Brain off, autopilot on? One of the common prejudices pilots are faced with these days. Aviation is much more than that! It's hard to believe, but the parallels to operational excellence, common LEAN management tools, and especially the culture of continuous improvement, are glaring!
As a former consultant at Porsche Consulting and Director Operational Excellence, as well as Plant Manager, I would now, as an airline Pilot, like to relate our everyday work with a few examples to operational excellence, so that you can understand the parallels, and transfer them to your specific process.
The role of key personnel
In this article, I would like to address an essential topic that has concerned me since the beginning of my professional career and, in my opinion, is still strongly disregarded: The structured identification of essential key players, especially in middle management, and the associated selection, promotion & development of them.
Typical example: An employee leaves the company (for whatever reason). A quick solution is needed. A colleague quickly takes over the vacant position. A temporary solution turns into a permanent one. But processes do not run smoothly. The new manager is only concerned with "putting out fires". Concentration on the essential tasks is no longer possible. Conflicts arise with employees at all levels. The employee is frustrated and gives up, either by changing job or because his health no longer plays along - the employee has been "burned out".
But what are the core problems of all this? Let's break it down into the following issues:
1. Identification of key positions
2. Selection of the right employees
3. Promotion & development
1. Identification of "key positions"
First of all, it seems important to define where key positions can be found in the company. For this purpose, process thinking is of great importance. This is because the positions to be filled can only be determined from precisely defined and described company processes. In a second step from this, in turn, the tasks, competencies and responsibilities required for the process can be determined. This catalog of requirements comes into play later in the selection of personnel. So the question is, what does my process look like and, therefore, which roles are derived from it? Not the other way around!
Specific criteria can then be listed to define key positions. A potential fallacy in evaluating the criteria is certainly the confusion of power, in the sense of assigned personnel responsibility, and the necessary leadership of an employee to drive projects, change and lead employees.
In my opinion, the extent to which the position represents an essential interface in the company is much more important than the assigned power. This refers to a pivotal position that significantly drives things and has a direct impact on the corporate culture at an operational level. Classically, these are team or project manager positions. However, according to the previous definition, these could also be, for example, shift leaders. Although they tend to manage less strategically, they are the ones on the operational level who have to implement specifications and thus move things...or not. It is precisely at the transition between middle management and operational level that undesired subcultures can form within your company.
Example from the aviation world:
As always, I would like to draw comparisons from my everyday flying and former industrial experience.
Regardless of the airline or the airport, one example strikes me every day: the underestimated role of the ramp agent. To explain: During the turnaround, the ramp agent is in constant contact with the cockpit, the gate, the check-in counter, the load and control center and coordinates all ground processes, e.g. loading and unloading of baggage and cargo, catering, boarding process, coordination in case of missing passengers and passes on all data in order to calculate the weight and balance of the aircraft.
In my opinion, the position described is a central hub of the handling process, comparable to a shift supervisor in production. His organization, overview and, above all, communication with all positions has a significant influence on the on-time departure of the aircraft, as well as on revenues or additional costs for the airline.
For example, he initiates the decision process of whether baggage or cargo has to be unloaded, e.g. for space reasons, and passes the info on to the cockpit (=management level), but which usually does not have the necessary capacity to always check whether the ramp agent's (=shift manager level) assessment is correct or not. Even if the statement were theoretically verifiable, time pressure often prevents countermeasures from being taken because the flight is meticulously planned. Major delays have a direct impact on subsequent rotations and can cost up to several hundred thousand of euros in penalties.
In my opinion, far too little focus is placed on the selection, promotion and development of ramp agents. Starting with a lack of language and basic communication skills, the problems are usually even deeper. Often, they are closer to the ground staff than to the airline (their customer) and have no ambition to carry out extra organizational work, such as accommodating additional cargo.
To come back to the industry, I have experienced this situation first hand as a consultant and as a plant manager. At the "workers level," including the shift supervisor, some strange subcultures had formed that worked together against the management and thus against their own company. Breaking up these structures costs a lot of effort and energy.
Questions for your consideration:
Have you already described clearly your processes, derived positions based on them, and finally identified key positions in a structured way? If so, you can already build on an excellent foundation.
2. Selection of the right employees
The selection of the right personnel is largely based on the requirement criteria of the 1st step, the identification of the key positions.
The question arises as to what competencies are required at each level AND to what extent employees should or should not be targeted to climb the hierarchies. This is important, because if this is firmly planned, the competencies for later career steps must be determined at the beginning of the selection process. This is typically done in trainee programs, but also in the pilot selection process, for example.
In my opinion, care should be taken not to focus too much on existing specializations or specific training. More important are the required cognitive, psychological and communicational skills. They form the foundation of the employee, on which the company can then build in a targeted manner. Anyone can receive training, but the aspirant must bring this foundation with him or her.
Example from the aviation world:
Airlines with high selection standards usually have a three- or even four-staged selection process for pilots. They include technical knowledge, language skills, cognitive abilities, behavior in the event of conflict, teamwork skills, leadership skills, problem-solving skills, and flying abilities. At the end, a psychological profile of the aspirant is created for evaluation.
