What Makes the red Arrows Such An Effective team?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TomJoad,
Valid points. Looking at the budgets for each of the teams mentioned, the RAFAT have the lowest budget per aircraft and annual number of displays.
You are correct that many, if not most, organisations undergo change; unfortunately not as successfully as the Red Arrows in a large percentage of cases. It is extremely unusual to have a team as successful as the Red Arrows who have been successful for such a long period of time.
Valid points. Looking at the budgets for each of the teams mentioned, the RAFAT have the lowest budget per aircraft and annual number of displays.
You are correct that many, if not most, organisations undergo change; unfortunately not as successfully as the Red Arrows in a large percentage of cases. It is extremely unusual to have a team as successful as the Red Arrows who have been successful for such a long period of time.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hval
As your paper stands you are just presenting statements of opinion. A similar paper could be written of the Blue Angels, Amazon, Co-Op or Tescos etc. It would strengthen your position if you are able to validate your claims. Similarly I think it would be useful if you were able to define success. Not entirely sure I would agree with you that other organisations have not enjoyed similar levels of success for similar lengths of time if not longer. Not entirely clear what the purpose of your paper is - it reads simply as a statement of opinion. It may be that is all you need it to be and if so then that's fine. However, if you are seeking to put over a position then perhaps some balance would be useful as was suggested earlier, a definition of what you mean by success and perhaps supporting evidence where relevant. Again just some thoughts.
As your paper stands you are just presenting statements of opinion. A similar paper could be written of the Blue Angels, Amazon, Co-Op or Tescos etc. It would strengthen your position if you are able to validate your claims. Similarly I think it would be useful if you were able to define success. Not entirely sure I would agree with you that other organisations have not enjoyed similar levels of success for similar lengths of time if not longer. Not entirely clear what the purpose of your paper is - it reads simply as a statement of opinion. It may be that is all you need it to be and if so then that's fine. However, if you are seeking to put over a position then perhaps some balance would be useful as was suggested earlier, a definition of what you mean by success and perhaps supporting evidence where relevant. Again just some thoughts.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Witney
Age: 43
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Hval,
I enjoyed reading your commentary and agreed with everything you said, and as you've been brave enough to open the floor I'll offer my feedback. It is all meant to be constructive and I hope it is!
First of all, you have double your word limit, but on reading through there are quite a few opportunities to lose the odd word here & there. It quickly adds up and could even bring you in under budget.
E.g
"..also known as the "Red Arrows" have a history as being one of the best, if not the best, aerobatic display teams in the world. How have the Red Arrows, managed to achieve and maintain this deserved reputation, for so long?..."
could be come
"...RAFAT), also known as the "Red Arrows" are recognized as being one of the best aerobatic display teams in the world."
Your question are already presented so there's no need to ask one of them again. There are a few lines where you repeat points you've already made or use more words than needed. I'm truly sorry if that sounds harsh but I do think you could make it shorter with out losing any impact. Winston Churchill one started a letter with something like ''I apologise for the length of this letter, only I didn't have the time to make it shorter'' so it does take time but you will have a better piece at the end.
You don't need to mention other display teams, as it doesn't help make your point and there is scope to cut out the number of attributes you've listed by covering two with one. E.g, Honesty, Openness and Trust, Good Inter Group Relations, Team Culture, Empowerment, Ownership are all sort of in the same area and could be grouped under one of two headings.
The problem with such a long list is that it leave the reader going.. so what so what? so what? Everything you say is right on the money but have you considered perhaps grouping the attributes more closely and rather than a long list, having 4 or 5 short para graphs expanding on the most pertinent?
All meant in good faith and really it is just a tidying up thing.
All the best
RI
I enjoyed reading your commentary and agreed with everything you said, and as you've been brave enough to open the floor I'll offer my feedback. It is all meant to be constructive and I hope it is!
First of all, you have double your word limit, but on reading through there are quite a few opportunities to lose the odd word here & there. It quickly adds up and could even bring you in under budget.
E.g
"..also known as the "Red Arrows" have a history as being one of the best, if not the best, aerobatic display teams in the world. How have the Red Arrows, managed to achieve and maintain this deserved reputation, for so long?..."
could be come
"...RAFAT), also known as the "Red Arrows" are recognized as being one of the best aerobatic display teams in the world."
