Basic training Flying
I will always remember my first training flight. I was a training student of air training pilots of the Air Force (UPT) and I was in the T-37 Tweet, a side plane, of two places. Until then, being always near another plane on the flight was always bad, so I spent most of this particular flight worrying about not joining my friend.
Initially, a very basic flight maneuver was performed together and the fundamental hand signals used in a company like this were tested. We introduced several techniques, such as return and direct reincorporations, change of thread, etc. In total, he learned about the different responsibilities between the leader of the flight and the driver of the game.
Leadership needed to be planned ahead and be decisive, but quite reasonable. The leadership of the flight should also be taken into account in the wake, such as not getting 100% power up so that the "wingie" had the power to stay in position. Although the two pilots shared the responsibility of not clashing with each other, the driver of the game played a bigger role in this and focused on lead aircraft.
The maintenance of the assigned position was an essential role for the flight wing and this required the scan of the lead aircraft much like scanning a picture of instruments for good perception and in-depth positioning. Of course, there were standard definitions of all the training parameters. As we progressed through the UPT, performance expectations became more demanding and introduced to additional types of training and maneuvers.
Advanced Training Flight
After graduating from the UPT and going to advanced flight schools, the training standards were very much like a student who was able to read to learn. Training was no longer the main one, but a necessary part of the flying combatants. Arrived at this point, flying without another plane in the vicinity made any of us feel naked. Mutual support between two or more aircraft had been made naturally and valued. The flutter of verbal and non-verbal signals was now of a second nature. In the tactical flight, the types of training were sometimes widely separated, but, nevertheless, they were formations.
In all this, the lesson of mutual trust was a fundamental principle that we all lived. Sometimes this basic value was violated with potentially disastrous results. Later in my career, I participated in a four-F-15 flight including a general officer who had not flown enough in recent weeks. Very soon on the flight, the rest of us realized that this pilot needed some repair work. In retrospect, the flight's command should have sent this senior pilot to his home. I can still imagine the group that we are a little committed to keeping ourselves apart from the pilot and offending plane. This was a lesson about the importance of trust and not taking it for granted.
One of the non-negotiable elements of a leadership environment is trust. Everything goes up or falls on this item. A second closely related piece is communication because trust is built, maintained or reduced by exchanging words and ideas. Let's direct each one to the next.
Confidence and leadership
Why Trust Is Important For Leadership? Without confidence, individuals are not open to each other. They hide behind a facade for personal protection. In any healthy human relationship, there is a basic question on the surface that says: "How much does it matter?" Again, emphasize the healthy word. Most people will not keep a long-term friendship with someone who confuses them, tears them or devalues them. We've all worked at some time for a boss who was a clumsy. You can be sure that there was some type of reaction first internally and then externally. The instinct of "fight or flight" was kicking.
Think of that boss you thought was a little. What would happen if he or she had approached you asking for contributions for a next project? If you knew that your ideas were not valued or used constantly, what probability you had to contribute openly? You may have made some useful comments based on your personal values, but you have probably stopped giving a high quality thesis.
The other, think about working again for a boss that got you the best. This person constantly appreciated your participation and implemented at least some of your thoughts as a final solution. Now, how likely would you have to offer thoughts about a next task? It was probably hard to keep silent! Why the difference between the two scenarios? In a word: trust. With the passage of time, most healthy people are not very happy wherever they are not invited.
Try to imagine how trust in a team that has problems with a problem impacts. With low confidence, the members suspect the other orders of the day. The old saying of "knowledge is power" can be the phrase of the day, since the supposed colleagues posture and play for what is more self-sufficient instead of the task that concerns us. With high confidence, each participant is fully committed and valued. More importantly, collective paradigms meet for powerful discussions that lead to incredible solutions. Most of us gravitate towards this last high-confidence environment. After all, it's good, the net fun of adults is part of a great solution for the best team at all.
The idea of promoting high trust is not advocating an excessively sensitive atmosphere or one that is too "sassy". Plastic interaction can be more annoying than other dysfunctional behaviors. The primary issue is for the benefit of the company. The Air Force defines it as "Service before me." In a context of principle, this is an inspiring challenge for all those who want to leave something better than they found.
A part of the anatomy of trust is communication. It may be surprising how we perceive others. I might think I'm efficient and thinking about business. Another person could say that I am of short temper and disregarded. An authentic student of leadership is very interested in growing self-knowledge to improve communication and thus cultivate high confidence relationships. It is not about doing a very good job, but of improving business work. Of the number of heads I have worked over the years, some stand out, like those who still would leave everything and would help with a moment.
Building and maintaining trust: careful and brave communication is needed to create confidence: considered because it shows that I have value and what you bring to the mix; brave because most people can detect authenticity or their lack. If someone is less than authentic, it causes others to ask why & # 39; and distrust of a hidden agenda. On the other hand, if it is a person considered, someone who is a person who is considered something, trust is generated. (I believe that person, this person is really interested in working together, etc.).
Another important part of building and maintaining trust is taking and maintaining commitments. When a team evaluates how to reach long-range goals, the players of the group will have to participate and this is where the commitment is committed. Making a promise is fantastic, but it is only half of the equation. It is essential that the member maintains the commitment otherwise, it would have been better not to have made the promise in the first place.
Tearing Down Trust – Of course, doing the opposite of the building and maintaining trust will entail sabotaging trust in relationships. This can be due to the simple lack of attention versus the bad will. This reinforces why the developing leader must constantly cultivate self-knowledge. High-impact solutions are manufactured from high-confidence relationships.
While some may deny the value of trust, it is a multiplier of forces that deserves to be considered in any organization. Certainly, there are organizations that operate and make money without high trust. How much more profitable would they be with improved confidence?