Tony and colleagues,
The advantage of this forum is its informality. I don't have to formulate all
my ideas, dot the 'I's and cross the 'T's (or is it the other way around).
Hell half the time I don't even run a spell check :-). Certainly, when I go
back over things I have contributed in the past, the grammer makes me wince.
I think it is fine to put out ideas as they develop. The comments may help
ideas to mature, direct the literature search, synthesise related material
from other fields etc. This forum should be a sounding board. If the ideas
don't make the cut amongst friends they will be shot down by the greater
community. On the other hand if an idea gains strength from the input it
recieves her so much the better. As long as we maintain a heathy scepticism
we should make great gains. I just felt the snowball was rolling down hill
and we were going from an idea to '...now we have the identification sorted
out...what is the remedial action...'. That's a little too fast for me :-(
One of my concerns about labelling stems from what has happened in some
organizations that fell under the new age re-engineering phenomenon. If you
didn't embrace the process without reserve you were labelled
¥ resistant to change
¥ not a team player
¥ at odds with the corporate culture.
In other words a bit of a rogue.
Such people are pains in the butt to those who are trying to change the
system. They make themselves unhappy, those around them unhappy, thereby
adding to the ills of the organization - but sometimes they are right and the
shiny suited consultants are wrong. Now the results are coming in it would
appear that many of the re-engineering efforts have resulted in no gains or in
some cases a loss of performance. Actually these nay sayers weren't rogues
after all, but insightful concerned workers who 'knew' that what was happening
was wrong. In hindsight we can make sense of all of this. Prediction is
another kettle of fish.
One of my colleagues at DCIEM is very interested in the hindsight bias. I
guess it would be hard to do, but wouldn't it be interesting to get two groups
of people to judge the CRM performance of the crew in a variety of situations.
Some of these situations result in an accident (failure), some don't. The
judges are split between those that know the outcome a priori and those that
don't (we could even have the niave group rejudge after they were told of the
outcome). What do you think the results would be?
So Tony. Do not stop challeging the group with these or other ideas. That is
what it is for. The journals are for the final product when you take you
heart in your hands and offer your newborn ideas to the the vultures (ooops
Reviewer A for any rag) :-)
Cheers
Keith Hendy
DCIEM, North York, ON
Canada
--------------------------------------
Date: 8/20/97 2:16 PM
To: Keith Hendy
From: crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu
Received: by gatormail with SMTP;20 Aug 1997 14:15:39 U
Received: (from majordom_at_localhost) by smtp.db.erau.edu (8.7.6/8.7.3) id
NAA04850 for crm-devel-outgoing; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 13:50:25 -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 NAA04845 for
<crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu>; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 13:50:21 -0400
Received: from df11.usafa.af.mil by heimdall-nf1.usafa.af.mil
via smtpd (for smtp.db.erau.edu [155.31.7.20]) with SMTP; 20 Aug
1997 17:49:29 UT
Received: by df11.usafa.af.mil; Wed, 20 Aug 97 11:49:33 MDT
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 97 11:51:25 MDT
Message-ID: <vines.g1Y7+RumynA_at_df11.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:Re: Rogues
X-Incognito-SN: 551
X-Incognito-Format: VERSION=2.01a ENCRYPTED=NO
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
Keith and colleagues
Keith Hendy makes an excellent point about the potential for a "witch
hunt" here, and I am beginning to wonder if it was worth putting out
preliminary thoughts on a critical subject in an open forum like this one.
It may have been irresponsible of me to begin to share ideas without
putting the complete data set out for everyone to see. Of course, I
couldn't do that since it is not completed yet.
Indeed I have applied the PRELIMINARY data and criteria to successful
high achievers as a control group, and seem to find one or two key
differences. First is a pathological disregard for the truth. True
rogues manipulate information for personal aggrandizement and gain.
Secondly, rogues (by my early definition) are most definitely NOT team
players, unless the team goals align themselves coincidentally with their
own.
Awareness is the goal at this stage, not selection or termination. I
believe that there is some worthwhile information here in an embryonic
stage. I wanted to share it early because I think it important to safety
and efficiency, and if even one Bud Holland is identified between now and
the time the research is complete and published, it was probably worth
while. Again, I did not intend for this academic forum to start
formulating any organizational policy. But if it helps you keep your
antenna tuned a little better . . .
Was Bader a rogue? I don't think so, at least not by my criteria.
Tony K.