When an individual dedicates half of his life to learning about axiology, there are many people who must be acknowledged for providing the inspiration, support, enlightenment and focus. My partner in life, Vera, has truly been at the forefront in this endeavor. She is an axiologist in her own right. I don't know where I would be without her. My mentor early in my adult life, Dr. Robert S. Hartman, who provided the tutelage and guidance to let me see axiology as it is -- the science of value. Without his guidance and tutoring, I would not be where I am today. My fellow axiologists who are members of the Hartman Institute and have provided a sounding board for my ideas and hypotheses. Much thanks for their candid and constructive insights. There are many more individuals who should be acknowledged but there is no doubt that I would surely miss naming someone. So I will stop with the above list.

However, it is important that I acknowledge three other individuals who recently assisted Vera and me in honing the USAF Values Usage Exercise: Colonel (ret) Gregory J. Maciolek, USAF, a former Commander of a Fighter Group and of the Air National Guard's Professional Military Education Center in Knoxville, TN. We were introduced by way of a mutual friend who suggested we might want to talk about values and how they apply to the military culture. Greg is president of his own management consulting company. He further introduced us to Major Vicki Davis, a Traditional Guardsman with the Illinois Air National Guard. She is currently pursuing her doctorate at Peabody College at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN. Her previous assignment was the curriculum director of the Air National Guard Academy of Military Science, the precommissioning program which commissions officers for the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve. Her pursuit of designing and executing a top-notch precommissioning program which relies heavily on values and ethics is inspiring. She too is pursuing the consulting field with her own company. And finally an acknowledgment of the Academy of Military Science (AMS) and Captain Jawn Sischo who provided us with an opportunity to test the USAF VUE. Captain Sischo is currently transitioning from her position in the curriculum department at AMS to a new position at the Air National Guard Readiness Center at Andrews AFB. Her insights were valuable to properly evaluate the exercise as it pertains to the military professional.

To those mentioned above and to all who have contributed to my knowledge base, I will be forever grateful.

Our society enjoys the benefits of tremendous technological achievements, but this technical know-how has not yet been successfully applied to ethics. The moral problems which persist throughout the world present the greatest challenge for our society as we approach the 21st century. Our joining together to share ideas at the Joint Services Conference on Professional Ethics (JSCOPE) is evidence that we are meeting this challenge head-on. In the past, most efforts toward improvement have been reactive, and it is encouraging that we are exploring proactive alternatives. The first proactive step toward improving any situation is to raise awareness. This paper introduces the Values Usage Exercise (VUE), a tool for raising awareness about essential positive values and for better implementing them.

Values Axces was given a summary of three core values associated with officership in the United States Air Force. The Honorable Sheila E. Widnall, Secretary of the Air Force, identified integrity, service and excellence as three simple words that epitomize the core of the military profession. General Ronald R. Fogleman, Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, says, "These ideals are of the heart and soul of our military profession: Integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all we do." The Biennial Commissioning Education Committee states that these values along with their associated values should be heavily emphasized throughout all USAF curriculum areas.

These values were sorted into three dimensions using axiology, the science of value (explained below). Then, a values exercise was constructed consisting of 36 sentences, with three completion alternatives each to rank according to agreement. Each of the nine core values is addressed in 4 sentences: 2 pertaining to how officers perceive the USAF implementing the value, and 2 focusing on how the officer personally identifies with the value. The VUE results are also organized according to value science and focus on improving each person's understanding about the interface between professional and personal values.

There are two major benefits of the VUE process:

1. It fosters positive feedback and discussion of where the USAF organization and its members are strong, and helps identify specific development opportunities for groups and individuals.
2. It tends to improve balance and integration between professional and personal values for better symmetry. To the degree value symmetry is achieved, more individual potential and performance energy is released and channeled.

This specific VUE exercise process designed for the USAF can be used in the same way for other branches of the military or any organization. The VUE process is easy to understand and use. The following ten points cover the process, from the general understanding of value and the foundation structure of value science, to an interpretation of VUE group results from 64 USAF officer candidates in a precommissioning class at the Academy of Military Science (AMS) at McGhee Tyson Air Base at Knoxville, Tennessee.

