A521.6.4.RB - Sustained Change

One of the greatest challenges that organizational leaders are forced to confront is how to implement change.  However, a challenge that often outweighs the difficulty of implementing change is sustaining that change.  Bamford (2008) articulated the importance of change by declaring “Tell me a company that doesn't have to innovate, and I'll show you a company that will be crushed by its competition – or more likely by the competition it didn't see on the horizon.”  Leadership journals and experts are full of great advice about how to implement change and how to make it stick. For example, Harshak, Aguirre, and Brown (2010) indicated that one key to a successful change campaign is to “Ensure that the entire leadership team is a role model for the change” (para. 12).  

Daryl Conner (as cited in replymc, 2010) suggested that a powerful way to implement change is through the use of a burning platform story.  The burning platform is a metaphor for the pattern of commitment that is required when real, sustained change is necessary.  The name came from a news story about an oil production platform that caught fire late one evening. Platform workers were forced to make a decision: stay on the platform and face certain death, or face probable death by making a risky 150 foot jump off the platform into water that was covered by burning oil (Conner, 2012). The burning platform story is a powerful way to motivate change when there is not any other option; the organization or individual must make the change or face death.

I had an experience recently in which I could have used a burning platform on a very small scale.  I typically have about four or five single pilot crewmembers, and two or three dual pilot crews at my base.  About two weeks ago I had one of the pilots from a crew ask to speak with me. As we began to talk he started to indicate to me that the captain he was flying with was not following some of the rules and that his behavior in the cockpit was unprofessional.  He said that the captain would frequently yell at him, and he felt that he was setting him up for failure in certain circumstances. I tried to encourage him and said that I would mention his concerns to the director of operations.

The following day the captain of the same crew came to me and asked if he could speak with me.  He mentioned that his copilot was exhibiting some odd behavior. He said that the copilot seemed overly concerned about the weather.  At one point the weather was well above the company limitations, but the copilot suggested that they had made a mistake flying out VFR and that they should have filed IFR.  The captain said that the copilot seemed to second-guess his judgement calls and did not support him. It was obvious this crew was not getting along. It was challenging to me because they were each telling stories that were so diametrically opposed, and I could not tell where the truth was.  I decided that I should elevate the issue, and so I contacted the director of operations and asked him to get involved. That afternoon we held an intervention meeting with the two pilots, the director of operations and his assistant, and me. We asked each pilot to tell his side of the story and than basically asked them how they were going to fix the problem.  They both agreed that they could continue to fly together as a crew safely, and that there would be no further issues. The meeting seems to have reduced the pressure and conflict between the crew; there have been no further issues.

As I consider how the issue was resolved, I wonder now if a burning platform story would have been an appropriate way to help the crew to see the gravity of the situation.  For them to continue on the path they were on could have lead to a potentially serious problem. Larger aircraft are crewed by two pilots to have an added layer of safety, but it is implicit that the crew work together.  They have to work as a team to ensure their own safety, and the safety of their passengers. Working as two distinct individuals in the cockpit could have caused an accident, or if they had experienced mechanical problems during the flight they may have struggled to land the aircraft safely had they not been working together.  I believe a story about an accident that was caused by lack of crew coordination could have been established a powerful burning platform. It may have been more powerful than the intervention meeting we held.

A good example of the potentially catastrophic results of poor crew coordination is Korean Air Flight 801.  Despite the fact that the flight engineer repeatedly warned the captain that they were not on the correct glideslope, he elected to continue the nighttime approach into Guam’s International Airport.  The crew members repeatedly reported that the airport was not in sight. However, the captain elected to continue, flying lower and lower until the aircraft impacted Nimitz Hill, about 3 miles short of the runway at an altitude of 660 feet.  228 of the 254 people on board were killed in the crash (Martin, 2016).

Utilizing this kind of story could have helped to drive home the importance of crew coordination and the potential impact of allowing personal differences to interfere with their performance in the cockpit.  

References

Bamford, C. (2008). Innovation is lifeblood of business. Retrieved from https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article9008465.html#storylink=cp

Conner, D. (2012). The real story of the burning platform. Retrieved from http://www.connerpartners.com/frameworks-and-processes/the-real-story-of-the-burning-platform

Harshak, A., Aguirre, D., & Brown, A. (2010). Making change happen, and making it stick. Retrieved from https://www.strategy-business.com/article/00057?gko=39ed2

Martin, S. (2016). Prevent a crash by learning to fly as a crew. Retrieved from https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/private-pilot/learn-to-fly-as-a-crew/

replymc. (2010, November 24). Burning platform - the misunderstanding (part 1/2). Retrieved from https://youtu.be/KwRB0sHpN9E