Suggested Example
You may use the following example to relate the Hierarchy of Choices LO to the context of an ICT :
Tactics – training programme targeted at enhancing proficiency in the above areas
Strategy – individual VS company proficiency (ie. The notion that it takes proficient individuals to form a proficient company)
Vision – our unit vision (eg. to be Best Battalion)
Purpose – our unit mission (eg. sector defense)
Core Values – Our Own Values aligned to purpose (eg. Who are we as a unit? Unit Identity)
It is our Shared Values that identify WHO we are and that ultimately defines and characterises us.
Debrief:
(Levels of Hierarchy)
At what stages of the hierachy are the characters at?
1) Cpl who offered smoke (How: Objective/ Strategy) - He only knew that it is wrong to shoot POW, wrong to let him go later etc. He has an idea of how they should treat POWs. No vision, no purpose.
2) Pte First Class Brooklyn (How: Objective/ Strategy) – He wanted an eye for an eye. He knew he wanted to kill to get revenge. He has no alignment of his STRATEGY to his VISION, PURPOSE and VALUES. He probably did not think of how his planned revenge would actually aid in his participation or role in the war. Unclear of WHAT and the real WHY of his actions. Was his involvement in the war initially for revenge or something different?
3) SGM (What: Vision) – He knew that his job was to always support the Captain and orders. He had a vision about what his job is. He has no clear idea of WHY he has to support his officer.
4) CPT Miller (WHY: Purpose & WHO: Values) – Clear about his purpose ie. To go home and very sure about his personal values. He wanted to go back home and still be the same man who had left home some time back.
5) POW (No Choice, Which/How/What/Why/Who: Activities) – He was doing whatever it takes to be alive. No choice at all. No control over his wants.
Question: Will the group have avoided this situation had Miller shared his values with the group?
Alignment of their values is crucial so that they understand their involvement and resultant
You may use the following example to relate the Hierarchy of Choices LO to the context of an ICT :
Tactics – training programme targeted at enhancing proficiency in the above areas
Strategy – individual VS company proficiency (ie. The notion that it takes proficient individuals to form a proficient company)
Vision – our unit vision (eg. to be Best Battalion)
Purpose – our unit mission (eg. sector defense)
Core Values – Our Own Values aligned to purpose (eg. Who are we as a unit? Unit Identity)
It is our Shared Values that identify WHO we are and that ultimately defines and characterises us.
Debrief:
(Levels of Hierarchy)
At what stages of the hierachy are the characters at?
1) Cpl who offered smoke (How: Objective/ Strategy) - He only knew that it is wrong to shoot POW, wrong to let him go later etc. He has an idea of how they should treat POWs. No vision, no purpose.
2) Pte First Class Brooklyn (How: Objective/ Strategy) – He wanted an eye for an eye. He knew he wanted to kill to get revenge. He has no alignment of his STRATEGY to his VISION, PURPOSE and VALUES. He probably did not think of how his planned revenge would actually aid in his participation or role in the war. Unclear of WHAT and the real WHY of his actions. Was his involvement in the war initially for revenge or something different?
3) SGM (What: Vision) – He knew that his job was to always support the Captain and orders. He had a vision about what his job is. He has no clear idea of WHY he has to support his officer.
4) CPT Miller (WHY: Purpose & WHO: Values) – Clear about his purpose ie. To go home and very sure about his personal values. He wanted to go back home and still be the same man who had left home some time back.
5) POW (No Choice, Which/How/What/Why/Who: Activities) – He was doing whatever it takes to be alive. No choice at all. No control over his wants.
Question: Will the group have avoided this situation had Miller shared his values with the group?
Alignment of their values is crucial so that they understand their involvement and resultant