Is Managerialism coming to RA Aus?

[cscotthendry]

In Michael Monck’s article in the Sport Pilot magazine, he appears to be advocating a culture change in the organization of RA Aus, to something which looks to me like Managerialism. He states that as a consultant, he thinks that “People hate consultants.” And that “People think that I’m going to steal their watch and charge them to tell them the time.” He argues that “It does demonstrate that people are resistant to change.”

 

The defense that “people are resistant to change” is often used to fend off dissent. The dissenters may disagree with the changes being proposed, but to characterize them as being resistant to change is wrong.

 

He then goes on to propose

 

“But pilots aren’t what RA Aus needs at the moment.”

 

I agree that the organization needs improvement, but being run solely by professional “managers” will see the philosophy of the organization morph from a focus on aviation, to a focus on administration. I’ve seen it happen. I worked for TAFE in Qld and saw a managerialism culture take root there. When I started, TAFE was run by educators. There were two people between me (a beginning instructor) and the college director, and our section had 24 teachers/instructors, teaching an intake of around 120 students per semester plus ongoing students. When I left TAFE was run by “professional managers” and there were no less than six levels of bureaucracy between me and the college director. Our section had been reduced to seven teachers/instructors teaching an intake of around 32 students per semester. This was for the computing and electronics sections, but other sections suffered the same fate. Every time there was a budget cut, the numbers of administration staff grew and the numbers of teachers shrank… Every time!

 

Michael then goes on to assert

 

“We’ve had a bunch of aviators looking after what is essentially a large business…”

 

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When your primary focus is “business” then everything looks like a “business”. In fact, RA Aus does resemble a business in some ways, but it is most definitely NOT a business. It must be able to pay its way and conduct operations, but it is NOT a for-profit enterprise (the common concept of a “business”), and I would argue that it should not be. In business, policy is developed from the top down with little or no input from employees or customers. Again, customers and employees, have no say whatever in who runs the business. And there are other aspects of “business” that are (or should be) a very poor fit for our organization.

 

Another quote from the article

 

“Aviators are mostly good at aviation. They’re not always so good at management. And that’s what RA Aus does it manages.”

 

But that’s not ALL that RA Aus does. But again, when all you’ve got is a hammer …

 

I agree that the management of RA Aus has been due for criticism in some areas, but that is not a reason to shun pilots from the management roles or to turn our aviation organization into a “business” staffed by “professional managers” focused primarily on administration.

 

Think about your vote. Read the proposals of the candidates carefully and think about what RA Aus should be focused on going forward. Should it be primarily focused on flying, or business?

 

I believe that what RA Aus needs is people who are pilots first and managers second, not the other way around. Otherwise it may end up a CASA clone, or go the way of TAFE.

 

 

[facthunter]

You are right. We are not a business in the normal sense. The pilot's are the shareholders. WE are not the customers Some people ARE resistant to change but that's like saying the sun will rise tomorrow. Pilot's manage aeroplanes, or they crash. The manager may say we can't afford to fix that engine this week, so the manager decides whether you don't fly or you fly with a crook engine, if your aim is to fly, and YOU should decide HOW.

 

The accountant or a finance committee can create a policy confounding situation of conflict that directly affects the operation. OK it's their job to warn of a money crisis but not to run the show in a manner where the essence of the organisation doesn't continue, in a clearly recognisable form.

 

THAT management "team" is there to do what WE WANT and progress in the direction we tell them to go, or we have a problem of identity, and relevance, looming potentially. IF it's not tomorrow, it will be the next day metaphorically speaking. Nev

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Well said cscotthendry. I have also seen exactly what you describe. The process is also associated with obscene salaries for the top managers. Gosh it's even happening at my local council, where there are a ridiculous number of managers and the CEO gets 360,000 a year for shuffling paper.

 

I think our species must have a brain defect which does this to us. Maybe we have a subconscious desire for a messiah who will use magical powers.

 

Anyway, I voted for the old guard guys.

 

 

[onetrack]

Spot on. But what is needed in the people running RA-Aus is piloting skills along with some management skills.

 

You can't be just simply a manager, nor just simply a pilot, you need both skill sets, for complete understanding of the requirements of the setup.

 

I've seen this way too many times with people who start up their own business. They can be a superb tradie or employee or qualified in their field - but they don't have business management skills, so they end up going broke.

 

I had the same problem as an earthmoving contractor on big minesites. Despite many peoples ideas and opinions, optimised earthmoving and plant operation skills are in a field of their own, and you don't learn them overnight.

 

But - I had mining engineers coming to me and telling me what they wanted my machines to be doing - against all correct, efficient and optimised earthmoving plant operation principles.

