Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

(SLIDE OFF)
‘f . .‘.J.
Gomparisons of staff attitudes and behaviors are shoed on this slide.
(SLIDE 10 OX)
SLIDE 10 REASON 3: “ATTITUDE CIIAXGE”
The reaction to proposed change was spectral at all three schools.
so we may concentrate discussion on the resistance or opposition end
of the scale.
Some members of the USAIS professional staff espressed themsell-cs
as follows: “\t’e have gotten along \vitl:out job knowledge performanct-
.
testing for nearly 200 years and we have won many wars duringthat
time; \vhy, all of a sudden, do we have to change L!o\v?”
Those instructional staff members who held this or related views
presented the greatest challenge because%. unlike the Louisville plan
(le), our implementation plan provided no immediate escape for those
opposed to change. Aloreovcr, neither \ve nor the Louisville schools
(la) had the option of closing down while we sorted ourselves out.
Some viewed systems engineering and resultant 02quiremcnts for
performance testing as cllnnge for sake of change. others as schemes
,’
310
:* .
.
-
. ‘. /- / * . .
I _ ‘.l-