"Tony,
An interesting list.
1. Was there any commonality about their relationship with the
commander/supervisory staff?
2. Was there a commanality about the positions of power and influence
they
achieved during their careers? (all check-airman, supervisors themselves,
etc.)
3. Was there any indication on when, during their aviator development,
the "rogue" behavior started to emerge, and was that also similar?
4. Did any of the "Failing Aviator" traits or Life-stressors
(Reinhart)
correlate?"
Let me answer these in turn, but first caution you that this is research
in progress -- meaning I don't have sufficient numbers, and haven't had
sufficient time to provide truth with a capital "T". Having said that let
me answer the best I can.
1. In most, but not all cases, the ability to project themselves and
their accomplishments positively to superiors was noted. However, the old
saw, "you can't fool all of the people all of the time" was also true.
Peers and subordinates were not fooled, but some still became "groupies"
-- attesting to the mystique and charisma which tends to surround a rogue.
2. Regarding positions of power and influence, with minor exceptions,
rogues seem to be in upper mid level positions. Examples include Bud
Holland as Chief of Standards and Evaluation, Marcus Arnheither (Navy
Destroyer captain), and Nick Leeson (Barings Bank wrecker).
3. As to "when" the rogue behavior began to appear, I haven't bee able to
get to that level of depth (yet). Most stories I get are "after the fact"
and will require considerable time to dig at the roots. There are always
opinions of course, like "Bud went bad when he didn't get a squadron
command." but I don't put much stock in Monday morning quarterbacking. I
need to do the research and see if there is evidence out there to help
answer this one.
4. I haven't looked at the "life stressor" or "failing aviator" criteria
yet either, but from what I recall of most of these men, they were
otherwise well adjusted and successful. Once again, more research is
needed.
I hope this has been of some help. I obviously am at an embryonic stage
in this research. I am still looking for more examples, so if you think
you might have one, please let me know and I will be back with you.
I have to share one humorous fact associated with my research in this
area. When I first presented the "The Dangers of the Rogue Practioner"
preliminary data at a regional conference, I inadvertantly misspelled my
title as follows: "The Dangers of the Rouge Practioner." It was a good
attention step, but many in the audience wondered if I had made a Freudian
slip.
Cheers
Tony K