This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
craft mechanics, and nurse’s aide courses with classes taught using Air Force material. Students taught by Air Force techniques and materials performed as well as, or better than, the other students; the only difference was the use of military terminology. An electronics instructor concluded that “it was a big success and that many more Air Force materials, on most all other subjects, could be used most advantageously by properly oriented civilian schools on the technical level.”11 At the time the Utah Project was conducted, approximately two-thirds of all students in two-year colleges required remedial or compensatory programs, and 60% to 70% of all enrollees did not complete the two-year program.12 Although these figures have since improved, it seems that community colleges would still benefit from the educational techniques used by the military.
There are additional advantages for which cost estimates cannot be made. Young technicians who are not sent to remote schools away from their families might display higher morale. Exposure to the local populace could lead to improved community relations, as the sailor-citizens became more aware of the needs of their individual communities; at the same time, the community’s increased awareness of the military could aid the local recruiting effort.
Some modification of current naval curricula would of course be necessary. Basic knowledge courses could be entirely shifted to civilian schools as could many courses geared toward specific equipment—particularly if the naval instructional materials were also transferred to the local schools. Courses involving classified material would remain within the purview of military instructors. The savings accrued from the elimination of courses, curtailment of travel and per diem funds, increased man-hours, and reduced overhead should offset the spending necessary to shift technical training into the local schools.
ness—Myth or Reality?” Journal of Higher tdur: tion, July 1981, pp. 415-416.
4Ibid., pp. 418-421.
5Ibid., pp. 422-423. . he
6A. J. Riendeau, “Emerging Technologies m Eighties,” Industrial Education, May-June
7L. D. Kaapke, “Strange Bedfellows or Innovati Partners?” Community and Junior College Jou*n December-January 1979, pp. 30-33.
8Marion G. Lamb, “A New Perspective of the tary’s Potential Relationship with Community leges,” Community College Review, Winter 1981, pp. 14-15.
9Ibid., p. 15. J
l0J. H. Straubel, Vocational Instructional ^5^evV the Air Force Applied to Civilian Education ( York: Praeger Publishers, 1971), p. 81.
"Ibid., pp. 68-90. ■ n:
12M. J. Feldman, “Opting for Career Educa[1][2] [3]^, Emergence of the Community College,” in[0 Pucinski and S. P. Hirsch (eds.), The C°ura^f c, Change (Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Halh n 1971), p. 113.
Lieutenant Commander Watwood graduated from U. S. Naval Academy in 1972, and is earning ^ M.S. in education administration at Old DolTlinra, University in Norfolk, Virginia. He is currently tions/ship scheduler for the Commander, Naval face Forces, Atlantic, in Norfolk.
Stay Loose, Spokesperson!
By Commander Tylor Field II, U. S. Navy (Retired)
conversation. Therefore, in the more mal presentations, we should incorpo
fer
rate
More than 16 years ago, the Mexican author Octavio Paz wrote, “. . . the very nature of modem communications technology has accentuated and strengthened non-communications.” Time has reinforced that statement. In an age of “high-tech,” we are producing a generation of leaders who can’t talk effectively in high-stress situations, thus confirming the pre-Paz observation that “The brain is an incredible machine that starts functioning the instant we are born and doesn’t stop until we stand up to give a speech.”
Consider the following two scenarios:
Lieutenant Commander Jones, a Pentagon projects officer, has just completed a successful sea tour as an executive officer. He has a weapons-associated postgraduate degree and is put on the “Missile X” project. He does his homework thoroughly and develops a worthwhile and cost-effective plan. All that is left to do is to convince his seniors, who are known to be looking for something like Missile X. On the appointed day, Commander Jones gathers his data, troops into the admiral’s office, and begins to brief six senior officers. Result: A triumph for Jones? A new missile for the Navy? No! After a few minutes, the listeners’ eyes become glassy. At the end of the hour, there are no questions. Commander Jones is politely thanked and is not called again. Missile X is scrapped.
Commander Paul is the air group commander on an aircraft carrier. During the deployment, several accidents have received wide press coverage. On return to home port, a press conference is called to deal with the problem. Commander Paul walks to the rostrum, faces a hostile audience, and in a few minutes has it eating out of his hand. Result: A positive image for the Navy and a commendation for Commander Paul.
Why did one man succeed and the other fail?
