Improving Airline Safety: Simple rules; intelligent behavior

Even as a frequent but terrible flyer, who craves a gin & tonic every time the safety belt sign goes on, I thought it was about time we all celebrate the remarkable progress in airline safety in leading western airlines.

The fall in the number of accidents from three fatal accidents per million flights to one plane loss for every 3.57 million flights is a remarkable case of what happens when we combine good technology, expert training, sensible regulation and empowerment of crews to do the right thing (Flightglobal.com).

Read below Charles Hogeman account of how this progress was made. His useful maxim I'm sure could inform many other areas of organizational activity:

Presenting on pilot standards at the Flight Safety Foundation (FSF) International Aviation Safety Seminar in October 2010, the Air Line Pilots Association International's chief human factors spokesman Capt Charles Hogeman summed up the limitations of regulation to enforce safety thus: 

"Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to ­complex, intelligent behaviour. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple, ­stupid behaviour."

The IATA rate equates to one jet hull loss accident every 3.57 million flights, whereas the world average is one every 1.5 million flights. A comparison with days gone by shows that, in 1979, the world average accident rate in the same category was three fatal accidents per million flights, so the global average has improved by a multiple of 4.5 in that period.

Source: Flightglobal.com

2011: A Year of Integrity?

I call for this year to be the year in which little by little, person-by-person, we rebuild integrity in our society, communities and businesses. We need to put the wheel back on the wagon.

This is an idea gaining traction. In the Jan-Feb issue of the Harvard Business Review,  strategy gurus Michael Porter and Mark Kramer argue for the reinvention of capitalism through the creation of shared value (CSV) between business and society. They criticize business leaders for conceiving of value creation narrowly and ignoring broader societal factors that govern their long term success.

As soon as one talks of "value" in the broader sense, they raise the question of our ethical decision-making and how we decide what is one value in preference to another. Porter and Kramer take business beyond the right/wrong polarity of compliance to laws and best practices, and they move into the qualitative area of good/bad:A broader and more complex understanding of ethics is needed.

This is timely, as the Edelman survey of Global Trust in Business presented at Davos (FT, 25.2.11), shows a steep decline in trust in business in the US, (to just 46% saying they trust business); and a marginal improvement of 2% globally, (to just 56%). This conceals a sharp drop in trust of banks in western countries.

This loss of trust matters a great deal. It influences the ability of business to shape the global agenda and at the micro level, will mean businesses (and especially banks) will have to work harder to gain the trust of existing and potential customers.

I'm convinced that at the heart of this issue is ethics. But this is not just a subject for law professors;. Nor can we just leave it to "them", then politicians and corporate leaders. It involves us all to be more conscious of our own values and ethical framework, and to act on those values in the face of increasing complexity and uncertainty. 

In June 2010, I wondered around a fascinating exhibition at the Science Musuem in Singapore. It was about the ethical dilemmas in science and medicine. The exhibits showed that there is often no right answer to ethical dilemmas. I reflected that we act with integrity when we consider the different ethical choices and make a conscious decision which we can account for. As US Supreme Court Judge, Potter Stewart describes so well, ethics is about that space that exists between our rights  and obligations.

Integrity therefore means more than keeping to the law, or complying with lists of codes, standards and professional rules. Yes, these are usually important. But rarely do such codes or rule books help us decide what is the right thing to do right now, in this moment.  The Lehman collapse, the Gulf oil spill, and the Iraq  imbroglio did not happen because we lacked the necessary laws or codes - they happened because there was a failure of ethical leadership. 

Put simply, political, institutional and corporate leaders in recent years too often promised more than they could deliver and did not fully consider the wider ethical consequences of their actions.They acted on impulse and in arrogance, not through conscious thoughtful choices.

Philosopher Simon Blackburn describes the need for us to take care of our "ethical environment". This means being aware of all the promises and commitments we make. It means considering the ethical basis of our actions. It means confronting truths.  It means taking ownership for what we do.

Most of us think of ourselves as ethical. Perhaps we work as a professional in some field and have the necessary qualifications and credentials. Perhaps we have a history of doing good work with our clients and we treat people with whom we work well.

