Articulating Intent: The Skill I Didn’t Know I Needed Until I Left the Military
I had something to say in the seminar, but I couldn't get it out coherently.
I'd done the reading. I had a point I wanted to make. But when I tried to explain my thinking, it came out fragmented. Half-formed observations that didn't quite connect. I could see what I meant, but I couldn't articulate the reasoning behind it.
My classmates, meanwhile, were building arguments layer by layer. Stating their interpretations rather clearly. Connecting evidence to claims. Explaining not just what they thought, but why they thought it.
In the military, I'd learned to execute tasks efficiently. In clinical work at Naval Hospital Okinawa, I'd learned to articulate medical reasoning within clear protocols and defined roles.
But this was different. In the college classroom, and later in tech work, alignment isn't inherited. It has to be created, together, through articulation.
That seminar was when I realized: I was under-skilled for environments where intent isn't handed down. Where you don't just complete tasks—you have to explain your reasoning, defend your approach, and build shared understanding through words.
This is a story about learning to articulate intent. Not as a buzzword, but as a structural skill. One that military service doesn't build, that I began learning in college, and that modern knowledge work absolutely demands.
Institutionalization: My Military Work Cultures Were Not All the Same
My work identity formed inside a total institution: an environment that controls nearly every aspect of your daily life and work. But even there, “intent” wasn’t one thing. It depended entirely on context.
The Traditional Side: Do It Now, Ask Later
Ceremonies. Inspections. Watch. Garrison routines. Combat.
All of these ran on one rule: Execute the task and don’t ask questions, but if you must, do so later.
Orders arrived stripped of reasoning. Supervisors rarely knew the purpose either; they were relaying instructions from higher in the chain. My peers and I had a running script:
“This is so stupid.” “Why are we even doing this?”
And within this world, one attitude made me successful: Do it now. Ask questions later.
In the military, speed and obedience are competence. Pausing to clarify intent can look like resistance, a waste of time no one has.
It took leaving the institution to realize this habit had an expiration date.
The Clinical Side: Intent Was Not Optional
Things were different in medicine.
As a cardiovascular technician at Naval Hospital Okinawa, protocol alone wasn’t enough. I had to understand the clinical reasoning behind each study.
Sometimes I ran a full echocardiogram. Sometimes a focused study. Sometimes additional imaging to investigate a possible defect.
These decisions mattered because of our setting:
We provided limited cardiology services for the entire Pacific region
Patients traveled from Korea and mainland Japan for diagnostics
I was often the only technician on site
Cardiologists reviewed studies remotely from Hawaii or San Diego
My judgment shaped diagnosis. My clarity shaped patient care thousands of miles away.
In that environment, intent was the job. Articulation wasn’t optional: it was clinical responsibility.
Two Cultures, One Institution
I learned two contradictory work logics simultaneously:
Traditional military: intent withheld, questioning discouraged, execution over reasoning
Clinical military: intent essential, judgment expected, articulation vital
This contradiction created a strange foundation. I learned to work in environments where intent was either irrelevant or everything, with no middle ground.
That tension made my later awakening inevitable.
Awakening: Realizing the Civilian World Runs on Intent
The awakening didn’t happen in a single moment. It happened gradually, across undergrad, grad school, and then tech.
College and Tech Work: Where Intent Is Shared, Not Assumed
If the military trains you to execute, college and tech train you to explain.
Civilian knowledge work runs on:
Shared reasoning
Consensus-building
Cross-functional alignment
Proactive communication
In my current tech scene, nothing moves until someone says: “Here’s what we’re solving. Here’s why.”
If no one says it, the project stalls.
In the military, silence meant compliance.
In civilian work, silence means misalignment.
This was awakening: I wasn’t wrong. I was operating on a different operating system that demanded different modes of thinking and behavioral patterns.
Reorientation: Relearning How to Work Without Inherited Alignment
Reorientation is the long middle. The period where you rebuild your work identity from the inside out.
The military gave me inherited alignment. Rank structure told me who decided. Chain of command told me how decisions flowed. In civilian work, alignment has to be created, and that creation happens through articulation.
Learning to Articulate Intent
I had to learn to say:
What I was trying to do
Why it mattered
How I was thinking about it
What I needed from others
Intent wasn’t a soft skill. It was the engine of the work.
Designing Meetings With Purpose
I learned to shape meetings around clear purposes: discovery, alignment, tactical problem-solving, relationship-building. Short, intentional, outcome-driven. The question that changed everything was simple: “Why are we really meeting?”
Without that clarity, meetings become ritual without meaning.
Asynchronous Work as a Discipline
Tech runs on thinking in writing:
Shared documents
TLDR/BLUF summaries
Documented decisions
Single sources of truth
It’s how dispersed teams stay aligned when inherited hierarchy can’t do the work for them.
Influence Without Authority
Hierarchy used to make decisions simple. In civilian work, influence is earned through clarity, logic, consistency, and proactive alignment.
Intent leads to credibility leads to influence.
Why This Matters for Veterans (And My Experience as a Federal Employee in Govtech)
This gap is structural and skill-based.
Veterans Are Under-Skilled for This Specific Context
Not under-skilled generally. Under-skilled for environments where:
Intent is generated bottom-up
Alignment is collaborative
Ambiguity is constant
Influence has no rank attached
The military does not train for these conditions.
Interestingly, my experience tells me that Govtech is a Hybrid Environment
Govtech, technology work inside government agencies, was my first stop after academic life. Many veterans follow this path, drawn to federal cybersecurity, IT, and digital services work. My roles at the federal government as a GS showed me that govtech sits between military and private sector tech.
It operates with:
Hierarchical decision-making structures (like the military)
Distributed technical work (like private tech)
Formal compliance requirements (like the military)
Collaborative project teams (like private tech)
Adding another layer of complexity: federal employees (GS) often manage programs and make decisions, while contractors do the actual technical building. This split between decision-makers and builders creates a unique dynamic where authority and technical expertise sit in different places—neither purely hierarchical like the military, nor fully integrated like private sector product teams.
This hybrid nature means govtech can feel familiar to veterans in some ways while still requiring new skills in others. Intent still flows top-down more than bottom-up. Authority still matters more than influence. Ambiguity exists, but within defined boundaries.
The Real Skill Gap
The military teaches structural clarity, ranking-based authority, and procedural execution.
Govtech adds collaborative elements but maintains hierarchical decision-making.
Modern private sector tech requires self-generated intent, product thinking, user-centered reasoning, proactive communication, influence without authority, genuinely agile collaboration, and thinking in writing.
Veterans aren't failing. They're moving across systems that each operate on different logics: military clarity through hierarchy, govtech hybrid structures, and private tech distributed collaboration.
This Is Why Articulating Intent Matters So Much
In my career journey, it's the skill that has bridged military, academic life, Govtech, and then to private tech. Hierarchy to hybrid structures to distributed collaboration. Inherited alignment to created alignment.
It's not soft. It's structural. It's the foundation of modern work.
And it's the skill I had to learn through trial and error: the skill no institution taught me to ask for.