When we think about values there are several different perspectives included in our collective understanding. Generally, value means worthwhileness. Value comes from a Latin word meaning to be worth. From a personal perspective, values are commonly understood as preferences or indicators for what we hold dear. Values are the reasons we like a person or thing. They are considered primary motivators for actions; the drivers toward goal achievement. In economic or market terms, value is the amount of a commodity that is equivalent to something else, such as goods, services or money. There are also certain terminal values considered worthwhile in themselves education, religion, and freedom, to name a few. In mathematics, value is a particular quantitative determination of increase or decrease. To have a definition of value in general, it is necessary to identify what all these specific values have in common.

An integrated discipline for dealing with all kinds of value has recently emerged in axiology, the science of value. Axiology introduces scientific order to the subject of value based on a systematic integration of all perspectives, sorted by different levels of meaning and emphasis. To further clarify this, more about the structure of science itself and the logical form of value is outlined below.

Science is the gatekeeper for knowledge. Knowledge claims are accepted or rejected according to scientific standards. These standards provide definite procedures and experiments for demonstrating the elements of knowledge. The standards of scientific legitimation evolve over time, marked by changes in the general form or model. A change in the basic model of science is often called a paradigm shift. A paradigm is the general structure for a system of thought. In recent years, there has been much discussion about the new paradigm indicating a fundamental change in knowledge systems, a new way of thinking.

The major shift in the standards of knowledge claims is from a mono-polar or bi-polar form to multi-polar. When Galileo first demonstrated the telescope, pointing out Jupiter's moons to the scholars at the time, they claimed not to see them, because the knowledge paradigm did not allow it. This signaled the end of the mono-polar thought system and began the bi-polar, from the single authority of the church to the dual authority of the church plus natural science. At the turn of this century, the paradigm began to shift once again, and now our understanding of the material universe is radically different, evident in the harnessing of atomic energy. Recently, the need for better prediction models for the weather and other dynamic systems have led science to a new frontier known as complexity theory, which interrelates many dimensions or poles of knowledge. This new paradigm is spreading to all branches of knowledge, and has become the basis for establishing a science of value.

Concerning the overall structure of thought systems, the shift to a tri-polar model was perhaps best established by Edmund Husserl, an Austrian mathematician and philosopher, in his work on the three basic meaning levels of logic (The Formal and Transcendental Logic). The current general model for science is multi-dimensional. Axiology, the science of value, is one of the new sciences with a foundation framework interrelating three basic dimensions.

For centuries, value was a subject of philosophy. Throughout the history of philosophy and moral theology, many analogies about value or goodness can be found, but a basic formal insight into the concept that covers all perspectives was not achieved until the work of G. E. Moore in Principia Ethica, written only 95 years ago. Moore found that good depends on the set of natural properties of a thing, but good is not one of the natural properties. This implies that good or value is a secondary property about the collective or given set of natural properties. Although Moore did not work out the implications of his discovery, it did set the stage for a leap forward. Philosophy is considered to be the mother of science, and philosophical value eventually gave birth to scientific value. A scientific or axiomatic definition was achieved in the Structure of Value, a benchmark work on the subject by Robert S. Hartman, published in 1967.

Hartman combined the primary insight of Moore with the three dimensions of meaning from Husserl's phenomenology to establish the foundations of the first science of value. Hartman first defined the concept of value in terms of a logic-based axiom. This axiom is that value can be objectively determined according to a one-to-one correspondence between the properties of a given object and the meaning specifications contained in its concept. An object has value to the degree it fulfills its concept. The concept meaning becomes the measure of the value of its referent. Then, he put this axiom into the context of three-dimensional phenomenological meaning. There are three categories of concepts differentiated by levels of meaning with the fulfillment of each determining three kinds of value. An extensive explanation goes beyond the scope of this paper, but an example may make it clear.

Concept Meaning	Value Kind	Example (element)
1. synthetic (universal)	1. systemic (S)	1. AU
2. analytic (particular)	2. extrinsic (E)	2. gold
3. singular (unique)	3. intrinsic (I)	3. my wedding ring

In common terms, values are ways and means by which importance is determined - absolutely and by degree. The logical structure of value in the foundation concepts of axiology provides the framework for understanding an object's value and valuations of it, in precise terms of the three dimensions and their relation to each other. Values spread themselves in distinct patterns through the structure of language.

