Originally Posted by
Bart
There are some outstanding supervisors who lead, inspire, motivate and develop subordinates. Then there are the run-of-the-mill supervisors who aren't necessarily bad but don't have that extra touch that distinguishes them as leaders. And then there are those who may have looked good on paper, may have interviewed well but turned out to be huge disappointments. I challenge anyone in here to point out how this is different than any other organization.
Of course it's not different than any other organization. But this is TS/S. When I want to complain about my boss, I have to go to a different Internet forum.
Also, TSA seems to spend plenty of time patting itself on the back about its successes. When it does so, it invites added scrutiny when it fails.
Originally Posted by
Bart
Many people respond better when the supervisor makes an earnest attempt to help resolve issues rather than to impose some measure of authority or hide behind the ol' SSI veil of secrecy.
In other words, people respond better when the supervisor actually tries to help the passenger. Gee, what a surprise?
Originally Posted by
Bart
But all it takes is one lousy leadership decision to taint the perspective for both passenger and officer.
Agreed. You're only as good as your last performance.
Originally Posted by
InkUnderNails
Good leadership is invisible. Bad leadership permeates the entire subordinate organization and stinks up the whole place. We really do not focus on when things go right, only when they go wrong.
I disagree slightly. I think that good leadership is visible --- but indirectly. It's obvious when you have an organization with good leadership ... not from the actions of the leaders, but from the actions of those they lead. Leaders that call attention to themselves, however, usually aren't good leaders.