 

In other words, these engineers thought, because they were trained and qualified as mining engineers, that gave them skilled earthmoving and plant operation abilities, too. It didn't.

 

They wasted fuel, they wore out machines unnecessarily by double-handling dirt, they failed to utilise the machines with maximum efficiency, and they tried to get the machines to do work that they were not designed to do.

 

Yet, I had to bow to their demands, because they held all the power. It cost the companies serious money, but these engineers didn't understand that. They needed total control.

 

If these engineers had just told us what they wanted done, and the end result they required - and left us skilled operators to it, the work would have been done efficiently, and at the lowest possible cost, and with the right equipment.

 

But no, they were the tertiary-qualified people, they knew everything, and we knew nothing. It was a very disagreeable situation, and it never lasted.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Michael knows his empire isn't going to build itself, he needs to take the bull by the horns and build those layers of oversight and responsibility.

 

What he's forgotten is that the RAA is in decline and it needs to make recreational aviation attractive for people to invest time and money, fail that basic task and no matter how great a manager you are, you are still failing. And this is where the RAA falls down, when things go from bad to worse its always "the economy" never the role of mismanagement in chasing away new investors.

 

 

[old man emu]

Spot on. You can't be just simply a manager, nor just simply a pilot, you need both skill sets, for complete understanding of the requirements of the setup

Onetrack has expressed the problem of management perfectly, and the examples reflect what occurs in businesses all over this country.

 

Anyone involved in the upper echelons of running a business MUST accept that, although the final decision rests with them, they must be guided by the sound advice of persons expert in the component areas of the business's activities. Henry Ford didn't build a leading world-wide manufacturing business by swinging a spanner himself. He engaged the people who could either do the coal-face work, or provide him with sound advice on which to make his decisions.

 

Subsection 6.6 of the RA-Aus Governance Policy outlines the relationship between the Board and the CEO.

 

1. The CEO is required to implement the strategy approved by the Board

 

2. The CEO has the right to rely on the Board for clear direction, mentoring and support.

 

Specific CEO responsibilities include:

 

 developing and recommending business plans for the Board’s consideration.

 

 submitting reports, budgets and financial statements to the Board.

 

 implementing all approved plans, policies and programmes and achieving agreed targets.

 

 overseeing the financial management of the organisation.

 

 maintaining awareness of the business, economic and political environment as it affects the organisation.

 

 overseeing the effective operation, administration and development of the company.

 

 protect and enhance the image and reputation of the company.

 

 ensuring compliance with legal and regulatory obligations.

 

Clearly, an good CEO recognises that the role is like that of an orchestra conductor's. Each member of the orchestra has the skills to get a tune from their instrument, but the conductor's skill is reading the composer's score to bring the individual tunes together as a symphony.

 

RA-Aus needs a CEO who see the role as that of a coordinator, not an autocrat.

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

[Yenn]

Didn't I notice that all the candidates for board membership are also pilots. Wouldn't that bring some some sense of what RAA should be doing to the total board,

 

The job of the CEO is not to make decisions about the aims of RAA, but to keep the business running smoothly and in accordance with the law and the constitution.

 

Lets see what happens after the election.

 

 

[nomadpete]

I agree with Yenn in that it is the job of the board to "steer" the executive. We have pilot candidates for board positions. They are not interested in building administrative pyramids. They just want to get balance. My hope is to see some more new faces in board positions (progressive bods who can cooperate to get things moving in the right direction) I think the "old guard" have been there long enough. Thanks for your efforts, bring on the new.

 

 

[poteroo]

The defense that “people are resistant to change” is often used to fend off dissent. The dissenters may disagree with the changes being proposed, but to characterize them as being resistant to change is wrong.

Hear,Hear!

 

It therefore surprises me that RAAus see the route to improving our safety record as being via employing several 'safety officers' who may be dedicated to creating a 'culture-of-safety' but have no credibility in 'aviation'. Given the Presidents' assertion that, 'people are resistant to change': how does he expect positive change when it's being driven by spending lots of money - but is 'top down'? Of course pilots are resistant to preaching from the lofty heights of Canberra. Just how will RAAus change this 'resistance-to-change' ?.

 

A culture is best developed from the grassroots up. Therefore, it is really the role of the flying schools to imbue their trainees with sound, practical, common sense safety learning. Wasn't it Goebbels who, (infamously), said - 'give me one generation of children and I will change society'. You have to start at the source.

 

I've seen 50+ years of CASA produced 'safety' messages which have absolutely no influence on the accident rates. RAAus is continuing down the same path and it is not, ever, going to create the desired outcome. It does find favour with our regulator because RAAus can point to the number of staff and program costs - just as the regulator can. Of course, the regulator never accepts blame for anything, so RAAus is likely going to wear the approbrium for the failure of this latest effort. What neither can do is point to positive safety outcomes. Too hard!

