As I follow this thread I am reminded of the somewhat shaky literature on
'accident proneness'. The last time I checked, I believe that attempts to
define the cadre of more accident prone drivers had fallen on barren ground.
As appealing as this concept is (and of course we all KNOW the profile of the
accident prone: drive red cars ooops that's what I drive, little old men in
hats driving Chev Wagons, women, various ethic backgrounds - substitute your
biases here, BTW I am NOT stating MY opinions in the former list of
characteristics) there may not be good scientific grounds for promoting this
idea. Certain factors do have predictive power: age/experience (correlates
highly with proficiency), use of alcohol etc. I am not sure that attitudinal
and personality factors have been as successful.
Now if the so called rogue is not more accident prone that the non-rogues then
we just have to write him/her off as a pain in the butt. If the
characteristics of the rogue do make then more likely to have an accident,
then obviously we should try to do something about them.
So the question I end with is, can the so called rogue really be identified
with an acceptably low rate of false positives? Is there anything other than
observational/anecdotal data to support this position?
Cheers
Keith Hendy
DCIEM
--------------------------------------
Date: 8/19/97 9:51 AM
To: Keith Hendy
From: crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu
Received: by gatormail with SMTP;19 Aug 1997 09:38:32 U
Received: (from majordom_at_localhost) by smtp.db.erau.edu (8.7.6/8.7.3) id
JAA22897 for crm-devel-outgoing; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 09:31:30 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: smtp.db.erau.edu: majordom set sender to
owner-crm-devel using -f
Received: from heimdall-nf1.usafa.af.mil (heimdall.usafa.af.mil
[204.34.211.17]) by smtp.db.erau.edu (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA22893 for
<crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu>; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 09:31:25 -0400
Received: from cs01.usafa.af.mil by heimdall-nf1.usafa.af.mil
via smtpd (for smtp.db.erau.edu [155.31.7.20]) with SMTP; 19 Aug
1997 13:30:41 UT
Received: by cs01.usafa.af.mil; Tue, 19 Aug 97 7:30:45 MDT
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 97 7:33:57 MDT
Message-ID: <vines.g1Y7+31OynA_at_cs01.usafa.af.mil>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
To: <crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu>
From: "Major Tony T. Kern, 472-4727" <KernTT.DFH.USAFA_at_usafa.af.mil>
Subject: re:Roguism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu
X-Organization: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
X-List: CRM Development List
X-Listserver: Majordomo 1.93
Colleagues
This discussion has given me cause to blow the dust off some of my
early case studies on rogues and take a fresh look things I might have
missed. I think I was beginning to understand how rogues fooled the
bosses, but I was perplexed as to how rogues were able to get so many
"groupies" around them, ones who could see them for what they were --
undisciplined.
One element that I found anew was a universal tendency of these men to
feel somehow unnecessarily "bound" or "restricted" by the system. Typical
rogues were able to sell this "victim mentality" to peers and
subordinates, creating a clandestine cult of "victims of the system" who
were now released from personal responsibility for following what they
felt were inappropriately restrictive rules. This tracks with societal
trends in general, which makes it doubly dangerous and something worth
taking note of.
This may be the most devastating finding so far. The social influence
of the rogue extending out to infect others who are primed to accept this
argument because of shifting tends in society at large. But there seems
to be a natural organizational response. We can and should talk about the
rationale for the rules and regulations under which we operate. I think
that this is appropriate content for CRM. Even if we don't decide to add
this into our existing courseware, which is already pretty crammed, we
MUST guard against the tendency to join in the "policy-bashing"
discussions that often take place in seminars of senior aviators. Just
like an instructor who apologizes for the textbook on the first day of
class, if we as facilitators downplay the importance of this or that
regulation, policy, or procedure, we have set the table for the rogue to
feast.
Any thoughts?
Tony K.