Two divers critical - Hawaii

[boulderjohn]

The "instructor" should have had his credentials yanked long before this fatality. He'd been reported many time before (going back ~10yrs) for a laundry list of poor diving, instruction and business practices. The one I recall the most was a 2016/2017 era money/instruction drama which was widely discussed on RBW. The entire concept of the scuba industry "policing" their own through agencies and insurance (so the government won't step in like they do in France and Quebec among other places) is just a complete lie. I don't care about @GLOC 's just culture in cases like this. Brian's instructor should have been in jail for fraud long before a student died.

I will respond first from my training and experiences in personnel management outside of scuba. I was trained in various forms of what people call "creating a culture of continuous improvement." It assumes that participants want to improve and will thrive in a nonjudgmental, coaching environment focused on making everyone all they possibly can be. I have been part of such an environment at times, and I thought it worked great.

Looking back on my career, though, it only works great in an environment in which that ideal attitude is spread throughout the group. It runs into trouble when you have what some people call a "bad apple." There really are people who are not interested in doing the best they can. There really are people with no interest in improving. There really are people who want only to game the system for their own personal benefit. As I type, the images of such people I knew both as colleagues and subordinates are flashing through my mind. Unfortunately many management systems are set up solely to deal with such types, and the truly virtuous majority suffers. On the other hand, those evil individuals absolutely must be dealt with effectively, but they rarely are, especially when they find themselves in the friendly, coaching environment I just described. They can destroy such an environment. The old adage of one bad apple spoiling the whole barrel has a strong foundation in truth.

I will return to the world of scuba for an explanation. A number of years ago, a ScubaBoard poster described an instructor's practices that were truly horrible. He tried to be evasive, just asking if things were really as bad as they seemed, without identifying that instructor. He gave enough clues, though, that a couple of people (including me) figured out who it was pretty quickly and then confirmed it with the poster privately. One of the other people who figured it out was on the Board of Directors for the agency, and he brought the situation to their attention. What happened? Nothing. As I understood his explanation, the board did not feel they could afford to lose an instructor. They needed all the instructors they could get, and this one certified a lot of students each year. Maybe they counseled him. I don't know, but the last I checked he was still teaching. When management encounters a bad apple, there is too often a practical reason transgressions are overlooked.

 

[rjack321]

I will respond first from my training and experiences in personnel management outside of scuba. I was trained in various forms of what people call "creating a culture of continuous improvement." It assumes that participants want to improve and will thrive in a nonjudgmental, coaching environment focused on making everyone all they possibly can be. I have been part of such an environment at times, and I thought it worked great.

Looking back on my career, though, it only works great in an environment in which that ideal attitude is spread throughout the group. It runs into trouble when you have what some people call a "bad apple." There really are people who are not interested in doing the best they can. There really are people with no interest in improving. There really are people who want only to game the system for their own personal benefit. As I type, the images of such people I knew both as colleagues and subordinates are flashing through my mind. Unfortunately many management systems are set up solely to deal with such types, and the truly virtuous majority suffers. On the other hand, those evil individuals absolutely must be dealt with effectively, but they rarely are, especially when they find themselves in the friendly, coaching environment I just described. They can destroy such an environment. The old adage of one bad apple spoiling the whole barrel has a strong foundation in truth.

I will return to the world of scuba for an explanation. A number of years ago, a ScubaBoard poster described an instructor's practices that were truly horrible. He tried to be evasive, just asking if things were really as bad as they seemed, without identifying that instructor. He gave enough clues, though, that a couple of people (including me) figured out who it was pretty quickly and then confirmed it with the poster privately. One of the other people who figured it out was on the Board of Directors for the agency, and he brought the situation to their attention. What happened? Nothing. As I understood his explanation, the board did not feel they could afford to lose an instructor. They needed all the instructors they could get, and this one certified a lot of students each year. Maybe they counseled him. I don't know, but the last I checked he was still teaching. When management encounters a bad apple, there is too often a practical reason transgressions are overlooked.

At least in North America / USA I dont know of any agency that doesnt have bad apples.

Lazy, selfish, money grubbing, arrogant, nobody confronts them, defensive when finally criticized, poor skills, poor habits, cheating or shortchanging students through flattery (you're so far along in the course we can skip the last day kinds of things), there are just so many different ways to describe these people. Some of the worst actually talk a big game but have almost no real diving skills to share.

I think when you said "practical reason" you meant money. Either the loss of income that these crappy instructors are bringing into a shop or agency. Or the money it would cost to remove them (in litigation, or time dealing with appeals). Basically someone has to die before people like S. and F. are booted from the instructor ranks because they aren't interested in being better.

 

[BlueTrin]

keeps freezing for me for some reason

 

[Dan]

The video ran fine by me. I only saw a sound lag.

 

[boulderjohn]

I think when you said "practical reason" you meant money. Either the loss of income that these crappy instructors are bringing into a shop or agency. Or the money it would cost to remove them (in litigation, or time dealing with appeals).

