Imagine
I wonder whether it is really all about 'more money'. I suspect that there would be far more to be gained if the work that has been and is being done, is appreciated. All of the 'modern' (sic) management tools and HR fads (you know, reward regimes, coffee once a week, empowerment, equity and diversity [watch that one attract the flies], leadershp model, etc) ins't what it is about. It is about managers getting their hands dirty. And not just those in Canberra, but also the managers in the field.
The reason the SAACs and STACs of the past presided over such a great place to work was because they 'worked' there too and they were a part of the team (Note: I do not subscribe to the Teamwork model either). There is something to be said for being a part fo the action. Those you are leading get to see you actually making both important and mundane decisions and they soon let you know if you are achieving that devine status of 'manager' or not. If you are attuned to such feedback (this is the older style of 360 degree feedback where you actually get it face to face and not anonymously) and if you have the ability (heaven forbid that we should actually seek to have managers with an ability to manage) then you will (maybe) modify your behaviour appropriately. If not then you will fail as a manager; be seen to have failed; and be removed (ooops can we remove them too??)
As a manager, I have always assumed it was my task to find as many people as I could who were capable of replacing me so I could move up the ladder knowing that I had a good bunch to support me. This philosophy seems to have been lost in the last decade or so.
It is interesting to reflect on business performance outcomes when you don't actually focus on business performance outcomes but on the people responsible for them. Generally, if you have a happy workforce, the performance desired is exceeded and you are in a position to share that success with your staff. The next cycle then only improves.
BUT, those involved in the cycle also have to pull their wait. If an Australian ATC just worked his basic shift, then he is at work for 7 hours for 5 days a week (or some other 'equal' combination). During that 7 hours he/she does not actually apply him or herself at 100% capacity for the whole time because there simply isn't the need (a bit different at Heathrow). And then he/she takes home what, in community terms, is considered to be a very reasonable salary; and has the prospects of retiring early with adequate financial means into an old age. It isn't about the money!
It was always pleasing for me to see the number of people who were prepared do much more than simply do their ATC thing. Those are the people we should be embracing and developing. The wingers and the incompetent simply need to be weeded out and be replaced. Recruitment should be based on accepting that some bad eggs will get through the net (I have seen some examples of them here). In other words, train more than we need, then only keep those that are willing to be part of that wonderful upward spiral. You may not believe me, but I can remember when that was exactly what we had. But back then all the bad eggs were well and truly outnumbered by the good ones. And the good ones don't wait around for managers to get their act together, they go in search of such managers. It would seem taht at Airservices we have both too many bad eggs and very poor managers (and not just in Canberra).
Imagine
Imagine a spiral that goes upwards instead of downwards.
It isn't hard to do...
Imagine.....[My apologies to John]