 

Spend the safety budget where it has a chance of working.

 

 

[Yenn]

Change is compulsory, Progress is optional.

 

As has been said here CASA has been at it for years and there is little new. They have just changed the wording of the regs. What we need is a change in peoples outlook to danger. We must see what could go wrong and prevent it. That is how I was trained over 40 years ago. it was called airmanship. Now it is called human performance and means very littls.

 

 

[facthunter]

Change should happen WHEN it's justified. Not to stamp your "mark" on it. Don't make a virtue of ignorance either. Like "I'm not troubled by old school attitudes. I bring a capacity for renewal and progress, because I have NO preconceived ideas, and will drag you lot kicking and screaming into the future. The fact I know sweet F/A about planes and pilots is an advantage". That's the line they use. Sound familiar? Nev

 

 

[onetrack]

"The fact I know sweet F/A about planes and pilots is an advantage"

A classic BS line, that effectively says, "I know SFA about the job, but I'm sure I'll learn, as I go along".

 

[turboplanner]

Interesting dialogue here, completely isolated by a wall between this group and RAA Ltd who have just "communicated" with ............this group.

 

They have not mentioned what you are talking about and you have not mentioned what they are talking about, just two ships passing in the night.

 

Under those circumstances, while there's nothing wrong with chewing the fat over how something should be managed, you're now a couple of layers away from where it will make the slightest difference.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Hear,Hear!It therefore surprises me that RAAus see the route to improving our safety record as being via employing several 'safety officers' who may be dedicated to creating a 'culture-of-safety' but have no credibility in 'aviation'. Given the Presidents' assertion that, 'people are resistant to change': how does he expect positive change when it's being driven by spending lots of money - but is 'top down'? Of course pilots are resistant to preaching from the lofty heights of Canberra. Just how will RAAus change this 'resistance-to-change' ?.

 

A culture is best developed from the grassroots up. Therefore, it is really the role of the flying schools to imbue their trainees with sound, practical, common sense safety learning. Wasn't it Goebbels who, (infamously), said - 'give me one generation of children and I will change society'. You have to start at the source.

 

I've seen 50+ years of CASA produced 'safety' messages which have absolutely no influence on the accident rates. RAAus is continuing down the same path and it is not, ever, going to create the desired outcome. It does find favour with our regulator because RAAus can point to the number of staff and program costs - just as the regulator can. Of course, the regulator never accepts blame for anything, so RAAus is likely going to wear the approbrium for the failure of this latest effort. What neither can do is point to positive safety outcomes. Too hard!

 

Spend the safety budget where it has a chance of working.

Hear,Hear!It therefore surprises me that RAAus see the route to improving our safety record as being via employing several 'safety officers' who may be dedicated to creating a 'culture-of-safety' but have no credibility in 'aviation'. Given the Presidents' assertion that, 'people are resistant to change': how does he expect positive change when it's being driven by spending lots of money - but is 'top down'? Of course pilots are resistant to preaching from the lofty heights of Canberra. Just how will RAAus change this 'resistance-to-change' ?.

 

A culture is best developed from the grassroots up. Therefore, it is really the role of the flying schools to imbue their trainees with sound, practical, common sense safety learning. Wasn't it Goebbels who, (infamously), said - 'give me one generation of children and I will change society'. You have to start at the source.

 

I've seen 50+ years of CASA produced 'safety' messages which have absolutely no influence on the accident rates. RAAus is continuing down the same path and it is not, ever, going to create the desired outcome. It does find favour with our regulator because RAAus can point to the number of staff and program costs - just as the regulator can. Of course, the regulator never accepts blame for anything, so RAAus is likely going to wear the approbrium for the failure of this latest effort. What neither can do is point to positive safety outcomes. Too hard!

 

Spend the safety budget where it has a chance of working.

I agree with you; I've previously handled safety for a State, and our Federal Administrator coordinated us. That was with a "bottom up" volunteer Compliance and Enforcement policy which operated at about 30 locations around Australia every weekend.

With the two or three safety messages we've seen under the top down method, which were reasonable, how many people remember them. Will that method prevent another Ferris Wheel incident? Or would an Australia- wide CE structure reach those local clubs better?

 

 

[Keith Page]

I can not sit back and read what has been said in these posts.

 

Started out that it is not pilots we need. Only managers. Try and select five out of line up, the selection must have vision and an aptitude for flying.

 

Quite simple no pilot no organisation, just these extra special managers that out president is advocating.

