Originally Posted by
captplaystation
"Crew Resource Management" =
We are "The Crew"
You are "The Resource"
I am "The Management"
In all seriousness, a good manager will listen to the people they are responsible for, evalute what they've said - and whatever the outcome offer to take the time to explain their final decision whether they agree or not.
Now, obviously final approach is not the time to explain this - but I suspect that if this position is explained at the briefing or during pre-flight it'd go a long way to fostering a good working relationship. If you develop a reputation for doing this then the explanation may not even be necessary over time. Being brusque, irritable or salty with language doesn't necessarily make one a bad manager, and - at the other end of the scale - neither does being a "cold fish", as long as expectations have been set.
Bad managers can run the gamut from being openly hostile towards their subordinates to simply overruling or ignoring them - but the key factor is neither setting expectations nor being willing to provide an explanation of why at the appropriate time.
A bad manager in an office environment can make things difficult and eventually untenable - a bad manager in the flight deck can be lethal.
Oh BTW, I am only a cantankerous old sod when someone takes the p1ss, I do usually try (& hopefully succeed) in keeping that in reserve for when it is needed ,as a last resort.
If true (and especially if on the occasions when cantankerosity(?)
is necessary, you offer an explanation as to why it was necessary), then you're a good manager.
For what it's worth, I've encountered good managers who at one time or another had to be incredibly hard on me (one even put me on a disciplinary) - but because they offered to explain the situation at the appropriate time I didn't resent them for it. Likewise I've had bad managers who tried to be my mate when things were OK but turned into martinets and tyrants when the fit looked like it was going to hit the shan. A couple then tried to be my mate again when things had calmed down and seemed put out that I remained professionally detached from then on.
I've passed a lot of water since then, but I think the key issues are communication and trust. Communication I've tried to explain above - trust on the other hand is more complex and I don't think I could scratch the surface, but I do believe that trust begins with effective communication. Ultimately a captain can chew an F/O out to within an inch of his or her life, but if our hypothetical F/O is aware that this will only happen if absolutely necessary - and that they're entitled to an explanation of why it was necessary once on the ground (maybe even in the bar), then the chances are they'll be more inclined to put their trust in their skipper and think about what they could potentially learn as opposed to thinking "Right, you
...".
Naturally there are extreme examples where this wouldn't have made a difference (KLM4805 and BEA548 spring to mind), but therein lies the cautionary tale for captains in command - namely that you'd better be pretty d*mned sure you're right.