Yet, this backward looking view and hubris can make us fall prey to the arrogance that can take over all professionals at some time or other. This is the point when we start listening to  our own ego too much  rather than to others:  Others who may have vital perspectives we need to make good and sounds decisions.

One thing I am working on as a coach is to be less proud of myself as an ethical and professional coach, and be more inquiring and reflective with clients and sponsors about "what is the right thing to do here?" I am learning all sorts of new "stuff" in the process. 

To be ethical therefore we need to be constant state of awareness and learning in relationship with other people (Griffin, D. 2002).

The three ethical perspectives I've found most helpful to guide me are as follows:

• The Utilitarian: What is my underlying purpose or utility in this action to myself, others or society in general?
• The Existential: What are the stark realities and painful truths of the matter, on which I need to decide?
• Deontological: What is my duty in this situation? (NB, Not necessarily to just "follow the rules")

There are many philosophical and ethical factors that go into making a good decision or action - but these three are often a useful starting point, particularly when in discussion with others.

I have designed this short poll to help each of us think about what we need to do more of in this year. The responses are confidential (I cannot see the individual results).

It would be interesting to see the spread of opinion about what is really important for us to focus on  ethically in 2011.

As ever, your comments and questions of any hue are more than welcome.

Santa Claus Exists!

Yes, it's official. And, you read it first on this blog. After many years of denial, I have finally come to my senses - Santa is real.

The evidence for this...much needed by adults...is everywhere around us and even inside us. If we care to look. Those poor people stuck at Heathrow are part of the picture, as they desparately journey to reach loved ones in time for Christmas. The people sleeping on top of each other, with a cup of cold tea by their side, are proof of one thing: It's not all about the money. It's not all about commercial exploitation.

It's about being with people we love; and expressing that love to them. And, recognizing that this is perhaps something we don't do enough of during the year.

For someone still widely believed not to exist, he has achieved a lot. He changes the way that people think, feel and act everywhere.

Christmas is when being with people is more important than anything else. We celebrate magic, surprise and the spirit inside us. We immerse ourselves in traditional rituals. We play games. It's the one time of the year that being merry, joyful and loving is more important than being correct, smart or on-time.

We adults allow ourselves to become children again. 

We get in contact with the significant things. Even as we reject the tacky and commercial aspects of Christmas, we assert the things that are important and meaningful to us.

 

We put the past year in a box on the shelf, and start to unpack the New Year with expectation and excitement. This year will be better than the last.There is something new ahead of us.

Santa therefore is that magical part of us that manifests itself once a year...and occasionally at other times if we allow it.

I wish you a magical, surprising and fulfilling Christmas and a New Year full of energy and anticipation.

Andrew

Virtue is the key to leadership

Like most people, I've been trying to comprehend the disaster still unfolding in the gulf of Mexico. The thought of 35,000-60,000 barrels of oil a day spewing unchecked into the ocean is an environmental nightmare. So much so that we have tended to overlook in recent weeks the deaths of eleven workers as a result of the original explosion. 

How could this have happened? And what do we learn from it? 

BP has a legacy of fatal incidents dating back the Texan oil refinery explosion in 2005, and the Alaska spill in 2006. A recurring theme of this blog is the consistent failure of highly capable and intelligent people to learn from mistakes. The decision by BP not to spend $US8-10m on drill-hole lining technologies, will be studied for years to come. BP followed the fashionable business-school agenda of outsourcing its operations and maintenance, and was left with its Chief Executive unable to answer even basic questions about how the business worked.

However, as we investigate and atomize the causes of this disaster, we run the risk of missing the real significance of the event in the bigger picture. It is also through reflecting on the coincidence of this event with others that we can understand its real meaning.

The coincidence I refer to is the aquital this week of Jeffrey Skilling, former CEO of the collapsed Enron. Skilling convinced and/coerced thousands of Enron employees to invest their 401k shares into company stock at a time when he knew it was about to blow out, and after he had withdrawn his own stock. His acquital means,  in the C-suite at least, lying, cheating and misleading people is not actually illegal. That is, his dishonesty was not proven to be an illegal act. 

