Candidate Weber displayed a sense of nervousness while initially briefing his fire team. He stumbled over his words at the onset of his brief. SNC used phases such as, “I would like…” when giving orders which showed a lack of confidence. Prior to planning he did not take to time to recon the surroundings. Upon execution, SNC’s ability to lead and confidence strengthened he appeared much more clam. He positioned himself well around the fire team to ensure orders were received accurately. This also enabled him to monitor the security and progress of the task. SNC’s was penalized 60 seconds as a result of a team member touching a red area. SNC remained focused and he quickly revised his plan to remedy the situation and keep pushing. Candidate…
Example two is his handling of the staff that was being sent from the supporting units. He found that the units where not sending their best staff and instead was sending the least motivated troops. “Either because they were not convinced that the evacuation was a crucial mission or simply because they did not want to detract from their ongoing operations by spending energy on it.” (Laufer) He was disappointed in what he found so he devised a plan to get the personnel he needed. First he instructed his team leaders to identify those least suitable for the mission, second he asked all of the feeder units for highly qualified troops which was met with resistance and lastly he went to his superior and advised him that “Without the personal involvement and commitment to the mission on the part of the commanders of the dispatching units, we…
Candidate Miller struggled to deliver a five paragraph order that was in accordance with the OSMEAC format. Although SNC was able to brief some of the information he received from the instructor, he only mentioned "mission" and "signal" before briefing the sub-paragraphs. Additionally, SNC delivered the order with choppy, mumbled phrases and utilized excessive filler words. Candidate Miller displayed minimal confidence, and although he briefed a scheme of maneuver prior to execution, it was clear that he was making it up as he briefed. The tasks he gave to his fire team also lacked clarity and gave the impression they had not been thought through. During the execution, SNC used phrases that displayed lack of assertiveness such as "we should…
Candidate Hecht delivered an incomplete brief. SNC was nervous and unsure of the information he was relaying to his team. This uncertainty was displayed through him constantly repeating himself stumbling or stuttering and briefing the order out of sequence. SNC’s orientation simply stated that his team was located on MCB Quantico, Brown Field. SCN briefed his friendly situation in conjunction with the beginning of his mission statement. SNC failed to brief the entirety of the coordinating instructions. His brief as a whole lacked the structure of a five paragraph order. SNC lacked confidence and due to the lack of information, his order did not completely make sense. Prior to execution, SNC did not establish a plan which made it difficult for…
In Aleesha’s case it was apparent that aside from needing policy changes to the hiring process along with policies that help military families, there are also other political factors that failed Aleesha. One which seems to be a large scale issue is the drug prevalence in Aleesha’s community. Since Aleesha’s drug use predominantly began in her neighborhood and later progressed when she moved in with her boyfriend, which happened to be in the same neighborhood, it brings up the question of the accessibility and drug use in this area. It seems that the high drug use perhaps could also have played a role in her involvement with drug distribution. The political factor at hand that affected Aleesha immensely was drugs, because due to drug use and…
Candidate Summerour provided a five paragraph order that contained most of the needed information to carry out the mission, but not much more and not necessarily in the proper order. SNC’s brief was very choppy and SNC seemed overwhelmed with the amount of information he needed to organize and disseminate. His scheme of maneuver was hasty and was briefed after the tasks. The tasks assigned did not have a purpose. SNC’s execution went well until the one point of friction, the simulated casualty, occurred. SNC did not give orders to neutralize the enemy for a few moments. During this time his sense of security was lacking. He left the casualty where he fell and took the rest of the fireteam to assault the enemy, having no assistance or cover…
SNC set security before giving the brief. SNC had a commanding tone while briefing, but used frequent filler words, stumbled, and displayed minimal eye contact. During the execution, SNC maintained an urgent pace and used hand and arm signals appropriately. He did not employ his navigator correctly putting him in the rear of the formation. Upon hearing potential enemy activity, SNC decided to deviate from the direction of movement, communicated the change to his FT, and began heading toward the noise. Upon enemy contact, three shots were fired before SNC reacted. When SNC realized what was happening he immediately gave a solid ADDRAC, initiated the buddy rushing inspiring confidence in his subordinates, and gave very clear, concise commands…
