Managing Change in the Airline Industry
Over the past few years, the need for change in the aviation industry has been more imperative. Change in the aviation industry is being imposed on them from a variety of sources, like commercial pressure, regulations and changing technologies. The need for change management skills is therefore at its highest within organizations in the sector, in order for them to meet these challenges. Even then, research on organizational change shows that only about between 30 and 50 percent of major initiatives end up having a positive outcome (Leva, McDonald, Ulfvengren, & Corrigan, 2012). While change is necessary, it is also very risky. It is important, therefore, that the people involved in the change understand the reasons for the organizational change.
Most of the changes in the past have primarily involved structural and technological changes in the aviation industry. For instance, after the September eleventh attacks, one of the biggest changes to the structure of planes was that of cockpit doors. Several measures were introduced in order to reduce the risk of unwanted people entering the cockpit. At both international and European level, there was a mandate for the secure locking of cockpit doors (EASA, 2015). In terms of technology, aviation companies are always looking to take advantage of technological advances in order to meet the needs of an increasingly demanding market. The past few years have seen many technological advances targeted at the provision of more efficient service delivery. Some of the most significant technological steps include electronic ticketing, which allows individuals to book flight tickets online, reducing costs and improving efficiency and accessibility (Belobaba, Fiig, Isler, & Hopperstad, 2010).
However, another crucial factor also arises in situations or organizational change, especially in the aviation industry. Even technological and structural changes do not necessarily happen in isolation. Many times, there is an involvement of people in the organizational processes. In most cases, any attempted change becomes a matter of human factors, leading to the need for complex and multidimensional solutions. These solutions are normally made difficult by the fact that these changes normally involve resistance by employees, a fact that necessitates careful management.
One of the most important aspects of system stability is organizational culture. The change in collective understanding that is needed for organizational change can only come when there is an accumulative aggregation of changes in the way the social group at work thinks (Leva, McDonald, Ulfvengren, & Corrigan, 2012). This is why it is important to have some aggregation before the change process. It has been observed that in cases where the powers that be are distant, or in situations where strategies are not clear, employees tend to hide their experiences and knowledge, and end up working with what they already know without necessarily proposing new ideas and changes. On the other hand, when management has a clear message, the involvement of employees towards a clear final message is easier (Kotter, 1996). The culture of an organization cannot be controlled or managed, and when anything of the sort happens, normally a counter culture is introduced. However, the influence of culture cannot be ignored during the change process.
The change process
On the 24th of March 2015, Germanwings faced one of the biggest fears any airline company has, one of its flights crashed, killing all of the 150 crew and passengers on board. However, perhaps the most shocking news was what came next after the crash, the investigations. This was not just any other crash, it is reported that the young pilot locked out their cockpit during a bathroom break, and crashed it into the French Alps, killing all of the 150 people on board. Cockpit voice recordings could hear the captain demanding to be let back in. Further reports reveal that air traffic controllers and military defense personnel attempted to contact the plane while it was descending up to 14 times (Jamieson & Saliba, 2015). While investigations did not reveal any of the plans of the pilot, it emerged that the pilot had experienced suicidal tendencies at some time before his aviation career (Castillo, 2015).
A year after the crash, perhaps the most enduring questions is how could the airline not have seen this, or taken steps to prevent the suicidal history of the pilot causing such a disaster. What then could be done, on an institutional and industry level, to prevent such incidences from taking place?
Integrated change control
Reasons for the change
In the aviation industry, the triggers for change are often huge disasters. The 9/11 crash was one such disaster, and it necessitated several changes in the industry. The Germanwings crash is enough cause for change. However, deeper investigation reveals that the problem goes much further than the case of the Germanwings flight. For instance, between 1980 and 2011, there were 31 medical cause accidents in commercial air transport, 20 of which were psychiatric cases. A high proportion of these psychiatric cases was due to alcohol and drugs (EASA, 2015).
