Technology
Technology
4
4
0
Bottom line is text sent does not equal mission complete. Do you like group chats? Have you had to create SOPs for them? What works, what does not? Relevant regs?
As the 21ST century began, the Army was getting used to email in the formation. A few years later it was texts. And in the past several years group chats are everywhere with all the apps available to us. Technology has allowed us to communicate so quickly and with so many more.
Yet, this type of communication can cause as many problems as it solves. How many times have you had a leader say "I sent the email" or "I sent the text" to mean they had fully issued the task, a fire and forget type mission?
My concern at the moment is how all this applies to group chats. We have to be realistic, these technologies are legitimate forms of communication and giving orders. But, they disable so many other aspects. Chain of command for example; a company commander sends mass text to All leadership "All squad leaders, meeting today at bldg 101". Copy and paste any other task here. The result is some get it done, some did not see the text or some did not acknowledge, some saw but didn't reply "I have an appointment at the time, cannot complete" and now who is held accountable when things fail?
The order was shotgunned out, can we really say it's the same as standing infront of the formation? I don't think so. When those E6s fail the task, can you hold the PSG and PL accountable? They were bypassed. Isn't the failure now directly between the commander and the squad leaders? Yet on the flip side, the commander may need immediate access to their NCOs, a mass text serves that purpose, make it happen, leadership should be aware. Some units have their sections in several places nearly every day. In any case, I was brought up in my day that you don't rely on texts and emails. You always follow-up in person or by phone call. At the least, you get a confirmation and close the loop.
This weekend I need to straighten out how my company uses group chats, because a pattern of failure has developed, from the top down. I have tried to get after it already, nipping these shotgun orders as they are issued by grabbing the task from the group chat and directly assigning someone to oversee it, usually my PSG. You know, like the Army used to do?
As the 21ST century began, the Army was getting used to email in the formation. A few years later it was texts. And in the past several years group chats are everywhere with all the apps available to us. Technology has allowed us to communicate so quickly and with so many more.
Yet, this type of communication can cause as many problems as it solves. How many times have you had a leader say "I sent the email" or "I sent the text" to mean they had fully issued the task, a fire and forget type mission?
My concern at the moment is how all this applies to group chats. We have to be realistic, these technologies are legitimate forms of communication and giving orders. But, they disable so many other aspects. Chain of command for example; a company commander sends mass text to All leadership "All squad leaders, meeting today at bldg 101". Copy and paste any other task here. The result is some get it done, some did not see the text or some did not acknowledge, some saw but didn't reply "I have an appointment at the time, cannot complete" and now who is held accountable when things fail?
The order was shotgunned out, can we really say it's the same as standing infront of the formation? I don't think so. When those E6s fail the task, can you hold the PSG and PL accountable? They were bypassed. Isn't the failure now directly between the commander and the squad leaders? Yet on the flip side, the commander may need immediate access to their NCOs, a mass text serves that purpose, make it happen, leadership should be aware. Some units have their sections in several places nearly every day. In any case, I was brought up in my day that you don't rely on texts and emails. You always follow-up in person or by phone call. At the least, you get a confirmation and close the loop.
This weekend I need to straighten out how my company uses group chats, because a pattern of failure has developed, from the top down. I have tried to get after it already, nipping these shotgun orders as they are issued by grabbing the task from the group chat and directly assigning someone to oversee it, usually my PSG. You know, like the Army used to do?
Technology
Cell Phones
Leadership
Email
Edited 3 y ago
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 7
2
2
0
Times have changed due to technological advancements, societal norms, and covid. In my opinion, a group text is the same as me standing in front of a formation and putting out information. It's the responsibility of their first line leaders to ensure Soldiers understand the information and are accountable for any taskers. Practice closed-loop communication; if a Soldier doesn't acknowledge a tasker, they are getting phone calls until they give verbal confirmation. Start holding leaders accountable. If their Soldiers aren't getting the job done, it's a failure of oversight on their part.
However, I will say I've never been a big fan of company-wide group chats. There is a reason our hierarchy is set up the way it is. It is much easier to maintain accountability and communication with 3-5 personnel then it is for a commander to individually manage 80-130 people. I prefer the majority of electronic communication take place the same way it would if we were in person. Save the company-wide electronic communication for mass dissemination of information (like you would in formation).
However, I will say I've never been a big fan of company-wide group chats. There is a reason our hierarchy is set up the way it is. It is much easier to maintain accountability and communication with 3-5 personnel then it is for a commander to individually manage 80-130 people. I prefer the majority of electronic communication take place the same way it would if we were in person. Save the company-wide electronic communication for mass dissemination of information (like you would in formation).
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Group texts are great for last minute updates or alert accountability but the more people are in a chat the less it should be used for a discussion.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
E-mails, texts, and chats are all great tools for SHARING. We used them with some success in the intel world with analysts who were spread out. We also used them in TOCs with decent success for battle tracking and routine communications.
However sharing is not COMMANDING. Commands should always be direct, unambiguous, fully understood, and acknowledged. There MAY be an occasion wherein a Commander may need to send a shotgun blast to all squad leaders, rather than going through PLs. Personally, I can't think of one, but if it DOES happen, the Commander MUST be clear that this is an order, and require confirmation of receipt and compliance. This alleviates the concern of "didn't get the message" (no response in a reasonable time = escalation of contact - phone call, alternate phone, in person visit, etc.) and also prevents misunderstanding of mission and deconflicts other priorities. Oh, you have a dentist appointment? OK... now Commander can make the call to cancel appointment or to acknowledge you won't be there.
And all of that above is why e-mails, texts, and group chats are generally bad for Commanding.
That being said, I *would* routinely use group message for communication with my Soldiers. However, that communication was always informational in nature, and never delivered unexpectedly ("Hey guys, we're cutting out early today. PT same time tomorrow. We will probably be meeting up at the gym, but I haven't confirmed yet. Keep an eye on your phone and if you haven't gotten a text by 1830, get a hold of your team leader to get the skinny." This way when I DO send out that text, they know it is coming. It isn't time sensitive, and they can't say they didn't know to check or have any excuse about being at the wrong place. And if something like a uniform change happens, I send it down the chain through the SLs via actual phone call to ensure they all understand.)
However sharing is not COMMANDING. Commands should always be direct, unambiguous, fully understood, and acknowledged. There MAY be an occasion wherein a Commander may need to send a shotgun blast to all squad leaders, rather than going through PLs. Personally, I can't think of one, but if it DOES happen, the Commander MUST be clear that this is an order, and require confirmation of receipt and compliance. This alleviates the concern of "didn't get the message" (no response in a reasonable time = escalation of contact - phone call, alternate phone, in person visit, etc.) and also prevents misunderstanding of mission and deconflicts other priorities. Oh, you have a dentist appointment? OK... now Commander can make the call to cancel appointment or to acknowledge you won't be there.
And all of that above is why e-mails, texts, and group chats are generally bad for Commanding.
That being said, I *would* routinely use group message for communication with my Soldiers. However, that communication was always informational in nature, and never delivered unexpectedly ("Hey guys, we're cutting out early today. PT same time tomorrow. We will probably be meeting up at the gym, but I haven't confirmed yet. Keep an eye on your phone and if you haven't gotten a text by 1830, get a hold of your team leader to get the skinny." This way when I DO send out that text, they know it is coming. It isn't time sensitive, and they can't say they didn't know to check or have any excuse about being at the wrong place. And if something like a uniform change happens, I send it down the chain through the SLs via actual phone call to ensure they all understand.)
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google