The distinction between the given and the chosen is easily understood by means of multi-dimensional value analysis. Every object of interest can be separated into parts. This document is a ready example. It has a cover, several pages, words in print, a certain type style, a specific subject matter and explanation, and it is written in the English language. It has a certain size and weight, a certain feel, and a certain impact on our understanding - all properties of the document are part of its objective value. Values identify specific meanings. Each part of this document has its own meaning or value. When one part is singled out or chosen according to a specific meaning - a subjective valuation has been made. Any part of the given value set, when emphasized as something meaningful, is a subjective value determination. Personal or subjective values are the way the meaning of something is emphasized as the focus of interest. Optimal value is captured when objective value and subjective valuation are integrated in a dimensional balance or symmetry. There are three different levels of meaning. Their fulfillment produces three kinds of objective value. There are also three levels of meaning whose fulfillment produces three kinds of subjective valuation.

The dimensions of objective value:

1. Schematic meaning: systemic value (exact measures according to standards)
   Example: This paper has a certain number of pages, all 8.5 X 11.5 inches
2. Extended meaning: extrinsic value (appearance and function)
   Example: This paper is made of wood fibers, smooth, with black ink.
3. Individual meaning: intrinsic value (unique or irreplaceable)
   Example: This paper contains information which is unique.

The dimensions of subjective valuation:

1. Mental identification: structural valuation (choice by knowledge / memory)
   Example: I know or have heard about this paper.
2. Comparative choice: energetic valuation (practical /action choice)
   Example: I can use this paper for many purposes.
3. Internalization: integrated valuation (intuitive/feeling merging)
   Example: I love this paper - it can edify me.

In an organization, there is a spectrum of professional values interrelated with personal values. The VUE process is an exercise in value choices among values sorted into the three objective value dimensions with alternatives expressed in terms of the three dimensions of subjective valuation. The result is a profile of the interface between professional value and personal valuation.

Once the basics of value structure are understood, it can be used to develop more potential in organizations and individuals. An analogy to physics shows how. When physicists split an atom of uranium, tremendous energy is released (fission). The opposite is also true. When two atoms of hydrogen are fused together, an atom of helium is produced, also releasing tremendous energy (fusion). When conflicting values are put together, energy is released, and like fission, the result is negative or chaotic. When values are put together harmoniously, energy is released, and like fusion, the result is positive.

When individuals come together in an organization, values often conflict, and energy is wasted. When there is a harmonious integration of values, the energy released can be captured and utilized for positive growth and development. The fusion of values opens the door to greater energy flow and creative collaboration. Likewise in each individual the relation between personal and social/cultural values can either conflict or harmonize. Value science can guide our efforts to reduce conflict and to establish harmony. This is what the VUE is designed to do: capture more of this energy and put it to productive use through establishing greater harmony among the different dimensions of values.

Ethics is about how we understand and build the best character, and, based on that understanding, how we treat each other as human beings. Using the three dimensions of axiology, ethics addresses what is right and wrong legally, socially, and morally. The axiological ideal is an integration among the three.

Throughout history many ways of understanding ethics have been formulated. These methods can also be divided into three groups applying the three dimensions of axiology:

1. Systematic codes (legal, political, and financial ordering systems)
2. Situational means-ends approaches (social, cultural norms, and traditions)
3. Spiritual guides and teachings (religion).

All societies adopt one or more of these, in some form, to establish a foundation of social order and stability. Axiology can integrate all three groups according to the logical order of value. The ordering of ethics according to a logic structure of value is a very new approach for ethical problems and related issues. The approach is positive and constructive, emphasizing building values and unfolding value potential for both individuals and organizations. This focus replaces negative, reactive approaches.

Today, the public interest in values and ethics is greater than ever before in history. Exercises in dealing with different sets of values according to axiology can provide an effective first step in raising awareness about values and in ethics training (ethics = good character). The process of developing values/ethics is anchored in our cultural origins. One of history's greatest lessons in ethics is the main theme of Aristotle's Ethics: "all living things aim toward a purpose, or grow in such a way to develop built-in potential." The program of instruction provided in Ethics to develop good character is clear and easy to follow:

1. Recognize that each person has built-in potential that can be developed, and that this development is the process of building the best character. Through observing others, it is apparent that some develop their potential, and some do not. It is instructive to note the difference.
2. Imitate excellence that others have already developed and avoid imitating those who have not developed their potential.
3. Practice this imitation of excellence at all times and in every way possible. This consistent practice establishes good habits and behavior.
4. Reflect on these habits and confirm that you are developing your own built-in potential toward becoming the very best person you can be.

