In Michael Monck’s article in the Sport Pilot magazine, he appears to be advocating a culture change in the organization of RA Aus, to something which looks to me like Managerialism. He states that as a consultant, he thinks that “People hate consultants.” And that “People think that I’m going to steal their watch and charge them to tell them the time.” He argues that “It does demonstrate that people are resistant to change.”
The defense that “people are resistant to change” is often used to fend off dissent. The dissenters may disagree with the changes being proposed, but to characterize them as being resistant to change is wrong.
He then goes on to propose
“But pilots aren’t what RA Aus needs at the moment.”
I agree that the organization needs improvement, but being run solely by professional “managers” will see the philosophy of the organization morph from a focus on aviation, to a focus on administration. I’ve seen it happen. I worked for TAFE in Qld and saw a managerialism culture take root there. When I started, TAFE was run by educators. There were two people between me (a beginning instructor) and the college director, and our section had 24 teachers/instructors, teaching an intake of around 120 students per semester plus ongoing students. When I left TAFE was run by “professional managers” and there were no less than six levels of bureaucracy between me and the college director. Our section had been reduced to seven teachers/instructors teaching an intake of around 32 students per semester. This was for the computing and electronics sections, but other sections suffered the same fate. Every time there was a budget cut, the numbers of administration staff grew and the numbers of teachers shrank… Every time!
Michael then goes on to assert
“We’ve had a bunch of aviators looking after what is essentially a large business…”
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When your primary focus is “business” then everything looks like a “business”. In fact, RA Aus does resemble a business in some ways, but it is most definitely NOT a business. It must be able to pay its way and conduct operations, but it is NOT a for-profit enterprise (the common concept of a “business”), and I would argue that it should not be. In business, policy is developed from the top down with little or no input from employees or customers. Again, customers and employees, have no say whatever in who runs the business. And there are other aspects of “business” that are (or should be) a very poor fit for our organization.
Another quote from the article
“Aviators are mostly good at aviation. They’re not always so good at management. And that’s what RA Aus does it manages.”
But that’s not ALL that RA Aus does. But again, when all you’ve got is a hammer …
I agree that the management of RA Aus has been due for criticism in some areas, but that is not a reason to shun pilots from the management roles or to turn our aviation organization into a “business” staffed by “professional managers” focused primarily on administration.
Think about your vote. Read the proposals of the candidates carefully and think about what RA Aus should be focused on going forward. Should it be primarily focused on flying, or business?
I believe that what RA Aus needs is people who are pilots first and managers second, not the other way around. Otherwise it may end up a CASA clone, or go the way of TAFE.