Your question are already presented so there's no need to ask one of them again. There are a few lines where you repeat points you've already made or use more words than needed. I'm truly sorry if that sounds harsh but I do think you could make it shorter with out losing any impact. Winston Churchill one started a letter with something like ''I apologise for the length of this letter, only I didn't have the time to make it shorter'' so it does take time but you will have a better piece at the end.
You don't need to mention other display teams, as it doesn't help make your point and there is scope to cut out the number of attributes you've listed by covering two with one. E.g, Honesty, Openness and Trust, Good Inter Group Relations, Team Culture, Empowerment, Ownership are all sort of in the same area and could be grouped under one of two headings.
The problem with such a long list is that it leave the reader going.. so what so what? so what? Everything you say is right on the money but have you considered perhaps grouping the attributes more closely and rather than a long list, having 4 or 5 short para graphs expanding on the most pertinent?
All meant in good faith and really it is just a tidying up thing.
All the best
RI
Last edited by Running_In; 27th Oct 2013 at 19:41.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TomJoad,
I totally agree with, and accept, your points. Unfortunately 200 words does not allow for such comparisons. My notes are quite a large number of pages along with references.
The purpose of the document is to demonstrate an understanding of what a team is and what makes a good team: therefore a comparison is not fully required.
I find it frustrating that I have lots of information and only two hundred words to present it.
I totally agree with, and accept, your points. Unfortunately 200 words does not allow for such comparisons. My notes are quite a large number of pages along with references.
The purpose of the document is to demonstrate an understanding of what a team is and what makes a good team: therefore a comparison is not fully required.
I find it frustrating that I have lots of information and only two hundred words to present it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Running In,
I totally accept your comments and shall take them on board. Thank you. I do not mind criticism. I am able to learn, correct and improve.
Everyone's comments are much appreciated as is the time given.
I totally accept your comments and shall take them on board. Thank you. I do not mind criticism. I am able to learn, correct and improve.
Everyone's comments are much appreciated as is the time given.
I would guess that they have tremendous loyalty/connection with each other and co-operate rather than compete since their lives are in each other's hands frequently. i.e. they probably trust each other.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hval,
May be worth dropping the Reds a line and asking them for their own perspective on their success as a team. They are generally approachable and quite keen to help out with. Anyway, good luck with the project.
TJ
May be worth dropping the Reds a line and asking them for their own perspective on their success as a team. They are generally approachable and quite keen to help out with. Anyway, good luck with the project.
TJ
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q. What Makes the red Arrows Such An Effective team?
A. How do you measure effectiveness?
British people perceive them to be a great team because they are also British.
I'm sure a French person would perceive the Patrouille de France to be a great effective team. While an American person would perceive the Blue Angels to be a great effective team.
In all honesty are these teams any different to each other?
Hval, you wrote about two or three times that the Red Arrows are effective because they do so much socialising, why did you write this? Because they are not socialising with everyone but just a select few and socialising is not what performs a great air display.
Bayern Munich won the Champions League. They are an effective football team not because they did any socialising but because they played better football than every other team in the competition.
A. How do you measure effectiveness?
British people perceive them to be a great team because they are also British.
I'm sure a French person would perceive the Patrouille de France to be a great effective team. While an American person would perceive the Blue Angels to be a great effective team.
In all honesty are these teams any different to each other?
Hval, you wrote about two or three times that the Red Arrows are effective because they do so much socialising, why did you write this? Because they are not socialising with everyone but just a select few and socialising is not what performs a great air display.
Bayern Munich won the Champions League. They are an effective football team not because they did any socialising but because they played better football than every other team in the competition.
Last edited by gr4techie; 27th Oct 2013 at 17:35.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Xercules,
An unfortunate post of yours there. Given that they are a very important part of the RAF PR machine, such as it is, I'm not sure what impression your words might give to readers here in a public forum. I'm rather sorry you thought fit to post that.
Yes, there are prima donnas in all sorts of places, but to smear the whole team with that might be a bit incautious.
