Case Study Of Candidate Provines

Mission orders may be understood by the leader’s subordinates, however poor training and development amongst other practices may hinder the execution of the commander’s intent. Everything starts with training. Rehearsals are key in knowing what to do and how to react when the time comes. The team may know what to do through the orders, however they will not know how to perform tasks if

Candidate Davis delivered his 5 paragraph order covering most of the key points associated with the order. SNC’s orientation was confusing; SNC briefed that the current location was where the cache was located, then proceeded to state that the fire team needed to advance to the second set of grid points to complete the objective. This information is confusing and is proof that the fire team leader did not fully comprehend the order briefed to him. SNC stuttered consistently, displaying his uncertainty of the information that he was relaying. SNC improperly stated his TCM’s and informed his team they would utilize a column formation from the “assault to attack” and a column from the “attack to assault”. Upon reaching the objective, the fire

Candidate Vrountas displayed enthusiastic mindset from the outset that motivated his fire team. While his order missed some details, specifically the scheme of maneuver, his fire team came out of it ready to execute whatever was directed. SNC was able to get his fire team working towards the mission after only a short pause while he formulated a plan. Once he gave direction his fire team began to execute effectively until they ran into friction points. At these points, the motivational drive inspired initially by Candidate Vrountas began to waiver. SNC’s inability to identify some of these challenges led to his fire team members becoming hesitant to follow his direction. Despite this, Candidate Vrountas maintained his role as the leader

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 understood all of the instructions very well and used his time wisely in order to develop an initial plan for the problem. SNC covered all of the information pertained to the five paragraph order. SNC developed his initial plan for the fire team to conduct, however the plan did not include security. The plan helped benefit the fire team and gave the SNC more confidence as the mission progress evident his tone of voice his ability to specifically task individual candidates. SNC effectively communicated the tasks and ensured SNC’s subordinates understood the instructions by having them repeat the instructions he gave them. SNC was able to overcome friction while remaining in control, by adjusting his plan as the situation developed. SNC periodically

Candidate Sharp demonstrated a basic understanding of the five paragraph order, but did not clearly articulate his words, paused intermittently, and rushed through parts of his brief. SNC failed to develop an executable plan and did not brief any tasking statements to his team. SNC also ended the brief and then went back to finish it after he had already begun executing the mission. After a suggestion from another candidate, SNC delegated security to a team member. Another team member would continually ignore SNC while executing the obstacle. However, SNC lacked the command presence and communication skills to correct the candidate or recognize the need to replace him at a key location. SNC had difficulty leading multiple candidates and failed

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 Goff immediately addressed security before briefing his order. SNC briefed in a rushed manner using many “ums” and “uhs,” showing he lacked confidence in his plan. When briefing, he referred to the scenario as an obstacle instead of treating it as a tactical situation. His fast brief was difficult for his fire team to follow, evident by their confusion at the beginning of the mission even though the initial plan was well developed. SNC had to direct his fire team’s actions he had just briefed in order for them to execute. This candidate lost his tactical and situational awareness, evident by his loud instructions throughout the task and the fire team dragging their weapons through the sewer tunnel making the execution extremely loud.

Candidate Long’s performance was extremely impressive. He started his problem by conducting a detailed leader’s reconnaissance and developing a practical solution to the problem. SNC briefed his peers with confidence and clarity. His order was only missing the “when” part of the mission statement. He was one of the few who physically set in his security and established fields of fire. He lead by example by being the first candidate on the platform and used critical thinking to develop his plan by examining the weights of each member of his fire team. He acted with a sense of urgency but remained calm and collective. Once he established the bridge to complete the problem, he quickly realized he needed the ammo can and sent a candidate

SNC did not initially ensure 360 degree security at the assembly area. SNC’s enemy situation lacked significant details. SNC’s friendly situation was not briefed in the proper format. SNC’s scheme of maneuver was not complete enough to be executed and his tasking statements did not have an associated purpose. At the beginning of execution SNC attempted to give a command to his fire team leaders to get ready to begin their movement; when nobody in his squad responded he announced that fire team leaders had 30 seconds to get ready to move. SNC was an ineffective communicator; he attempted hand and arm signals after receiving indirect fire and would give vague tasks to unspecified individuals instead of his fire team leaders. Upon enemy contact

Candidate Kidd delivered a complete and sequential five paragraph order. Throughout his entire brief, SNC had several pauses due to obvious signs of nervousness and dependency on his OSMEAC template. Nonetheless, his order contained sufficient information for his fire team to execute the mission. During the execution phase, SNC moved his fire team with a sense of urgency as instructed by the order. He was knowledgeable to place them in a column formation for maximum speed. When SNC received unexpected enemy contact, and subsequently received a casualty, he quickly reacted by returning fire and aiding proper aid to the casualty. SNC responded well and in a calm matter during the chaotic situation. Once reaching the objective, SNC was conscious

During Candidate Goldsbrough's delivery of the order, he appeared to be nervous in front of his peers. SNC lacked command presence in the beginning and it showed to his team members. SNC developed an initial plan but it was very vague, this lead to the development of a poor plan. As they began the execution phase, Candidate Goldsbrough failed to communicate directions to his subordinates and confusion set in. This caused the entire team stand in confusion without instructions. SNC did not employ the fire team effectively and valuable minutes were wasted stopping forward progression of movement. As the mission proceeded, Candidate Goldsbrough gained more confidence and began to employ the fire in a manner that would accomplish the task. SNC

Candidate Allen briefed his order with above standard confidence. He showed a high understanding of the orders process by clearly explaining both a scheme of maneuver and detailed tasks for each subordinate. During execution, he utilized mission type orders and additional clear tasking statements to achieve his vision of the scheme of maneuver. When his initial plan failed, there was a brief period of time where he began to micromanage movements and lose his position to supervise the team. During this time, he broke down his security early and left the team defenseless. Candidate Allen showed a strong desire to accomplish the mission when his subordinates began to complain that the mission was not possible and he used a true force of will

Leadership comes from top down and in this case Col Parker needs to enhance her transactional leadership tools from Management by Exception to Contingent Reward or CR (discussed later in the plan of action) and strengthen her transformational leadership. She exhibits individual consideration by treating the members within the wing as family, not just subordinates. She has the people behind her simply because they know she genuinely cares about them and their well-being. This can be capitalized on as part of a new campaign to put an end to the mishaps. MSgt Jones and Mr. DeBurgh have a plethora of experience between the two of them that can be harnessed and developed. I will provide the intellectual stimulation (IS) for these team members to get them back in the game to provide ideas for a new safety campaign. Mr. DeBurgh eluded that he has ideas on how this problem can be conquered based on prior experiences and MSgt Jones can possibly provide cutting edge technologies in mishap prevention from the classes he takes. SSgt Williamson is ready and willing to work wherever she is needed. She’s been placed in an administrative role, but her passion regarding the recent mishaps surpasses her knowledge of file plans. She is a young innovative thinker and can provide great support in the campaign. SSgt Williamson, along with Lt Johnson, could