Candidate Futch Case Analysis

The motivational approach Mr. Ferrell is using is intrinsic reward. Because of the personal satisfaction, he has. He follows the rules of Right-Way super market which lead him to believe he is making an significant contribution to this organization (pg.296). Which he seems to think means he does not need to listen to his employees. Mr. Ferrell exhibits elements of scientific management. He sees Amy as more of a machine than a human being there to work not to suggest concepts for a business, he’s worked at longer. Whereas, I would use extrinsic rewards as a motivation. This ensures that an employee knows they are appreciated it can be as simple as telling them what a good job or in this case listening to an employee’s ideas.

Candidate Carpenter briefed a good five paragraph order. SNC briefed a good initial plan prior to starting the execution phase of the problem. SNC posted security prior to briefing showing his ability to operate in a tactical environment, SNC checked in with security for the remainder of the problem. SNC initially sent two candidates on top of the wall to gain reconnaissance of the area beyond the wall. SNC quickly realized the problem with this and had himself assisted up on top of the wall in order for himself to assess the situation. SNC quickly made a decision on what to do next and has a candidate go down the other side of the wall. From there SNC was in constant communication with the candidate and assisted the candidate into position

Similar to a “Terry Frisk” (commonly referred to as a “pat-down” or “frisk search”) a protective search is conducted for officer safety. The same requirement of reasonable suspicion is necessary to perform a protective search (Hall, 2014). In other words, the officer needs to be able to convey a reason, based on articulable facts, why a protective search was conducted (Hall, 2014). These searches are to ensure potentially, ill intentioned people that may be hidden in the area cannot harm officers (Hall, 2014). When law enforcement makes a legal arrest, incident to that arrest an officer can search the suspect for weapons, means of escape, and evidence (Hall, 2014). The scope of the “search incident to arrest” allows law enforcement to

Candidate Hays' attempt to brief the initial five paragraph order and take charge of his fire team did not work in his favor. There were times when SNC reiterated certain briefing points which displayed a lack of confidence rather than a sense of clarity. Other than the Mission, SNC failed to brief all the key points of the order. SNC seemed unclear on the mission and what needed to get done although, SNC did verbally address an initial plan of how to attempt negotiation of the obstacle, prior to the actual execution. SNC made the vital mistake of not briefing nor posting security. Upon execution of the problem, SNC's initial plan did not appear to be well thought out and unsafe as he attempted to have his fire team along with himself

SNC did not calculate the correct distance to the objective. SNC tasked fire team members to set up the terrain model, but failed to verify and correct the mistakes they had made. SNC made eye contact with his squad members during the brief. SNC had poor vocal control, stumbling over his words and using filler words such as “uh” and “um” throughout the brief. SNC also briefed information in the wrong order and repeated information that he had already mentioned. During the execution, SNC had excellent control over his squad, making decisions quickly, giving commands clearly, and moving his subordinates with a sense of urgency. After the squad neutralized the enemy, SNC had the casualties brought to the objective location. When SNC attempted

Candidate Lofswold’s initial brief was succinct and covered the entirety of the five paragraph order and contained detailed information. Candidate Lofswold assigned ready, fire, and assist to his fire team, but did not establish an initial plan or specific tasks for the plan. Upon starting the evolution, Candidate Lofswold emphasized teamwork and communication, but because of the lack of planning, he encountered a point of friction requiring a rapid decision, which caused a loss of momentum. Candidate Lofswold briefly stepped out the situation to assess and supervise, causing another candidate to step in and provide directions to the rest of the fire team. Candidate Lofswold’s security detail was completely unaware of his surroundings and no

Candidate Kautz briefed a detailed orientation with confidence and clarity. His five paragraph order was complete and briefed thoroughly to his fire team. Candidate Kautz was not the first one on the platform and stood in the back attempting to control his fire team. This caused him to lose control of members and not fully understand the points of friction. Candidate Kautz failed to display a sense of urgency and make decisions quickly when asked by his fire team. Though he maintained confident, his decision making ability lacked. Once he identified his solution would not work, there was a pause of over two minutes in which he stopped to create another solution to the problem. His fire team appeared to respect SNC and he was clearly