An unfortunate post of yours there. Given that they are a very important part of the RAF PR machine, such as it is, I'm not sure what impression your words might give to readers here in a public forum. I'm rather sorry you thought fit to post that.
Yes, there are prima donnas in all sorts of places, but to smear the whole team with that might be a bit incautious.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gr4techie,
TomJoad is correct. Now I apologise for the following.
The Red Arrows main purpose is as ambassadors, not as an aerobatic team. I suspect if the red Arrows could carry out a burlesque fan dance which provided the same effects then UK government would be more than happy.
The Red Arrows socialise in a number of different ways, and for different reasons:-
All these are indicative of a good team. The results of the socialising being more important than the socialising itself. Indications are that the socialising works.
How do you measure how effective a team is? There are a long list of documents that tell you how to measure effectiveness. Simplistically, what is the reputation of the Red Arrows with the public, their peers inside the R.A.F. and within other military organisations? The fact that they continue to exist is also an indication of their success. Look at the corps of Royal Signals display team, the White helmets. Their costs, other than salaries are about £100,00 per annum. Yet they are not as famous as the red Arrows. Why? Is their role different. Yes it is. The White Helmets are more likely to be abolished than the Red Arrows.
Members of football teams also socialise. Sometimes not quite so successfully, as is the case with some footballers who have ended up in court from accusations of GBH to rape.
As for the Patrouille de France and the Blue Angels, they also have similar effective functions as the red Arrows. I could just as well written that these teams area also effective ambassadors for their respective military forces.
Here is a question for people though, and one I do not know the answer to. The Red Arrows have been used by business to enhance their image, for example British Airways with Concord and more recently with the A380. Then there was the photo shoot with the QE II. Numerous other examples exist. Have these other military display teams been used in a similar fashion? Is it a good or bad idea to be associated with certain organisations as well?
TomJoad is correct. Now I apologise for the following.
The Red Arrows main purpose is as ambassadors, not as an aerobatic team. I suspect if the red Arrows could carry out a burlesque fan dance which provided the same effects then UK government would be more than happy.
The Red Arrows socialise in a number of different ways, and for different reasons:-
- As a team - all included
- Outside of work hours
- In the mess
- At functions (might be in a mess or elsewhere)
- At air shows, with the public and with people outside of the team
All these are indicative of a good team. The results of the socialising being more important than the socialising itself. Indications are that the socialising works.
How do you measure how effective a team is? There are a long list of documents that tell you how to measure effectiveness. Simplistically, what is the reputation of the Red Arrows with the public, their peers inside the R.A.F. and within other military organisations? The fact that they continue to exist is also an indication of their success. Look at the corps of Royal Signals display team, the White helmets. Their costs, other than salaries are about £100,00 per annum. Yet they are not as famous as the red Arrows. Why? Is their role different. Yes it is. The White Helmets are more likely to be abolished than the Red Arrows.
Members of football teams also socialise. Sometimes not quite so successfully, as is the case with some footballers who have ended up in court from accusations of GBH to rape.
As for the Patrouille de France and the Blue Angels, they also have similar effective functions as the red Arrows. I could just as well written that these teams area also effective ambassadors for their respective military forces.
Here is a question for people though, and one I do not know the answer to. The Red Arrows have been used by business to enhance their image, for example British Airways with Concord and more recently with the A380. Then there was the photo shoot with the QE II. Numerous other examples exist. Have these other military display teams been used in a similar fashion? Is it a good or bad idea to be associated with certain organisations as well?
Last edited by hval; 27th Oct 2013 at 18:46.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sussex By The Sea
Age: 79
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Red Arrows have been used by business to enhance their image, for example British Airways with Concord and more recently with the A380. Then there was the photo shoot with the QE II. Numerous other examples exist. Have these other military display teams been used in a similar fashion? Is it a good or bad idea to be associated with certain organisations as well?
I cannot see what this has to do with team performance. If you are trying to stick within 200 words, opening up the discussion to cover such topics will weaken your key arguments.
hval, I've been lucky enough to be associated with the Reds - or at least with their PR - since the 1980s. I agree that there may have been one or two prima donnas in the team in the past, but my experience of them nowadays is that they are eminently approachable, for everyone - security and tight schedules allowing.