Too often, the Navy suffers from the effects of the first scenario. The corporate world has already recognized such communication problems among its most senior executives. “Corporate America” is moving to correct the situation, and so should the Navy. Without improvement, we can look forward to years of boring speeches, unmotivated personnel, and hostile committees.
What’s the solution? Should we keep Paul—who could probably earn a comfortable civilian living selling mad dogs—hopping from podium to podium and issue Jones permanent change of station orders to Lower Slobbovia? No! The
answer is more and better basic trainl”f and periodic refresher courses for all 0 potential spokespersons. .
We want all our people to become ter communicators and thus be able give an effective speech, handle toug press interviews, and project effectlV 1 on television and radio.
The Approach: People present the selves best when they’re at ease and na ral. They should develop the tools t ^ will let them be at ease, even in the n1 demanding circumstances. .
Most people have the wrong lde about what should be done when giving speech or talking to groups. When tn put on their official “hat,” they becoin^ formal and stiff—not themselves- other words, most people’s personal'^
change dramatically when they standre. front of a group; they are no longer laxed and articulate. The more formal t presentation, the more extreme is the Pc sonality change. We’ve all witnessed 1 boring speaker who is dynamite dur^t the question and answer period. , Because such a format is close to non11.
the aspects of conversation that will ma them effective. 0
152
Proceedings / October
19»J
Understand Your Audience: The key
tWo communications is understanding any • jngS a'30ut y°ur audience. First,
case th16nCe 'S more *ntercste(J its own you 3n are *n y°urs- Therefore, 5econJ,USt Set its attention and keep it. gath„n ’ t*le ear is an ineffective data 5% f6r’ ^e'n8 responsible for less than ne] What we know. Rather like a fun-
^uickl6 6ar W'^ overflow y°u it too imy’ Therefore, when you lay an shouldant thought on your audience, you s°rb t L>ause anc* 8've it a moment to ab- the f',,ore moving on. Also remember ► Blollowing key points:
Perso ' |>Urseh ancl do not change your °nality. if yOU use y0ur hands in conversation, use them in your presentation.
► Avoid oratory by speaking conversationally. Fancy phrases tend to distract the audience.
► Be concise and do not ramble; stick to your text or outline. Random thoughts will distract your audience.
► Use silence effectively. Pause not only to let your audience absorb the thought, but also to punctuate it. A long pause after a key point has the effect of an exclamation point.
► Limit the number of key points in your presentation. It is better to have the audience remember two of three points than none of 16. Remember the ear’s funnel effect when it comes to gathering data.
► Use simple, easily understood words. Difficult words will distract many members of the audience and you will lose them. Avoid the use of jargon.
► Use eye contact well. If you look at the audience after making a point, it will make you appear more sincere and interested. It also gives you a chance to read the audience: are the people attentive, bored, or asleep?
These points apply equally to text (script) presentations, or talks from notes or outlines. When handling questions, a couple of additional items should be kept in mind:
► Listen to each question carefully.
► Pause before you answer. This will help to ensure that you answer correctly and will give value to the question (i.e., you had to think before you could answer). If you pause before all questions, you won’t give away the farm when hit with a tough one!
► Be brief. Don’t tell how to build a clock when the original question was, “What time is it?”
► Be ready for the “loaded” question. Either identify it for what it is, or rephrase the question to your liking.
► Don't be afraid to admit that you don’t know the answer. Remember that tried and true phrase, “I don’t know, but I’ll find out.”
How to Conduct Training: Once you’re ready to make your pitch, there are two further requirements.
First, audio-visual equipment is a necessity. We all have preconceived ideas about how we’re coming across. The playback on the monitor is reality. Second, don’t try to use in-house trainers! It’s pretty tough for a junior officer to criticize his reporting senior. In addition, using outside resources allows for confidentiality and encourages frankness.
In conclusion—in and out of the government—our senior executives are, by and large, poor speakers. At best, most presentations waste the time and money of both the speaker and the audience. At worst, valuable ideas are lost between transmission and reception. In today’s world, we can ill afford to give up time, money, or ideas. Come on, senior management, speak out—in a manner that we can understand.
Pr,
153
'Donald L. Pilling, “The Dwindling Muster,” Proceedings, June 1982, p. 36.
[2]Ibid., p. 36.
[3]M. L. Zoglin, “Community College Responsive-