Candidate Hosburgh’s brief delivery was at a normal tone and calm demeanor. His Orientation paragraph incorporated additional details from guidance he had received prior to SULE II. His scheme of maneuver provided a rough idea for what how he wanted to accomplish the mission, but did not go into enough detail, and after the brief his team leaders requested clarification on the initial plan. Following his brief, he got his teams moving and maintained this sense of urgency throughout execution. During execution, he periodically maintained track of the navigation and pace count. He positioned himself close to his team leaders and was able to control his unit through effective use of hand and arm signals. Upon contact, SNC provided a loud,

Candidate Smith only briefed what she was briefed by the instructor, completely failing to brief either admin and logistics or command and signal. Candidate Smith then brought her candidates on the objective, where the three who were not on security stared at the objective and suggested ways to traverse it. At no point was a coherent plan to complete the mission proposed. Candidate Smith immediately sought the advice of her fellow candidates without proposing an initial plan or creating guidelines of any kind. Candidate Smith was the tallest candidate in her fire team, but she delegated reaching the beam to shorter candidates, a misuse of the physical attributes she had at her disposal. Candidate Smith also failed to notice that one side of the obstacle had more clearance to utilize the rope than the other until nine minutes had already passed. Failing to take into account basic mission limitations was a trend, as Candidate Smith also did not account for the use of the rope, or how many candidates would be required to move the 55 gallon drum. Ultimately, no candidate traversed the obstacle, the first step to solving this

SNC briefed an incorrect objective and enemy location in his Orientation and Situation paragraphs. SNC's tasking statements did not indicate that SNC had thought ahead to possible obstacles during execution. SNC did not establish security while briefing his five paragraph order. SNC took over half of his time briefing his five paragraph order, and did not leave himself enough time to accomplish his mission within the allotted period. SNC allowed his navigator to stop to check their azimuth too often for such a short movement. SNC executed his plan and made a reasonable formation change prior to contact with the enemy based off the distance his team had traveled. SNC delivered a decent ADDRAC Report but failed to communicate or control his team

Candidate Passafume delivered an incomplete brief lacking confidence to his squad. SNC displayed a great amount of confusion as he relayed his brief. SNC failed to properly calculate a proper azimuth or the location of the objective. It was difficult for SNC to read his notes he had taken. SNC failed to properly summarize the Orientation; he simply briefed the coordinates of the current location and the objective. SNC failed to brief Attachments and detachments, as well as the Location of Key personnel. Lack of this information made it difficult for the team to fully comprehend, creating questions at the conclusion of the brief. At multiple times throughout the evolution of the scenario, security was addressed by members of the team. One candidate

Candidate Hoeptner briefed all major elements of the five paragraph order and managed to speak in an articulate manner; however, the content of his brief clearly lacked any executable plan and made little sense. SNC failed to address security, degrading his team's attention to the tactical environment. SNC failed to understand the contents of higher’s coordinating instructions and failed to comprehend the mission based on the problem presented and the obstacle in front of him. SNC’s inability to conceptualize relevant, applicable, and actionable plans and orders was only exacerbated by his inability to understand simple concepts presented to him. SNC made no attempt to formulate a plan prior to execution and adjustments to the plan he tried

Candidate Shuma delivered most of the elements of a five paragraph. He failed to brief the admin and logistics, command and signal paragraph, and did not brief an initial scheme of maneuver. As a result, he had to take some time during the execution to brief a plan to his fire team which delayed the start of the problem. During the execution, he failed to understand the mission and erroneously focused all his efforts in getting the ammo can across the bridge without him or his fire team also getting across. When a member of his fire team asked him if they needed to get over the obstacle too, SNC incorrectly said ‘no’ that it was only the ammo can and that they would be unable to cross due to there being a mine field. The fire team member pointed

SNC issued a complete five paragraph order that made sense and ensured all subordinates understood. SNC spoke in a regular voice expressing no confidence. SNC was able to develop an initial plan prior to starting the mission. During the mission, SNC came across some road blocks that forced SNC to make quick adjustments to his plan; however SNC relied on the suggestions of his subordinates. . SNC made the decision at the point of friction, to gather the fire team back to the starting point and restart the mission. SNC failed to properly supervise his subordinates, allowing each member of the fire team to slack off. SNC went for long periods without communicating, leaving the fire team to only communicate with each other. SNC did address security

Using G-STIC framework identify goals, strategy (target market(s) and value proposition), 5Cs+3Vs, and tactics for the First Class Trading (FCT).