Document created: 21 April 03
Air University Review, March-April 1976

No Theory is worth its salt unless it can be applied or generalized to a specific situation. With the Source-Message-Channel-Receiver (SMCR) concept of face-to-face communication in mind, I think we should take a careful look at on-the-job "military talking."¹ Our special situation adds a new dimension to person-to-person communication, or at least magnifies some aspects of the elements thereof.

We always tell the new troops at Lackland that the salute was born in the days of bold knights, who, when encountering each other in the forest of old, would raise the visors of their armored helmets. So the legend goes, this kind of greeting, or getting a better look at Sir So-And-So, was the eventual forerunner of the salute. I submit to you that we still wear our suits of armor and that we still have difficulties "hearing" and "seeing" each other through all the "armor" we wear. What I'm talking about is our uniform, our special identification tag as professional military persons.

Now, this isn't going to be a treatise on why we should abolish the wearing of the uniform, the rank structure, or, for that matter, the salute. Indeed, I think that our uniform and special way of organizational life present some unique points of focus in terms of human communication. We do wear a uniform in the military; and the uniform can set up special kinds of "noise" in our communication efforts.

When a supervisor meets face to face with a subordinate, a certain formality in communication behavior exists. For example, a colonel talking to a major will receive verbal acknowledgment for his rank in the form of "Sir." This formal element will be added to the encoding behavior of the subordinate as he speaks to his superior.

Every organization has its special status recognition and verbal rules for communicating up or down the rank structure. However, two highly placed executives from different geographical areas of the same company might not recognize each other as readily as do men in uniform. We "wear" our status. And that outward sign carries with it a certain formal, structured behavior in our speaking and interaction.

When a young airman meets his first sergeant, he automatically knows how a part of his verbal behavior must be structured. A segment of his message must be carefully constructed in order for him to make a good communication link between himself and his superior. By the same token, one who wishes to invoke a bad connection or deliberately arouse hostility in a receiver knows what to "alter" or leave out of his message. Ask or say what you will, but properly encode it.

In other words, some of the "strategy" of encoding is prescribed when you encounter a fellow military person. You, for the first time, encounter a new individual with whom you must interact verbally, and automatically you "read" him. I know you have watched eye activity in that split second of initial contact that happens when meeting someone new. The rank is usually first. Then, quick, to the left pocket for the following check: Let's see, command pilot, DFC, MSM, Commendation Medal, and he's been to Korea. The wings or badge (or lack of one) tells you something; the ribbons can tell whole histories in microseconds.

The left pocket alone tells us of successes, failures, age, length of time in service, and other subtle "clues" about this person. The neatness of the uniform, the correct or incorrect placement of its subtle parts, and the shine of shoe leather all contribute to an immediate "impression." The combinations are legion, and the implications would keep a Machiavelli at his manuscript for years. Your communications behavior--to some extent--will always be structured by that "suit of armor.

Perhaps to someone younger, not intending to stay in the ranks for thirty years, this visual picture might create an instant stereotype. Your message can be immediately zonked, because you are a "lifer."

Your receiver may instantly decide not to listen to anything you say, because his evaluation of the source has told him that there can be little in common, that effective communication is impossible, and that he must "turn you off."

Now, many communication experts refer to receiver/ source qualities as "fields of experience." That is, background, education, status, attitudes, and personality qualities all go into the makeup of individual fields of experience. Two master sergeants with Berlin Airlift ribbons and four clusters on their longevity ribbons don't have to ask a lot of preliminary questions of each other. There is an immediate "perceived" similarity in this forming SMCR situation.

One can almost picture these fields of common experience meshing together or overlapping in the interpersonal situation. Some experts say that the amount of overlap will be a pretty good indication of how successful the conversation (or persuasion) will be. I'm saying that it's probably a pretty good notion to consider, because we "wear" a good deal of our experience on the military uniform. A "good" interface, or meshing, or overlap might be identical uniforms. Remember, now, that I'm generalizing. Neither this theory, nor any other that I know of, will work every time.

