The Best Kind of Goal for Managing Change

I attended a workshop recently which was about change and how people deal with it. My goal in attending was mainly to learn more about myself and how I react to change that I didn’t originate (that is, a change imposed upon me).

I learned much from this workshop. One key point was to focus on learning instead of on performance during such a time of forced change.

Here is a tip I found useful: If your first reaction to something unfamiliar is, “I can’t do that,” instead say, “How do I learn to do that?”

The course taught*: “When facing a challenge, some people adopt performance goals which focus on demonstrating a certain level of competence. Others adopt learning goals which focus on increasing their capability. Learning goals are generally more helpful than performance goals during periods of change.

People with learning goals tend to see setbacks as information about the effectiveness of their strategies and become motivated to keep trying. They understand that learning new skills often requires going through a phase of awkwardness, confusion and failure.”

Knowing that on the other side of confusion and awkwardness is the learning, keeps me keeping on learning.

I hope you found this useful. Please let me know how you implement it in your work.

* excerpt from Developing Resilience During Change by Gregg Brown, Tidal Shift Inc. - for more info contact gregg.brown@tidalshift.ca

Sully, the Risk Manager

I went to see Sully last week, a movie based on a true story. Sully - Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger - performed a great act of risk management.

An airplane pilot, Sully made a quick decision when his plane hit a flock of birds, lost the use of both engines, and was in danger of crashing. He was flying above New York City when this happened, with approximately 150 passengers on board.

Sully decided to land on the Hudson River instead of trying to make it to the nearest air field.

Afterward, the landing was investigated by the US Transportation Security Administration. During the investigation, flight simulations seemed to prove that Sully could have made an airfield landing, instead of on the river as he did.

It hits Sully that there was one element missing in the investigation: the inclusion of the human factor. After all, making this type of landing was something he, a pilot with 42 years of experience, had not done before. When this factor was taken into account, he was proven right - landing on the Hudson River was the best option.

While making the decision to land on the river, Sully encountered a risk and dealt with it. According to the Project Management Institute (PMI), a risk is an uncertain event or condition that, if it occurred, would have a positive or negative effect on the project's objectives. Decidedly, flying into a flock of birds was a negative risk event, as was crashing!

Sully and his co-pilot followed the steps they were trained to do (the risk response plan) when the bird collision occurred: they notified their air traffic controller. But the solutions offered from ground control weren't viable in the situation - they didn't have time to get to the nearest landing field. So Sully made the decision to land on the Hudson River. This was their work-around, their solution to an unanticipated problem.

At the time, training for duel engine failure wasn’t something pilots usually did. (npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99480314)

What was going through Sully’s mind as he was making the necessarily quick decision? I think it would have to do with the probabilities of the different scenarios being successful, and the impact if they weren't. So he did what had the highest probability of success and the lowest impact of failure (loss of life) - he performed an on-the-spot risk analysis.

The story ended well (as my favourite movies do!) and Sully was regarded as a hero. His knowledge and quick thinking saved the lives of all who were on Flight 1549 from LaGuardia Airport that day.

The Unmet Needs Committee

I was listening to CBC Radio while driving in my car last week. With the recent Fort McMurray fire in Alberta, CBC reporters were interviewing people from Slave Lake, Alberta, who had assisted those who needed help when a fire occurred there a few years ago.

When asked what they had done to help, one of the interviewees said they had formed an 'Unmet Needs Committee'.

I had not heard of this term before, but thought it was pretty clever. It turns out, an unmet needs committee is a standard procedure in the case of disaster. This committee is generally used as a last resort, where other groups or funding cannot help with the situation.

This got me to thinking - are my projects always on the lookout for unmet needs? Sometimes it is easy to overlook or ignore unmet needs - certainly not a PMI best practice!

On a final note, I would like to extend best wishes to those who escaped the Fort McMurray fire.