Reflect
on the role of collaboration and getting to resolution in the process of
decision-making. Rarely, if ever, do our decisions affect only ourselves.
Consider the importance of getting other stakeholders involved; how can they
help you make a better decision for all? Detail a specific situation
where you are faced with the decision, describe the process you went through
and the outcome you were seeking. Identify 5 ways stakeholder involvement can
help you make better decisions. Did you achieve your objective?
Looking back at the decision you made and its consequence, was there
anyone else that would have added value to the process? Identify 3 ways you may
use this learning experience to make better decisions in the future?
“Leadership has been
described as a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others
in the accomplishment of a common task.”
And since leadership in today’s terms simply might mean a leader for an
hour, day or what ever the situation specifically calls for. Leadership can have so many different meanings to so many
different people. As an example, there is a controversy weather leadership is
to be viewed as a specialized role or, shared in the process of influencing?
Direct or indirect leadership and the ability of a military leader or
CEO of a fortune 500 company to influence behavior and institute organizational
change via direct Leadership by virtue of proximity to with-in his or her reach.
And indirect leadership like cascading down the chain of command until it
reaches the lowest and most distant level. Of course this would be difficult in
some of todays organizational structures where instead of up and down
organizational hierarchy, the organizational structure is horizontally
structured.
Another method of defining leadership that I did not see in the text
might be referred to as official and unofficial leadership roles. By that I
mean, an organization will have a leader whose position is to influence and
motivate individuals to complete a specific task and in a specific manner. That
said, it is the unofficial leader… the guy who has been on the job for a number
of years and knows the nuances of the task and business at hand, and will motivate
and keep the group on track and on point. It is those individuals who the
official leader must rely on to indirectly motivate and nurture the group
toward a positive outcome.
The conflict was the need to accomplish a modification to an
existing satellite communication system already installed on an aircraft,
although a Design Engineering Representative (DER) had not approved the modification.
This in itself was not the crux of the problem since our internal engineers had
designed and submitted the modification for approval. The true conflict, was
when the modification was not approved by the DER due to another unrelated
issue, this rendered the aircraft un-airworthy due to an incomplete
modification. The role of quality and safety, and the responsibility for
oversight of a properly modified and legally configured modification capable of
being returned to service in a safe and legal manner was mine to bear.
The other stakeholders were the science and engineering division
who created the modification, flight operations responsible for operating the
aircraft, the maintenance department responsible for the total airworthiness of
all aircraft and the DER responsible for the approval and subsequent routing of
all documentation to the FAA.
The result was many stakeholders wiliness to overlook not only
our standard safety practices, but also those of our governing body the FAA.
Many stakeholders attempted to override my stand fast decision to keep the
aircraft in an un-airworthy condition until the modification was either removed
in its entirety and the aircraft returned to the original configuration or wait
until the DER submits the approved data.
The room for improvement would and was realized by the other
stakeholders that safety policies and procedures are in-place for not only the
safety of those in the aircraft but also those around the aircraft. The true
source of the conflict was that other stakeholders were worried about losing
test range time for another scientific package due for operational testing and
evaluation and, the willingness to overlook policies, procedures and
regulations in order to get the aircraft to the testing range.
It was only after the local FAA was contacted that individual’s agreement with me in my analysis and course of action did the
stakeholders realize the seriousness of the current situation. It is important
to point out that at no time was the aircraft in jeopardy of operating in an
unsafe manner; it would have been operating in a manner counter to policies,
procedures and a legal manner.
The other issue discussed after this incident, was that it
should not be necessary to involve outside entities to prove a point, or stop a
momentum, which could set precedent for future poor decisions, all in the name
of timing or expedience. It was realized that there is a purpose for in-place
checks and balances and that attempting to ignore, discount or re-interpret
sound and prudent policies, procedures and regulations is counterproductive in
time and the safe operation of aircraft.
As a result of this incident, it was decided the operation would
stand-up a much needed Change Configuration Team (CCT.) The purpose of the CCT
was to assess the work or modification to be accomplished, the approval of
modifications and specifications, and the regulatory requirements that needed
to be addressed prior to any work commencing. And an Estimated Time of Completion
(ETIC,) would be required and again approved prior to work commencing along
with its impact the modification scheduled may have with any scheduled
mission(s). The team would also assess if the scheduled modification was
necessary for any upcoming scheduled mission(s) or could the modification be
deferred until scheduled aircraft down time, and could the modification be
accommodated into the down time?
The CCT took the better part of two months of policy review and
revisions, before a mutually acceptable document was sent for
approval. The mutually agreeable caveat was that safety and quality would never
be disregarded in order to meet customer needs or mission demands. In other
words… like all aviation maintenance, it is the maintenance that drives the
mission and not the mission driving the maintenance.
