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
Gr4techie,
Socialising/ interacting with the client, within the team, with the public etc are all aspects that go towards a good team. There are many other factors. Socialising is just one of them. Socialising does not have to mean going to cocktail parties either.
One reason pilots are selected is due to their ability to interact well with the rest of the team and with the public etc. The one week test period for potential pilot team members has aspects that look at a persons social abilities.
Interaction between people is an extremely important facet of what makes a team effective. Skills are important as well; but it can be better to take alright people at a job rather than a prima donna. The reason being that the alright person can interact a lot more effectively with a team.
Teams are fascinating. People call a group of people a team when in fact they may not be. What if one member of that team is working to his own ends? Is he really a member of a team? I would say not. That is not a team. A team is much more than that. A real team is something special, something that is more than a sum of its parts.
There are many, many aspects that go to make up a good team. Look up Belbin and have a read.
Gr4techie, just because a soccer team wins a game, a cup etc. does not make them a team in the way that I mean a team. A soccer team may win because the other soccer team is not as good as them. That does not make them a team in the way I mean, nor the way business organisations should look at teams. Unfortunately too many organisations look at teams in the same way that you appear to.
Socialising/ interacting with the client, within the team, with the public etc are all aspects that go towards a good team. There are many other factors. Socialising is just one of them. Socialising does not have to mean going to cocktail parties either.
One reason pilots are selected is due to their ability to interact well with the rest of the team and with the public etc. The one week test period for potential pilot team members has aspects that look at a persons social abilities.
Interaction between people is an extremely important facet of what makes a team effective. Skills are important as well; but it can be better to take alright people at a job rather than a prima donna. The reason being that the alright person can interact a lot more effectively with a team.
Teams are fascinating. People call a group of people a team when in fact they may not be. What if one member of that team is working to his own ends? Is he really a member of a team? I would say not. That is not a team. A team is much more than that. A real team is something special, something that is more than a sum of its parts.
There are many, many aspects that go to make up a good team. Look up Belbin and have a read.
Gr4techie, just because a soccer team wins a game, a cup etc. does not make them a team in the way that I mean a team. A soccer team may win because the other soccer team is not as good as them. That does not make them a team in the way I mean, nor the way business organisations should look at teams. Unfortunately too many organisations look at teams in the same way that you appear to.
Last edited by hval; 27th Oct 2013 at 22:18.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TomJoad,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions.
I totally agree that one of the purposes of the OASC is to test a persons ability to communicate and to see how well they can quickly work as part of a team. I also understand that aspects of R.A.F. Cranwell are to enhance the communication and interaction abilities of officer cadets.
Thank you for your comments and suggestions.
I totally agree that one of the purposes of the OASC is to test a persons ability to communicate and to see how well they can quickly work as part of a team. I also understand that aspects of R.A.F. Cranwell are to enhance the communication and interaction abilities of officer cadets.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 82
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main purpose of RAFAT is to generate positive PR in a number of areas and for the benefit of a number of UK plc organisations, not just the RAF. Socialising successfully is therefore a key factor in their achieving that purpose.
They devote a lot of time and effort meeting and charming the general public who attend the air shows at which they display. They also put resources into Facebook and Twitter, which gives them personal access to the public. This contributes greatly to the public esteem which they clearly enjoy.
A sizeable chunk of their annual costs is provided by sponsorship and the sponsors would not be impressed by standoffish prima donnas. They therefore devote much time and the same effort to achieve perfection in that area as they do in their flying operations.
And they do indeed have to work around funding limitations, especially in the provision of spares and role specific equipment. For example smoke pods.
And to compare their activities with a football team leaves me speechless!
They devote a lot of time and effort meeting and charming the general public who attend the air shows at which they display. They also put resources into Facebook and Twitter, which gives them personal access to the public. This contributes greatly to the public esteem which they clearly enjoy.
A sizeable chunk of their annual costs is provided by sponsorship and the sponsors would not be impressed by standoffish prima donnas. They therefore devote much time and the same effort to achieve perfection in that area as they do in their flying operations.
And they do indeed have to work around funding limitations, especially in the provision of spares and role specific equipment. For example smoke pods.
And to compare their activities with a football team leaves me speechless!
Last edited by Genstabler; 27th Oct 2013 at 22:39.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genstabler,
Phew! I thought I was being thick in not being able to get my point across. I still think I am. I must think how to rewrite what I gave written to emphasise the "ambassadorial" role and separate it from the "primate interaction" role as Desmond Morris might call it.
