A500.2.3RB_ValenteMarco

Tell Your Story

While serving as a military police officer in the profession of arms, the standards of “Clearness” and “Accuracy” were central to my goals of becoming a reliable and consistent communicator as a leader responsible for others and to be an effective “problem solver” while serving in a law enforcement capacity.

In other words, as a young officer entering the profession of arms, being able to master military terms, knowledge, and communication was essential to success and progression. Some of the methods to exercise and reinforce these skills were class presentations, Staff rides (education battle reenactment), briefings, operation orders and rotational leadership positions. In an environment where time is always against you and where “words” mean certain things, stock is always placed in communication being clear and concise. Thus, one had to choose their words carefully because an incorrect word or an ill stated point usually produced more questions and failed to inspire confidence for the intended audience. The same standard of “clearness” and “Accuracy” was stressed during law enforcement training. Law enforcement officials traditionally find themselves in an emotionally charged situation and they must possess the tools to deescalate or explain complex actions to an irrational individual. Moreover, while executing ones duties in a law enforcement capacity, everything said is a matter of record and is admissible in court. It would behoove leaders at all levels and professions to consider “clearness” and “accuracy” to play a significant role in their given purpose and strive to continuously improve their skills in order to achieve their desired end-state.

For example, while attending a military career level school, I was responsible for producing an operations order for an exercise and in my mission statement I used the term “attack” verses “attack by fire.” By its nature, “attacking” an objective brings an offensive mindset and resources that require Soldiers to be on the ground, oppose to the former that is also offensive action but at a distance and not having Soldiers occupying the enemies position. Fortunately for me, I had a trusted counterpart review my work and the issue was caught before it went any further. This was a valuable lesson to learn in a controlled educational/training environment that I still use to this day.

It’s like when we see a politician or CEO gives a speech and during this speech they make a comment that lost its contexts or did not come out exactly as they intended. Response to these statements tend to end up as gaffs and could cause doubt for a politician’s constituents or drop a company’s stock price because their lack of “clearness” and/or “accuracy.”

Now retired from the military, the need to continue such a high standard of “clearness” and “accuracy” remains necessary. As I pursue my goal of earning a master degree in leadership, I expect my skills to be further tested and expanded. Specifically to integrate in the corporate world where my talents can be leveraged and produce results and an environment of learning and professionalism.