A520.6.5.RB_LloydPayneDamien

520.6.5.RB: Team Roles

  This is an ePortfolio item.

Write a blog entry on task-facilitating and relationship-building roles. In your blog, reflect upon your understanding of how these roles enhance team performance. Consider how you generally relate as a team-member. Do you actively engage your team to accomplish its mission? Do you work to improve the team cohesion and collaboration? In my experience there are generally two types of people in the workplace - those you go to for advice and facts and things that need to be known (because you don't) - and you respect that person's longevity with the company or his status that he holds within it;  and then there are those that you are friends with.  It's pretty rare to find someone who is both.  And this is because the former has assumed the mantle of a task facilitating role, and the latter a relationship building role. Lets look at the task facilitator.  In a team - he's the guy that is going to keep you all on task.  A little bit like John "Hannibal" Smith in the 80's TV show 'The A-Team' - If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find him, maybe you can hire... The Task Facilitator.  Task facilitators can really enhance a team's performance particularly when that performance is stuck, is slow, has been deflected from its' task, when time pressures exist or when it has become ambiguous as to how to proceed.  You may even find that there are several team members performing this role, each adding their little bit of expertise to tip the scale in the team's favor. With the relationship builder the role is different.  These guys are there to make everyone feel good about each other and about being part of the team. This can be very important when there is a lot of pressure in the team or when disagreement is the norm.  Relationship builders are supporting, harmonizing, tension relievers.  They energize the team through motivation, develop and build consensus as well as empathizing with the team members. Its important to note here that for a team to really be high performing - you will need at least one of each.  Those interpersonal bonds are going to be just as important as staying on task, and so long as the relationship builder isn't too far the other way  and becoming a distraction and the task facilitator doesn't go too far and become a slave driver - things will go well. In my own working sphere, I have definitely fallen into the relationship building role.  I've never really been the ideas man in so much as I can't hold on to all those tiny facts that you need to be the type of person that is considered the 'font of all knowledge' at work.  If I remembered the exact maximum and minimum T5 in degrees centigrade for both engines and for single engine operations instead of just knowing that if the gauge is "in the green" I'm o.k;  I would surely have to forget something else in order to hold onto that fact!   I have however found that my personality lends itself well to fostering relationships, energizing groups of people and building a chemistry in a team that makes everyone feel good about itself.  In fact I believe it was a conscious decision.  When I was a rep for Hoechst at the beginning of my career I attended a 5 day sales conference where one day we were put into teams to solve a particular imaginary sales issue.  I remember seeing one team, led by a guy called Keith Watson (who happened to be a good friend of mine) come up before us all and present their answer. The important thing though was not the answer - it was the energy that just radiated out from this team.  Their smiles were larger than any other teams, they laughed, they made some good jokes, they made everyone in the audience feel good;  and they just glowed. And it didn't stop there, they were together at dinner, in the down time they were sitting together at the pool or at the bar too.  I remember thinking - "I'm not always going to be able to get onto Keith Watson's team, but if I ever get a chance to influence one of my own, it's going to be just like his". And it really was from this experience, and from having the opportunity to work with Keith for several years afterwards that really helped me to adopt and mature this relationship building role.  I work harder at team cohesion and collaboration than anything else - even above everything else. I use humor quite a bit to relieve tension, and also to break the ice.  I think it also helps build my credibility as a leader - not necessarily as the most knowledgeable leader but as one who is trustworthy and respected - able to talk to all ages, genders, skills. Someone who at the very least can handle people - the gruff ones and those who need soem understanding, the old ones and the new guys, the mechanics and the pilots.  I may not be able to get the right answer all the time, but if they fail at the task it will be with a sense that they were in a team of real consequence, and they accomplished something just in being as a team.  I want people to look at my teams and say "I want to be in Damien's team".  This may seem uni-dimensional - but I balance the need for cohesion with getting the task done, and never let the role overshadow the task.  In fact, I think one of the worst teams to be in would be a team today with both me and Keith in it.  The relationship roles would be too overbearing, and become a distraction, both of us in the team may be too dominant over the team.  You can only have so much of a good thing!  I've not found that this has been a problem so far.  I guess there can't be that many Keith Watson's in the world - or perhaps a certain 'love of the stage' is what is needed in those that prove to be really very good at adopting the relationship-building role. It is possible that the modern company has gradually weeded out the relationship-builders by encouraging efficiency, speed and getting the job done over the feeling good about doing it. Relationship building hasn't really been the number one priority on managers minds for quite some time. Whatever it is, I believe that there are far more task facilitators today than there are relationship builders, and we are not necessarily better off for it.

