<DIV>Well said by both of you, Jim and Eric. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It is quite true that judging has it's issues. One I noticed is that there are not always </DIV>
<DIV>scribes for judging flights in the upper levels. This means that for some judges, they </DIV>
<DIV>look down a lot to see what the next maneuver may be or to write the score...if a </DIV>
<DIV>judge doesn't know what they are looking for [a simple example is a 2 of 4 not a half </DIV>
<DIV>roll, they could miss it]. This can be a blessing for the pilot...or problematic for the</DIV>
<DIV>other pilots.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If it is known who the judges are, then perhaps their effort at scoring would be much more</DIV>
<DIV>accurate...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Just my humble opinion...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Terry </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><B><I>Jim_Woodward@beaerospace.com</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Hi Eric,</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>It is correct to say that currently, there is negative behavior associated with scoring be it retribution or any other name we can call it. This is the darker side of human behavior I recognize that happens, but chose not to address in my email below. This is due to 1 work experience I've had in the last 3 years. In my previous employment, we underwent a tremendous institutional change from an "Engineering" to a "Program Management" led organization. In doing this, the company also chose to utilize a far-reaching software tool that addressed resourcing across the entire organization, individual versus team assignments, scheduling buffers, predictability, and MOST of all, used the implementation of this software tool to address negative human behavior in the work place.
The theory was that when attempting a to create institutional change, there must be a "graceful" opportunity to change (or exit) for those that do or do not wish to participate. This one email alone cannot replace the months of "good-feeling" change meetings, 2 years of deployment, etc., that this institutional change needed to take root. Believe it or not, when put in the spotlight people want to the right and good thing. Very few people show up to work and say, "... I'm going to screw the company today - especially not when I'm in the light." However, where no spotlight exists, other ideas not conducive to the greater good start to creep in......... Anonymity is not always a good thing.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Yes, we can think of all the negative things that could happen when names are assigned to judging performance and posted for all to see and discuss at appropriate times. What we know today is that we (read the
emails) recognize there is a problem with the piloting/judging duality. The performance of the pilot is available for all to see, so should the judges performance. It is no mystery that judging takes place at a contest, so lets remove the veil and use the visible round flying, and newly visible results to communicate openly about what we all know just took place - a round of flights took place, and it was judged. This is the most immediate memorable training event than could possibly take place. For instance I'll use myself as an example, I study the other FAI and Masters pilots. I use this observation to tidy up geometry, etc. It would be GREAT for me to be able to get the concur/non-concur from what I think I'm seeing, by what the judges have seen. . In the long run, by fostering an open an communicative forum, I believe will be served better. Some people may behave badly, but chances are they are behaving badly
already. I'd bet that the far greater people would be better served, than worrying about a few that will choose to perform badly in any circumstance. People given the chance to "self-correct" when the light is on, will in the majority, do so, when the light it on.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>My opinion. Eric, thanks for adding your story and example too. And you are correct - leadership does take a hit sometimes.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Jim W.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2><BR>cut for list length</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>