If we perceive someone as being "like" us, we'll probably "listen up" to what he has to say. Or, if his field of experience generates proven authority or expertise on a subject, he will command attention for his ideas. In the military, we are better able to tell those with experience, authority, and specialized expertise by virtue of certain outward signs.

The communicologist calls this, among other things, "source credibility." All of the qualities, attitudes, or other personal differences are referred to as "variables." What this does is shift the focus a little, but it points to the same thing. A colonel with the silver star who wears the wings of a command pilot will have an immediate high credibility in my mind on the subject of flying. To a young troop, he may have low credibility on the subject of legalizing marijuana.

Source credibility for a speaker or for one who wishes to carry on a successful communication is dictated by many such variables. If a flight surgeon enters into a conversation about flat feet or gastrointestinal upsets, he will command attention. It would be pretty foolish for me to try to add to--or, heaven forbid, disagree with--what he said. No one really wants me to chime in while the "word" is being given.

Some of us, however, don't have such an easy "introduction." We don't have that kind of automatic source credibility. We must prove our expertise, sincerity, or even authority. That's when we really have to analyze, plan, and encode with a good deal of thought and natural cunning. I can think of no more difficult task than being one who has command authority yet still needs to establish source credibility with a particular audience. I know that many of today's Air Force problems put the "boss" in just that kind of situation. It's tough, challenging, and sometimes seemingly impossible.

There's another connection we can make here, too. Source credibility is what gives the opinion leader his command of audience. The flight surgeon, legal officer, or command pilot all have firsthand information on a subject about which we might need to know something. Though this is not quite like the true small-group situation, such specialized opinion leaders work in the same manner. This is a special case when an opinion leader does have a badge that says, "Follow me, I'm an opinion leader." Wings, medical insignia, the chaplain's pin, a controller's badge--and many others--all denote expertise as our military fields of experience converge. Sometimes an asset, sometimes a hindrance, our uniforms can control the nature and outcome of our communications.

It's only common sense that, in the eyes of the receiver, someone whom he recognizes as a highly credible source will be most effective in getting him to "listen." On the speaker's platform a quick announcement, like "Colonel Cooper has been to the moon," makes for immediate high credibility. In the person-to-person confrontation taking place between you and a somewhat unenthused troop, there may be a quick struggle for common ground on your part before the "word passes." When you are working to establish your credibility, you are working.

Human communication scientists and psychologists also look at the working situation in terms of the roles we play. To be a military person--a master sergeant, captain, first sergeant, or major--is to have a specific "role" in life. It's no different from such role designations as housewife, doctor, or teacher. Formally this is called "role theory," and it's got to be the same thing Shakespeare was talking about when he likened us all to actors on life's stage. Like it or not, we all have a part to play.

So, that military armor I was talking about--that outward indication of our field of experience--is also an indication of our role on the job. The badges we mentioned can narrow the role down even further, besides helping us with source credibility. The role can be read by all, but by some with "a fine-tooth comb." The little old lady on flight 21 out of Kansas City is sure everyone of us in blue is a pilot, but we automatically read the specific roles as we pass each other taking a seat in the plane. Unfortunately, there's really no way to "telegraph" our sincere concern for the welfare of a young troop by a badge or medal. That comes from inside and depends at times on some careful and delicate encoding.

The uniform tips us off about the military occupation--or whatever--and we can usually make generalizations about what kind of role that individual is expected to play. But the old folks said a long time ago that you "couldn't judge a book by its cover." Theory can only take us so far. When we go beyond the threshold of individual differences, we must deal with the special nature of each human being. Our observations and theoretic approaches are only an aid in taking the time to be careful about such individual considerations.

One can never be "all things to all men." Sometimes I think those in supervisory roles become overfrustrated when they fail to communicate effectively with "everyone." In some cases, no matter how much effort has been put forth, successful communication is impossible. Grave differences in perceived fields of experience (either real or imagined) put us in the position of talking to that "brick wall." The best solution then may be to carry out the goal of the communication through a third party who is perceived by the receiver as "alike."