A520.5.3.RB_LloydPayneDamien

A520.5.3.RB - Forrestor's Empowerment

Review the article titled: “ Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea” by Russ Forrester (2000). In your blog, prepare a summary that compares and contrasts the concepts discussed to those discussed in the text. What first struck me in this article was the thought that I had read all of this before in the text of Whetten & Cameron, and that Forrester was stressing the same ideas using different words and examples. But by looking closer there are some differences, starting with their definitions. Whetten & Cameron describe empowerment as "providing freedom for people to do successfully what they want to do, rather than getting them to do what you want them to do" (P443).  Forrester states: "Empowerment is about power and enhancing it".  They seem to agree in principle that empowerment is about the wider distribution of the power available, however what seems to be the difference is that for Whetten & Cameron power seems to be inherently available in everyone, yet relatively under utilized or untapped.  By reorganizing the structure that power is unleashed. Businesses must "create the circumstances in which I can empower myself".  For Forrester, that power is not a "currency that can be acquired". Forrester mentions 6 reasons for empowerment failing in modern businesses. Many of these are similar to the inhibitors of power in Whetten & Cameron. 1) Precipitous power mandates - implementation of the power divide is too fast, receivers of the power are given no more time to accomplish more work, while team leaders and supervisors scramble for control for fear that their jobs were at risk. This is addressed as Personal insecurities in Whetten & Cameron:  "some managers fear they will lose the recognition and rewards associated with successful task accomplishment f they empower others".  Forrester's description of this fast power mandate as a "retractable leash" is very powerful. Whetten and Cameron's solution would be to foster personal mastery experiences, taking the time for the small wins, leading to the large ones. 2) Over-reliance on a narrow psychological concept, and a one size fits all empowerment - what Forrester accurately describes here is that if you don't take into consideration every person's needs, or understand that everyone is an individual, you are more than likely doomed to failure. Whetten & Cameron touch on this in the section entitled 'Meaning' that states the person must "believe in and care about what they produce".  However, what I particularly like about the Forrester article is that is recognizes that "money counts a lot, especially for those who have little or some of it" - something I agree with more than anything else in this article or the text.  Not much is made by Whetten & Cameron as money being the motivator, but you only need to read my previous blogs to show that this is not always the truth - everyone is different. Forrester also points out the pitfalls of empowerment becoming a mind game, and the resulting disenchantment.  I like this because although I am certainly not a fan of Lady Thatcher, her quote "if you have to tell people you are, you aren't" really is very valuable.  Too often have I seen in companies the open door policy, the email or suggestion box - only to discover, like Forrester, that "the employees power has not changed one bit". 3)  "Passing the muffins" - in this pitfall, Forester acknowledges that asking a power holder to just share his power as if you were asking him to "pass the muffins" is the most common mistake.  He recognises how hard it is for middle managers to let go of the reins and offers five "needs" that explain why. These are also touched on in Whetten & Cameron on P462. Here they describe how middle managers often blame the receivers to be the problem, their own fear of losing recognition and the need to control. Where I find myself disagreeing with Forrester is in his statement "Everything else being equal those who have risen to the higher levels of the organization have done so because they wanted to get there and tried the hardest".  What this fails to recognize is that nothing is ever equal, as it cannot be if we recognize that all people are individuals, each with their own pre-conceived ideas, prejudices, friendships and ethics. 4) Piecemeal approaches and Distortions of accountability - not addressed by Whetton and Cameron these are surely is important.  If the whole structure is not geared to empowerment, the piece of empowerment given will be slowly whittled down to conform again to the structure. In addition, by taking away the accountability, you take away the power. The similarities between Whetten &Cameron and Forrester are higher in where they agree on how to empower people.  Although Whetten & Cameron ascribe to a different motivating formula and are much more detailed in the ways in which to empower people, both agree that tailoring programs to the individual, making sure that the whole structure is behind empowerment and investing in skills, knowledge and expertise are all critical to empowerment success. They also agree that supporting the power sharers by going for the small wins first and using mentors is vital to empowerment success. Focusing on results also features in both Forrester and Cameron & Whetten. The only marked difference is when Forrester describes power growth.  In his article he states "power grows where it grows, incrementally" and also points out that " the imputes for real change in an individually tailored process is that real power breeds power."  Although hinted at in Whetten and Cameron, this is not made into its own individual point nor do they mention this 'holistic' approach to power. revitalize a concept much maligned and a text book that attempts to explain the basic principles, more than two authors who fundamentally disagree on empowerment.

