John Bent
At 12:41 11/03/98 -0500, V. Mancuso wrote:
>
>Rick writes:
>
>"The shock waves that went through BALPA and the industry IMO damaged the
>CRM implementation process in the UK and elsewhere not only by creating an
>illusory career threat but also, and more
>profoundly, by associating in many minds the terms "CRM" and "personality".
> We continue to struggle to make our pilot constituency aware that CRM
>assessment is NOT about personality, it is about SKILLS: ordinary,
>practicable, workable skills."
>
>BRAVO RICK !!!!!
>
>You have succinctly summarized one of the biggest barriers we have in CRM
>development. A survey I conducted with Navy researchers at a major
>airline in late 1996 confirmed that pilots perceive the definition of CRM
>and human factors to be primarily personality not skill. Operators also
>perceive CRM and human factors to be one in the same. A literature search
>reveals a pretty clear path to the source of personality-centered CRM. I
>do not know if we can totally overcome the misperceptions because they are
>so pervasive. The mere mention of the word CRM elicits a defensive
>posture from pilot groups which makes it quite difficult to build
>skill-based programs.
>
>Personality is a critically important issue for human performance
>(particularly for selection). However, to make attitude questionaires and
>personality the focal point of CRM programs has proven to be inappropriate.
>
>The first step in reversing the destructive inertia built over the past
>10-15 years is to develop: 1. A clear definition for CRM, 2. A clear set of
>desired skills, 3. A clearly stated purpose for CRM programs. CRM has
>become this amorphous, all encompasing, buzz word that includes all aspects
>of human performance.
>
>There were some interesting discussions in February 1997 about this
>problem.
>
>http://www.caar.db.erau.edu/crm-devel/Feb_97/0001.html
>
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Vince Mancuso
>
>