How can a scuba agency hope to do any better?
Perspective:
My field is diving education. In my agency, no teachers are required to have extensive, proven experience nor significant amount of training before they can even take their certification exams. Once they have completed the exams and been certified, they don't have to be hired by employers that are not very carefully looking for the best possible candidates. Once hired, they don't go through in in-district, or in-house training process. In their first years of teaching, they are not on probationary status and are not observed and evaluated carefully many times. Once they are on regular teaching status, the observations and evaluations by a qualified educational expert do not continue until they their careers are ended. They don't need to periodically renew their certifications, and don't have to verify that they have completed a certain amount of continuing education.
Spot the difference?
IMHO, Quality Assurance is primarily where the problem lies. The QA process seems to be failing. With educational consultants on staff, and a plethora of 'best practice' to learn from, I find it perplexing why certain agencies have failed to create adequate systems and processes that do a more efficient job of ensuring that their standards are adhered to. A cynic may suspect that those agencies have an agenda
not to actively apply stringent quality assurance.
Secondly, we have the issue of standards and syllabus. If we are identifying a trend that some educators/operators are providing training on the basis of minimum standards, or failing to meet standards entirely, to the exclusion of other stated factors determining agency-specified 'successful' training outcome - then that deficit needs to be addressed
by the agency.
We might acknowledge that specific wording in the agency standards excuses that agency from direct culpability for this trend, but a lack of tangible action (
rather than protective wording) remains telling. There is obviously some disagreement about where the burden of responsibility for successful training lies. Whilst the educators/operators provide that training, it is reasonable to expect the agency itself to ensure the training is provided to its own stated standards. The agency has ample means to do that through instructor/instructor-trainer training and certification... coupled with the aforementioned QA process.
However, to enact such measures would likely have an impact on the volume of instructors certified, reducing a major profit center for the agency. It could also result in a higher proportion of QA actions conducted. This transparency could expose the agencies concerned to legitimate external criticism... and corporations don't like that. Less transparency and admittance of problems may seem prudent, especially when the lawyers and marketing department are concerned...and those directed to achieve maximum profitability. In contrast, the educators themselves may feel otherwise in the pursuit of training excellence.
In order to fix serious problems, you first have to admit that serious problems exist. There may be some business-driven inertia for agencies to resist going through that first stage of acceptance.
The alternative, and less cynical, explanation would by a psychological one. Those involved with scuba diving simply love diving - and people involved in scuba agency policy-making feel some 'paternal instinct' towards the training system they have evolved. In that respect, we might interpret some stages of corporate 'grief' (
as defined in the Kübler-Ross model) when they are confronted with criticism and/or evidence that their system is less than optimal.
We can see evidence of this is many threads here on Scubaboard, where agencies have been criticized...
The Kübler-Ross model extrapolated for corporate paternalism...
1) Denial — "Everything is fine."; "This isn't happening, not to us."
Denial is usually only a temporary defense. Denial can be conscious or unconscious refusal to accept facts, information, or the reality of the situation. Denial is a defense mechanism and some people can become locked in this stage. Kubler Ross recommends not prolonging denial by distorting the truth about the condition.
2) Anger — ""It's not our problem, we did everything we could!"; '"Who else is to blame?"; "Competitors are out to get us!"
Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to care for due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy. Anger can manifest itself in different ways. People can be angry with themselves, or with others, and especially those who are close to them. It is important to remain detached and nonjudgmental when dealing with a person experiencing anger from grief.
3) Bargaining — "We'll make some changes, but nothing drastic."; " We will change wording, but not standards.."
The third stage involves the hope that somehow failure can be postponed or delayed. Psychologically, the organization is saying, "
I understand we are failing, but if I could just do something to buy more time..."; leading to compromises and half-measures. Compromise rarely provides a sustainable solution.
4) Depression — "I'm so frustrated, we made some change, but nothing changed!"; "Nothing can be done, so what's the point?"
During the fourth stage, the organization begins to understand the reality of failure. Compromises and half-measures achieved no tangible results. Because of this, the individual may become silent, refuse counsel and stifle further talk of change. This process is one of disconnection from the things that are loved; i.e.
the joy of diving. An example might be "
screw it, let's just earn big profits". It is a kind of acceptance with emotional attachment to the product/system. It's natural to feel sadness, regret, fear, and uncertainty when going through this stage. However, feeling those emotions shows that the organization has begun to accept the situation.
5) Acceptance — "It's going to be okay."; "I can't fight it, I may as well change."
In this last stage, corporations begin to come to terms with their fallibility and the mistakes that have been made. This stage varies according to the situation. As the situation is accepted, the organization becomes able to look for meaningful solutions and new directions.
A lot of OW students that I work with have never used a snorkel before the first Confined Water session with me. And the 'academics' and pool sessions would appear to be a bit short (
