Verbal channel was used to send the message.
The misunderstanding that occurred was not understanding how much I should “pick it up.” This resulted in me increasing my machine’s speed to a level that caused issues down the line and eventually halted production. To avoid this misunderstanding, clear and concise directions on the desired speed should have been provided, such as “I would like you to turn your machine up to this specific speed.”
One thing I learned about the communication process is the importance of being specific when sending messages because everyone decodes them differently based on noise and gaps.
The main cause of the misunderstanding was my supervisor sending a non-specific message. I understood that he wanted me to increase the machine’s speed, but the exact amount was not specified.
The message was sent by Me (Staff Sergeant Harper/Supervisor/Ground Guide) to PFC Eads (Subordinate/Driver), instructing them to reverse the vehicle to the left. The message was conveyed through visual signals using hand and arm gestures. However, there was a misunderstanding because I didn’t use proper signals and assumed that the driver already knew our parking location and proximity to other vehicles, resulting in another vehicle being hit.
To prevent such misunderstandings in the future, I should have used specific signals according to standard guidelines. Additionally, once I realized that the driver was confused, I should have halted the vehicle. This experience taught me the importance of concise communication when external noise is a factor and emphasized the need for clarity regardless of which channel is used.
The primary cause of this misunderstanding can be attributed to a combination of internal, external, and semantic noise. My assumptions about the driver’s understanding were incorrect, verbal messages were hindered by loudness from surrounding vehicles, and ultimately, the driver failed to comprehend my intended message.
