Dilemmas and Trade‐Offs

Dilemmas and Trade‐Offs

Even with ‘safe staffing’ and ‘good prioritisation’, managers may still encounter dilemmas in what should be done. Here, decisions may need to be made based on the ‘least bad’ choice. For example, the airline captain I spoke to explained some of the dilemmas you can encounter when flying a plane:

‘Although there is absolutely no doubt about the safety culture in aviation, there are still many ways in which the pilot needs to have “their wits about them” because, like it or not, there are dilemmas you need to work through from time to time. Here are a few examples:

1. You are flying over Canada in wintertime, and you get an engine warning. You are supposed to land as soon as practicable, so your co‐pilot suggests an airfield nearby that is just long enough to take your plane. But you know there will be ice on the runway which may affect your ability to brake safely and, therefore, the landing distance. So, do you land or keep flying?
2. You urgently need to land, which should demand that the passenger cabin is made secure, and everyone is in their seat. But someone is in the toilet. Do you go around until the person is out of the bathroom and back in their seat, or take action to land anyway, even though the passenger may not return to their seat in time?

Even air traffic controllers can face dilemmas in what they are supposed to do. Their prime responsibility is to maintain separation between aircraft. But there can also be an implicit pressure to get planes landing so that delays don't build up. Experienced pilots see cultural differences concerning this, and I have, on several occasions, declined an air traffic control request to catch up with another plane while making an approach because I am the one accountable for flying the aircraft safely and wanted more separation for my peace of mind.

This is where the whole flight simulator regime is excellent. You simulate the flight from being in the briefing room to landing and unlocking the cabin doors, so it's very realistic. It tests how you make decisions in as natural a context as possible and confronts you with “hard choices”.’

Norman Marks16 provides the following observation concerning supervision:

‘There is an interesting practical question about what you believe is a suitable level of supervision. On the one hand, we know that a lack of sufficient monitoring by a manager can mean that a staff member might make a mistake that gets missed.

On the other hand, staff can feel disempowered, even micromanaged, if everything they do is checked. People sometimes won't check their work if they know it will be double‐checked by someone else anyway. So, strangely, you end up confused between responsibility and accountability through what appears to be the very best of intentions.'

Here are a few other dilemmas to look out for because, like human factors, these can often be found to be implicated in incidents and setbacks:

• Sharing data and information.

On the one hand, we want to share information within an organisation to get data and ideas to help us overcome problems and develop products and services that our clients might want. But on the other hand, we may be prohibited from sharing information, even within the same company, because of specific data privacy laws (such as the EU GDPR legislation).

• Whether grey zones in compliance with laws, regulations and policies are recognised?

It's understandable that some laws, regulations, policies and procedures can take a ‘hard line’ spelling out what is required (e.g. EU procurement standards can require some organisations to seek bids from suppliers for contracts over a particular value). However, for practical reasons, it may appear appropriate to grant an exception to proceed (e.g. because there is time pressure to move forward, the supplier is known and it is extremely unlikely there is a credible alternative supplier).

So, do policies and procedures, etc., recognise why people might take ‘shortcuts’? And offer advice on what to do when faced with conflicting requirements? If not, shortcuts may still take place, but this time, ‘under the radar’.17

• Concerning the scope, schedule, cost and benefits forecast for a project.18

The costs of projects and programmes can turn out to be higher than planned. In these circumstances, it can be very tempting to ‘scale back’ the project scope (e.g. build an IT system with just basic functionality at first), to save money. However, such a change in the functionality of the new system might mean the benefits from the project won't be as much as planned until all the needed functionality of the system is in place. Thus, the decision to save money on project costs in the short‐term is one of the causes why the project benefits will not turn out as hoped for in the future.

• Concerning efficiency, and cost‐saving programmes.

Cost savings programmes may be required because an organisation is under pressure to meet its financial goals. As a result, these programmes can look at whether cost savings, headcount reductions, efficiency gains, etc., are going to plan and what other things can be cut or scaled back.

Often back‐office roles, such as quality, compliance, finance or administration, are considered an overhead, and this may be the case on occasions. However, I have seen several instances where efficiency programmes have cut back‐office activities too much, weakening an organisation's control skeleton, impacting product quality, customer service levels or the basic checks and balances needed in financial controls and compliance. Even where a process is being automated, it is not uncommon to find (i) a dilution of control in the design of the new system or (ii) an underestimate of the staff needed to manage the new process.

A cost savings programme may solve one problem while creating others. Managers can be reluctant to acknowledge those risks. Metrics, warning signs and a way to correct course can help them notice when cuts are weakening the controls or services the organisation still needs.

This is an area where I have even seen senior managers and board members overseeing cost savings programmes but somehow (i) assuming that standards would not slip (i.e. not asking questions about this risk) and (ii) accepting management assurances they were not slipping without much challenge. Here, some timely checks or audits of what was happening on the ground would have revealed a growing number of gaps that would eventually culminate in a much bigger problem.