A632.6.3.RB - The High Cost of Conflict: Active Listening

As a leader in the U.S. Air Force I am constantly reminded on how much I have to learn. One of the abilities I recognize among experienced senior leadership is their ability to listen and fully absorb conflict without quickly submitting their personal opinions or biases. This is a trait I am fully aware I need to practice and perfect in order to be an effective leader.

In the YouTube video Improve Your Listening Skills with Active Listening, the Mind Tools team deliver five techniques to better prepare yourself for effective active listening: 1. Pay attention. 2. Show that you’re listening. 3. Provide feedback. 4. Defer judgement. 5. Respond appropriately. These techniques sound easy enough to accomplish, however, if you haven’t practiced them with clear intent you may find old habits of ineffective listening are hard to break.

Active listening is a skill I am fully aware of yet still struggle to master. I seem to have a habit of interrupting to give my point of view, oftentimes distracting from the message at hand. One key piece of advice to listen without having a preconceived rebuttal. This allows you to acknowledge the message and intent without bias.

Within the last three weeks I spent a significant amount of time with an individual whom I have developed a poor working and personal relationship. Every interaction seems to leave me fuming with negativity. I feel it’s my responsibility as the senior member to resolve the personality differences in order to work toward a positive and fulfilling collaboration. Within the first day of the off station exercise I confronted the individual and asked her to explain her constant willingness to fight me on every decision being made. At the beginning of the conversation I told her my intent was to leave rank at the door in order to fully understand one another’s point of view. She started the conversation with degrading insults that were filled with loudness negativity. I quietly listened, however, after a few minutes I allowed her emotions to affect me and I started to become biased toward my point of view. After realizing that I was losing control I took a step back to let her voice her opinions. I offered that we realize our differences but focus on a way to effectively work together, for sake of mission accomplishment. Levine (2009, pg. 42-43) describes this as the fifth step in the “Cycle of Resolution”; Seeing a Vision of the Future: Agreement in Principle. This step in conflict resolution allows both members to reflect on the future of the working relationship, leaving personal differences aside. Since our discussion we have developed steps to communicate more effectively.

Active listening allows you acknowledge the speaker’s point of view. There will be time when conflict is resolved and time when you learn to accept and deal with conflict in a productive manner. The important aspect of my example is that I learned to defer judgement and hold back from interrupting, even though the scenario was filled with argumentative subject matter. In the end, our discussion and my ability to listen proved successful in fostering a step toward a positive working relationship in the future.

References:

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into resolution. (2nd edition). Williston, VT: Berrett-Koehler Publishers

Mind Tools Content Team. (2015, June 12). Improve your listening skills with active listening. [Video file]. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2z9mdX1j4A&t=38s

A632.3.3.RB - Framing Complex Decisions

With the increase in information technology and data tracking businesses are utilizing complex tools that allow them to address and master environmental complexity (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2001, pg.120). Following the data, managers can track consumer behavior, internal costs, and supplier performance. In competing civilian organizations, it is often the company who applies complex tracking and monitoring tools who proves successful. The military is a little different in the fact that it may track complex data to forecast warfighting capabilities. There are multiple ways to compute mission success and strategic areas of importance. Unfortunately, this is information which is sensitive to national security and I have little understanding or knowledge on the topic. I can speak to simpler models used in tracking training fuel costs, and aircraft maintenance forecasts. Hoch and Kunreuther (2011, pg.120-127) list three tools for navigating in complex environments: Navigating data-rich environments, navigating systemic complexity, and navigating multi-stakeholder and environments.

As fuel costs rise, so does the cost of fuel consumed by military aircraft. There are simple data mining tools used in my organization that allow us to forecast monthly and annual consumption requirements. Occasionally, the military is forced to evaluate the cost and decrease flight training hours. While large military aircraft consume thousands of pounds of fuel every flight, the crews are reminded to be cognizant of fuel savings initiatives, such as; limiting ground running time and maximizing training efficiency as to reduce waste.

The second tool is navigating system complexity. I’ll compare this to how the Air Force tracks maintenance man hours and repair time associated with flying. While we typically aren’t constrained by costs, the Air Force does put limits on total flight hours provided annually. One way to limit actual flight time is through the use of aircraft simulators. The cost of the simulators is initially very expensive, however the long-term use lessons aircraft maintenance and repair costs.

The final tool for dealing with complex organizational decisions is navigating multi-stake holder and environment complexity. In my experience in the Air Force, support and maintenance functions are very similar throughout most bases. This function allows most airframes access to basic maintenance requirements at almost any base. For example, all large aircraft can accept ground power from support generators that are common to any base. There are exceptions, however the environmental complexity is kept to a minimum in order to support most every aircraft in the inventory.

Reference:

Hoch, S.J., & Kunreuther, H.C. (2001). Wharton on making decisions (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ:      John Wiley & Sons Inc.

A632.3.4.RB - Reflections on Decision Making

Over the last three years my organization has undergone a change in aircraft, from the HC-130P models to the brand-new HC-130J model. The new aircraft has brought a change in crew compliment and a change in mission and crew responsibilities. Some of the older experienced rescue crews had to reevaluate how we were going to shift focus and reframe our concept of operations. Leadership has had multiple meetings how to shift our operational frame of reference to support other capabilities the new plane can support.

With the loss of two crew positions, the flight engineer and radio operator, came increased need for loadmasters to absorb responsibilities they were unaware of. Through analysis of the mission we realized loadmasters were unaware of the role they could play in rescue efforts. This was a frame blindness, we have only recently identified how the loadmasters could help with radio communications and pilot support functions. We have been able to effectively surface our frames during mission overviews with the pilots. The pilots have played a critical role in visually displaying how we could facilitate the “front enders”.

The second way we have avoided framing traps is by understanding the frames of the other crew positions. The loadmasters, combat system officers, and pilots had meetings to step outside of our typical responsibilities and critically evaluate how everyone is working together. With this, the loadmasters have been able to get more involved with important aspects of the mission that weren’t needed previously. For example, the new plane has improved communications capabilities that allow the crews to act as a central point of contact between multiple aircraft, basically a central coordinator. The loadmasters are learning how to run these programs when not involved with other duties. This is an area that gets us more involved with the mission and lets us understand what is going on throughout the flight in more depth than the previous aircraft.

The third way we are avoiding framing traps is by testing if our new frame is effective. Connor (2011) discusses two ways reframing affects the mindsets of individuals involved: 1. It is essential to understand both the desired future and to gain a clear picture of the magnitude and nature of the gap that must be closed. 2. It is critical to articulate what should become more important or less important than it was in the past. As our implementation of new responsibilities is new to our community we have some loadmasters who understand the responsibilities better than others. With this said, there is definitely room to adapt to the changes. In the near future, the crews will be challenged more in depth on how they see their roles evolving in search and rescue operations.

The biggest takeaway from this exercise is identifying the need for systematically reframing mindsets in my organization. We seem to be victim of framing traps as described by Hoch & Kunreuther (2001, pg. 139): Frame blindness, illusion of completeness, and overconfidence about our view. By recognizing the changing future of operations, leadership needs to effectively state a frame of mind and implement written guidance how to adopt the new changes.

References:

Connor, D. (2011). Changing someone’s mind – the basics of reframing. Conner Partners. Retrieved    from: http://www.connerpartners.com/frameworks-and-processes/the-basics- of-reframing

Hoch, S.J., & Kunreuther, H.C. (2001). Wharton on making decisions (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ:      John Wiley & Sons Inc.