Phew! I thought I was being thick in not being able to get my point across. I still think I am. I must think how to rewrite what I gave written to emphasise the "ambassadorial" role and separate it from the "primate interaction" role as Desmond Morris might call it.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hval,
Human interaction is probably more accurate but for most parts I am happy with what you mean by socializing. I think your comments on differentiating what constitutes a team are interesting. And yes I guess I would agree not all teams are equal. I suspect that in what I would call "critical success environments" human interactions are of primary importance. I would imagine that during the Apollo era, NASA would have devoted a hell of a lot of attention to ensuring that the crew operated as a cohesive unit with each member being able to second guess the actions and response of their counterparts. I suspect similar selection criterion would be foremost in other critical success fields such as: bomb disposal, deep sea diving, armed response units, special forces. I suspect also that the same would be at play in other non military environments such as medical surgical teams. But I would go back to my thoughts on NASA. I know that they have conducted a lot of research into human interactions with a view to how they would impact on the sucess of a deep space mission to say Mars. Can you imagine the stress of being locked up in a can for 3 months with sombody who drives you nuts!
Human interaction is probably more accurate but for most parts I am happy with what you mean by socializing. I think your comments on differentiating what constitutes a team are interesting. And yes I guess I would agree not all teams are equal. I suspect that in what I would call "critical success environments" human interactions are of primary importance. I would imagine that during the Apollo era, NASA would have devoted a hell of a lot of attention to ensuring that the crew operated as a cohesive unit with each member being able to second guess the actions and response of their counterparts. I suspect similar selection criterion would be foremost in other critical success fields such as: bomb disposal, deep sea diving, armed response units, special forces. I suspect also that the same would be at play in other non military environments such as medical surgical teams. But I would go back to my thoughts on NASA. I know that they have conducted a lot of research into human interactions with a view to how they would impact on the sucess of a deep space mission to say Mars. Can you imagine the stress of being locked up in a can for 3 months with sombody who drives you nuts!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TomJoad,
You are totally and utterly correct in your last comments (except for EOD, where the team interactions are slightly atypical). Iraq and Afghanistan have raised the level of requirements to understand human interactions for all types of teams, right from section and platoon levels, all the way up the chain.
Another example of poor teams are many of the high profile programmes of recent history, e.g. MRA4. Look at how involvement of officers in projects has/ is being changed.
As for sharing a space with someone for long periods of time (not Mars trips lengths) look at submariners.
Funnily enough, the interaction of large teams does not have to be the same as with small teams.
You are totally and utterly correct in your last comments (except for EOD, where the team interactions are slightly atypical). Iraq and Afghanistan have raised the level of requirements to understand human interactions for all types of teams, right from section and platoon levels, all the way up the chain.
Another example of poor teams are many of the high profile programmes of recent history, e.g. MRA4. Look at how involvement of officers in projects has/ is being changed.
As for sharing a space with someone for long periods of time (not Mars trips lengths) look at submariners.
Funnily enough, the interaction of large teams does not have to be the same as with small teams.
Last edited by hval; 27th Oct 2013 at 23:08.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hval,
Be interested to hear more on your thoughts on EOD teams. Interestingly, it's the Eng Tech Weapons trade from my own experience that formed the closest team bonds of all - as for their ability to socialise, well that is another thread altogether.
PS as for atypical, well that's the best description of the armament trade I could use. God bless them all, gentlemen and ladies, salt of the Earth.
Be interested to hear more on your thoughts on EOD teams. Interestingly, it's the Eng Tech Weapons trade from my own experience that formed the closest team bonds of all - as for their ability to socialise, well that is another thread altogether.
PS as for atypical, well that's the best description of the armament trade I could use. God bless them all, gentlemen and ladies, salt of the Earth.
Last edited by TomJoad; 27th Oct 2013 at 23:30.
hval,
Just my 3 penn'orth purely to make you think.
Bearing in mind the 200 word limitation, I would leave out the 3 sub questions. Your overall goal is to impart a view on 'what makes the Red Arrows such an effective team'. You then give a very good series of reasons to answer the question. Breaking down the detail into 3 specific sub questions is a good idea but not when you are word limited.
'What makes the Red Arrows special' and 'What qualities do the team have' can really be combined to answer your original point.
'What makes the team different from similar teams' should be omitted because this would require too much detail and too many words in the time available. I would leave comparisons with the other famous teams out of your argument altogether as they all see themselves as special and the best and in all probability, they probably all share the same qualities.
Over to you though for the final article.
Just my 3 penn'orth purely to make you think.
