JUST PLANE CULTURE
They will adhere strictly to the maintenance manual when the FAA is in the building. This is compliance. It is not ingrained in the culture to become a way of doing things, only a means of avoiding something unpleasant — it’s coerced compliance. Coerced compliance is only eff ective if there is constant
supervision. Thus breeds the helicopter supervisor who oversees all aspects of the operation: the micro manager. It sends a signal of lack of trust. Let’s look at the two extremes. We can have voluminous rules, regulations and harsh punishment for violations to any rules and regulations. At the other end of the spectrum, we can have the employees do what they want when they want to do it. Neither of these is ideal. We see that we can’t let the employees run willy-nilly at work. Some alignment and focus is necessary. It is harder to visualize how further tightening the rules and policies is also not helpful. When something goes wrong, it is common practice
in many organizations to fi re or punish the employee and write another policy to document the proper process so it isn’t repeated in the future and then call it “done” or “fi xed.” This occurs when our investigation process into root cause falls short of where it should go and we never “fi x” the problem, only mask the symptoms. We fail to take into consideration the surrounding circumstances, the prevailing culture or the state of climate of the employee(s). As a psychologist, I tend to look at these issues in one aspect but they are viewed by most as intangibles that are diffi cult to understand and even harder to quantify so they get pushed aside. Psychology is considered a soft science but, as I said, people are comprised mainly of soft stuff , we need to discuss the soft stuff if we are going to discuss people. It is easier to fi re the person who did not comply than to understand why they did not comply in the fi rst place. If we are fi ring or disciplining too many people yearly, wouldn’t we think it’s time to change tactics and look somewhere else for a solution?
Looking at things scientifi cally is often counter intuitive. In management, we are looked upon and assessed by our superiors to make decisions quickly and move on. The technician got a piece of debris in his/her eye. The fi rst question out of a supervisors mouth will invariable be, “Were they wearing their PPE?” As a supervisor, I had an employee slip on some oil and took a nasty fall that put him in the hospital with a neck fracture. The fi rst question
from my manager was, “Did you take pictures of his shoes?” The manager didn’t ask how the employee was doing, not how extensive his injuries were, not about the prognosis of his recovery, it was about his shoes! The reason is that if his shoes did not show any tread or didn’t have slip- resistant soles, the organization could avoid some liability. Taking pictures of the soles of an injured employee’s shoes was not at the top of my priority list at the time. After the fact, I was queried by my manager and he understood why I did not initially take pictures, but said I should have taken photos while I was with the employee in the hospital. Still, taking photos of his shoes did not come to mind at the hospital either. I was eventually chastised for poor performance in handling the incident. The message sent was that employee safety was a concern, but not at the expense of performance. The primary concern was compliance to avoid liability.
Management doesn’t intentionally come to work planning how to destroy the culture, just as it is not the intention of an employee to go to work and get injured or cause a quality escape. It is mostly done unconsciously, innocently and accidentally. Why do we accept compliance and not stress culture? It is measureable, expedient and controllable, and the risk/ reward is better for the short term. What does culture have to off er? It can be measured, but the numbers reside in the
Maintenance free storage for up to 30 months, when stored below 76 degrees F No restrictions for transportation, when marked and packed
in accordance with DOT 173.159 para d.
About 8% less weight than the Original GILL VRLA Design Twice as fast Recharge time, than previous design Tested and Approved to DO-160E requirements State-of-the-Art manufacturing process Supports Aerobatic Applications
Temperature sensors are not required FAA/PMA
Shipped ready to install Robust Construction Non-Spillable
11.12 2013
41
DOMmagazine.com
LET’S START SOMETHING!
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64