waremark wrote:The matrix has been posted before. I repeat my request.
It's an enormous topic, that can't really be done justice on a forum.
I'll try to give an example from a Police driving school perspective of where things fall down without it. Of course in the wider context of all driving there are so many variables to what you may encounter in a candidate, but the principles remain the same.
Scenario
Somebody has been trained in response driving. They've been trained in the traditional roadcraft manner focusing on explanation of what is required ('the way' - handling, OAP, the system - which are all at levels 1 & 2), demonstration of what is required & practice of what is required. At the end of the course they can consistently give a perfectly competent demonstration around those criteria & are successful. Throughout the instructor has told them what they needed to do, praised them as they got better at it & picked them up on it where they fell short of what was required.
They are now released to drive out on their own in response mode. A month later they have a crash going too fast into a hazard. Their instructor says they knew what to do, showed they could do it, just didn't do it. They get suspended from driving for a period & have to be retested as a precautionary measure. All is well on retest & they are back driving.
All along it's levels 1&2 that's been looked at. On the course, when looking at the crash & when checking their driving post crash (level 2 - managing their interactions on road with hazards/others).
The likelihood though is that it stems from a higher level, either level 3 their emotions/feelings on blue lights & how that has skewed their behaviours/performance at level 2, or level 4 such as their attitude to risk generally.
I mentioned earlier the three legged stool, it's balanced, one leg is cognition, one is emotion & the other behaviour. They are interdependent. If one fails the stool falls. Cognition & emotions shape/influence behaviours.
In the alternate world scenario
Ideally there would have least been a long discussion, rather than just a check test following suspension. (What family & friends do they have? What interests do they have? What's important to them in their life? What to them is a good Police officer? What is a good Police driver? What is a poor Police driver? How do they see their future career? Why do they think the crash happened? How were they feeling that day when they came to work? What jobs had they done that morning? How did those jobs go? Where were they when the call came out? What was in their mind when they took the call? Why did they choose the route they did? What emotions did they experience on the journey? Maybe going through the details of the crash - noise, smells, feelings, What they tried to do when they realised they had a problem (put them back there mentally), why they made those choices etc? - They survived it & nobody was killed , did they choose to hit what they did rather than something else? Or was it just where they ended up there in trying to avoid something else? What if there had been something else where they ended up - a child in a pram for instance? What would have happened then? How would that affect their future career & life goals?)
You get the idea?
Challenge values/beliefs, personalise consequences, help them make the links that values/beliefs & emotions alter behaviours & that behaviours have consequences (for them & their life goals).
Help them develop coping strategies for themselves so it doesn't happen again (so they realise they are vulnerable to a problem, they recognise the onset of the problem & they have a way to divert themselves from the problem). They'll be personal, individual to them. Things that will make them personally think hard about & influence their choices in future. They lay in who they are & what's important to them. If you don't ask you won't know who they are (Johari's window). When they are at the metaphoric split in the road in future, choose the right path, don't fall prey to the wrong one.
Of course this would have been better still if it was addressed before the crash in the training. Encouraging them to take control of their training, take responsibility for it & the consequences of outcomes following their choices in it. Helping them develop the links mentioned in the three legged stool. Rather than what you thought about their drive, what they thought about it & why (cognitive) or felt about it & why (emotional). Every time you tell them you take responsibility from them to you, every time you ask them you make them take responsibility. You are there to support them not do it for them. You are there to make them challenge their thinking with your questions, not tell them what to think with your answers.
In the initial scenario they'd been told what to do & they did it to pass the test. But you didn't know who they were or what they were about. You didn't know what they'd do given free reign, because you never enquired. You just assumed because they'd been told & shown 'the right way' they'd see it's value & do it. But it wasn't them & it wasn't their way, it was yours & they did it to please you because you had something they wanted, the qualification & the power over whether they could get it or not.
Once they have it & you are out of the way, that control measure is gone, so they'll express who they are & what they are about in their driving (warts and all). Which you haven't explored or helped them develop on the course, despite it underpinning everything. You've built a house that looked good when you walked away, but it could be built on sand because you never paid attention to the foundations.
A rigid structure & test (the way) just makes that harder, & the more defined it is (the one true way) makes it harder still, because it eliminates their choices & it results in you having to tell them what to do. To get around that you need great flexibility in the lower levels by keeping the levels as generic as possible. It should be outcome rather than process based, focusing on what the important outcomes are & not the style in which it's achieved
ie 'steer smoothly & accurately' (outcome) without adding to it 'using pull/push' (style). By giving freedom in the way good outcomes are achieved in the lower levels & that those skills are learnt, you create responsibility in relation to the upper levels by the way the learning has been allowed to take place.
Any views expressed are mine & mine alone.
I do not represent my employer or these forums.