Agree with Romulus. It is necessary to act like a human being to be a good manager and I am also coming to the view that most of the "scietific management" tools we get taught at MBA school and elsewhere are both useless and dangerous, in the hands of anyone who does not have sufficient background knowledge of that which they purport to manage.
- Useless because it is axiomatic that a natural leader doesn't ask anyone to do anything that they couldn't at least have a good go at themselves, or at least enough empathy and experience to understand the amount of skill and effort that is required of their staff.
Without that background, you are just a formal leader with zero credibility and will be treated as such, probably curtiously, unless your obvious lack of knowledge and disinterest in learning becomes either dangerous or annoying.
- Dangerous because a lifetime of experience has finally taught me that the "scientific management" camp sells the myth that anyone can manage anything if they only follow the textbooks. This is bull****. I've been on both sides of that argument and proved its bull****, and I have the scars to prove it. The danger comes from a manager totally out of their depth not understanding the impact of their decisions and thinking they are doing OK, which can destroy the business.
Scientific management techniques can be effective - if you have the basic industy knowledge to know how and when to use them. By way of example, a young acquaintance has been hired by BHP as a mining engineer. Their training is exemplary and by the time he gets to manage anything he will have at least Ten years practical experience under his belt. THEN you do the MBA.....
The problem of maintenance in industry is thorny for one very good reason:- defects accumulate very quietly over time. Catastrophic failures are rare. It is often almost impossible to see or categorise a defect at all. Like measurement tolerances, defects always accumulate, they never cancel each other out.
So yes, quality is often invisible, you can take your aircraft to an Asian MRO and it will be fixed "legally" but the quality of workmanship may be another matter and that may not become apparent for Ten years.
Meanwhile our bean counter manager has made his savings, received his bonuses and has been promoted sufficiently far away from the ticking time bomb his penny pinching created.
This is what happened to Ansett. The staff cuts and penny pinching happened at leastr Five years before the B767 issues became apparent and when CASA and ATSB metaphorically "looked under the hood" all they found was a total mess and they had no choice but to pull the AOC.
By sheer coincidence I just ordered a new Landcruiser yesterday. My Eighteen year old Turbo diesel landcruiser is on its last legs - slipping clutch, blowing oil, torn upholstery, dents, electrical issues and bad paintwork. I could have fixed all those issues one by one as they appeared, but deliberately chose to "harvest" a few years ago, unlike a mate whose cruiser is the same age and still in apple pie order. What concerns me is that Qantas might adopt the same philosophy as I did.
Last edited by Sunfish; 29th Jul 2013 at 21:36.