The Values Usage Exercise (VUE) presented here, provides an introductory tool for assisting people in understanding the first stage of ethics: awareness of value potential. The VUE structure is very flexible because it can be filled in with any given set of values. The VUE is customized for targeting specific value goals, and specific VUEs are available for personal or organizational development needs. All VUE exercises focus on how people currently use values. The values within each VUE are divided into two parts: objective and subjective (professional and personal).

The Values Usage Exercise (VUE) was recently completed by a group of executives at one of our nation's largest corporations. The facilitator for the group meeting was pleasantly surprised at the effectiveness of the VUE in focusing on specific problems and what could be done about them. The most remarkable benefit from the VUE process was the time involved - less than 2 hours.

The Values Usage Exercise (VUE) is designed to help people better understand their value potential to reach higher levels of personal success and achievement. It is used as a first step in raising awareness about values. The VUE is constructed according to a sentence completion format with only positive value alternatives (Rokeach), and each set of alternatives includes one example from each of the axiological dimensions: I, E, and S. The core meaning of each sentence is repeated 4 times from different perspectives: two objective and two subjective. This construction provides high face validity to the exercise, and all who complete the VUE believe their value decision system has been thoroughly examined.

This structure was chosen because people use language to express the meaning they see in the world and in themselves. Value language is important because different value expressions reflect the uniqueness of each person. The results obtained from the VUE depict this unique individual value pattern. The main assumption is that developing individual potential is a process of both improving performance and of building personal strength. This is a process of becoming the very best a person can be.

The results are provided in a value circle format sub-divided into three dimensions for each of the two major parts: professional and personal. These three dimensions are used to measure values in a similar way to measuring volume: in length, width, and depth. Values are measured according to definition (ideal), exposition (practical application), and totality (uniqueness). These three measures of value have technical terms covered above. The definition is linguistic structure and is termed systemic. The practical application is action-oriented and is termed extrinsic. The total meaning or uniqueness is termed intrinsic. The following pages show in more detail how these three dimensions are used in the USAF VUE and its results.

The USAF VUE follows in appendix with the group results from an officer precommissioning class at the Academy of Military Science (AMS) at McGhee Tyson Air National Guard Base in Knoxville, Tennessee. The USAF Value Circle is organized according to axiology. Value is meaning, and there are three different dimensions which specify three kinds of value. The USAF values are sorted into these three dimensions, indicated by bold lines. Each section of the circle represents one of the USAF's core values, which fit into the three value dimensions as follows:

1. Intrinsic values (I): This dimension includes holistic values. The intrinsic value of an organization, service or person is always about the unique totality. The organization's members are the richest source of intrinsic value. The singular effort and contribution of each person combines with others to form the organization's distinctive personality and integrity, and is the foundation of its image.

   USAF intrinsic values: pride, courage and integrity
   

2. Extrinsic values (E): This dimension includes mission-oriented and action values of on-going processes and daily practice. Extrinsic values include all the details of work processes, performance of individuals and work teams, and all materials and inputs that contribute to the execution and accomplishment of missions and services.

   USAF extrinsic values: initiative, excellence and selflessness
   

3. Systemic values (S): This dimension includes systems and established organizational values. These values are the basic elements required for an organization to be maintained and expand. A sound chain of command, clearly defined plans and systems, established policies and procedures, as well as objective performance standards are key systemic values which provide the foundation on which a defense organization can grow.

   USAF systemic values: self-discipline, patriotism and loyalty

A symmetry or balance among values in the three dimensions is most effective for the growth and development of the organization.

Life is a multi-dimensional blend of value emphasis - there is no single pattern of relating to value and valuation which fits all situations. The key is to choose the most appropriate for each situation, and, in an organization or team, to integrate all values and cover all the bases. The results from completing the USAF VUE are shown on the USAF Value Circles. The key below explains the choice of emphasis for each of the nine USAF values. The choices are scored according to these three emphasis levels, and suggest a corresponding degree of involvement. All emphasis levels are positive. The choice of emphasis indicates a decision style or preferred response to established organizational values.

