Subjective Coach Writing Partner

The notion of people issues as a competitive advantage gained prominence in the aviation industry in the early 1980s. Herb Kelleher, then the CEO of Southwest Airlines, recognized that the customer experience could be dramatically improved by putting employees first and empowering them to treat people right. SAS’s CEO, Jan Carlzon, transformed the Scandinavian airline by “inverting the pyramid” to support customer-facing staffers in “moments of truth.” (See “The Work of Leadership,” HBR, December 2001.) In both cases the role of managers became to coach and support—not monitor and control—frontline staff. They learned to ask their internal customers, “How can I help?”

If you neglect this mode of questioning or fail to push hard enough in it, your proposed solution might be undone by subjective reactions even though your analysis, insights, and plans are sound. British Airways is a cautionary example. In 1997 it was the world’s leading carrier of international passengers, but surveys showed that it was viewed as staid and stuffy. So CEO Robert Ayling and his team decided to boost the airline’s global image by replacing the British colors on the planes’ tail fins with ethnic designs by artists from around the world.

The designs were visually striking, but the top team badly misgauged employees’ and customers’ emotional reactions. The staff was distressed that a £60 million rebrand had been undertaken amid ongoing cost-saving measures. British business travelers—the airline’s core customers—were strongly attached to the national branding and antagonized by its removal. And as if to underline the error, Virgin CEO Richard Branson announced that his planes would proudly “fly the flag.” BA’s new designs were withdrawn two years later, and the misjudgment contributed to Ayling’s ouster.

Team members may be reluctant to explore emotional issues unless the leader provides encouragement and a safe space for discussion. They may fail to share misgivings simply because no one else is doing so—a social dynamic known as pluralistic ignorance. Leaders must invite dissenting views and encourage doubters to share their concerns.