the source of the miscommunication between supervisors which greatly affects the productivity and work performance of their subordinates, it becomes necessary to examine the various tenets of communication itself, particularly when applied to the structure of an organization. There are several facets, avenues, and methods of communication, but the most succinct definition of the term when applied to the infrastructure of a military environment is presented in the following quotation. "…communication is defined as the process by which information is transferred from one source to another and is made meaningful to the involved sources (Rue, Bars, p.116)." Most issues of communication revolve around the latter part of this definition (although there are several possibilities for them to be based upon the initial description of communication presented here as well), in which the "information" transferred is "made meaningful," and in some cases, is not made meaningful.

Further deconstruction of the process whereby communication is effected can be found in the varying forms it takes: there are both interpersonal communication and organizational communication. The first form of communication takes place between single numbers of people while the second form referenced occurs within the larger framework of a particular organization, although it should be noted that for the purposes of this particular paper organizational communication will not include communication between supervisors of differing rank (who are in charge of differing units) but will simply refer to communication within the formal structure of an organization. The paradox, of course, is that interpersonal communication actually plays a large role in organizational communication. However, the bulk of the miscommunication directed between the author's supervisors occurs in an interpersonal capacity which may occasionally be facilitated within the greater structure of the organization.

There are a few salient traits related to communication which have been made manifest in the author's experience of miscommunication between his supervisors. The following quotation demonstrates one of the most prominent of these proclivities. "…most people tend to listen more closely to their boss than their subordinates (Rue, Byars, p. 117)." This simple fact can be evidenced in a variety of manners within the hierarchical structure of the military. For instance, this statement explains why communication between officers of similar rank tends to be less effective between those of differing ranks, for the simple fact that there is not an overt authority presence present to stir the listening skills which are utilized when such a presence is existent. Additionally, this quotation corroborates the notion that interpersonal communication between a higher and lower ranking officer is limited in its effectiveness for the fact that the lower ranking officer will be concentrating on listening more than the higher ranking officer is. Although such an occurrence may be perfectly natural, it still does not dismiss the fact that a lower ranking officer can still provide very valuable communication in response to the higher ranking officer, who simply may not be paying as much attention as the other due to the fact that he outranks the subordinate officer.

Lastly, it should be noted that this quotation also arises issues of an ethical nature. Although the former situation listed above (that of a higher ranking officer not exerting as much effort to listen to communication from a lower ranking officer) is fairly common (if not normal), that still does not justify its occurrence from an ethical perspective which would ideally mandate that everyone is listened to and given appropriate response time equally, regardless of ranking. Ranking fuels the chain of command and is the primary influence on the directives which result in action, but from a purely ethical standpoint each member of a military unit deserves to be listened to as much as any other. The specific ethical issue raised by this situation revolves around the concept of fairness in the treatment of a supervisor to his subordinates. Although lack of effort in listening to a subordinate is certainly one of the more mild forms of unethical behavior experienced in a military setting, it still may present unforeseen and unwanted consequences due to its effect on communication.

Another fairly frequent occurrence which takes place in the lack of communication between the author's supervisors in the military can be seen in the lack of feedback which is provided between these officers. Feedback plays an invaluable role in communication, as its presence often indicates whether or not one or both members of a particular interpersonal communication have effectively understood the other. Feedback also provides an opportunity for both people communicating to see what specific part of a communique was misunderstood, and allows for valued time in which to clarify such misunderstandings before they burgeon into miscommunication and undesired action results from it.

Unfortunately, the specific nature of the line of work in the military and its particular chain of command allows for minimal feedback between disparate parties in communication, particularly that between officers of dissimilar ranking. It is proper protocol for subordinate officers to respond with a curt "Yes, sir" when issued directives, with little tolerance for any response beyond that. Furthermore, if a ranking officer does seek clarification from his subordinate he will oftentimes to do so by the insufficient method of asking the other if he understands. Such an inquiry, however, merely puts the recipient of the question in a defensive position, in which he assumes his intellect or some other facet of his nature essential to his performance of his duties at his position is being tested (Rue, Byars, 119). So the typical "Yes, sir" rings out again, without adequate time or consideration for significant reflection and understanding to be gleaned on whatever the subject of the communique is.

Recommendations

Fortunately, there are a number of solutions to the aforementioned issues which quite frequently result in miscommunication between supervisors in the military. In terms of addressing the common occurrence of a lack of feedback, the most readily available remedy is for officers, particular those of a higher ranking than those who they are communicating with, to actively ask for feedback to provide clarity regarding the level of understanding of the communication issued. The correct way of determining whether the information conveyed has been understood is by asking its receiver to explain what was just presented to him. The explanation need not be a word for word regurgitation of what was stated, but ought to be detailed enough to satisfy the ranking officer that an appropriate degree of understanding has been reached.

Although such a procedure would be prudent to adopt between officers of similar ranking, one of the most immediate needs for this procedure, and the area in which it quite possibly could provide the most benefit, would be its utilization in the communication between subordinate officers directed to their superiors. Again, it has been sufficiently demonstrated that people tend to focus on listening to their superior more so than they do to their peers or to insubordinates. Were insubordinates able to ask for their superiors to explain the former's communication, several issues of miscommunication in the military could quite conceivably be resolved before any undesired reactions resulted from them. Still, as previously mentioned, the military does not necessarily provide a professional atmosphere in which subordinates can readily make inquiries of and even discourse with their superiors. Yet if there could be some new measures or procedures for protocol which might include the seeking of feedback from superiors on behalf of the communication of a subordinate officer, the entire organization would surely benefit.

Interestingly enough, the proposed recommendation for redressing the issue of a lack of feedback correlates with that of poor listening habits which can often result in miscommunication, particularly in the military between or among supervisors. There are a number of specific measures which may be employed to reduce miscommunication due to ineffectual listening. The first, of course, is for supervisors within the military to acknowledge the fact that there are communication difficiencies existent between them, which stem from inadequate listening and which may unnecessarily complicate the workload of their subordinates. Subsequently, they can prepare themselves for optimal listening by making sure they do not emotionally react to what's being communicated towards them, and also be sure to listen to the duration of the communication, as opposed to the first few words and then assuming what the rest of the information being presented will be about. Rue and Byars have indicatied that the latter tendency is fairly common among poor listeners (p. 118).

Another valuable method for correcting insufficient listening habits is for communicants to listen for both content and intention. It is not uncommon for speakers to phrase or say things in a manner which is not intended, and which may be the result of semantics or simply poor oration. By encouraging military officers to practice active listening and to pay attention to variances between content and intent, miscommunication becomes reduced while effective communication is reinforced throughout the ranks of the armed services.