1. Integrated emphasis (I): This focus includes high concern for individuals, relationships, and the big picture with regard to USAF values. An officer or group strong in this emphasis is visionary, with the capacity to see the value holistically, as well as the relation of its parts, emphasizing how the organization has integrated concern for people and the greater good with all other values. Integrated emphasis suggests highly developed sensitivity and people skills, as well as the ability to combine concern for people with concern for established systems and performance. Also reflected, is internalization or personal identification with USAF values.
2. Energetic emphasis (E): This preference shows a practical or mission-oriented involvement with USAF values. An officer or group strong in this kind of valuation tends to emphasize how to make the desired outcome happen, and practices the values in on-going work tasks. This action orientation suggests that the values are being used as guidelines for greater job effectiveness. Energetic emphasis suggests initiative and action-oriented talents and skills: implementation of and follow-through with the plan, goal-setting and achievement, attention to process details, and efficiency in meeting work schedules and completing the mission.
3. Structural emphasis (S): This focus indicates a structural orientation toward USAF values as the logic that guides. Systems emphasis reflects conformity to how the USAF has defined and established the value. Officers or groups strong in this kind of valuation have a systems orientation and look for stability and certainty as a foundation for action. These individuals like order, clarity and definite rules as the primary focus for promoting USAF values. They are at ease dealing with clear and distinct guidelines and plans, and find this certainty in organizational rules and standards. Structural emphasis suggests knowledge-based talents and skills: planning, organizing, and clarity about and commitment to established rules, policies, procedures, and standards.

Values Axces is a multi-faceted consulting firm. The name, "VALUES AXCES" expresses what the organization does: providing access to building greater positive value for organizations and individuals. "AXCES" is an acronym for AX-iological C-omprehensive E-valuation S-ystem. This name reflects its grounding in Axiology, the logic-based (formal) science of value. Axiology is a quantitative system for measuring any concept or set of core values, and provides a universal frame of reference for understanding a person's perceptions and behavior. Values Axces provides many different kinds of value products and services.

Over the past few years Values Axces has developed a new systematic process to address organizational or individual value problems. This new service is the "VUE" (values usage exercise) system, which builds on 25 years experience with the Hartman Value Profile (HVP). The distinctive difference of this system is that it is not empirically derived; the norm is not statistically generated, but deductive, or defined mathematically by value logic. The VUE system is both diagnostic and educational. It helps raise awareness about an individual's values, and the results focus on concrete steps to develop more professional and personal potential. Benefits of the VUE: easy to use, self administering, cost effective, quick and complete graphic overview, raises awareness of values, identifies strengths and development opportunities, targets training and helps build effective work teams.

For further information or references, contact:

David Mefford, Ph.D.
Values Axces
2620 Old Highway 25-E
Morristown, TN 37813
Phone: (423) 585-5885
Fax: (423) 585-5890

A. The USAF VUE Group Report

B. Graphics

C. Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: To clarify USAF values and open and promote values discussions. Also, to determine how USAF values are understood and implemented by teams and individuals. To identify strengths where values are well understood and internalized, as well as development opportunities.

METHODOLOGY: Officership is defined by the Biennial Commissioning Education Committee as the understanding of and committing to the unique combination of responsibilities and values required of officers in the profession of arms and the service of their country. Values Axces was given a summary of core USAF values and characteristics associated with officership. It is stated that these values should be heavily emphasized throughout all USAF commissioning programs curriculum areas. From these, a custom VUE (Values Usage Exercise) was designed, and completed by a class of 64 students at the Air National Guard Professional Military Education Center in the precommissioning program. Only eight of these students were non-priors. Four questions were constructed for each USAF value on the pie chart. Two questions are objective, and relate to how the USAF currently implements or emphasizes that value. The other two questions are subjective, and concern personal identification with and commitment to USAF values.

OBJECTIVE GROUP COMPOSITE

ALL VALUES:

The objective group composite shows that all possible choices on the USAF VUE were selected as number one by at least three persons in the class. This indicates a heterogeneous group that perceives sufficient diversity of value emphasis, reflecting that the United States Air Force currently provides some focus on all value components. The darker shaded areas indicate where the class sees the heaviest concentration of USAF emphasis. The lighter shaded areas indicate moderate emphasis, and the white areas indicate relatively low USAF emphasis on that value, as perceived by the class. The following is a summary of the group results for each of the nine USAF core values. Please note that class percentages listed pertain to first choice only.

SPECIFIC VALUES:

PRIDE: Regarding pride, the class perceived USAF's E emphasis to be strongest:

49% chose exceeding standards of conduct and appearance;
36% chose pride in training and combat.

USAF's S emphasis was perceived as moderate:

20% chose adhering to policies and procedures;
28% chose the prestigious reputation of USAF.

USAF's I emphasis was also perceived as moderate:

31% chose maintaining personal dignity and respect;
36% chose professional dignity and respect.