A520.4.3.RB_LloydPayneDamien

A520.4.3.RB - Motivation Beyond Money

  This is an ePortfolio item.

Yes, we all like to be paid, but money is not among the three most important reason why we work. Andy Mulholland shares his insights as to what those three things are. Create a blog entry discussing each of the motivators identified in this video and discuss their impact on you; additionally identify 3 additional motivators that have a major impact on you. Andy Mulholland basically identifies three motivators for him that lead to job satisfaction: 1) Do Interesting work. - I agree that it is important that you find your work interesting.  It helps make time pass faster, your working life becomes more of a playtime than a chore and enjoying your work will keep your mental health in good order. Having a job that is tedious may lead to you quitting to find another more interesting job, but I think Andy may have missed something crucial here:  I'd love to be an astronaut!  In fact I can think of nothing else more interesting than walking on the moon, somewhere only twelve other people have been.  But to get to the astronaut program I probably have to serve in the air force, be educated beyond degree level, have the physical fitness of a butchers dog and spend countless years training for selection to go to the moon. Is all of that going to be interesting 100% of the time - NO!  Now lets consider those that (because of social pressures or by birthright) cannot obtain an education - maybe not even finishing high school. Are there interesting jobs for them too? Furthermore, Andy assumes that every job is interesting, because if we all based our career choices on this first guideline, who would collect the garbage, sweep the streets and do all the mundane things in life that nobody considers interesting? The main failure with this motivator is that even the most interesting job, repeated often enough becomes less and less interesting by the day.  Soon, what used to fascinate and enthrall, oft repeated, becomes normal and mundane, so there has to be something else there to keep you interested.  Its one of the reasons I'm doing this Masters Degree - it's keeping me interested in flying helicopters every day. 2) Expand your skill set. Now this is a good one.  Expanding your skill set is a real motivator - for getting another job! Usually one that pays better! Consider the civilian helicopter pilot.  First you spend 2 years paying for and earning your Private, Commercial, Instrument, CFI and CFII tickets (and if you are clever your ATP too.).  Then you spend up to two years teaching others to fly, expanding your skills in the process as a pilot so that you can move on to the glorious and elusive "Turbine engine". With 1000 hours under your belt you go to the Gulf of Mexico and hire on with PHI or Bristow, where they pay you much better to fly more complex aircraft, then transition you into twin engine Sikorsky S76's or S92s. And it's all on their dime - (Thanks very much)!  Very interesting stuff while you are still unsure, but over time it transforms from that overwhelming panel of gauges and buttons to just another helicopter.  Now, thanks to PHI you've expanded your skill set, and the job is still interesting flying (popping out of the clouds 0.5 miles from a waterspout is always interesting!); but now other things are more important: money, not sleeping in a trailer in Louisiana, not spending 6 months of the year away from the kids on a week on week off schedule, and oh, did I mention money? - so  what do you do? You make for the corporate world - where the money is much better and you get to be home every night. And finally, the schedule, the people, the company, the paycheck and of course the flying are all interesting enough to keep you there. 3) Be recognized and Valued. This is Andy's coup de grace. Its his pinnacle of all motivators. He says that without this nothing else matters. Yes, I think it is important to be recognized, but if you paid someone every month for doing his job, but told him to stay at home and no need to come to work - would he quit because his work colleges were more recognized than him, or no one at work was telling him how much he was valued? NO! of course not.  Recognition is good, but it depends who you value the recognition from.  For me its my family, and especially my wife.  If my boss never tells me how wonderful I am I really don't care, one meeting a year is hardly going to make my boss the expert anyway.  As for my work friends, we are men, and worse we are pilots.  We don't go around hugging each other and telling each other what fantastic pilots were today!   But if I don't hear it sometimes from my wife I get demotivated. And that's the crux here Mr. Mulholland - you need to work in order to live, not live in order to work. So ok, here are my big three motivators: 1) Schedule. changed to doing this helicopter thing full time I've missed countless school plays, days out at the park, firework displays on the 4th July, trips to Sesame Street Place and countless summer Sunday afternoon strolls with the wife, hand in hand while the kids run ahead and play. I've missed many other things that I just can't get back. I'm very lucky - Merck provides this for me, and often you don't know how important this is until you don't have it. 2) Safety. I believe it was an airplane pilot who once said "a helicopter is just a hundred thousand parts moving in formation.  Everything is fine until one of those parts decides to break formation". I think he then went on to say how a plane is just a nicely shaped brick that will always fly if you keep the speed up! I don't happen to agree, and given an emergency, I would much rather be in a helicopter than a plane. But what keeps those "parts in formation" is money.  Money spent on good mechanics, good parts, good maintenance schedules and all without constantly using the MEL. (Minimum Equipment List).  Although many people consider flying helicopters to be hazardous, this is mainly based on the media that they are exposed to regarding them.  Lets face it, 'news' organisations only rely on the mantra "if it bleeds it leads" - so people only ever hear of the helicopters that crash. In fact the reason I fly for Merck apart from the schedule and number 3) below is the reassuring maintenance. And I've flown for horror operators before.  Safety isn't my number one concern regarding maintenance because I am still responsible for taking the aircraft out - so there is always, even with the horrors, a chance to say no - but it is highly motivating knowing you are coming back. 3) Money (and benefits) Yeah, I know - the guru's are going to tell you always this isn't what people want, but I disagree. No amount of patting me on the back, valuing my services or giving me responsibility is going to make up for the pay check. In fact, giving me the extra responsibility is just going to get me to ask for more money, or demotivate me. It sounds strange, but it's true.  You have to have lived off $20,000 a year with 2 kids under 5 and a wife and no outside support to really know what I'm talking about here.  And I'm not talking about the odd treat to the cinema on Grandma, or the "loan" you never have to pay back from Dad. I'm also talking about those things that don't have a price tag.  For example, having mum come round to babysit for the night so you and the wife can go out, having the in-laws look after your daughters goldfish for 2 weeks when you go away, or getting your friends to mow the lawn and take in the mail if you are not there.  If you move 4000 miles across the Atlantic, that support structure that is so undervalued by those that have it close by and free - has to all be paid for.  And to do it, or to be able to do those things you have to worship the paycheck. Finally a word on benefits. Healthcare isn't free, and it certainly isn't getting any cheaper.  A good health plan is vital when you have a family, a good 401k or pension is important once you start thinking about these things in your early 40's!  A mediocre paycheck and even more mediocre healthcare isn't going to keep me interested very long - sorry Andy!

