DISTURBING TRENDS IN CORPORATE LEADERSHIP CULTURE - “CAN’T SEE THE FOREST FOR THE TREES”

By Thomas Sheckler

One does not have to look any further than today’s headlines to realize there are some disturbing trends that exist in current corporate culture, especially as it pertains to corporate leadership. Our industry is not immune from these same debilitating practices to which other industries have fallen victim. All leadership groups can become prey to these issues, but only if leadership becomes complacent with respect to their present roles in aircraft maintenance. If we value fundamental core precepts and institutional integrity, it would be prudent for all of us to be on guard so we may thwart these trends from entering our establishments.

Frequent Issue

One of these trends that undermines modern leadership groups (especially in large corporate settings) includes:

• Major organizational goals tend to focus on the short-term rather than attending to a long-term scope, planning for enduring success of the company, its staff, and even its products.

Organizational Goals Often Take on a Short-term Focus

Although there is a time and place for short-term goals (i.e., one-year, two-year, five-year plan, etc.), ongoing longer-term (i.e., 10-year, 20-year, 30-year, etc.) planning should be a primary focus. If adequate long-term vision planning (with updates) is a true reality, then the result should be fewer short-term emergencies requiring exhaustive efforts to squeeze these necessary items into an already full short-term plan. In other words, “prior proper planning prevents poor performance.” Focusing on the long term should provide an opportunity to manifest a proactive scope, since being proactive is indicative of forward thinking. Forethought offers several significant advantages to organizations and individuals alike, such as less scrambling around to put out one fire after another and fewer knee-jerk reactions to situations which provide ineffective remedies to existing problems.

Corporate Leader Responsibility

Before getting defensive and stepping up on their podiums to tout about their long-term planning and proactivity, leaders must be honest with themselves. Give earnest consideration on how your organization has responded to industry-specific changes, such as transitioning to domestic reduced vertical separation minimums (RVSM), 406 MHz emergency locator transmitters (ELTs), air transport oversight system (ATOS), and safety management system (SMS) requirements, to mention a few.

It is evident that many organizations are “behind the power curve” in addressing these initiatives, since various alphabet groups representing their constituents continue to lobby for more time and exemptions for requirement deadlines. Domestic RVSM was 20 years in the making, yet numerous operators were unrelenting in fighting its implementation tooth and nail because of failure to plan ahead for this condition. Unfortunately, regulatory authorities have demonstrated a long pattern of giving in to extensions and exemptions when the major reason was organizations that “dragged their feet.” Please understand, extensions and exemptions deserve careful attention for business units that are unable to meet requirements due to their specific operations, limitations, etc., but this should not be turned into licensure to “get out of” compliance. We must be cognizant that aviation maintenance — as a system — depends on consistent standards as a yeast of its success. In order for the game to be predictable (and maximized), everyone must play by the same rules.

Covey’s Time Management Matrix

An excellent example that models out this principle is Stephen Covey’s Time Management Matrix (refer to Figure 1), from his book Seven Habits of Highly-Effective People. This matrix is composed of four quadrants, consisting of the Urgent-Important, Urgent-Not-Important, Not-Urgent-Important, and Not-Urgent-Not-Important. These quadrants represent varying levels of common activities, with each assigned intrinsic characteristics or attributes categorized by priority (importance) and timeliness (urgency).

Quadrant I, for instance, is made up of activities categorized as both important and urgent. These activities include crises, pressing problems, and deadline-driven projects. Placement of organizational (even individual) activity must be made cautiously with good conscience, since each of these quadrants begat common results (refer to Figure 2). Activities listed under the heading of Quadrant I often result in stress, burn-out, crisis management, and always putting out fires. In other words, the person and/or organization becomes enslaved to these efforts rather than being in control of the expressed situation, working on long-term solutions to prevent the “fires” from starting in the first place. This can easily be observed in those leaders who hurry rampantly from issue to issue and offer quick, superficial solutions that never really correct root causes of said problems.

Observation has shown some individuals and management teams place inordinate value on “always putting out fires,” since it gives the impression that a lot of work is being done; this assumes that being busy equates to increased productivity — essentially form over function. If this is the case, does quality ever get short changed when this is happening? The Time Management Matrix implies that more important activities be proactively planned and worked in Quadrant II (the Not-Urgent-Important), rather than constantly attending to matters which could have been prevented entirely with simple forethought and planning.

Leadership Tenure by Contractual Agreement

Another factor which contributes to this short-term mindset is when executive management personnel are on contract for only a few years. Given the revolving-door syndrome of corporate America, CEOs, EVPs, and VPs come and go, hopscotching from one organization to another. Each new executive brings a new strategy that is always better than his/her predecessor. The old plan is tossed and the proverbial wheel is reinvented, adding instability to the mix of working staff who have to cope in the wake of prior regimes.

Leadership and Organizational Expectancies

Topmost executives, chairpersons and owners should require their executive management team to plan long-term goals. These goals should possess characteristically long-range scope with sufficient explanation of the benefits for the organization where they work, rather than telling C-level executives, chairpersons, boards of directors, owners, etc., just what they may want to hear, i.e., vague, short-term benchmarks. Executive managers become little more than politicians seeking approval for re-election rather than making substantial changes that pave the way for continued success of the organization, despite a few short-term pains to get the ball rolling for a better life ahead. Our government has revealed this norm time and again, where no official wants to do what is right even though it may be painful, because they do not want to lose their positioning. A frequent term used to describe Congressional sluggishness and ineffectiveness is “gridlock” — is this the way we want our organizations to operate? To be led?

Solution: Begin “Your Plan”

An excellent way of getting your ball rolling is to make detailed use of planners and calendars, by laying out future deadlines with respect to phases (a.k.a. staging, milestones, benchmarking) and assigned objectives for corresponding phases. Begin to habitually categorize organizational (and individual) activity per Covey’s Time Management Matrix to lessen organizational and personal stress, and get out of the habit of everything becoming an emergency. This does not mean emergencies will not occur, just that they should not be the trend. Make time to review impending regulatory changes or requirements that may be listed in this journal and others. Solicit sound ideas and construct and develop strategies that make “good” business sense, instead of coming up with quick work arounds that offer temporal patches on much larger issues. Good luck and good planning! 

Thomas Sheckler is president and senior consultant of Expert Aerospace Solutions LLC, a multi-disciplinary consulting agency specializing in aviation problem solving. EAS LLC engineers technical and nontechnical responses to issues like safety, compliance, training and quality interventions. Sheckler’s background includes aspects of flight and ground operations of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, having worked within several operational environments (i.e., Parts 91, 135, and 145, and military). He has undergraduate degrees in aircraft maintenance and aviation management and earned graduate degrees in system safety and human factors. As a former FAA aviation safety counselor (airworthiness), he continues to volunteer as a FAASTeam representative. Contact Sheckler by email at sheck1dd@hotmail.com.