All emphasis patterns were selected, and USAF strength in this value is reflected in its active, ongoing emphasis on taking and expressing pride in its conduct, appearance and training.

COURAGE: The group perceived USAF's S emphasis to be strongest with respect to courage:

61% chose personnel showing courage through decisiveness with full knowledge of risks;
19% chose fearlessness.

USAF's E emphasis was perceived as moderate:

57% chose initiating action and following through;
7% chose boldly moving ahead.

USAF's I emphasis was also perceived as moderate:

31% chose personal convictions and will to prevail;
24% chose backbone and true grit.

All emphasis patterns were selected, and USAF's strength in this value is demonstrated in the high standards of its personnel: knowing the potential risks, yet acting and following through decisively.

INTEGRITY: The class perceived USAF's E emphasis to be strongest in promoting integrity:

51% chose responsible actions and interpersonal conduct;
55% chose spirited service.

USAF's S emphasis was perceived as moderate:

30% chose intolerance of dishonesty;
36% chose justice for all.

USAF's I emphasis was perceived as low:

19% chose sincerity and trustworthiness;
9% chose honor is taught by emphasizing compassion.

This indicates that USAF personnel are viewed as actively and consistently demonstrating integrity in their service and behavior.

INITIATIVE: The class perceived USAF's E emphasis to be strongest with respect to initiative:

44% chose maintaining initiative through adaptability and resourcefulness;
55% chose calculating risks and consequences.

USAF's I emphasis was perceived as moderate:

48% chose willingness and instinct to move ahead;
20% chose encouraging independence and creativity.

USAF's S emphasis was perceived as low:

8% chose follow-through on a plan, without direction;
25% chose encouraging anticipation and preparation for change.

USAF's strength in this value is demonstrated in its encouragement of personnel to get in the habit of weighing risks and consequences and to exercise creativity and independence. This enables personnel to be resourceful, adapt well, and move instinctively, as needed.

EXCELLENCE: Regarding excellence, the class perceived USAF's E emphasis to be strongest:

22% chose challenge for performance improvement;
82% chose promoting skill training and proficiency.

USAF's S emphasis was seen as moderate:

50% chose insistence on high standards;
9% chose the merit system.

USAF's I emphasis was perceived as low:

28% chose encouragement to achieve one's personal best;
9% chose promoting competence through first-rate role models.

This indicates that USAF strength in this value area is perceived in high standards for excellence set forth in training to ensure highest competence.

SELFLESSNESS: The group perceived USAF's I emphasis highest in this value:

30% chose willingness to sacrifice personal needs;
71% chose willingness to sacrifice self.

USAF's E emphasis was perceived as moderate:

28% chose mission completion above all;
19% chose part of performing the job.

USAF's S emphasis was also perceived as moderate:

42% chose commitment to the greater cause;
10% chose unselfish devotion as required for the greater good.

All emphasis patterns were selected, indicating the USAF is perceived as emphasizing all areas, but in particular, the integrated, big picture, which includes not only willingness to sacrifice personal needs, but one's own self/life in the commitment to the greater cause.

SELF-DISCIPLINE: Regarding this area, the class perceives USAF'S emphasis to be strongest:

31% chose self-discipline to insure mission completion under stress;
72% chose it as essential to provide organizational structure.

USAF's E emphasis was perceived as moderate:

20% chose functions to improve all professional qualities;
11% chose for efficient division of labor.

USAF's I emphasis was also perceived as moderate:

38% chose internalizes respect for self and others;
17% chose to maintain group solidarity.

USAF strength is demonstrated in the fact that all emphasis patterns were selected, with highest emphasis on self-discipline as the essential value that provides organizational structure, which aids in mission completion and internalizes respect.

PATRIOTISM: The group perceives USAF's S emphasis as strongest in this area:

6% chose the essence of being an officer;
86% chose defending our nation's sovereignty.

USAF's I emphasis was also perceived as very strong:

64% chose love and devotion to one's country;
5% chose faithful service to the public good.

USAF's E emphasis was seen as moderate:

30% chose supporting and defending the Constitution;
5% chose carrying out civic and national actions.

All emphasis patterns were selected, with USAF's greatest strength regarding patriotism evidenced in safeguarding our national freedom and personal liberty by defending our nation's sovereignty, and demonstrating love and devotion to our country.

LOYALTY: The class perceives USAF's I emphasis highest regarding this value:

31% chose loyalty is demonstrated by encouraging professional and personal ethics;
50% chose personal responsibility and accountability.