A520.3.5.RB_LloydPayneDamien

A520.3.5.RB - Supportive Communication

Create a blog posting describing how you can integrate supportive communication in your present position, utilize the guidelines detailed on page 165 and describe the expected outcomes that may result from your efforts. Integrating supportive communication should at least be integral to Cockpit resource management.  All pilots have to clear and concise, listen to the other pilots views and opinions, and identify areas of agreement between the two. However, it is on the ground in the office environment where this often falls apart. Lets take each of the Behavioral Guidelines (p265) in turn: 1) Differentiate between Coaching and Counselling: This can easily be integrated by the formation of ground school sessions reviewing aircraft and safety information (coaching) and then using the counselling to ensure in meetings that any procedural outcomes from those lessons are adhered to.  There is always something to learn from other pilots - sadly in our industry it is usually from someone's accident, but by understanding that there is never a point at which you can't learn more the increase in safety in the department will be beneficial. 2) Communicate congruently: This would be very useful in our personal one on one discussions with our managers or with each other.  Its sometimes very difficult to get on with everyone - especially in a cockpit, where the pressure of flying in busy airspace around New York City and flying a complex machine can really produce destructive comments in the heat of the moment.  I think if everyone was taught the supportive communication ideal then the team building aspect is sure to follow. 3) Use descriptive statements: Just the other day, a pilot announces in the pilot meeting - "There is so much bottled water in the aircraft you can barely move so from now on only bring your own bottled water into the aircraft; its a new rule " Talk about exaggeration! Everyones immediate response was negative - who was he to make a new rule, I've never noticed too much water,  It seems he was the only one that noticed the excess of water. Had the pilot actually used facts, described the problem and maybe then suggested the solution,  the idea could have become a rule with everyone's agreement. 4) Use problem orientated statements: Again - "you are bringing too much water into the aircraft" could have been rephrased to "I'm finding that there are always 2 or three full bottles of water on the aircraft and that reduces the amount of space available for stowing gear. How can we solve this issue" This focuses on the problem, not the bad pilot! 5) Use Validating statements:  There is a pilot who has a huge knowledge base and is very clever.  He has the knack of remembering all the small details.  Unfortunately he uses that to excuse his gruff mannerisms and as a put down to others. If we can teach this guy the importance of validating others, more people would want to use his obvious talent for keeping standards high. 6) Using specific not global statements: I work for a big company with thousands of employees, and my section is tiny in comparison.  We are constantly asked to do online learning about things that have absolutely no bearing on our job as we would never come into contact with them as pilots. By specifically tailoring things to our department more attention may result in improved results. Right now we do these for the sake of ticking off the box. 7) Being Conjunctive: If we could tie in the mission statement to things we actively do every day I think we will see improvements.  A little like the "this is the year of safety" approach, where everything you do as a goal or as a development module would be tied to safety. What would this accomplish? It would improve safety because we are all focused on it 100% 8) Owning: Nobody at Merck owns anything.  Video messages from the CEO are always "if we do this we can accomplish that", messages from the boss are always "the company wants me to tell you..." How about leading by saying, this is what I have done and want you to do the same......." This would encourage and allow employees to feel empowered to make a difference purely by copying what the boss does. 9) Supportive Listening: Pardon? Listening! Yeah right. Holding a meeting and confirming you are listening by acting on those comments would be a good start. My company has something to learn on this point too.