Bearing in mind the 200 word limitation, I would leave out the 3 sub questions. Your overall goal is to impart a view on 'what makes the Red Arrows such an effective team'. You then give a very good series of reasons to answer the question. Breaking down the detail into 3 specific sub questions is a good idea but not when you are word limited.
'What makes the Red Arrows special' and 'What qualities do the team have' can really be combined to answer your original point.
'What makes the team different from similar teams' should be omitted because this would require too much detail and too many words in the time available. I would leave comparisons with the other famous teams out of your argument altogether as they all see themselves as special and the best and in all probability, they probably all share the same qualities.
Over to you though for the final article.
The latter anecdote you shared reminds me of the interaction I had with the Blue Angels during my Navy career. While good pilots, what really struck me about those gents was that they were "people" people of the best sort.
For an answer of less than 200 words for our OP:
What Makes the red Arrows Such An Effective team?
Practice, Practice, Practice!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: In the middle
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hval
You have made a fundamental but very important mistake in your list of attributes your team members should have.......
......you state 'his personality' when referring to the pilots.
If I'm not mistaken there was a 'token' female member for a short time?!
I think it important to note that the selection of the crews pushes all the right 'equality' buttons - very important when the Red Arrows are primarily a PR tool!
You have made a fundamental but very important mistake in your list of attributes your team members should have.......
......you state 'his personality' when referring to the pilots.
If I'm not mistaken there was a 'token' female member for a short time?!
I think it important to note that the selection of the crews pushes all the right 'equality' buttons - very important when the Red Arrows are primarily a PR tool!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All,
Thank you for your comments. They are very much appreciated.
4ROCK, you are totally correct that was a female pilot. I shall modify my points shortly.
Now to rework my efforts.
Thank you for your comments. They are very much appreciated.
4ROCK, you are totally correct that was a female pilot. I shall modify my points shortly.
Now to rework my efforts.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answer Updated
I am submitting more than 200 words with the comment that I would be unable to do the questions justice with so few words. I would end up with no facts and end up using flowery words. Answer that I intend to request the Red Arrows team to comment on below.
---------
The Royal Airforce Aerobatic Team (RAFAT), also known as the "Red Arrows" are recognized as being one of the best aerobatic display teams in the world.
The RAFAT, a team of approximately one hundred persons, comprises pilots and other roles whose functions are of prime importance. A failing in any one of the roles can cause the Red Arrows to not be able to act as ambassadors for the UK, the MOD and for the R.A.F.
The pilots, who entertain hundreds of thousands of people each year, are the primary focus of this synopsis.
A team comprises a number of persons tasked with achieving objective/s. An "effective" team is much more than the sum of parts and should include excellent people skills, procedural skills, management excellence : -
Clear objectives and agreed mutual goals
An individuals objectives, needs and goals must also be understood, recognised and fulfilled.
Effective procedures, and understanding of procedures
Regular reviews
The right people in the right role (the right mix of skills versus attitude. E.g. The best pilot may not be correct for the team if their personality does not fit).
Openness, Pride, reliability, honesty & trust
A desire & willingness to be flexible to cooperate, listen, participate & support
Appropriate leadership
Good inter/ extra group relations
Effectively interact with others, at all levels, which contributes to the teams overall success and popularity, whether this be at air shows, dinner occasions, within the team, or mess functions
Identify with and feel ownership of the project
Professionalism
Empowered team members
The team must strive for perfection. Good enough is not acceptable
Team culture
Initiative is allowed
Being committed & willing to make personal sacrifices. For example commitment to the team includes a reduced personal home life
Practice for five months, fly up to three sorties a day, five days a week prior to display season commencement
Other factors that go to making the Red Arrows what they are include the fact that the Red Arrows team select new members from those pilots that are invited to attend the week of tests, interviews and socialising.
All pilots have a basic commonality in going through officer selection, R.A.F. Cranwell & flying training. These make understanding & acceptance of others much easier.
Pilots in the Red Arrows team must have 1500hrs (minimum) fast jet flying along with at least one operational tour.
What raises the Red Arrows above the others in my eyes is many fold. With a relatively small budget of circa £9 million per annum the costs are are lower than the other military teams when number of aircraft and number of displays per annum are taken in to account. Their success is demonstrated by the number of people travelling significant distances just to see the Red Arrows, often on a repeat basis; plus their name is a globally recognised brand. Finally, the Red Arrows team demonstrate that they are able to cope with change successfully through the fact that the annual team changes are successful and effective.
-----------
---------
The Royal Airforce Aerobatic Team (RAFAT), also known as the "Red Arrows" are recognized as being one of the best aerobatic display teams in the world.