I believe the real cause of the Gulf of Mexico tragedy reveals a much bigger hole in the ethical fabric of capitalism.

Rather than doing what is right, business do only what they have to to stay within the law.  Doing more than the law requires may even contradict the fiduciary responsibilities to maximize shareholder value. In the madness of quarter-by-quarter stock market capitalism, making prudent and sensible previsions for safety and risk management can be regarded as acting against the interests of shareholders, who may only own stock for a matter of hours.

Because breaking the law is (mostly) unethical, it does not follow logically that keeping within the law is necessarily ethical. 

Society itself is skewing the ethical framework of capitalism. Deregulation, outsourcing, and  the creation of merged corporations of bewildering complexity sounded like a good idea at the time. We too have all been guilty of losing sight of what is really important and right.

The real lesson of this tragedy is not, therefore in the realms of cognitive psychology. It is obvious that CEOs cannot understand the complexity they are taking on. From Lay to Fuld to Hayward, we are confronted with highly intelligent people overwhelmed by complexity. 

More and better psychological understanding might help, but won't solve the real problem.

The answer lies in Philosophy. This branch of learning has been all but forgotten in the rise of neuroscience and behavioral economics, yet holds vital and perennial lessons for mankind. We need to be constantly reminded that in every thing we do, we face ethical and moral choices. BP's failure is first and foremost not being aware and reflective of the ethical choices it is making. It simply grew too big and took on too much. By not being aware of its own limitations, it failed a basic ethical test - to represent what it can and cannot do, honestly.

The real lesson is that abiding by the law, and following the rules, does not mean that you are acting morally or ethically.  Your business can be at risk even if you are in the technically legal.

The implication is that leadership in business needs to rediscover the philosophy of doing what is right. Being courageous, honest and fair. Business in the last ten years, from Enron, to Lehman and to BP, shows a pattern of amorality that has brought great businesses to its knees.

The lessons therefore, are not about engineering, not about the law, nor even about psychology. The real lessons are the same ones Aristotle taught 2,500 years ago. We must go beyond the law and seek a good, virtuous life. For Aristotle is was all about character and in particular, the habits that flow from good character. Leaders must have good character themselves, but must strive to build good character in others. Above all, virtue comes from how we act, continuously. For Aristotle, achieving virtuous life, or eudaemonia, as he called it, is what its all about. By losing sight of this purpose, we have lost contact with our ability to make sound moral choices.

By reducing questions of business practices to engineering, the law or operational effectiveness, we have forgone access to fundamental human learning. As we develop the technologies to drill in deep water, or to trade in complex financial instruments, we have forgotten the philosophical knowledge, even the language,  that enable us to discern right from wrong.

We need leaders to rediscover virtue as the very basis of their leadership.

But how to put ethics into action. Can we really rationally decide if one course of action is more ethical than another? And, isn't everyone point of view equally of valid? 

Well, leaders can recognize and respect each persons ethical perspective, and at the same time seek the best possible ethical choice. These do not contradict each other. A useful model for leaders is the 6R model (The Code of Ethics and Practice for the Society of Coaching Psychology). Using the six hours as a basis for open, exploratory dialogue can increase the probability that good moral choices are made. The six Rs can be summarized as follows:

• Rights 
• Respect
• Recognition
• Relationship
• Representation
• Responsibility

For instance, workers have a right to life that cannot be compromised by a shareholders right to maximize their returns. People affected by decisions have a right to be included, even if they do not own shares. Public authorities for instance, should have been more involved in disaster planning.

By using the 6Rs leaders can improve their moral decision-making and at least be aware of where they are having to take ethical risk and make remedial provision for this, by improving safety processes, or taking insurance, etc.

Businesses do need to cut costs and take risks. Yet, the question leaders should be asking is not only "what do we have to do within the law" but what is the best ethical decision we can make. It is a matter of being able to properly account for the moral choices you make. This reflexive process is itself a virtuous action. 