 

We need vision and expansion with out that we will go know where.

 

The member base is getting smaller I think that tells us all there is a big problem.

 

 

[DrZoos]

The CYAss brigade is entrenched in modern management at the expense of common sense or meaningful difference....

 

With respect to current RAA managers doing a great job....

 

Change these days is more about covering your ass and building a resume, then it is about making a difference that counts

 

When you're climbing corporate ladders and you take one meaningful change v 30 pathetic bullet that look like change, which one looks best to someone that has no clue about any of it....

 

 

[Keith Page]

Dr. Zoos, How accurate are you.

 

They only care what looks good on their resume their talent is lower than secondary.

 

There is a disruption which describes them, They lie by the fact of exaggeration.

 

KP

 

 

[turboplanner]

You are right. We are not a business in the normal sense. The pilot's are the shareholders. WE are not the customers Some people ARE resistant to change but that's like saying the sun will rise tomorrow. Pilot's manage aeroplanes, or they crash. The manager may say we can't afford to fix that engine this week, so the manager decides whether you don't fly or you fly with a crook engine, if your aim is to fly, and YOU should decide HOW.The accountant or a finance committee can create a policy confounding situation of conflict that directly affects the operation. OK it's their job to warn of a money crisis but not to run the show in a manner where the essence of the organisation doesn't continue, in a clearly recognisable form.

THAT management "team" is there to do what WE WANT and progress in the direction we tell them to go, or we have a problem of identity, and relevance, looming potentially. IF it's not tomorrow, it will be the next day metaphorically speaking. Nev

I'm fascinated; what happened to "not having a dog and barking yourself"? Doesn't always work does it; then by the time you start barking the train has left the station.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's a matter of having the correct DOG.(s) It was also in relation to having "reps" who understand what flying U/L's is about, GUIDING the staff, in policy, and having a management that listens.. We have people who will be managing "something" but I'm not sure what it will be.

 

The situation where the dog barking had relevance is elect good people and let them get on with the job . Is anyone going to listen to the pilot reps, or just carry on regardless. Nev

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Did somebody miss the *fact* that the business of RAAus Ltd is Aviation?

 

Nobody is in business to do business. Every business that survives does so because they are good at managing the business they are in. RAAus does not have multiple layers of middle managers. It is a lean and efficient organisation and almost the antithesis of CASA.

 

And, if irc, the ONLY prerequisite for being a director of RAAus Ltd is that you must be a PILOT!

 

Give me a pilot who has strong management experience in preference to a pilot who has no management experience any day.

 

RAAus Inc almost ceased to exist under the control of a Board of pilots with *no* medium to large business management experience. They almost managed RAAus into oblivion. Our reputation in the industry hit rock bottom with hundreds if not thousands of aircraft grounded.

 

How soon we forget!

 

By all means re-elect the old guard and ride the downward spiral and have the registrations debacle Mk2.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

So Don, are are you saying that the changes you have championed don't actually fix anything in the RAA? That's been my argument all along and you have denied this.

 

I feel vindicated by your admission.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Good point F_T.

 

The place is not full of harmony at the moment with the *Constitution *Tech. Manual being released and not being correct at the time of release.

 

The Tech. Manual was released before the members could have a look at it and we were told it would be out for reading before it was sent to CASA for approval. While all this was going on it had been to CASA for approval. Now we are told have a look and we can fix it. Here is a problem if the Tech. Manual is altered in any way it is to go to CASA for approval as it is new manual.

 

Don.That one is not going to wash for me.

 

KP

 

 

[facthunter]

Circumstances change Don. The issue at the moment is who is charting our future and is it pilot/ builder small cheap planes orientated. CASA was at one time set out to knock us around as "they" didn't agree with the concept of building planes from stuff you could buy from Bunnings, and an emphasis on doing it cheaply. WE have weathered some severe storms. No one has in the remotest sense been accused of anything criminal. In our condemnations of the "sins" of the past (so called) THAT should be remembered. Most behaved with good intentions. Nev

 

 

[DonRamsay]

(snipe removed - Mod)

 

Nev, as always, I find myself in agreement. There were mistakes made by well intentioned people. That happens. RAAus has evolved over time and such evolution is inevitable. Nothing stays the same. It has become, like it or not, much more than home builders of ultralights from scratch designs. It will continue to evolve even more rapidly in the future. I see a merging of private GA and RA. I see an incredibly bright future. I would not have said that in early 2013.

 

(snipe removed - Mod)

 

Me, I'll just continue enjoying late summer in Bordeaux and taste a few more reds.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Hello Don,

 

(content removed, could be mistaken as a snipe at site user - Mod)

 

Regards,

 

KP