Setting the Stage
Communication. What a simple word, yet what a difficult concept to put into execution sometimes. At its core, communication is the exchange of information between entities. This could be individuals, businesses, units, governments, and everything in between. When there is a breakdown of communication, the flow of information ceases and problems gradually arise. Just think about your own personal relationships throughout life. The Army is not immune to this, either. We can be our own worst enemy when it comes to establishing and executing communication between ourselves.
I have had the unique opportunity to see Army communication at a variety of levels by serving as the Sustainment Center of Excellence (SCoE) Harding Fellow for the last two years. As I close out this chapter of my career and pass the torch to my successor, I want to provide some insight into ways that I believe we can overcome the challenges of Army communication. My goal is to shed some light on these challenges so that we can continue to have the dialogue needed to thrive in all aspects of our operations.
The Foundation of Professional Discourse
The first area is not so much a direct challenge but truly the foundation of Army communication: professional discourse. If you have read anything about the Harding Project or listened to any of the episodes of The LOGSTAT podcast, you know all about this concept. It is to encourage a shared understanding by bringing together different lessons learned, information, and solutions while not being restricted by rank or position.
The Army recognized there was a break in communication with the Army’s professional journals and established the Harding Project to strengthen the profession by revitalizing the journals. Specifically, the Army Sustainment Professional Bulletin (ASPB) can see the success of this project in the 56% increase in submissions alone. Check out the article “The Harding Project Unlocks the Key to Knowledge” in the winter 2025 edition of the ASPB to learn more about the Harding Project.
If we limit the opportunity for professional discourse, we hinder ourselves from discovering the best ideas possible. The journals and podcasts provide the avenue for anyone to share their perspectives on topics with which they themselves are familiar. Sometimes people are told they should not write about something because they do not have the rank required to make a change. This attitude completely goes against the entire foundation of the Harding Project.
I wrote my first article when I was a first lieutenant deployed to Atlantic Resolve in the U.S. Army Transportation Corps’ Spearhead Newsletter in which I discussed custom clearance operations. I recognized an issue and provided, from my perspective, a solution. I received feedback from other individuals, including majors and lieutenant colonels, that saw the same thing and appreciated my solution. Now, my story is just one of countless others I witnessed during my time as the SCoE Harding Fellow. I have even seen articles from privates that made impacts. Thus, writing knows no rank and must never be restricted because of rank.
Another issue that I have seen arise with professional discourse is the fear that allowing anyone to write unsupervised will create a space where misinformation could be shared. While yes, we do not want inaccurate or false information to be shared, we cannot allow this fear to rob us of individual perspectives. For instance, the ASPB had an article published that provided perspectives from a unit in the field on an Army system that was not completely accurate. They saw issues with the system and provided recommendations on how to improve it based on what they experienced. However, it was discovered from the higher headquarters that the unit did not have the training needed to complete the task. But what was so fantastic about this situation is that it got the conversation going. It sent the signal up the flagpole that there was a break in training being executed at the lower levels.
All too often higher headquarters establish guidance or procedures to complete a task but never get feedback on the execution. Unless they go down to the lowest level themselves, they may not know how the guidance is being implemented. Professional discourse provides the perfect avenue for the most junior individual to provide feedback to the most senior on how things are being executed in a professional and respectful way. Not only can they signal if things are being executed properly but they can provide improvements that others may have missed and that will further increase our lethality.
Everything that surrounds Army communication builds off this concept of professional discourse. For instance, how we use different terminology can create breaks in our communication.
The Term “Soldier”
When you hear the word “Soldier,” what do you think? Are generals Soldiers or only privates? The reason I ask these questions is that I have seen people use the term Soldier only to refer to the junior enlisted. I argue that using the term Soldier to only refer to the junior enlisted creates a significant break in our communication and creates a division between the ranks.
Everyone who wears the Army uniform is a Soldier, no matter the rank they wear. Those who think that Soldier refers only to the junior enlisted create an attitude that they are superior and do not have to do basic Soldier tasks. This attitude of “I do not need to do that because it is Soldier work” deters team building and trust within the ranks, which in turn affects our ability to communicate effectively. Who wants to follow someone who says, “That is not my job”? Now, every rank has its own roles and responsibilities and, yes, some things are not a certain rank’s job. No one expects a private to develop a brigade concept of support, just like no one expects a general to dig a fox hole. However, it is how you communicate and carry yourself that is the absolute key.
Something that I have always lived by is “never tell someone to do something that you yourself have not already done or are willing to do.” Therefore, building trust between the ranks and knowing that we are all Soldiers who must be ready to do the basic Soldier tasks (shoot, move, and communicate) will ensure that we can effectively communicate between each other. Changing the way we think of the concept of rank and a Soldier is one thing, but our own systems can also create a break.
The Bottleneck of Middle Managers
Of all my years of experience in the Army, not just as the Harding Fellow, one critical area in which I have witnessed the biggest challenge for Army communication is the bottlenecking of information with middle managers. Now, I use the term middle managers loosely to describe anyone or any entity in a position that is between you and the person you need to communicate with in the moment. This could be an aide-de-camp, battalion S-3, executive officer, platoon sergeant, routing chain, squad leader, etc.
Before I continue, let me fully establish that I do not wish to see a private going right into the colonel’s office, ignoring the chain of command. We have a chain of command for a reason and when executed properly, it is very efficient. What I am referring to is the bottlenecking of information when someone or something slows or stops the flow of information for any reason.