Candidate Burton displayed a basic understanding of the five paragraph order, however he did not brief a scheme of maneuver. SNC did brief a clear and detailed tasking statement to each team member. SNC almost forgot to brief security, but finally remembered it after he briefed Command & Signal. SNC displayed a lack of command presence and communication by giving commands quietly and without a sense of urgency. SNC placed himself at the very front of his fireteam during execution. This limited SNC’s ability to control his team’s movement causing poor dispersion and lack of control. Because his incoherent commands and lack of awareness of the tactical situation, SNC’s tasking for consolidation failed to produce an appropriate 360 degree security…
During the mock trial, both sides introduced their claims. The prosecuting side argued that Bigger should be sentenced to death and the defense side argued that Bigger acted upon insanity and should be put in rehabilitation. Each side brought up a witness and each witness got questioned from both parties. Prosecution went up first, then defense. After all the questioning of the witnesses, both sides got to close with their conclusions. The overall case went very well. Each side did a great job, this including my opponents. Obviously I didn’t want my opponents to do well, but they did a very great job. Each witness had played their roles very well and looked prepared when coming up to the stand. The prosecuting team’s lawyers, were as well, great at their roles. They asked questions that provoked my defense side’s witnesses, but we did well in answering them. Coming to this point, was easy and fun to do.…
Davis’ first argument to defend the lethal decision of Lund is that Lund was not trained to think like a manager. His background was in engineering. He then goes on the state that Engineers are typically…
Our initial observation consisted of evaluating the AITP group as they were selecting members for each individual committee. The first questionable factor that we noticed was the President, Dawn Wolff, was assuming a vast majority of the responsibility for the group. Since this was our first observation of the group, we were unsure if this was just a one-time deal due to the structure of the meeting or if this was common among the group. However, after attending multiple meetings we saw that this was a frequent commonality among the AITP group. Throughout our observation meetings, we saw that Dawn assumed the responsibility of a task before having the chance to delegate it out to another officer. Some of our team members felt that Dawn was assuming all responsibilities because of the chance that she might be a control freak. It was crucial for us to get a better understanding of Dawn’s power and role as a president and where all the other officers fit within the organization.…
2. In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence. Late in the story. I think they did this to lay the groundwork and to make you come to his way of thinking before he pitched it.…
At the outset, eleven jurors vote in favor of convicting the accused without even discussing a single shred of the evidence presented at the trial. When a group becomes too confident and fails to think realistically about its task, groupthink can occur. Since it takes a longer time to communicate and reach a consensus in a group, decision making in a group is time-consuming. Therefore, when groups want to achieve a quick decision, as several jurors were eager to do, they make riskier decisions than individuals. Since not any individual is completely accountable for the decision, members will have a tendency to accept more extreme solutions. Only one brave juror refused to vote guilty. Juror #8 refused to fall into the groupthink trap and ultimately saved an innocent man's life. He openly admits that he does not know whether the accused is guilty or innocent and that he finds it necessary to simply talk about the case. What follows is not only a discussion of the particular facts of the case, but also an intense examination of the personal baggage that each jury member brings to the room.…
George Maxwell is an African American; he started his business 20 years ago. Maxwell’s plumbing supplies has hard working employees and George treats his employees equally. Unfortunately, the supervisor needs to retire and now George has to replace his supervisor, but it is very difficult to find another. That’s one of George’s problems he does not want to face, because hiring someone from the outside field will bring more difficulties to his business. George believes Hector Miranda is the right man for the job since he has proven himself as a hard worker and provides some of the requirements for becoming the supervisor. The purpose of the assignment is to evaluate Hector and decide weather Hector would be the right person.…
we have studied the impacts on behavior when working within a group, and if leadership roles are connected when working in these conditions. We have been able to prove that working in groups does impact on the behavior of individuals. We establish that when working in a group and playing out an assignment, three initiative parts may happen, aggressive, assertive and non-assertive, these roles may cause behavioral changes or modify the opinions of people working in these groups. We would like to believe that jurors make decisions based solely on the facts of the case. The fact is, jurors make decisions emotionally, unconsciously and irrationally.…