Pretty much. It could also mean not wanting to go to the amount of work it would take. It might also mean dealing with potential conflicts with others who know and like that individual. Just ask the leadership of NACD about that, if you can identify them.

Here is the most puzzling example I can name. I knew a teacher in a public school who was just horrible, and he had been just horrible for a long, long time. Finally one year the principal actually wrote that in an evaluation, formally initiating a process that could lead to termination. He immediately took it to a friend and colleague who was a high ranking official in the teacher's union. That official knew his teaching well and knew how horrible he was. She studied the evaluation carefully and then met with the principal. In as precise language as she could use (she told me this herself), she identified a couple minor, minor issues and told the principal that if he corrected those couple of minor, minor issues in a rewrite, there would be absolutely, positively no grounds on which the evaluation could be challenged. In other words, she said, "Please, please fire his ass. We won't stop you."

The principal then totally rewrote the evaluation, describing the man's teaching ability in such glowing terms that it would be impossible for him to be fired in the foreseeable future.

Why did he do that? I think he just didn't want to go through the process. Too much trouble.

 

[loosenit2]

Great Video always love what Garrett has to say.

I don’t see a lot of posting about what I believe is one of his main points, creating a culture of safety.

In aviation investigations in the US the conclusive reports of the NTSB are not permitted to be used in litigation. This is true of US DoD safety investigations as well. That has created an environment where actual investigation can be done and conclusions drawn that lead to improvements in the system without fear of litigation if someone reveals what they know.

I know everyone fears government regulation of scuba, and not without some justification, but it does not seem unreasonable to me to have a safety investigation board that would operate in much the same way as the NTSB, for the sole purpose of improving safety. There are a lot of agency reports that try to do this kind of function, the annual BSAC reports for example, but they are done without all the information and in many cases with folks actively trying to hide the true causes of accidents and incidents.

Scuba diving is a very safe sport when done right, but accidents incidents to occur. We owe it to ourselves to look at them and see what we can learn, and part of that is creating an environment that we can do that honestly and without fear of litigation. I think that is a lot of what Garrett is trying to promote. And Kudos to the family for allowing this kind of honest exploitation for the good of the community.

 

[BlueTrin]

Pretty much. It could also mean not wanting to go to the amount of work it would take. It might also mean dealing with potential conflicts with others who know and like that individual. Just ask the leadership of NACD about that, if you can identify them.

Here is the most puzzling example I can name. I knew a teacher in a public school who was just horrible, and he had been just horrible for a long, long time. Finally one year the principal actually wrote that in an evaluation, formally initiating a process that could lead to termination. He immediately took it to a friend and colleague who was a high ranking official in the teacher's union. That official knew his teaching well and knew how horrible he was. She studied the evaluation carefully and then met with the principal. In as precise language as she could use (she told me this herself), she identified a couple minor, minor issues and told the principal that if he corrected those couple of minor, minor issues in a rewrite, there would be absolutely, positively no grounds on which the evaluation could be challenged. In other words, she said, "Please, please fire his ass. We won't stop you."

The principal then totally rewrote the evaluation, describing the man's teaching ability in such glowing terms that it would be impossible for him to be fired in the foreseeable future.

Why did he do that? I think he just didn't want to go through the process. Too much trouble.

I think it’s pretty common in many places.

there are plenty of reasons (which are probably bad):
- cost too much to replace the guy
- have to train someone
- the person is ‘ok’, basically he is bad but not that bad
- too much effort to get rid of him

it’s easy to justify the statu-quo so you do not have do more efforts yourself

 

[Marie13]

Just watched. Forwarded the link along to some fellow divers.

 

[rjack321]

Great Video always love what Garrett has to say.

I don’t see a lot of posting about what I believe is one of his main points, creating a culture of safety.

That requires everyone to actual want that, which actually isn't the case. Agencies and insurance companies have to be willing to get rid of the bad apples and the instructor that was involved in this accident absolutely was a bad apple, he was reported way before this accident for a laundry list of bad instruction, lying, theft, and fraud. He was never going to participate in a just culture - except maybe to say all the right buzz words so he looked legit. Because if he actually was self aware enough to be a part, he would have quit teaching before this fatality even happened.

If this guy was a truck driver, he would have 2000 points on his (revoked) CDL, uninsurable, and un-hirable. And possibly in jail for stealing customer's cargo.

 

[J-Vo]

I think it’s pretty common in many places.

there are plenty of reasons (which are probably bad):
- cost too much to replace the guy
- have to train someone
- the person is ‘ok’, basically he is bad but not that bad
- too much effort to get rid of him

it’s easy to justify the statu-quo so you do not have do more efforts yourself

I'm not sure it applies, but in my industry "upper management will not approve back fill" is the biggest reason for not pursuing termination of poor performing employees.