Dr. Guy M. Smith,
At 11:57 AM 5/9/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>Thanks for the response on followership. I recognize that the word does
not "ring" well; do you have another suggestion.<<
My feeling is the term "followership" is unnecessary. I adopt the viewpoint
that all people in positions of responsibility have leadership opportunities
and obligations, be they Capts, FOs, A&Ps, fuel truck drivers, etc. I also
couple this viewpoint with the feeling that a leader's primary duties are to
serve and to teach. The leader/Capt needs to explain "why" as well as
stating "how" or "what." The leader/FO needs to be active in bringing his
particular skills and knowledge to the process. Both serve each other and
the organization, and respect is earned and is mutual.
The followership concept originated in military training where the cadets
and plebes are taught the need for unwavering obedience to achieve mission
success. Unfortunately this approach emphasizes authoritarian rule, and the
transition from doers to thinkers becomes a difficult one.
The word "followership" implies subservience (rather than service) or
submission (rather than loyalty), but the cockpit demands more. Also, I
don't like linking "respect" to "followership" because of the implication
that respect flows in one direction. Neil introduced the concept of trust
quoting Mrs. Suggs (Petroleum Helicopters) in another thread: "...everyone's
job is linked to everyone else's job," and I think that philosophical focus
is potentially more rewarding.
So much for the theory. AvFlash reported that a non-U.S. airline fired two
pilots "for engaging in a fist fight in the cockpit of an Airbus 340 with 240
passengers aboard." So you think you have problems.
All the best, Bob Jenney
______________________________________
Aviation Safety Connection
http://www.aviation.org
Robert M. Jenney, Director
28 Columbia Road, Marblehead, MA 01945
rmj_at_aviation.org, 617-639-1313