How Are Your Blinkers?

The blinker, or automotive turn signal, is an excellent analog that we can use to understand our communication habits because it allows us to clearly see how our intent to communicate extends to the real world. Thanks to the simplicity of the device and the rules surrounding it, the moment we intend to send a message to our peers (i.e. the other drivers), we do so, and they receive the message as we mean it, according to the rules of the road. Blinkers filter-out the confounding traits of many other modes of communication (e.g. language, posture, tone, environment, etc.), thus rendering inert most of the external forces we can blame for communication problems except the natural complacency that comes with years of driving (and communicating), the blinker exposes our native habits of communicating in ways that might surprise us.

Buckle-up while we take a look at what our use of blinkers can tell us about — us.

The “Late Blinker”

Late Blinkers are the sort that begin changing lanes or turning, crossing halfway toward their destination lane or ramp, before engaging the turn signals. Depending on local laws and enforcement officers, this may or may not be legal, but it is always rude and dangerous because it does not give others the ability to adjust to the new situation as the driver fails to indicate intent until already occupying parts of two different traffic paths.

Leaders who communicate like Late Blinkers are often the close-to-the-vest types; the ones who keep changes and goals a secret until they are certain they can achieve them, or are certain nothing is going to change to invalidate them. They view it as a position of strength to hold information that others do not have, and to dispense that information in a way they feel is completely within their control. The don’t care much about input from those affected, except as some form of gratification for being the source of information that can no longer be stopped.

Maybe they have success metrics based on the sound of horns, screeching tires, and fender dings? They'll never tell us until they are well into celebrating the achievement. 

The “No Blinker”

This type of person simply changes lanes, passes, and turns without bothering to let anyone around know what’s going on. At the extreme, this person barges into traffic from a left-side on-ramp, charges across three lanes of highway traffic, then drops onto a right-side off-ramp, all the while assuming everyone around them is paying enough attention and has enough control to simply deal with it. 

In leadership, this is the type who will change a policy, make a promise to a client, or modify a schedule, and simply expect everyone to make it work. Functionally, it is simply that this person doesn’t think to communicate rather than that they deliberately avoid it or don’t want to. They are completely fine committing actions and resources without getting any input from those impacted, and wouldn’t listen even if they did. Where a Late Blinker might be fairly judged to be a bit of a control freak, the No Blinker is an ignoramus that feels everyone must already know all they ought know, always.

This person is dangerous in all contexts, but doesn’t know it and doesn’t care.

The “False Blinker”

We’ve all driven down the road behind a car with a turn signal blinking for several blocks or even miles, or maybe we’ve even been that person (if you remember driving without self-cancelling turn signals). Discarding the inappropriate ageist jokes that may come to mind, careful drivers spend the whole time behind this vehicle waiting for the sudden turn that this False Blinker person has been unintentionally telling us about.

A False Blinker is related to the No Blinker in that their communication is not considered and doesn’t match actions. Where the No Blinker simply doesn’t communicate, the False Blinker communicates contextually meaningful messages that are contradicted by their actions. Consider a leader who reminds us that we’re a data-driven organization, but persists with decisions and demands that are arbitrary and not supported by data; their persistent preaching about being data-driven when they do not follow data is their false signal.

As long as this person remains on course, they are more of an annoyance than much else, but the moment they change direction — sometimes opposite the signal — any complacency in dealing with a False Blinker becomes a potential crash.

Almost Everyone Else

For those of us who can honestly look at our turn signal habits and determine that their use is congruent with good communication habits, we still have to guard against the complacency or distraction that can land us in one of the above categories. We are the product of our best and worst practices, and those things we do well when doing them deliberately can be offset by what we do unthinkingly and out of poorly managed habit. Whether driving or engaging your direct reports, consider always the mode, method, and timing of your communication, and make sure it matches what your audience needs to respond appropriately so they don't wind up parked in your trunk.

Note: This post first appeared as a LinkedIn blog by Dr. Mann on October 15, 2019.

Dr. Philip D. Mann, PMP, PMI-RMP

Dr. Philip D. Mann brings 17 years of experience at the Federal Aviation Administration to the intersection of artificial intelligence, safety systems, and organizational risk management. As an internationally recognized expert in aviation operations and safety, Dr. Mann has appeared in major news outlets providing critical analysis on aviation incidents and safety protocols.

Currently affiliated with Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Dr. Mann combines academic rigor with real-world operational expertise. With a PhD in Organization and Management, complemented by an MBA, MPA, and BS in Business Management, Dr. Mann bridges the gap between theoretical frameworks and practical implementation. Professional certifications include PMP and PMI-RMP credentials from the Project Management Institute.

Dr. Mann's forthcoming book, The SCAR Framework: A Systematic Approach to AI Decision-Making in Critical Systems, provides executives and safety professionals with a field-tested methodology for determining when and how to responsibly implement artificial intelligence in high-stakes environments. The framework—addressing Safety, Complexity, Accountability, and Resilience—emerged from extensive research in transportation, healthcare, defense, and public infrastructure sectors.

Specializing in project management, organizational behavior, and educational technologies, Dr. Mann consults with organizations navigating the complex landscape of digital transformation in safety-critical operations. Their work emphasizes evidence-based decision-making, risk quantification, and the human factors essential to the successful integration of technology.

When not analyzing safety systems or developing risk management strategies, Dr. Mann pursues science-based bodybuilding and is actively learning Latin American Spanish—disciplines that reinforce the same systematic approach to excellence that characterizes their professional work.

https://www.scarframework.com
Previous
Previous

Do Your Priorities Compete?

Next
Next

Are You Compartmentalizing Your Culture?