Probably that old rule of thumb--Be yourself--is as firm as any in the first-encounter situation. It's especially noticeable when a person wearing or "standing" for one role attempts to deny or step out of that role for the sake of being accepted. I say "accepted" because role denial almost always hurts the organization. It's winning friends at the expense of the mission. In trying to lessen the barrier that may have been set up by the outward message, it is possible that one might "cast off" too much.

Once two individuals begin to interact, the perceived barriers set up by things like the uniform can be made to fade away. Personal, rational contact can do much to expose the person within the role. Perhaps the best kind of rapport is one of mutual respect. The young troop may come to respect your intention and the stance of the larger mission. Fields of experience may rapidly overlap as the two-way flow of communication between a military source and a military receiver begins to operate.

Some may think that the implied connotation of "role theory" is that of wearing something false or taking up a phony stance. Not so. The champion golfer, the expert marksman, the renowned artist, the skillful pilot, and the truly fine supervisor are all individuals who have accepted the challenge and responsibility of a specialized mission. This is the concept of role: doing your thing well.

Just as the golfer or surgeon must practice his style, so do we all "internalize" the meaning and the conduct of our roles. Some roles, some of the careers people choose, demand more professionalism than others. This, I think, is particularly true of the military leader. The things "expected" of him, the rules under which he must function and which he must uphold, and the mission which he must carry out--all make for a difficult role. Professionalism is just another way of saying that he has deeply accepted--internalized--that challenge.

When an individual has deeply internalized his responsibilities, he is so perceived by those with whom he comes in contact. Even though this individual may be fulfilling a role not especially liked by an-other, his sincere and dedicated acceptance of responsibility may elicit respect. Dedication and "being real" can oftentimes give a source the credibility he needs to gain a foothold in the interaction situation. It's the ". . . but I do respect him" phenomenon.

Therefore, even though the fields of experience between two individuals may differ, it is possible to develop a commonality for communication through mutual respect. Credibility can be not only expertise, or common experience, but also recognition of deep acceptance for role responsibility or belief. We may disagree, but respect you for your conviction. This, at least, is a beginning and keeps the channel open for a message.

On the other hand, a lack of role acceptance perceived by a receiver (either real or imagined) can have the reverse effect. It may be perceived that the speaker is insincere, insecure in his position, or only "playing" his role. Such source evaluation yields a low credibility image and is a pretty good indication that the conversation will not be fruitful. If someone has to talk to a "lifer," then let it be a good one. One's perceived image can be an important factor in establishing effective links of communication.

One's self image, then, will be an important part of encoding behavior. How we appear to others and the self-picture we personally hold of ourselves join to form a combination that equals source makeup or the personality that encodes a message. In the military we wear an "image," and we'll probably succeed if we speak in tune with that professional image A consistent pattern will probably yield the best results. Instant communication will occur in some one-to-one situations, while others may fall on the other end of the scale. In the final analysis, the perfect SMCR process may be occurring when the source and receiver can both turn and say that this is an instance of two good men speaking well.

Our military environment does have an effect upon communication; it does structure certain parts of the message. Our special working uniform can be a help or a barrier. An analysis of the situation, taking the time to recognize this unique aspect of our organization, can improve communication greatly. A situation can always be made a little more bearable when one understands the underlying variables at work.

Note

1. For those not familiar with the SMCR model, or perhaps those interested in reading about it in more depth, I recommend David K. Berlo’s The Process of Communication, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960).

Major William J. Wallisch, Jr. (M.A., University of Oklahoma) is Chief of Information and Director of Management Support, Pacific Communications Area, AFCS. Since his commissioning in 1963, he has taught in the USAF Short Course for Information Officers, University of Oklahoma. An honor graduate of Defense Information School (1970), he was named Outstanding Information Officer in Aerospace Defense Command in 1971.

Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor