Quote: Considering the requirement for IOSH accredited ‘Managing Safely’ courses (Chartered Membership, qualification etc.) Unquote

Not exactly the case. A person within the organisation needs to be Chartered, but those delivering Managing Safely do not, they must be authorised by IOSH based on a CV type submission.

In general I have been happy to deliver training to those one level below my qualifications, across a range of subjects in and out of college environments. 

I have also delivered sessions in subjects I haven't been qualified on based on pre-prepared session packs and scripts, not ideal as it is difficult to respond to questions generated within sessions - those were written up for the 'specialist' to respond to the group. 

As an academic exercise the regulation and legal aspects of H&S can be taught as expressed by your reported senior manager, where they may have challenges is the nuances of actually carrying out the work to meet the regulations.

Does the CEO of Network Rail need to know how to drive a train?

spookily.

The original post, to which I had replied,

has disappeared...

>Does the CEO of Network Rail need to know how to drive a train?

I would certainly hope that the CEO would understand the fundamentals of their core business, as IOSH are very found of saying “Tech skills are taken as a given”

Originally Posted by: chris.packham

My point exactly. If he is talking about Network Rail and how it operates then how to drive a train is irrelevant. If he is talking about how to drive a train then he would certainly need to know how.  He would also need to be able to make the either talk interesting and comoporehensible to his audience.

Sorry would have to strongly disagree, the NWR CEO absolutely  has to understand the practicalities of track and train, in order to properly run the business,  If you do not understand the variables involved in SPADs (Signal Passed at Danger), right/wrong side failures, slab track v ballast etc, you can not possibly hope to make the correct decisions  in terms of current and future plans in what is a rapidly changing scenario in the railway industry.

To his credit the current CEO (Andrew Haines) is very much involved in all aspects, but then again does have a background in railway which will stand him in good stead.

When you do a training course by the usual sort of non-academic providers, you will hopefully be taught by an experienced H&S professional who has some sort of teaching qualification and is an engaging speaker who can get the information across. Most people will be surprised to hear that you don’t need any sort of teaching qualification to teach at a University. The one I work at is trying to change and is insisting that new staff undergo training in this but the older staff are somewhat resistant to this idea.

The beauty of being taught at a University (or equivalent) is that rather than just being taught by one professional you will be instructed by a range of professionals. So the law part of the course will be taught by a qualified lawyer (the law as taught by NEBOSH is very simplified and sometimes wrong), the technical bits will be taught by specialists in that area: engineering by engineers, COSHH by chemists and microbiologists etc. it will all be brought together by someone with a H&S background or at least that is what I would hope for. How the course is put together is as important as who the lecturers are.  

Dr Beeching was a Technical Director at ICI but he was not a chemist (engineer by trade)

Monty Finniston was before he became chairman of British Steel was a nuclear scientist.

Álex Cruz who runs British Airways, is a) not a pilot and b) not British

By contrast Mike Brown, who runs transport for London is a) a Londoner and b) worked most of his life for London Transport

I have no idea what this means apart for the fact that some businesses like to employ bosses who have “grown” with the business and others like to employee outsides who might bring other skills to the business. No hard and fast rules.

Originally Posted by: O'Donnell54548

Originally Posted by: jmaclaughlin

Originally Posted by: chris.packham

My point exactly. If he is talking about Network Rail and how it operates then how to drive a train is irrelevant. If he is talking about how to drive a train then he would certainly need to know how.  He would also need to be able to make the either talk interesting and comoporehensible to his audience.

Sorry would have to strongly disagree, the NWR CEO absolutely  has to understand the practicalities of track and train, in order to properly run the business,  If you do not understand the variables involved in SPADs (Signal Passed at Danger), right/wrong side failures, slab track v ballast etc, you can not possibly hope to make the correct decisions  in terms of current and future plans in what is a rapidly changing scenario in the railway industry.

To his credit the current CEO (Andrew Haines) is very much involved in all aspects, but then again does have a background in railway which will stand him in good stead.

Sorry, but it is my turn to disagree. Your response shows little understanding of the role, and function, of the CEO.  

Really?,  So how effective is a CEO going to be, being the lead decision maker on strategy and other key policy issues,  if they do not have basic understanding of their core business?

Same way they are responsible for Health & Safety and invariably have no qualification or practical experience.

Originally Posted by: jmaclaughlin

Originally Posted by: O'Donnell54548

Originally Posted by: jmaclaughlin

Originally Posted by: chris.packham

My point exactly. If he is talking about Network Rail and how it operates then how to drive a train is irrelevant. If he is talking about how to drive a train then he would certainly need to know how.  He would also need to be able to make the either talk interesting and comoporehensible to his audience.

Sorry would have to strongly disagree, the NWR CEO absolutely  has to understand the practicalities of track and train, in order to properly run the business,  If you do not understand the variables involved in SPADs (Signal Passed at Danger), right/wrong side failures, slab track v ballast etc, you can not possibly hope to make the correct decisions  in terms of current and future plans in what is a rapidly changing scenario in the railway industry.

To his credit the current CEO (Andrew Haines) is very much involved in all aspects, but then again does have a background in railway which will stand him in good stead.

Sorry, but it is my turn to disagree. Your response shows little understanding of the role, and function, of the CEO.  

Really?,  So how effective is a CEO going to be, being the lead decision maker on strategy and other key policy issues,  if they do not have basic understanding of their core business?

I refer my honorable friend to my previous answer.

With respect andybz I think that you, and some others on this thread, are getting mixed up between trainers, instructors, lecturers and teachers when looking to answer the original question.

A trainer instills knowledge and specific skills to an individual in a specific field.

A instructor gives commands to be followed and expects no divergent or different opinion from the those they instruct.

A lecturers is a someone qualified and specializing in a particular field that gives their expertize in the form of discussion to a session for the learners to draw knowledge from. 

A teacher imparts knowledge and instills skills not necessarily specific and in most cases a broad area.

Originally Posted by: O'Donnell54548

Originally Posted by: jmaclaughlin

Originally Posted by: O'Donnell54548

Originally Posted by: jmaclaughlin

Originally Posted by: chris.packham

My point exactly. If he is talking about Network Rail and how it operates then how to drive a train is irrelevant. If he is talking about how to drive a train then he would certainly need to know how.  He would also need to be able to make the either talk interesting and comoporehensible to his audience.

Sorry would have to strongly disagree, the NWR CEO absolutely  has to understand the practicalities of track and train, in order to properly run the business,  If you do not understand the variables involved in SPADs (Signal Passed at Danger), right/wrong side failures, slab track v ballast etc, you can not possibly hope to make the correct decisions  in terms of current and future plans in what is a rapidly changing scenario in the railway industry.

To his credit the current CEO (Andrew Haines) is very much involved in all aspects, but then again does have a background in railway which will stand him in good stead.

Sorry, but it is my turn to disagree. Your response shows little understanding of the role, and function, of the CEO.  

Really?,  So how effective is a CEO going to be, being the lead decision maker on strategy and other key policy issues,  if they do not have basic understanding of their core business?

I refer my honorable friend to my previous answer.

I know there's an idea that running a succesful business requires a set of transferable skills that can apply to more or less any undertaking, but this is an ideology, and is not easily evidenced. Can I say this: for the first time in my career I am working for an enterprise where the senior managers are required to have been front-line workers, this is because it is a Church. I make no comment on its efficiency, but the culture is world's different from anywhere else I've been. The senior people really do get it, and boy does that make a difference.

I've worked in NGOs that have been poisoned by MBA holding business-oriented CEOs. Yes, they still look great from the outside, but they're no longer nice places to work.

So emotionally I'm with O'Donnel,

John

When I worked in the Civil Service I’d sometimes come across the fast track “wonder kids” and some of these had an amazing ability to handle a brief. You would talk to them about an issue, they would ask penetrating questions and read (cover to cover)   any relevant documentation and then they could handle that brief really well; in fact they could pass for experts. Most importantly the really good ones knew the limits of their knowledge and if anything technical came up they would refer to you and get you to give the more specific details. They moved between departments every couple of years picking up all sorts of experiences. Almost inevitably they had studied at Oxbridge and had Firsts in things like Classics or PPE (in this case Philosophy, Politics and Economics). The very best ones also had good people skills and could talk to anybody, at the appropriate level without getting their backs up. They were destined for great things.

They only worked because they had both amazing analytical brains and good people skills. They also had access to technical assistance to support them with more in depth knowledge.

There were also b**********s who talked the talk, but failed to walk the walk. They ignored advice and always told their masters what they wanted to hear. Their career paths tended towards the parliamentary.

Edited by user 10 December 2019 13:38:57(UTC)  | Reason: spelings

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

When I worked in the Civil Service I’d sometimes come across the fast track “wonder kids” and some of these had an amazing ability to handle a brief. You would talk to them about an issue, they would ask penetrating questions and read (cover to cover)   any relevant documentation and then they could handle that brief really well; in fact they could pass for experts. Most importantly the really good ones knew the limits of their knowledge and if anything technical came up they would refer to you and get you to give the more specific details. They moved between departments every couple of years picking up all sorts of experiences. Almost inevitably they had studied at Oxbridge and had Firsts in things like Classics or PPE (in this case Philosophy, Politics and Economics). The very best ones also hand good people skills and could talk to anybody, at the appropriate level without getting their backs up. They were destined for great things.

They only worked because they had both amazing analytical brains and good people skills. They also had access to technical assistance to support them with more in depth knowledge.

There were also b**********s who talked the talk, but failed to walk the walk. They ignored advice and always told their masters what they wanted to hear. Their career paths tended towards the parliamentary.

The keys to success. Learn your lines, never deviate from the script, never give a direct answer to a direct question, always blame the previous holder of the post for any mistakes, never offend and definitely never apologise if you do.