Originally Posted by Bart
I'd like to re-explain my original response. Screening managers should have a working knowledge of screening operations. The real experts ought to be supervisors and lead screeners. The problem is that there are some screening managers who have no knowledge of the SOP and rely too much on supervisors. Then there are others who, because they were former supervisors, forget that they are now managers and tend to get their hands on the specifics of the job and make it frustrating for everybody else. It requires true leadership to understand the difference. Like the old Kenny Rogers song, gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.
Ok, I can agree with that.
My distaste for micromanagement comes from my military experiences. I've seen full bull colonels get into the weeds of things that should have been handled by captains. The result is that we end up losing our on-the-ground flexibility that is so crucial to successful military operations. While checkpoint operations in no way is comparable to reconnaissance patrols or combat raids, the same concept of leadership still applies.
I agree here.
The bottom line comes to getting the issue resolved. I don't think a lot of us would like to bother a screening manager if at all possible. I know I wouldn't. However, it really irks people when the supervisors blindly back up the subordinate (and mind you this goes beyond screening to other employers as well). If the employee's right, then by all means, the supervisor should stick up for them. However, if the employee's wrong, there needs to be reasonable assurance that the problem's going to be fixed. We're not talking flogging the screener in our presence or anything like that, but rather a genuine promise to resolve the issue. Then we hope the next time we go back thru there that the problem doesn't arise again.
Of course, the issue is that it's perceived that TSA doesn't care about passenger complaints and only gives canned responses ... if you're fortunate enough to get one at all.
Getting back to the basic issue here, when a passenger complains to a screening manager about the way a certain procedure was conducted, the screening manager should have a working knowledge of how it should have been conducted. A smart screening manager will mentor the supervisor in the right direction so that the matter is handled competently, professionally and decisively. Unfortunately, there are some screaming managers (no Freudian slip here) who assume the role of supervisor and begin dictating how things ought to be run. Of course, again speaking from my military background, I hold the supervisors in contempt for not having the testical fortitude to stand up to the screening managers when this happens.
I agree here too.
I may be completely out of line with my way of thinking. I'm still a rookie in civilian government circles and am still learning about the rinky dink way decisions are carried out and the chickensh*t manner that CYA measures are implemented. For a great majority of my military career, I've worked in what could be described as elite units where competence was never in question except when dealing with the paper-pushing careerist staff pukes at headquarters. So, yes, there are things within the TSA realm that I find frustrating. When I think about it some more, I realize that perhaps that's the way things are in regular conventional military units; I just wasn't exposed to it as often because of some pretty unique assignments.
No, you're not out of line with your thinking here. The federal government management is often very "Dilbert-esque." I almost have more comics on my wall at work from this year's calendar than not because it all fits so well. At least where I work, the enviornment is mixed between military and civilian and some of the management is military in those cases. While I think the military generally does a better job of having more competent person in a leadership position, I have seen many times where military leadership is just as bad as the civilian.