The RAFAT, a team of approximately one hundred persons, comprises pilots and other roles whose functions are of prime importance. A failing in any one of the roles can cause the Red Arrows to not be able to act as ambassadors for the UK, the MOD and for the R.A.F.
The pilots, who entertain hundreds of thousands of people each year, are the primary focus of this synopsis.
A team comprises a number of persons tasked with achieving objective/s. An "effective" team is much more than the sum of parts and should include excellent people skills, procedural skills, management excellence : -
Clear objectives and agreed mutual goals
An individuals objectives, needs and goals must also be understood, recognised and fulfilled.
Effective procedures, and understanding of procedures
Regular reviews
The right people in the right role (the right mix of skills versus attitude. E.g. The best pilot may not be correct for the team if their personality does not fit).
Openness, Pride, reliability, honesty & trust
A desire & willingness to be flexible to cooperate, listen, participate & support
Appropriate leadership
Good inter/ extra group relations
Effectively interact with others, at all levels, which contributes to the teams overall success and popularity, whether this be at air shows, dinner occasions, within the team, or mess functions
Identify with and feel ownership of the project
Professionalism
Empowered team members
The team must strive for perfection. Good enough is not acceptable
Team culture
Initiative is allowed
Being committed & willing to make personal sacrifices. For example commitment to the team includes a reduced personal home life
Practice for five months, fly up to three sorties a day, five days a week prior to display season commencement
Other factors that go to making the Red Arrows what they are include the fact that the Red Arrows team select new members from those pilots that are invited to attend the week of tests, interviews and socialising.
All pilots have a basic commonality in going through officer selection, R.A.F. Cranwell & flying training. These make understanding & acceptance of others much easier.
Pilots in the Red Arrows team must have 1500hrs (minimum) fast jet flying along with at least one operational tour.
What raises the Red Arrows above the others in my eyes is many fold. With a relatively small budget of circa £9 million per annum the costs are are lower than the other military teams when number of aircraft and number of displays per annum are taken in to account. Their success is demonstrated by the number of people travelling significant distances just to see the Red Arrows, often on a repeat basis; plus their name is a globally recognised brand. Finally, the Red Arrows team demonstrate that they are able to cope with change successfully through the fact that the annual team changes are successful and effective.
-----------
hval:
I sent you a PM.
Some suggestions are enclosed in tightening the prose.
200 words is a fairly brief synopsis.
Best wishes.
LW_50
I sent you a PM.
Some suggestions are enclosed in tightening the prose.
200 words is a fairly brief synopsis.
Best wishes.
LW_50
I might have missed what the purpose of this mini-essay is, but I would strongly advise against breaking the word limit, and especially advise against drawing attention to the fact that you've broken the word limit by including a note setting out your excuse! Assuming this is being marked in some academic context, the ability to identify a key aspect of the question and answer it succinctly is one of the skills typically examined in these type of questions; they tend not to care a hoot about the particular topic. Assessors are not looking to be wowed by RAFAT and their amazing teamwork; they are looking to be wowed by your insight, clarity and (in the case of 200-word submissions) brevity. How do you think historians distil decades or even centuries into a few hundred pages? Academic establishments of my acquaintance have strict policies such as automatically scoring zero for breaking the word limit.
On the other hand, if it's for publication in a magazine or newsletter, and the word limit has been set by the editor, prepare to have your over-length submission edited down - and you can guarantee that they'll edit out the bit you were most proud of! Best to come in on-length and have it published the way you intended.
On the other hand, if it's for publication in a magazine or newsletter, and the word limit has been set by the editor, prepare to have your over-length submission edited down - and you can guarantee that they'll edit out the bit you were most proud of! Best to come in on-length and have it published the way you intended.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Street,
Not for marking, nor for publishing. You are correct though, as is Lonewolf_50.
I have sent it off to the Red Arrows in the hope that they might comment.
Once returned I shall edit it.
Possibly something like.....
The Red Arrows - they are pure dead brill, the bestest of the bestest.
For those who may not understand, "pure dead brill" is short for pure dead brilliant. When I was younger I would have just said "fantastic".
Not for marking, nor for publishing. You are correct though, as is Lonewolf_50.
I have sent it off to the Red Arrows in the hope that they might comment.
Once returned I shall edit it.
Possibly something like.....
The Red Arrows - they are pure dead brill, the bestest of the bestest.
For those who may not understand, "pure dead brill" is short for pure dead brilliant. When I was younger I would have just said "fantastic".