A Text to Garcia: Business Rules for Work Texting

by Joon Lee

“We do NOT use Signal as our primary means of communication!” my fellow staff officer exclaimed. I sympathized—in our years of service, we’ve embraced the tenet that “we train like we fight,” that we must exercise our tactical systems even in the mundane non-tactical operations. However, at the pace, depth and breadth of our current task, with initiative required at so many lower levels, I knew that he was wrong. We had to adapt or we would not be able to keep up. 

A strict adherence to this tenet felt trite in the complex and rapidly evolving situation. While on the advance team visit in a foreign country, I saw a problem coming. With our Battalion already on the way and the rest of the Division soon to arrive, unstructured and mass text messaging through personal devices had become the primary means of communication.

Though we anticipate restrictions of our personal devices in future conflicts, the digital language that we construct, train, and enforce now will be critical. Developing standards of clarity in digital language is vital and will carry over to tactical systems. No matter the system or medium, language and clarity still matter.

Background

Texting in our profession is heavily influenced by an informal culture that defines the boundaries of appropriate written communication. It often relies on a “common sense” approach, refined through years of experimentation and learning from the mistakes of others. Soldiers and leaders self-educate from lessons found in articles like Our Sloppy Over-Reliance on Texting, or perhaps more commonly from an archive of texting norm violations on “Army WTF Moments.” However, despite the planning team’s collective experience with texting, our first stab at organizing forward communications went awry. Leading up to the exercise, leaders and planners built one massive text group. This WhatsApp group eventually grew to over 173 individuals, becoming highly cluttered with information, much of which applied only peripherally to our battalion. A malicious actor eventually breached the WhatsApp group, flooding it with memes and discord that disrupted our overall mission. We switched over to the more secure Signal app.

During the advance deployment visit, the frequency and pace of information went into overdrive. Essential and timely messages mixed in with mundane public announcements or updates. I soon realized that the texts and information had to be better organized and managed. My mission was to provide a coherent structure and avoid another messy mass group chat for my arriving unit.

Mundane though the task may have been, I borrowed inspiration from Elbert Hubbard’s “A Message to Garcia,” a canon within our profession. Hubbard tells the story of Rowan, an officer who receives a mission to deliver a note. Rowan executes his mission without complaint, question, or demand for resources; he crosses oceans and jungles to accomplish his task through sheer determination and devotion to duty. Critics fault our heroic messenger’s blind obedience without analysis, contrasting his behavior with that expected of an analytical, thinking agent. Indeed, the issues my unit faced were not the delivery of any single message, but rather the efficient organization of massed messages, while properly managing the speed and scope of communication required. Where a platoon of trustworthy messengers could not have helped us, a standardized, organized framework for group messaging did.

Tactics, Techniques, Procedures (TTPs) and Resulting Benefits

For our Battalion, I created four separate message groups: BN TOC (Battalion Tactical Operations Center), Base Admin, BN Logistics, and Base PERSTAT (Personnel Status Report). Each group had its own unique photo avatar, explicit group descriptions (which included the rules and purpose for that group), the appropriate leaders and enablers invited, and the rules enforced throughout the exercise. For example, as Start Point / Release Point (SP/RP) reports started to pour in, time was wasted reporting an update/close to a previous report. To simplify and hasten the process, I just replied to my previous “SP…” report with an “RP”. This displayed that the previous report was now complete; there was no need to rewrite information previously stated. This simple act saved time and made it easier for the BN TOC to track completion of reports. This technique caught on instantly and became the unofficial standard. Deviating from it became a nuisance. The Division Operations Center even requested this new rule be followed: “Team, Can we ‘Reply’ on our previous 5-line to accurately track movements?”

The group threads took on a life of their own. We had flattened communication and it was going faster to a greater audience. More Soldiers were informed and involved with the tasks needed. With copy/paste abilities, reports were more accurate too. Another example of efficiency was when an unclaimed duffel bag was found at the airport. The Request for Information with a photo of the bag and name tag was shared in the group; in that same minute, a leader from another enabling unit called to claim that bag for their Soldier. Although leaders understood the importance and benefits of texting communication, we did not elevate it over physical presence, verbal communication, written orders, or relationships.