The Germanwings case also shone the light onto a bigger issue. Andrea Lubitz, the 27 year old pilot who crashed the plane, had apparently torn a sick note that declared him unfit to fly on the day that the crash happened. Even though his problems were pronounced, the confidentiality rules between the patient and the doctors did not allow any of this information to be released to people who could have helped prevent the disaster. This effectively creates a loophole meaning that there are many potential Germanwings cases just waiting to happen (Simons & Carter, 2015). Even though pilots have medical checks and doctors are required to report cases with potential for harm, the talks about the psychological state of the pilot are fairly low key, and when pilots visit doctors outside of the checks they have, there is no requirement for them to disclose their professions.
Stakeholders
The biggest stakeholders in this case are the pilots themselves. They are the ones that suffer the various stressors of the job, and are the ones whose decisions, impaired or not, affect the well-being of the normally hundreds of passengers, especially in a commercial airline setting. Another category of stakeholders are the aviation industry medical practitioners. They have the responsibility of gauging the mental state of the people to whom airlines entrust countless valuable lives every day. Their role is especially important considering the fact that the job of a pilot is perhaps one of the more stressful ones. The third important stakeholders in this case are the general practitioners. Pilots generally should be a very healthy group because of the exclusivity created by medical examinations. Anyone deemed not to be able to fly a plane is often actively denied the privilege. However, when there are times when, if pilots feel particularly overwhelmed, they end up visiting general practitioners and getting prescriptions. However, given the laws that govern doctor patient relationships and the fact that pilots are not necessarily required to disclose their jobs, the system is such that information like this never gets out, at least until disaster has happened, as was in the case of the Germanwings flight.
Change process
Recommendations
A lot of the medical-cause commercial air transport accidents are as a result of psychiatric cases and drugs and alcohol. Drug testing should be actively included in organizational policies, and reported to the relevant authorities.
A competent authority should be involved in the collation of results and the amending of the number of pilots needed for testing the subsequent year as a result of positives
Legislation governing drug testing should avoid the mandating of a list of drugs that should be tested. Instead, there should be local variations to allow for the use and introduction of new drugs into the market.
Publicity campaigns to support the introduction of new drug testing procedures, including safety information about the potential side effects of the drugs.
Support systems
The pilot work environment, most of it at least, is spent in the cockpit, a small controlled area, where a lot of the things that happen are proceduralised. Still, there is some element of human interaction, and this can be leveraged to produce support groups, possibly with the involvement of crew representation groups or professional associations of pilots. This provides the pilots an opportunity to share their experiences and fears in a situation which is as non-threatening as possible.
References
Belobaba, P., Fiig, T., Isler, K., & Hopperstad, C. (2010). Optimization of Mixed Fare Structures. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, 152- 170.
Castillo, M. (2015, April 25). Germanwings Flight 9525 co-pilot suicidal at one time, prosecutor says. Retrieved from CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/30/europe/france-germanwings-plane-crash-main/
EASA. (2015). Task Force on Measures Following the Accident of Germanwings Flight 9525. European Aviation Safety Agency.
Jamieson, A., & Saliba, E. (2015, May 6). Germanwings Co-Pilot Lubitz Rehearsed Crash on Previous Flight. Retrieved from NBC News: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/german-plane-crash/germanwings-pilot-rehearsed-crash-previous-flight-report-n354501
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.
Leva, M. C., McDonald, N., Ulfvengren, P., & Corrigan, S. (2012). Action research & change management system in aviation. In W. Karwowski, Advances in Human Aspects of Aviation (pp. 501–510). CRC Press.
Simons, W. J., & Carter, C. (2015, March 29). Pilots are keeping health problems secret from airlines because 'gaping hole in the system' means doctors aren't allowed to report them, says air safety expert. Retrieved from Daily Mail Online: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3016894/Pilots-able-health-problems-secret-airlines-gaping-hole-means-doctors-aren-t-allowed-report-says-air-safety-expert.html