Any decision-process is only as good as the character of the leader using it. 

By Invitation: Approaching Teams as a Coach Vs a Therapist, by Katerina Kanelidou, ACC, CPC, MA

I met Katarina at the ICF Balkan's conference and I was very interested to understand her background as a dramatherapist. I think it shows how our backgrounds can enrich us as coaches. In this article, Katarina makes some interesting observations on the differences between group therapy and coaching.

If you want to find out more about Katarina and her practice, you can visit the following web-site:

www.creative-empowerment.eu

Almost always when defining coaching we also read or hear what coaching is not, especially regarding mentoring, consulting, training and therapy. All professional coaches are aware of what differentiates coaching to therapy. The same applies to Team Coaching.

Here we examine how approaching the Team as a coach compares to approaching the Team as a therapist. Given that we have group therapy, group analysis, systemic approach, behavior therapy, etc, I have drawn on my experiences as a dramatherapist, so 'therapy' should be understood to refer to dramatherapy. Clients should be also understood as functioning people with no pathology.


Differences

The Client

In therapy, the client is the patient / participant. In Team coaching, we have the sponsor – organization paying for the services – as the client on the one hand and the coachees – team members – on the other. Based on this, further distinctions between therapy and coaching may be drawn:

•    In therapy, confidentiality is strictly between therapist and group members. In coaching, specific agreements govern confidentiality with both sponsor and coachees, and what information is shared and how.

•    The voluntary character of therapy is absent in team coaching.  Coachees are asked to participate by management and the coach must motivate and persuade them about the benefits of their participation.

•    In therapy, the client sets his/her own agenda. In coaching, there is the organization's agenda for the team and the coachees' agenda. A first task is to align both and achieve commitment to the common goals and vision.

Preparation

Team therapy is always preceded by a session exploring the client's history and determining whether team therapy is the best strategy. In coaching, depending on team characteristics and goals, prior interviews with team members may be optional, as well as assessments.


Expectations

In team therapy, each member has his/her own expectations (awareness, self-growth, etc). Individual expectations of team members may be similar but do not constitute a common goal for the team.

In coaching, expectations are set at the outset. Coachees may have their own expectations, which are explored to find areas common with the team's expectations, but the purpose of both team and coaching is results. It is an action – focused process and the team has a shared goal.

The therapeutic team has the purpose of each member, not a collective one. The coaching team has a very specific purpose (e.g. a project), the intention being to improve the teams’ effectiveness at work. This distinction impacts how we deal with conflicts, for example. In therapy, we examine the root of the conflict between the members. Coaching may explore not (only) why this conflict arose but how it can serve the goal and how it can be used constructively.

Focus

Therapy deals with painful unresolved issues; the focus is on the past. The client gains awareness and decides how to use it. The therapist usually deals with strong emotions and must also be in therapy him/herself.

Team coaching, as all coaching, focuses on present and future and is solution-oriented. The past can be explored only if needed and up to a certain extend. The coach must also be able to work with strong emotions. In my opinion, the coach's participation as a member in team coaching, therapy, etc. is beneficial in gaining experience in team dynamics and evolution.

Common features

A common feature, whether working in team therapy or coaching, is the space created i.e. a safe, respectful non-judgmental environment and strong relationships of trust allowing for growth and self-development. The difference is that in team coaching the aim is developing the team together with the members, empowering the team and its components.

Both therapy and coaching bring awareness of how team members’ cognitive and emotional reactions can interfere with personal effectiveness, performance and wellbeing. In team coaching, this awareness is focused on the effectiveness and performance of the team as well.

Coach and therapist share common...

• Skills, such as deep listening and using powerful questions that raise awareness

• Qualities, such as insight and empathy

• The ability to dance alongside with the clients

And, they act as models providing feedback that is well received and helps the growth of both team and members. Both practices embrace a collaborative partnership encouraging creativity and members’ unique solutions.