I suggest that one factor in their cohesion as a team is their selection process. I can't think of many teams where potential new members are socially, professionally and personally vetted by the current team. I think I'm right in saying that that tends to weed out prima donnas.
I definitely think you should contact them. I don't suppose you'll have a problem doing that, but pm me if you want.
airsound
I suggest that one factor in their cohesion as a team is their selection process. I can't think of many teams where potential new members are socially, professionally and personally vetted by the current team. I think I'm right in saying that that tends to weed out prima donnas.
I definitely think you should contact them. I don't suppose you'll have a problem doing that, but pm me if you want.
airsound
Last edited by airsound; 27th Oct 2013 at 20:50. Reason: word missing...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airsound,
If you were at Scampton did you know the padre whose name was the same as a famous news reader? A gentleman with a wonderful wife as well.
As for contacting the red Arrows I guess the email address below is the best one.
[email protected]
Email shall be written tomorrow night.
Cheers,
Hval.
If you were at Scampton did you know the padre whose name was the same as a famous news reader? A gentleman with a wonderful wife as well.
As for contacting the red Arrows I guess the email address below is the best one.
[email protected]
Email shall be written tomorrow night.
Cheers,
Hval.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sussex By The Sea
Age: 79
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Xercules' sentiments at #18. In some areas there was a degree of anti Red feeling in the early70's. At a time of cost cutting and killing off sacred cows questions were being asked about the relevance and affordability of a display team. I suggest that this was partly overcome by a charm offensive as illustrated by Xercules' comments re a change in attitude between the 70's and 80's. This leads to a key requirement of a successful team in that they must have good working relationships with external teams. This is, I think, more important than 'socialising'.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hval, what are you getting at? Are you saying the Red Arrows are a good team because they socialise a lot?
You miss my point that Bayern Munich is an effective team because that team won the Champions League. I'm guessing they won because of talent and athletic fitness and the amount of socialising they did, had no influence on how effective they were.
Because George Best and Gazza liked to socialise doesn't mean every football player does. From what I have read serious athletes out there hardly socialise as they are so focused on their fitness and training. Also do you know there's a difference between accusation and guilty, they are too completely different things. One does not mean the other.
You miss my point that Bayern Munich is an effective team because that team won the Champions League. I'm guessing they won because of talent and athletic fitness and the amount of socialising they did, had no influence on how effective they were.
Because George Best and Gazza liked to socialise doesn't mean every football player does. From what I have read serious athletes out there hardly socialise as they are so focused on their fitness and training. Also do you know there's a difference between accusation and guilty, they are too completely different things. One does not mean the other.
Last edited by gr4techie; 27th Oct 2013 at 21:55.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gr4
I think he has made it pretty clear that he considers the ability to socialize as a team is an important part of the mix for success. He is not saying that it is the singular determinant for success. You may also wish to consider that in asking for an open critique of his paper he is not necessarily asking you to agree with what he has written - it is his thoughts on the subject.
hval,
If you do manage to contact the Reds then you may want to ask them their opinion on the ability of team members to integrate socially within the team at formal and informal settings. I suspect that it will figure highly - socializing is all about communication, learning about your oppo and a good bit of give and take. It is by no coincidence that it formed a large part of the officer selection and training process at RAFC Cranwell. If a team is not cohesive then success will be a difficult thing to attain. Socializing helps to build cohesiveness.
I think he has made it pretty clear that he considers the ability to socialize as a team is an important part of the mix for success. He is not saying that it is the singular determinant for success. You may also wish to consider that in asking for an open critique of his paper he is not necessarily asking you to agree with what he has written - it is his thoughts on the subject.
hval,
If you do manage to contact the Reds then you may want to ask them their opinion on the ability of team members to integrate socially within the team at formal and informal settings. I suspect that it will figure highly - socializing is all about communication, learning about your oppo and a good bit of give and take. It is by no coincidence that it formed a large part of the officer selection and training process at RAFC Cranwell. If a team is not cohesive then success will be a difficult thing to attain. Socializing helps to build cohesiveness.