Saturday, June 2, 2018

The Meaning of a Word


The Meaning of a Word

The meanings of words are based on the receivers’ perspective, on what the word means to him/her.  In the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), the soldiers are known as the “Night Stalkers.”  A common phrase which is used throughout the workplace is “Night Stalkers Don’t Quit.”  These words can be interpreted in many ways by the receiver.  These four words serve a purpose though.  As any military organization, it is rich in history and pride, built on sacrifices made throughout the years.  But what is in context is important to the organization.  It creates a mindset throughout the organization and Special Operations community.  The context of the message is very important for the employees of the organization to understand.  Managers must be able to develop an intuitive understanding of their employees, so as little misinterpretation occurs.  Perceptions are key to the success of the organizations mission, and managers must be able to base this perception by understanding the tone and context that does not match their own perception.  Carefully managing the employee expectations is dependent on the message sequence.  In this case, “Don’t Quit Night Stalkers,” might sound more of a statement and order, then how receivers perceive “Night Stalkers Don’t Quit.”  Note that employees have vastly different interpretations of the same announcement depending on their expectations (Clampitt, 2016, p. 19).  As mentioned, employees have different interpretations of the same words.  These four words may have a deep meaning on an employee which has served in the unit for 15 years, then an employee with less than 1 year.  The way the message is framed is as important to the meaning of the words.  For instance, if managers are describing a situation in which many sacrifices were made, or how harsh the conditions were, it frames the message.  In this context, the mission continued, although more difficult, but quit was not in the vocabulary.  Although a stressful situation may be encountered, the motivation for the employees to push through it, increases.  Also, the proper message must be sculpted, to accentuate certain interpretations.  The term “Night Stalker Don’t Quit,” accentuate that the mission and cargo are the greatest concern and arriving +/- 30 seconds to any objective around the world is expected.  Never surrender, never leave a fallen comrade behind, or embarrass your country, are all accentuating words and phrases used to interpret “Night Stalker Don’t Quit.”  Managers must also pay attention to the secondary messages.  When managers provide feedback, or constructive criticism, they must pay attention to the reactions and responses of their employees.  If a response seems out of context to the issue at hand, then the employee may be unable to focus on the prominent issues at hand.  The way managers in this organization communicate, is the dance approach.  In some instances, direct one-way communication is necessary, as in the Arrow approach, and sometimes because of the close relationships which are built by unit cohesion, the Circuit approach is used.  The circuit approach is widely used because of the natural affinity, and the encouragement by teachers, as Clampitt (2016) points out, because it “highlights the importance of feedback and interaction” (p. 38).  The Dance approach compares communication with dancing.  Both are alike, with patterns, movement, creativity, and have a wide variety of reasons.  This approach combines the results-based communication, like the Arrow approach, and the understanding communication in the Circuit approach.  The goals of communication have a wide variety, and it involves many criterias to be successful.  Communication involves the coordination of meanings, co-orientation, is rule governed, development of unconscious skills, and a patterned activity.  The Dance approach allows managers to combine the Arrow and Circuit approach, getting results with limited amount of concern about the employee relationship.  There are also not concerned about immediate results but establish the patterns of sustained success.  Attached in figure 1 is the Night Stalker Creed, which exemplifies the meaning of “Night Stalkers Don’t Quit.”



Figure 1.  Night Stalker Creed (United States Army Special Operations Command, 2018).

References

Clampitt, P. G. (2016). Communicating for managerial effectiveness: challenges, strategies, solutions (6 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

United States Army Special Operations Command. (2018). 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne). Retrieved from www.soc.mil: http://www.soc.mil/USASOAC/160th.html

Sunday, June 21, 2015

A 17-year-old in Connecticut who refused to continue receiving chemotherapy to treat her Hodgkin's lymphoma, poses a genuine ethical dilemma.  The dilemma stems from a conflict between two leading ethical principles.  One principle, respect for autonomy, calls for respecting individuals' right to self-determination.  In the medical context, that means allowing people to refuse medical treatment, even lifesaving therapy.  The other ethical principle, beneficence, directs physicians and hospitals to maximize benefits and minimize harms in caring for patients.
The problem in Cassandra's case is that she is still legally a minor, which means that a parent or guardian has the legal authority to make health care decisions on her behalf.  But unlike problematic cases in which parents and their offspring disagree about medical treatment, her mother upheld her daughter's refusal of treatment.
Courts have the authority to overrule parents when their medical decisions threaten the life or health of their offspring.  In such cases, temporary custody is removed from the parents and a specific guardian (termed a "guardian ad litem") is appointed to make medical decisions for the minor.
On Jan. 8, 2015, the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision and ruled that Cassandra must continue to undergo chemotherapy against her will.  Separate lawyers for the mother and daughter sought to have the teen considered a "mature minor," which would grant her the right to refuse lifesaving treatment, but the court declined to rule on that aspect, siding with the medical judgment that there is an 85 percent chance of surviving Hodgkin's lymphoma by treating with chemotherapy.
There is no way of knowing what Cassandra will say if she is eventually cured of her cancer.  She might be grateful that her life was saved, and thank the doctors and the hospital for involving the courts to force the chemotherapy.  Or she might remain resentful, claiming that her autonomous right to refuse medical treatment was violated.  But whatever she might say, her judgment in the matter does not resolve the ethical dilemma.  She is still legally a minor, but that does not ethically justify the actions of the doctor, the hospital, the child welfare agency and the Connecticut courts.
Although reasonable people may disagree on whether a 17-year-old should be forced to undergo medical treatment against her will, we should not condone the brutality involved in placing this young patient in a foster home and reportedly sedating her and strapping her down in a hospital bed. The philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote that "whoever wills the end, wills the means."  However, even those who initially support a plan to force treatment on a young patient are morally bound to question the means required to do so.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ruth-macklin/the-ethical-dilemma-of-fo_b_6457592.html