For instance, how often in your career have you seen a Soldier submit a packet on time but be denied an opportunity because their higher headquarters failed to meet a deadline? Now that Soldier and unit must submit an exception to policy to participate in that opportunity when the Soldier did everything right. We are severely our own worst enemy in situations like this. We fail to have systems in place, or they break by an overload of steps to accomplish a simple task.
To further complicate this bottlenecking, the so-called “war on cover sheets” continues as units place obstacles for Soldiers to overcome to accomplish simple tasks like taking leave. We have dedicated systems in place that are designed for efficient flows of information, but we add repetitive layers that waste time and energy. All because everyone wants to have their hand in the cookie jar.
To solve this bottlenecking of middle managers we must employ the systems we already have in place and restrict the urge to add more layers. When information is communicated to us, we must not hold it at our level but pass it to the appropriate level. Technology has greatly helped us with routing this communication but has also created the perfect storm to become a crutch for us.
Technology as a Crutch
We would think that with all the technology at our disposal we would have zero issues with communication. We have the ability for instant communication anywhere on the globe at a moment’s notice. Yet, we sometimes fail to get messages to our entire formation in a timely manner. Just think about all the late-night text messages you have received about something you have to do at 0500 the next day. How did we even survive a world before cell phones?
I would argue we were more deliberate before our reliance on technology. When you talk to older generations, they tell you that information was put out during first formation in the morning on the plan for the day. Then, it was put out during the formation around lunch if anything changed and/or with a final formation at the end of the day to provide details on the next day. Phone calls were only used for recalls or emergency information. This crutch we have with technology not only creates breaks in communication but affects our overall work-life balance. We must go back to our roots and standardize times when information is put out to our units. Yes, there will be exceptions, but it must not be the norm. Thankfully, many units have already recognized this and put into place policy letters that no communication is to be sent after final formation or before first formation unless it is an emergency.
AI – The Final Fall of Communication
If you read any of my previous articles (“Is Efficiency Worth Sacrificing Our Humanity?” and “GPT – The Death of Creativity and Critical Thinking”), then you know I could not write an article on communication without discussing artificial intelligence (AI). I continue to watch our ability to communicate with each other be eroded by AI because of our over-reliance on it. The push is for individuals to use AI to write emails, awards, evaluations, operation orders, and so much more. If AI does all this work, then why are we needed in the first place? Communication is a skill that is written, verbal, and nonverbal. If we do not work at it like going to the gym for our muscles, we will lose our ability to communicate clearly and effectively.
The argument continues to be that AI should only aid our work and not replace it. However, I continue to see AI increasingly do our work more than aid it. Yes, humans will innately find the path of least resistance, but that does not mean we should. Communication is built on trust, and I argue that AI is the final fall for our ability to communicate. For instance, using AI to write an evaluation tells the individual that you did not care to take the time to truly evaluate their performance and build a bond with them. Trust is then broken between the two of you.
Once again, I am focusing my argument on the generative side of AI since the term AI encompasses a large array of areas. Thus, if we continue this reliance on generative AI, I believe we will witness the largest decline in critical thinking and cognitive skills in our history. Do we really need leaders asking ChatGPT how we should conduct battle plans? I am told that those who do not use generative AI will be left behind. Well, I argue that those who do not use generative AI will be the only ones with cognitive and communication skills left standing to complete the mission.
Communication is an art that we used to have courses on to teach us how to refine our skills. If we want to overcome these challenges of Army communication, then AI is not the answer.
Final Thoughts as the SCoE Harding Fellow
The Harding Project has significantly improved our ability to communicate in the last few years. Not only has the ASPB experienced a 56% increase in submissions, but the journal has also had a 35% increase in publications. Six new sections in the journal provide dedicated focus areas for conversations to be had. The Line of Departure website provides the one-stop shop for all journals, podcasts, and overall professional discourse for the Army. We have even launched a new mobile app of Line of Departure to bring the journals directly into the hands of Soldiers. This is only the beginning as we continue to revitalize all the journals across the force.
The concept of Army communication is not a new one and the problems that we see today are very similar to ones throughout all history. It is like a revolving wheel of identifying a problem, finding a solution, implementing a solution that works for some time, and then the solution creating a new problem. Thus, we must always work to stay one step ahead and work to refine our ability to communicate in all aspects.
Building trust through professional discourse and not restricting communication based on rank greatly increases the flow of ideas across the force. Additionally, we must always remember that everyone who wears the uniform is a Soldier and must be treated as such. Technology can greatly assist us in building systems to increase the flow of communication, but we must never allow it to bottleneck information or to be used as a crutch. Lastly, AI is not the ultimate solution to everything and poses great risk to our communication skills if left unchecked. We must use and challenge the brains that we were given to be the best communicators possible.
This article has only touched on a few of the aspects I experienced during my time as the SCoE Harding Fellow. Thus, we must continue to refine our communication skills and not be our own worst enemy by creating barriers for communication. Our ability to communicate clearly and concisely is our key to being the most lethal fighting force the world has ever seen.
--------------------
CPT (P) Garett H. Pyle is the Military Editor-in-Chief for the Army Sustainment Professional Bulletin and has been selected as the first Sustainment Center of Excellence Harding Fellow at Fort Lee, Virginia. He joined the Army Reserves in 2012 as an O9R (Simultaneous Membership Program Cadet) where he simultaneously attended ROTC at Washington & Jefferson College, where he commissioned in 2016 in the Transportation Corps. He holds a Master of Arts degree in transportation and logistics management from American Military University. He is an Honor Graduate of both the Transportation Officer Basic Course and the Logistics Captains Career Course.
--------------------
This article was published in the summer 2026 edition of Army Sustainment Professional Bulletin.
RELATED LINKS
Army Sustainment on Line of Departure
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Sharing