Accurate Real-Time Communication & Information Are Critical in a Time-Sensitive Game That Involves Many Actors
My local airport is London Heathrow. On average, 30 airplanes are landing and another 30 are taking off every hour. Put differently, one airplane is landing or taking off every minute. Now consider that mishaps – crashes where people are injured/die and/or property is damaged/destroyed – are rare. So rare that mishaps make the national news, usually the front page.
Who/what is responsible for that which occurs: 30 airplanes landing and another 30 taking off every hour using two runways? Read this Wikipedia article especially the section: “Operations”; and the sub-sections “Facilities” and “Flight movements”. So what’s your answer to the question that I posed just a moment earlier?
Yes, the folks responsible have put in place a ‘tried and tested’ collection of facilities, practices, and rules that work. Is that all there is to it? I say there is more. I say there has to be more – as the world we find ourselves embedded and constituting is dynamic: the drama/pattern we call life/world is forever changing, not static like stone. What is the more? I say it is communication/information.
Before we continue, let stop to consider what it is that we are talking about here – lets look at the etymology (origins) of these words:
late 14c., from Old French comunicacion (14c., Modern French communication), from Latin communicationem (nominative communicatio), noun of action from past participle stem of communicare “to share, divide out; communicate, impart, inform; join, unite, participate in,” literally “to make common,” related to communis “common, public, general”
late 14c., informacion, “act of informing, communication of news,” from Old French informacion, enformacion “advice, instruction,” from Latin informationem (nominative informatio) “outline, concept, idea,” noun of action from past participle stem of informare “to train, instruct, educate; shape, give form to”
I say that one of the busiest airports in the world, with an aeroplane taking off / landing every minute, works (as in crashes are rare) because in addition to the system of rules and practices (static) there is the dynamic process of communicating/informing occurring between the players in the system; the primary players are air traffic control (air traffic controllers, practices, systems) and the aeroplanes (pilots, practices, systems).
Notice, the effectiveness of this communicating/informing is a function of honest (accurate) communicating/informing occurring between the parties on an continuous basis – the trigger being the arrival/departure of the aeroplanes from/towards Heathrow. Consider, that in this game (where lives are at stake, and people face public consequences for negligence or dishonesty) the human players communicate/inform that which matters honestly – as in accurately. The players are not telling outright lies, not leaving out that which is essential because it is convenient for one player (in this drama) even though it imposes a cost on the other player.
What happens when miscommunication/informing occurs? Crashes, and near misses. Here is an instructive example from TravelMole (bolding is mine):
Two passenger aircraft were reportedly just 600 feet from colliding because an air traffic “holding stack” became so congested… the controller, who could not distinguish the two plane’s call signs on his screen, “mistook another aircraft at 12,000 feet for the BA aircraft, which was at 13,000 feet”. “He then ordered the United aircraft to descend to 13,000 feet, into what he wrongly believed was empty airspace. Within 40 seconds the vertical distance between the two planes had reduced to only 600 feet, breaching the minimum safety gap of 1,000 feet.”
The misunderstanding occurred because there was too many planes in the holding stack waiting to land. That is to say too much information to digest. Information that was overlapping. Thus confusing to the human mind. Notice, there was no deliberate intention by the pilots or the aeroplane systems to misinform. Which is one reason it was only a near miss as opposed to a calamity that would have cost 500 lives. Who/what saved the day: an intelligence that used the accurate information to guide intelligent action. Again, according to TravelMole:
The aircraft would have reportedly come much closer if it had not been for the BA jet’s collision avoidance system, which ordered the pilot to dive.
My Experience of Transformation Programmes in Large Organisations
Almost all of my work on the Customer side of business occurs within/from the context of enterprise wide transformation programmes that usually span multiple business units, many countries, many teams/players, many business processes, many information technology systems….. I say that these transformation programmes are operating within/from complex as opposed to complicated domains (Cynefin). The difference there is an inherent and significant uncertainty/unpredictability in large business organisations as opposed to complicatedness in the dealings that go with the safe take off / landings at Heathrow Airport.
So what is absolutely critical to the success of these business transformation programmes? Effective – as in timely, accurate, complete – communicating/informing occurring between the many actors/players and the business equivalent of Air Traffic Control – those who are charged with leading and managing the transformation programme.
Recently, I was brought in as a consultant to lead a significant work-stream within a larger programme which itself sits within a larger global transformation initiative. One of my responsibilities is to communicate/inform those who are impacted by that which I know and they do not know. I did just that sending out an email and copying in a key member of Air Traffic Control. This did not go down well, I was reprimanded. Why? Because I had honestly communicated information that a person did not wish to be communicated. His concern? The information, whilst accurate, may make the work-stream look bad in the eyes of those that matter: the ‘Air Traffic Controllers’. I was told that in the future ALL outbound communications had to be direct to him. And he will choose who is informed of what, when, and how.
There are so many work-streams that have to come together for transformation initiatives of this kind/scale to work out well: generate the desired outcomes by the desired time, within the desired budget. So many players involved who have to co-operate and collaborate. So it is no surprise to find that there is a complicated, experienced as burdensome, governance framework/structure in operation to manage the many interlocking dependencies. Yet, the efficacy of this governance framework/structure/ organisation rests on effective communicating/informing occurring between the players and other players, and between the players and ‘Air Traffic Control’, and between ‘Air Traffic Control’ and the players.
Now it really hit me. Wow! How many other actors/players playing a leadership role in this transformation initiative are not communicating the information that needs to be communicating? How many are delaying bad news? How many are spinning the truth with falsehoods including false optimism? How many are aware of bad news and choosing to hide it from those in positions of power in ‘Air Traffic Control’?
Given this – that which is so – how effective is the burdensome/expensive governance framework? Not that effective? This led to this thought arising: “Is it possible that the governance framework (people, practices, forums) is expanding because those in ‘Air Traffic Control’ perceive that the process/journey of guiding the transformation programme is friction-full and unwelcome surprises pop up? And they think more people, more structure, more formal communication will fix the problem?” Upon getting present to this thought, the absurdity of it all hit me: one part of my laughed uproariously, the other part cried.
Digesting this it occurs to me that traditional thinking and practices around large scale change transformational change are the obstacle not the solution. Why? I say effective leadership is missing: the fundamental platform upon which effective communicating/informing/teaming occurs is weak or absent.
What is this fundamental platform? Psychological safety: do I/you/we/us feel safe speaking truth to power?
As this conversation has been going on for a while and we may be at a point that you are no longer willing to listen to my speaking, I leave you with these resources if you wish to dive deeper into that which I am pointing at:
I thank you for your listening, and I wish you the very best until our next conversation.