USAF's E emphasis was seen as moderate:

38% chose through supportive team effort;
23% chose active commitment to team efforts.

USAF's S emphasis was also perceived as

31% chose in uncompromising standards;
27% chose the ethical code of honor.

USAF is perceived to cover all emphasis patterns, with the greatest strength demonstrated in its personnel putting integrated emphasis on the big picture: being personally responsible and accountable, and supporting the efforts of the team or force.

The objective group composite of the USAF Value Circle shows that the energetic (E) emphasis is perceived by the class to be the greatest strength of the USAF, with its focus on action, mission and the necessary process and training that it takes for personnel to actually do their best. Structural (S) emphasis and Integrated (I) emphasis are also seen as strong, but secondary to the focus on doing. The objective group composite pattern is E > (I =S), the practical. This is a characterization of how the officers in the group perceive USAF is implementing the nine core values.

DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES:

The USAF may consider putting more emphasis on those areas which are white on the circle, which indicates perception of weak emphasis. These include the integrated emphasis on integrity, the structural emphasis on initiative, and the integrated emphasis on excellence.

GROUP VALUE STYLE DISTRIBUTION:

The group distribution among the 13 possible objective value emphasis patterns is shown below. The distribution decreases toward the bottom of the value logic deduction. However, a much larger group would be necessary for a definite determination of the organization's overall value orientation.

Value Logic Pattern	Objective Value Style	Number of Officers
1. I = E = S	BALANCED	5
2. (I = E) > S	FACILITATOR	8
3. (I = S) > E	DIRECTOR	7
4. (E = S) > I	EFFICIENT	6
5. I > (E = S)	SUPPORTIVE	10
6. E > (I = S)	PRACTICAL	7
7. S > (I = E)	SYSTEMATIC	5
8. I > E > S	COLLABORATOR	6
9. I > S > E	DIPLOMAT	1
10. E > I > S	ADVISOR	3
11. E > S > I	OPERATOR	2
12. S > I > E	ORGANIZER	2
13. S > E > I	PLANNER	2

GROUP FEEDBACK:

Only 51 of 64 students returned the USAF VUE survey. Of these, 94% agreed or strongly agreed that this instrument will assist in values discussions. Eighty-four percent agreed that the instrument helped them to understand how they view the USAF.

SUBJECTIVE GROUP COMPOSITE:

The subjective group composite shows that all possible choices on the USAF VUE were selected as number one by at least 3 persons in the class. The greatest strength of the group is its consistent integrated (I) emphasis on all nine core values, reflecting the internalization of all USAF values. Particular strength is seen in the areas of courage, loyalty and patriotism, indicating that these values have been fully internalized, heart and soul. Structural (S) emphasis on the values is secondary, and reflects moderate to strong identification with and commitment to knowledge of USAF values and standards, and self-discipline. The energetic (E) emphasis on USAF values (except in the area of selflessness) was moderate. The subjective group composite pattern is I > S > E, the idealist. This is a characterization of how the officers in the group perceive themselves as currently implementing USAF's nine core values. In summary, the group members know who they are, with all their talent and potential, and have a good idea of where they want to go in the future. They have the mental understanding of and commitment to these values, and identify personally with them. The group is motivated to put its talents into action, and may be somewhat dissatisfied that actual utilization of their talents is not happening as quickly as they desire.

Graphics

Aristotle, Ethics: The Basic Works of Aristotle, Edited by Richard McKeon. New York: Random House, 1941.

Blanchard, Susanne. A Study of Husserl's Formal and Transcendental Logic, Translated by Lester E. Embree. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1968.

Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge, Translated by A.M. Sharidan Smith. First Edition. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1976.

Hartman, Robert S. The Structure of Value, First Edition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1967.

Husserl, Edmund. Cartesianische Meditationen, Second Edition. Haag: Martinus Nijhoff, 1963.

Husserl, Edmund, Formale und Transzendentale Logik, Second Edition. Haag: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974.

Keen, Ernest. The Three Faces of Being: Toward an Existential Clinical Psychology, First Edition. NewYork: Meredith Corporation, 1970.

Moore, G.E. Principia Ethica, First Edition, Cambridge: University Press, 1903.

Rokeach, M. Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968.

Watkins, Steven, Emphasizing Core Values/Fogleman Forges Onward to Change the Ethical Climate, Air Force Times, January 6, 1997 Issue.