By: Pat Daily
Convergent Performance
How many people does it take to change a light bulb in a typical organization? None, the old bulb works just fine.
Okay, that’s a slightly different spin on an old joke that rings true in many organizations attempting to change their approach to safety. Ironically, lots of people hope for change in theory. They would like a better environment, a better personal situation, a bigger paycheck. But when truly confronted with change they are often anxious and distrustful.
Positive thinkers tend to imagine the results of change the way we think about new airplanes: It’ll be so much faster, more fuel efficient, more eye-catching. You fantasize about pulling up in front of the FBO and having swarms of adoring fans surround you. Then you take delivery and make your first flight. Yes, it’s faster, more fuel efficient, sleeker, but you really liked the rudder pedal adjustment better on your old airplane.
Since Kittyhawk, change has been a consistent aviation theme. This industry cannot avoid change. When you implement technological and procedural changes, the most important consideration in any change management plan focuses on dealing with the people in your organization.
There are three simple devices you can use to successfully implement change and get everyone in your organization to realize that the new bulb really is better. Just remember NBB. Nomenclature, Behaviors, and Bridges.
Nomenclature, or names, can be a key. When Lockheed Martin fielded their newest version of the venerable C-130 Hercules, they called it the C-130J. In retrospect, that was probably a bad idea. From the outside, the J model still looks like a C-130 – the basic body shape and wing are nearly identical. What sets the aircraft apart is the cockpit, avionics, and engines – the three things that the crew interacts with the most. In the cockpit, the navigator station and flight engineer positions were gone. It was now a two-person cockpit with wall-to-wall advanced technology avionics. Resistance was huge.
How dare someone try to fly a C-130 without a Nav or Engineer? Couldn’t be done. Well, yes it could. The USAF Air National Guard in Baltimore and the USMC’s VMGR-252 proved it could not only be done, it could be done well. The biggest hurdle seemed to be getting past the name. If Lockheed (or the military) had designated it the C-28 (or something equally removed from memory and tradition), there would have been far fewer problems with units adapting to the change.
Names often come with their own baggage. Take Safety Management System as an example. There may not exist three words more capable of sucking all life out of a program. Taken together, they can be fatal. Let’s look at just the first two. Safety – surely the sexiest aspect of any business or endeavor. In fact, one of the best ways (I’ve heard) to pick up members of the opposite sex at your local club is to tell them that you’re a Safety Manager. Rumor has it that this line never fails – at least never fails to elicit a yawn and a pointed glance at a cell phone.
However, the FAA has recommended these SMSs for anyone flying for money and unless we can get them to change the name to the Tara Reid Management System, we’re probably stuck with it – at least when dealing with the FAA. You don’t have to call it a Safety Management System within your organization, pick your own name for internal reference (more on that later).
Management is another term certain to inspire lassitude and apathy within an organization. Face it, no kid ever dreams of his future and tells his parents “I’m gonna be a Manager when I grow up!” Nope, it just doesn’t inspire dreams of great accomplishment like, say, “pilot.”
Tony Kern, likes to say that the “M’s” in CRM, ORM, TEM, etc should stand for “Mastery” instead of “Management.” When you master something, you’re in control. Management comes with connotations of dealing with something after the fact and doing your best to clean up or contain the mess. Names mean different things to different organizations. Pick your words carefully and it can directly impact the organization’s buy-in to the change.
Negative Behaviors (and attitudes) can sink any change initiative. If an organization is undergoing a compliance audit and one of the inspectors overhears an employee say “I can’t wait until the inspectors leave and we can dump all this BS and get back to business as usual,” that attitude is going to prompt more questions and a more thorough inspection.
People’s behaviors and attitudes are not set in concrete – they can, and do, change. Dr. Jerry Jellison, in his book Overcoming Resistance: A practical guide to producing change in the workplace, uses the example of a motorist’s behavior and attitude toward a policeman. If you’re blasting down the interstate doing the standard 10-15 miles per hour over the limit, and you see a police car as you top a rise, chances are you want nothing to do with that officer. You hope you’re not seen, and may resent the fact that he’s even there. If however, two miles later, your car breaks down in a bad area of town, you’re going to love seeing that same officer pull up behind you. Jellison advocates directing behaviors and attitudes toward support of the change by making it clear what the benefits are to the individual (continued employment, greater recognition, etc.) and what the negative consequences can be to the individual if the change fails. This will be an important component of your change management plan.
Finally, do what you can to bridge the current state to the desired one. If the change is a big one, can you do it in steps? That depends. Is safety of flight involved? Do you have a pilot that routinely violates fuel or weather minimums or regularly fudges the weight and balance so that the aircraft looks legal to fly? If so, you can’t make that change gradually, you need to fix it now by enforcing your standards now.
If you have a year to get all of your aircraft in compliance with an Airworthiness Directive, you don’t necessarily have to ground them all immediately. You may be able to phase them in one at a time, thereby minimizing the impact on operations and maintenance. Some changes can best be accomplished through a series of baby steps; others require a single giant leap. As a change agent, you’ll need to consider which of these approaches will work best for your organization.
Thinking through these components and how they specifically apply to your organization will be key to creating effective change in your flight department and insure that your staff will be your greatest resource, not your greatest hindrance. If you have any questions, give us a call, we’re happy to help.