A520.3.1.RB_LLoyd PayneDamien

A520.3.1.RB - Decision Making  In your blog, reflect upon the following questions: What are a few words that describe your decision-making style? What are the opposites of the words you chose? Could you see any benefits to making decision using an approach that is based on either the opposites or somewhere in-between and what outcomes would you expect to see? There are a few words that describe my decision making style, the words are: Democratic - Most often used in family situations or at work where no flight duty decisions are being made.I will solicit and ask for the opinions of others, select the best options and there may well be a vote for or against the decision if there are a lot of people.   Collective - I use this in flight duties. Although the final authority of the decision and therefore the responsibility for the results rests with the PIC in flight circumstances, modern Cockpit Resource Management techniques require captains to gain any information he can from others to help make the decision, and this may be the co-pilot, passengers or even air traffic control. Authoritative - When the decision is made, its made with authority. It can change if the circumstances are significantly changed, but the others are left in no doubt what the final decision was and why it was made. The opposites of the words I chose are: Autocratic - I'll make the decision alone, Ill take responsibility for the outcome alone. Independent - I won't take in anyone else's input, because I am the Captain, therefore I know best. Consensus - Regardless of the decision made, this can be flexible, adjusted at any time and watered down so that really the decision was pointless, because it can change very often. The problem as I see it with making a decision using the opposites is that in flight that is dangerous.  Significant improvements to accident statistics have been shown from the introduction of Crew Resource Management. Captains of aircraft are strongly advised to use the collective decision making process. Final authority and responsibility rests with the Captain, but advice needs to be sought from all resources, on the ground and whatever is available in the air (including Air Traffic Control) As regards making a decision based on the autocratic decision style, one has to ask why?  If the whole family are going to be effected by the decision it is only fair that each has a vote in that decision.  My family has made many big decisions over the last 10 years - including weather we should emigrate or not.  In the end it came to making a list - writing down all the pros and cons that we could think of.  This helped clarify things greatly, and in the end made the decision an easy one for us all. Had I taken an autocratic approach to emigration, the problem becomes that those involved in the aftermath of the decision will blame all small problems on the one making the decision. They would probably feel a loss of control over their own destiny, which in turn may well produce just the opposite reaction to what one would want - that is they may well work at defying your decision and making the problem worse, just to prove you wrong. In a cockpit, the problem will exacerbate a situation that may already be forming one link in the accident chain.  Ignoring the opinion of other crew members will mean just encourage animosity in the cockpit and feelings of low esteem.  Hardly a breeding ground for good results.  I have found that doing everything by consensus can lead more easily to conflict, as each group or individual argues that their decision is the better one. It often takes so much longer to make that decision and the stronger personalities always seem to win through. It's not a good method, in addition to which no one takes responsibility for the outcome. In reality the decisions are poor and the results worse! Going for somewhere in-between may well add to the confusion rather than produce the desired outcome. It's important that in a cockpit someone actually does make a decision. The real problem with all the in-between is that nobody will know where they stand.  Did a decision get made? Who made it? Who is responsible for results? With that sort of confusion, nothing much gets accomplished. With somewhere In-between I would expect to see no results at all, as everyone may well not even all be on the same page.