Lessons Learned and Business Rules

During the implementation and refinement of the TTPs above, here were some key lessons learned that evolved into our business rules:

a. Lessons are still learned in operations. Even though the means for our communication weren’t tactical, lessons were still taught about operations and how we fight. For example, a junior leader told their friend that they were going to drive to another base. That friend forgot and failed to report it in any of the text groups or other systems. This leader’s absence and failure to report became a moment to counsel and instill the importance of always reporting such movements outside of base. Our means of accountability and reporting requirements can never be taken for granted.

b. Refine communication standards. Whether we want to accept it or not, there is a new digital language. However, it requires refinement. We have this opportunity to establish our norms now before culture dictates otherwise. The means we can apply now are standardizations, templates for reports, and rules of acceptable or unacceptable behavior. This also includes an acceptance and embrace of emojis in our texts. These icons can communicate more than words, faster, and with greater accuracy. However, not everyone may interpret the same emoji the same. For example, the thumbs up emoji could mean: “yes”, “good”, “(sarcastic) good”, “I like this statement”, or “roger”.

c. Properly channeling information. Messages must be categorized and sent via proper channels. Each channel must have clearly defined guidelines for what it is or isn’t for. Without this structure, we risk information overload or difficulty in future search and referencing.

d. Establishment of business rules. Here are some of the business rules I recommend for Signal App use:

1. Criteria for creation of a group text, minimum requirements:
   1. The information needs to go to more than three individuals. If it applies to less than three, text individually.
   2. Duty or Responsibility? Determine if this chat is for a specific mission or specific group based on position(s).
2. Username standardization:
   1. Use RNK Full Name (Position)
   2. An appropriate profile photo is required – this makes it easier to find an individual when scrolling. This may be a personal preference, but a picture is quicker to pinpoint on a screen than a title.
3. Group standardization:
   1. The group name should be short and clear. It can include emojis if applicable.
   2. Group descriptions should explicitly detail the group’s purpose. When texts deviate from this purpose, tell the messenger to submit them elsewhere.
   3. Group description should include Coordinating Instructions, like report templates.
   4. Group avatars should be visually distinct, making them easier to find when scrolling.
4. Acceptable rules:
   1. Acknowledgement of receipt of a message via emoji reaction (e.g. thumbs up).
   2. If someone deletes a message they wrote, move on. We all make mistakes.
5. Business rules:
   1. If the message can wait to be sent until duty hours, hold it in its draft form until then.
   2. If the message is specific to one or two people in the group, send the message directly to them. If that message can benefit others in the group, the message should be sent in the group text. 

Conclusion

I acknowledge that this isn’t a complete or thorough user’s guide to setting up and using Signal chat. Nor is it a full lessons learned segment on our digital communication throughout the deployment. It is meant to acknowledge and engage with the challenges of leading in an ever-evolving digital world. We still hold true to “train like you fight,” but acknowledge that the means and systems can be interchangeable. Regardless of platform, the message must still be clearly communicated and received, and we must build and enforce standards of communication. We must always teach, train, and enforce our language within our profession—especially in its written form. The pace and complexity of modern threats requires us to think and communicate in stride. When wielded correctly, digital communication may provide the tactical advantage by its speed, scope, and accuracy. Therefore, the digital language we construct, train, and enforce today is essential.

Major Joon Lee is an Infantry Officer. He currently serves as the Battalion Executive Officer for 1-27th Infantry Regiment “Task Force Wolfhound”, 2nd Light Brigade Combat Team (Prototype), 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. 

A special dedication to COL R.J. Garcia, who also helped inspire this title, for his earnest mentorship to us “shovels”.

(Not endorsed by the Army, DOD, or Signal)