Clark Kent
<B>News Bot</B>
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 7,128
- Reaction score
- 6
on Valuing Communication...
By Dr. Dave in da house - 05-21-2009 11:41 AM
Originally Posted at: KenpoTalk
====================
My stint in Communication Psychology provided me an interesting opportunity to evaluate Command & Control processes within the context of a tactical response network. Several nations, all plugged into the same computer network, all assessing ongoing intel to determine appropriate courses of action, with real-time implications for battle management…get it wrong, and the boots on the ground don’t come home.
One thing stood out to me more than anything else as being absolutely essential in the smooth flow of data from analyst to commander to operator, and that was “free communication”. Part of being a good follower was to speak up to leadership, so they would have all of the context they needed to make the best command decisions they could, given situational constraints. Triage requires that you know what you need to know. For old salt commanders, that meant they had to sometimes be hollered at to hear what was being told to them by E-level specialists who, although lacking in the commanders experience in years, might know more about the particular data on their monitor than the CO ever would. Sometimes, when the commander was making a bad call because he failed to absorb the full implications of what he’d been told, it was necessary for the poor specialists to stand their ground and argue their point, refusing to be dismissed. In other words, although the CO maintained final decision making authority, a flattening out of the decision making structure needed to occur, reversing the vertical structure previously in place.
This bit of memory has been floating around in the back of my mind, since a couple of posts on this site, and some others. In one, I – as an agitant – was indirectly invited to speak my mind to the senior with whom I have an ongoing issue. I had, already, to no reply. In addition, I have managed to piss a lot of other seniors off, because of speaking my mind to them. Apparently, free communication is discouraged among the kenpo high command, as it is felt to be inherently disrespectful to their innate authority in leadership. As a post-grad in Communication Psych, I have a different set of views about authority in and around leadership. I tend to think we OWE the commanders our clearest, plainest, bluntest opinions, so they have access to the information as a context while making their decisions. It has also been in the back of my head, cuz a guy on one forum mentioned, "who is this other guy to question a ranking black belt, if he is only a brown belt?", pertaining to a discussion between Mr. Miller and another kenpoist.
“Speaking up to Authority” is the single most important way I can think of to show respect. It is a way of saying, “I consider your placement in this community, and resulting effect on it, too important to NOT be candid and honest with you”. I will follow impeccable leadership, impeccably. But that level of conduct requires information. I want the leadership strata above me to know they can count on me to bring the unpleasant news; to speak plainly and clearly about the elephant in the living room, so they can have all the information they need to make an informed decision. Will it always make me popular? No. I’ve managed to get myself disinvited from more dinner parties than I can shake a stick at, and have burned more bridges than I even knew existed. But with each choice we make about conduct, we must constantly live our commitments through our decisions, and subsequent actions. We show what sort of person we choose to be. Do we choose to speak freely? Or do we choose a safer route? Do we honor candidness from others, or shall we resent candid communication? Even if we opt to discount the offering, can we honor the spirit in which it was offered?
I would suggest that we should value communication, even though we might disagree with it. There is an old saying, “The meaning of your communication is the response you get”. It places the onus on the speaker to modify their approach, clarifying their positions and intent until they find themselves engaged in the dialogue they had hoped to engage in. It also is referred to as “meaning to meaning communication”, versus “motive to manipulation”. I could clarify that, but that’s another wind-bag post all it’s own.
D.
Read More...
------------------------------------
KenpoTalk.com Post Bot - Kenpo Feed
By Dr. Dave in da house - 05-21-2009 11:41 AM
Originally Posted at: KenpoTalk
====================
My stint in Communication Psychology provided me an interesting opportunity to evaluate Command & Control processes within the context of a tactical response network. Several nations, all plugged into the same computer network, all assessing ongoing intel to determine appropriate courses of action, with real-time implications for battle management…get it wrong, and the boots on the ground don’t come home.
One thing stood out to me more than anything else as being absolutely essential in the smooth flow of data from analyst to commander to operator, and that was “free communication”. Part of being a good follower was to speak up to leadership, so they would have all of the context they needed to make the best command decisions they could, given situational constraints. Triage requires that you know what you need to know. For old salt commanders, that meant they had to sometimes be hollered at to hear what was being told to them by E-level specialists who, although lacking in the commanders experience in years, might know more about the particular data on their monitor than the CO ever would. Sometimes, when the commander was making a bad call because he failed to absorb the full implications of what he’d been told, it was necessary for the poor specialists to stand their ground and argue their point, refusing to be dismissed. In other words, although the CO maintained final decision making authority, a flattening out of the decision making structure needed to occur, reversing the vertical structure previously in place.
This bit of memory has been floating around in the back of my mind, since a couple of posts on this site, and some others. In one, I – as an agitant – was indirectly invited to speak my mind to the senior with whom I have an ongoing issue. I had, already, to no reply. In addition, I have managed to piss a lot of other seniors off, because of speaking my mind to them. Apparently, free communication is discouraged among the kenpo high command, as it is felt to be inherently disrespectful to their innate authority in leadership. As a post-grad in Communication Psych, I have a different set of views about authority in and around leadership. I tend to think we OWE the commanders our clearest, plainest, bluntest opinions, so they have access to the information as a context while making their decisions. It has also been in the back of my head, cuz a guy on one forum mentioned, "who is this other guy to question a ranking black belt, if he is only a brown belt?", pertaining to a discussion between Mr. Miller and another kenpoist.
“Speaking up to Authority” is the single most important way I can think of to show respect. It is a way of saying, “I consider your placement in this community, and resulting effect on it, too important to NOT be candid and honest with you”. I will follow impeccable leadership, impeccably. But that level of conduct requires information. I want the leadership strata above me to know they can count on me to bring the unpleasant news; to speak plainly and clearly about the elephant in the living room, so they can have all the information they need to make an informed decision. Will it always make me popular? No. I’ve managed to get myself disinvited from more dinner parties than I can shake a stick at, and have burned more bridges than I even knew existed. But with each choice we make about conduct, we must constantly live our commitments through our decisions, and subsequent actions. We show what sort of person we choose to be. Do we choose to speak freely? Or do we choose a safer route? Do we honor candidness from others, or shall we resent candid communication? Even if we opt to discount the offering, can we honor the spirit in which it was offered?
I would suggest that we should value communication, even though we might disagree with it. There is an old saying, “The meaning of your communication is the response you get”. It places the onus on the speaker to modify their approach, clarifying their positions and intent until they find themselves engaged in the dialogue they had hoped to engage in. It also is referred to as “meaning to meaning communication”, versus “motive to manipulation”. I could clarify that, but that’s another wind-bag post all it’s own.
D.
Read More...
------------------------------------
KenpoTalk.com Post Bot - Kenpo Feed
Last edited by a moderator:
