Re: Revamping Initial Training
Rosamund Woodhouse (ros.woodhouse_at_utoronto.ca)
Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:47:22 -0500
My caution with this approach is that you may lose time/credibility with attendees
who have come either because they *had* to, or with specific goals in mind. A
discussion of professionalism may seem abstract and unrelated to what they want
to learn (for those who had to come, it can verify their assumption that this would
be a waste of time).
A variant that I have tried is to examine the assumptions underlying the opposite
view (in your case, presumably along the lines that CRM is NOT a professional
activity), which allows you to build a definition of what professionalism is and
motivate it.
I could send an example of this approach for a different (nonaviation) context if it
would clarify.
BTW, there is interesting work defining professionalism going on in the US,
especially by people like Bob Diamond. I haven't thought of its application to this
context before, but would be delighted to pursue this with you.
Ros Woodhouse
On Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:31:53 -0500 Gerry Joering wrote:
> From: Gerry Joering <Gerry_Joering_at_compuserve.com>
> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:31:53 -0500
> Subject: Revamping Initial Training
> To: "INTERNET:crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu" <crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu>
>
>
> I am starting to rewrite our initial CRM program and want to change the
> underlying approach to a presentation of skills that are expected of
> professional aviators. The past focus / attention getter was accident
> avoidance. My concept is to have the first module explore with the class a
> definition of professionalism and how the new hires in the class would
> expect their personal development to progress over a time line of 20 years.
> This would be followed by an introduction to our performance markers
> (which will be used throughout initial training). From there we go to the
> more traditional modules. My question is has anyone tried this approach?
>
> Gerry