The list is not exhaustive, but is intended to give an idea of the effort that goes into selecting the right cockpit colleagues. After all, the failure rates, e.g. at the "Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt", (German Aerospace Center DLR) are in the order of 90% [i]. Of course, this is done first and foremost to guarantee safety on board. Beyond that, it also serves a rather simple purpose: every first officer is recruited as a potential future captain. In this case, it is firmly assumed that the applicant will later take the next step on the career ladder. All the personal requirements to become a captain should therefore already prevail when the first officer is recruited, although there can sometimes be a time gap of 10 to 20 years in between.
Questions for your considerations:
Do you have a structured process for selecting your employees in general and for your key positions in particular? Do you look for employees only for the current task or do you also think ahead to where your employee might be in five or ten years time? Do you specifically counteract the formation of subcultures in your company?
If you can answer "yes" to these questions, then your company is really well structured and you have a distinct advantage over many of your competitors!
3. Promotion & development
Finally, there is the question of how to promote and develop employees in a structured way over the long term. This is certainly one of the biggest challenges, especially for smaller companies, as this involves an effort that should not be underestimated.
Many companies shy away from this, mainly because they are afraid that employees could leave in the medium to long term. To this end, I would like to add a sentence, the source of which I cannot reproduce, but which perfectly subsumes everything:
"What if you invest in your staff and they go? But what if you don't and they stay?!"
At the end of the day, it's a fundamental decision to clarify the extent to which you want to professionalize (or not) your team.
Furthermore, when it comes to promotion and development, one should proceed on two different levels. One level is classical training. The next level is daily coaching by the supervisors themselves.
a. Training
This is relatively easy. Weaknesses, interests and potentials identified together with the employee can be improved by outsourcing training.
Advantage: Easy to implement.
Disadvantage: If what is learned is not followed up, applied and regularly reviewed in a targeted manner, it can also fizzle out just as quickly.
b. Continuous coaching by superiors
This approach is certainly the most challenging. Many companies do not even approach this step in a structured way. Partly out of ignorance or out of excessive demands, because it simply gets lost in the day-to-day business.
The basic idea is this: Supervisors and managers must master agreed processes, structured problem-solving approaches, and the further development of methods on a daily basis at the operational level. In addition, they must train employees in these methods as needed and promote the implementation of what they have learned. In doing so, they must not only lead, but also be the first point of contact for questions and further development of the processes.
You can see how important it is to select the right employees for these positions. This is because the necessary competencies are very demanding and versatile. The challenge is therefore not only to get the managers on the same page culturally, but also to keep them at a very high level methodologically.
Ideally, key positions in the company should be filled by employees with strong leadership skills, so that they are also seen as potential mentors for their team.
Advantage: Guaranteed sustainability
Disadvantage: Requires a structured process and is very challenging, especially for managers.
Example from the aviation world on the training effort:
As an example, the annual training effort for us pilots should be described here. Training days must be firmly scheduled at all airlines. This is based on legal requirements.
However, it should be expressly mentioned that we do not train because it is mandatory by law. We train because it is beneficial for each individual! In addition to simulator sessions, training courses are also held on the topics of dangerous goods, safety and security, and crew resource management (CRM). In the latter, the topics (intercultural) communication, conflict management and teamwork are refreshed. They are discussed and elaborated on the basis of real incidents from our own airline, but also from all over the world, and thus form an important approach to the Continuous Improvement Process (CIP).
In the simulator, so-called "abnormals", i.e. malfunctions and the associated flight behavior, are trained, incidents are worked through and the flying tools are checked and consolidated. The focus is also on how to remain calm as a team in such an abnormal stress situation and how to work through the problem in a standardized procedural manner. The processes for this are described in detail.
The standardized process and CRM training always help us to form catch-lines when we lose the red thread in the heat of the moment.
Pilots also have to work through various topics at home in the form of computer-based training. In addition, there are various annual checks.
In total, pilots receive at least two weeks of training per year. If an upgrade to captain or a type change of the aircraft is planned, the training can also cover an extent of up to three months.
Questions for you to consider:
Are you allocating enough training time to your employees? Do you have a structured training plan for your employees? Do you track your employee's development over time in a structured way? Do you plan for your employee's development in a structured way? Are your supervisors, managers, and yourself, respected mentors; and do they and yourself coach your employees?
Conclusion
The identification of key positions, even outside official management levels, can help your company to save costs in the long term. To do this, you first need a clear process description, from which the necessary positions can be derived.
Once this has been done, you can concentrate on the selection process for the right employee. In addition to technical knowledge, this should primarily include the psychological analysis of soft skills, which form the basis for imparting company-specific tools, knowledge and, above all, the company's own culture to your employee.
Finally, continuous structured training and coaching play an essential role in maintaining a high standard of soft and hard skills.
We look forward to getting in touch with you to help you master your specific challenges. Together with you, we will build a structure that is explicitly aligned with your needs.
Yours,
Moritz Hirscher
References
[i] Hesse/Schrader/ Carsten Roelecke: The Pilot Test - Test Training for Pilots and Flight Controllers, Stark Verlag