Silvaire wrote:
Re management skills as universal, my experience is that privately owned companies that put people with at least some product knowledge in charge do a lot better than companies that fall victim to the MBA philosophy of aimless mediocrity.
What I’ve discovered is that the victim to the MBA philosophy can do fantastic job even without that product knowledge. IF a FULL problem statement is provided by the owners/higher management. “Cut the costs down and earn more money but maintain the airfield attractive to the GA customers, etc” as opposed to just “cut the costs down and earn more money”. Some of these newly minted managers can do wonders but you have to define the scope as they will deliver the result you’ve ASKED them to deliver and not the result you THINK they should deliver.
arj1 wrote:
they will deliver the result you’ve ASKED them to deliver and not the result you THINK they should deliver.
Going a tad off track but is that not exactly what we have seen with Boeing. Quote from an employee – Designed by clowns, made by monkeys. Boeing is/was at the forefront of aviation. The leader for decades, look at them currently. The CEO was shareholder driven, dividends to the investors, and screw safety/employee fears/jobs.
He goes, enshrined in failure?, with millions pocketed, to leave some other clown to sort out the mess. Now the UK GA scene in parallel. Contracted and legislated to death, with controlled airspace expansion, whilst bleating about Airspace incursions. The GA pilot is an easy target for fines, bit like the motorist.
I don’t disagree that businesses with knowledgeable managers do better than those without, but government (and the civil service) are not businesses.
Take a farmer for example. His farm is a business. He’s grown up on it. He went to college to study agriculture. He is also really good at welding. He will do a far better job of managing his business than anyone without any experience in farming. And if he decides to pivot to chicken farming and sell off half his land to pay for the new buildings, good luck to him.
A government department like DEFRA however has to balance the needs of farmers and landowners and hillwalkers and people who like to go river fishing and people who like wildlife and people who blame badgers for all the TB in their cattle and people who live on flood plains who will be affected by changes in land use in the hills and people who would like to turn all of Wales into a massive woodland Lynx sanctuary. And so on. The whole Gestalt.
No single person can be deeply knowledgeable about all of these issues, so I don’t think the traditional route of starting in the mailroom and working your way to the top can really apply. One thing I do feel in general is that we have too few leaders who have trained in the hard sciences and too many lawyers, ppe and humanities graduates. I hear from engineering graduates that most of their colleagues have ended up in management though, so perhaps I’m wrong on this point.
I don’t think it’s a question if domain knowledge helps to run a company or a government agency.
Core question imho is: How long does it take to acquire the relevant domain knowledge? Do you need to start flying as a glider pilot at age of 13 to “qualify” as Boeing CEO or head of CAA 50 years later? Do you need an engineering, law, public policy, finance, ??? degree to qualify?
Or can you learn the relevant domain knowledge within months if you have a solid background in whatever?
Malibuflyer wrote:
Or can you learn the relevant domain knowledge within months if you have a solid background in whatever?
i agree. I have an MBA, graduated when it actually meant something, and from a decent University. I always argued it gave me the confidence to sit anywhere, board room, shop floor, top of the house, and contribute. Importantly I learnt and will argue that business is business and that the structure is, in general, similar between differing organisations. The MBA was a tool kit to allow an individual to walk in, carry out a review and analysis. and get on with the task. Prudence dictates that prior to walking into a position some background knowledge of the ‘entity’ is necessary and very valuable.
The issue is when an individual tasked with running, managing, and in some instances saving a business, does not understand the consequence of action. There are dangers that as part of a network or club where you get given a job you stick to what you know and are unprepared to take advice from well experienced teams and staff. Then the task is to remove the lies and bullshit from what you are being fed. A lot of people cannot effectively do this.
BeechBaby wrote:
The MBA was a tool kit to allow an individual to walk in, carry out a review and analysis. and get on with the task. Prudence dictates that prior to walking into a position some background knowledge of the ‘entity’ is necessary and very valuable.
Exactly. That is what an MBA should be, a base for a certain skill set for business administration. It does NOT mean “know all, can do all”. E.g. an aviation person with an MBA should be able to work in aviation fields without too much hassle, however an MBA with no knowledge of aviation either needs to train up or work elsewhere.
Unfortunately that is not how things work, often enough people get hired based on their paperwork without anyone checking their motivation or skill level beyond the university paper. That has given the whole academia a bad name in a lot of cases, while actually those who hire highly trained people without the necessary experience or skills.
All aspects of aviation (leisure, business, commercial, military etc…) are incredibly more interconnected in the US too
Basically, a USAF research lab bought a brand new XCub to test a vision system designed for low-altitude night flying, in the aim of recovering crew in enemy lines.
The one thing I found in my limited time flying, is that Europe has a “no can’t do” attitude whereas the USA has a “yes can do” attitude.
In Europe everybody seems afraid of light aircraft, even many private pilots and instructors. Everybody tries to stay well within their lane, not annoy anyone else, not ask or demand anything from controllers, always assume everything is forbidden unless clearly declared as allowed somewhere, try and keep a low profile (figuratevely and also literally by flying too low…) etc.
When you ask other people who have some power over your plans: for example, a head of training at a rental school, an instructor, etc. The default answer tends to be “no, that’s not possible”. Even if you present them with the facts. If they haven’t seen it before, they assume it’s forbidden.
I remember a flight where I was flying from LEAM Almería to LEJR Jerez, in Southern Spain. On the way through the LEMG Málaga CTR it occurred to me: “hey tower, do you mind if I do a low pass over the runway?” I did it, and all went well. But then on the ground at Jerez one of the pilot passengers complained to me saying: hey that thing you did, why did you do it? why risk it? what was the need for that? don’t you know you are disturbing a large commercial airport? don’t you know low passes are risky? why did you have to do it man? My answer: “because I wanted to, mate!”
Such questioning from a fellow pilot indicated to me everything which is wrong with GA in Europe. It’s no surprise the general public has no idea, but it’s the GA community in Europe that shoots itself in the foot.
Here is one I recently heard about it from US pilot flying in Califonia, he got an “ATC cruise clearance” on SEP flight to Sacramento !
Basically, “US cruise clerance” is do whatever you wish with whole airspace under you along the route and shoot any approach on arrival all inside CAS under radar control
In a nutshell, just like “UK cruise clearance” when one gets dumped OCAS, except watching for traffic & airspace 
https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/regulations/ifr-cruise-clearance/
Alpha_Floor wrote:
In Europe everybody seems afraid of light aircraft, even many private pilots and instructors. Everybody tries to stay well within their lane, not annoy anyone else, not ask or demand anything from controllers, always assume everything is forbidden unless clearly declared as allowed somewhere, try and keep a low profile (figuratevely and also literally by flying too low…) etc.When you ask other people who have some power over your plans: for example, a head of training at a rental school, an instructor, etc. The default answer tends to be “no, that’s not possible”. Even if you present them with the facts. If they haven’t seen it before, they assume it’s forbidden.
That was basically what got me out of club renting and into shared ownership not long after I got my PPL.
