ITCZ,
Interesting you should bring up “avoid PhD’s.” Lately I’ve been exposed to some very interesting cutting-edge aviation projects seeking team members. When I ask whether I can share these opportunities with students, more and more frequently I am hearing “Yes, please do, in fact we are deliberately seeking participants without a lot of aviation experience,” the thought being that those who are entrenched in the current systems can only see the issues through the lens of the current structure and do not have the imagination to solve these new puzzles. I think we are at the point where we have to seriously consider the “we can’t get ourselves out of trouble using the same thinking/logic that got us in to trouble,” and “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results” points of view.
But at the same time I work with subject matter experts and have come to value what they bring to the table. They know what worked in the past, what was tried and did not work, and what shouldn’t have worked but did. I think a big part of it is ego – I always say there are two types of pilots, pilots who learned to fly because they loved flying, those who seek out anything and everything they can on the subject because they love it and want to know more, who love to just go up and fly the wing and feel the wind in their hair, and then there are pilots who learn to fly to pick up chicks – and I can see this with PhDs and other SMEs as well. Did they get the PhD out of curiosity and love of the subject, or did they get it for the status the credential will bring? Do they view interactions with their students and/or other team members as opportunities to further explore a subject or issue, or opportunities to assert the dominance of their knowledge or position? Does someone feel they or their thinking is “better” than someone else’s because of their education, job title or work experience? This is something I struggle with as I acquire additional credentials – how can I retain open-mindness and flexibility of thought as I gain further exposure to systems with very rigid procedural and hierarchical structures? How can I retain “beginner’s mind” (always looking at things as if seeing them for the first time) in the light of new knowledge? And how can I help others cultivate and retain this frame-of-mind as well?
But back to CRM – thank you to all who sent me references to study; I am already familiar with most who were cited. Perhaps it would be helpful if I put it this way: During my studies of the social aspects of commercial flying, I was dismayed to see the same pattern over and over again: someone in a position of authority (normally a senior captain) would define an issue and then offer their opinion as to what the solution should be. Since this person was perceived as the group as a 9the?) master, this subjective response was implemented as a solution without question. Follow-up was spotty at best. It would be much easier for me to see CRM in a more beneficial light if someone could direct me to the following: The research describing the original observations and how the CRM protocols were developed; descriptions of the initial trials where a strict protocol was applied to a randomly-selected group of participants and quantitative measurements of their effectiveness were gathered; and the subsequent studies performed by other researchers/bodies (using the original/modified protocol) that replicated the initial findings and followed the participants longitudinally (over time) to determine the long-term efficacy of the CRM treatment. I have been looking for it for some time with no luck.
Happy Flying!