However, the presence of a therapist can be different to a coach’s both physically, given that a team coach often moves in the corporate world, and with regard to expression: therapists adopt a neutral, stiller presence, only showing approval and encouragement; coaches have a more energized presence and expressions of positive feelings are welcome.

My Dear Friends

I just wanted to let you all know how saddened I am about the terrible tragedy occurring over the weekend. Poland has suffered enough throughout its history, and for all of us who love Poland this catastrophe is almost too much to bear.

Being amongst those who gathered around the Presidential Palace, lighting candles and singing hymns, helped me to  experience the power and resilience of the Polish people. The quiet dignity and communal reflection of the people is really inspiring. The Polish people will bear this as they have borne so much in the past.

All those on the plane were in active public service. They were due to take part in a service  of remembrance, peace-building and reconciliation.  This meaning will not be lost and I do believe that in some mysterious, as yet unforeseen way, their work will be realized in future.

I wish all of you a time of peace and quiet in your soul.

Andrew Atter

ICF Balkan Conference: Bucharest Romania April 30 "The Working Alliance: Vodafone Romania, a client case study"

The Working Alliance: Vodafone Romania, a client case study

Romania is an exciting country in which to work. There is something very energetic and dynamic about the transition economies and this is perhaps truer for Romania than anywhere. Its young well educated  population, and its "Mediterranean" feel create ideal conditions for coaching to grow. 

It perhaps therefore no surprise that in Romania it was possible to partner with Vodafone to implement very best practices in executive coaching. Leaders from Vodafone Romania will join me on a panel at the ICF Balkan conference, on April 30 (The conference starts on 29 April) to discuss these assignments. 

The ICF Balkan conference will be a great place to show how "leading edge" coaching practices do not only occur in the developed west, but on the frontiers of Europe, where change and transformation are happening so rapidly.

Here's a precis of the planned discussion.

The coaching profession of the future will be very different from today. Already, there are major changes taking place. I would to help create a dialogue about how these changes are affecting the way we work, both as internal and external coaches.

One important shift is the way in which we, as external coaches, work with the client and the organizational sponsor.

My view is that we are at our most effective as coaches when we build a strong relationship with our client – the person being coached and also when we enrol the sponsor of the coaching as an active mentor-coach.

I believe this can be done without jeopardising the confidential and trusted basis for client – coach relationship. More than this, it limits the risk that a leader is “outsourcing” their developmental responsibilities to the coach. When working properly, the sponsoring leader and the external executive coach are working as a coaching team for the benefit of the client.

Too often, the sponsor of the coaching feels disempowered by the presence of the coach and their genuine intention to support and help in the development of the client is not properly leveraged. A leader may therefore act as a commercial sponsor for coaching, but still have no ownership for the broader organizational outcomes. This is a dangerous situation for both client and coach.

Internal and external coaching is therefore not a binary choice, but an opportunity for collaboration.
This tri-partite relationship, formed by client, coach and sponsor,  is what I call the Working Alliance.

Let’s be clear...the Working Alliance is there primarily for the benefit of the client. But I also think it is possible to generate secondary benefits for the organization, and this is why the sponsors role is so important.

For instance, if the client is working to improve their leadership style by coaching and empowering their teams more, the client will benefit from enhanced relationships and career progression; and, the organization will benefit by experiencing improved organizational climate.

The Working Alliance is therefore a framework that can help align the organizational needs with the publicly stated goals of the client. Throughout, it is probable that the client will also have private goals, which are shared only with their coach.

Here is a more detailed list of topics to be discussed at the conference:

• The ethics of and within the Working Alliance
  

• Contracting within the Alliance
  

• Agreeing and aligning Public and Private goals
  

• Putting the Alliance to work for the benefit of the Client
  

• Measuring the results of the Alliance from the client and sponsor perspective
  

I would like to share my experiences of forming Working Alliances in different cultures around the world.

This is the approach that underpinned the successful engagement with Vodafone Romania. We are fortunate to have present leaders from Vodafone Romania who have both been coached and acted as the sponsor for coaching.

We plan to create an informative and interactive session, with plenty of room for plenary dialogue and Q&A.