It was 47 years ago this week that one of the more high-profile plane crashes in U.S. history took place. It was United Airlines flight 173. The route was JFK to Denver to Portland. In all, 10 died on that day . The plane crash-landed in a Portland suburb after running out of fuel. The plane had circled the airport for an hour or so as the pilot was trying to figure out what was wrong with the landing gear. Flying a plane with the loss of its landing gear is clearly a stressful circumstance. However, the captain’s preoccupation with the landing gear led to excess time spent circling the airport. This then exhausted the plane’s fuel supply which in turn brought it to its crash-landing.
The investigation following the crash revealed that the pilot was negligent in not adequately attending to the fuel levels and the crew was responsible for not speaking forcefully enough to the captain of their concerns about it. Some reports indicated the pilot was clearly told about the crew’s concern over fuel levels but dismissed it. While there were a lot of fingers being pointed, the central problem is largely viewed as a pilot that didn’t want to hear from his crew and a crew that was not aggressive enough in speaking out about the problem.
The incident led to the creation of an FAA regulation entitled Crew Resource Management. It applies to commercial aircraft and essentially states that a pilot has a duty to listen to his/her crew, and the crew has a duty to speak up, inform and challenge its pilot.
Seems unfortunate that a rule is needed to get people to speak up and to listen.
Let’s take this to the workplace. I imagine most of us have worked at one time or another for a boss that didn’t respond well to opinions that were expressed different than his/her own. We’ve no doubt been around leaders that discouraged pushback, dissent or disagreement. Some of that may be due to their own insecurity; some of it may be their desire to encourage only ‘happy talk’ in the office. And some of it may be the leader’s insistence on loyalty to his/her command. The price that is paid for this is the lack of innovation, the risk of poor decisions being made, and the introduction of a culture of mediocrity. While for most of us, the failure of the leader to listen and the failure to speak up by those being led does not cost lives. Thank goodness.
The sweet spot for leaders is to create an environment of ‘psychological safety’ where our teams feel at ease in expressing opposing points of view. And for team members it’s critical to offer challenges to the boss’s point of view when circumstances warrant.
Fast forward 47 years from the UA173 incident. A few months ago, I was asked to speak at a Senior Leadership Meeting being held by a mid-sized company. The event was offsite and the agenda touched on a number of key business topics. My segment was to introduce some leadership content relevant to this audience. Before my turn to speak I was invited to sit in on the morning sessions in order to get a feel for the participants, the flow of the meeting, and the general tone of the conversation.
The CEO kicked off the morning with some introductory remarks and then turned it over to the team. The business topics were presented and discussed. At one point there was a ‘new direction’ that the CEO was asked to comment on. As the leader, the CEO summarized the company’s position regarding this change. In the ensuing discussion, some participants voiced their concern in opposition to the new direction. In essence, they were challenging the CEO. After a while, the CEO stood up and addressed the group. The content of those remarks went something like this: It’s okay to disagree with this direction. I value what you have to say. In the beginning, all of us, including myself, need to be respectful of those that don’t agree with this new direction. I’m confident that in time we will work through this, come to a common ground, and be a better organization having done so. Wow.
This was masterful. The CEO was modeling the exact leadership behavior that the organization needed at that time. The CEO then said something light-hearted that made the participants chuckle. That humor was right on queue. Just what was needed for the situation.
As the meeting went on, I noticed an extremely healthy exchange of ideas. I noticed a pro/con, give/take kind of discussion. In no instance did anyone take anything personal. There was high energy in the room. There was laughter. There was collaboration. There was a team united around its core purpose. It was textbook stuff. Brilliant in many ways.
I can’t help but think of UA173 and the lives that were tragically lost for reasons centered around an inability to engage in the ‘give and take’ of a direct conversation. Then, I think of this high energy company being led by a talented CEO who clearly had engineered a culture that embraces candor.
If you’re in a leadership position, one of the greatest compliments a team-member can pay you is to disagree with you in front of others. When they do so (tactfully and professionally of course), they are sending a signal that they are comfortable enough with your leadership that they do not fear reprisal. They do not fear retaliation. They do not fear you will ‘pull rank’ on them, embarrass them, or simply shoot them down. That’s when you know you’ve arrived as a leader. That’s when you know your organization is healthy and poised for success.
#Leadership #Leadership Speaker #Executive Coaching