Individual Differences and Interpersonal Relationships — Page 238, Lesson 380

I want to walk you through a topic that gets right to the heart of how a flight deck really works — the human side of it. We're looking at Individual Differences and Interpersonal Relationships, and I want to start with a warning about perceived high ability. It turns out that perceived high ability has a negative side. Let me explain what that means. Imagine a team member who is high on perceived ability but low on something else — we'll call that a P+ G- team member. The 'P' stands for perceived ability, and the 'G' stands for something like 'group orientation' or 'goodwill' — the point is, this person is seen as competent, but they lack something in their interactive style. The danger is that a P+ G- team member can allow a colleague, whom he perceives as competent, to proceed much further on an inappropriate course of action. Why? Because he feels the operator 'probably knows what he is doing'. So the very perception of ability can actually stop someone from intervening when they should. Now let's contrast that with the autocratic leader. An autocratic leader is someone who makes decisions unilaterally, without much input from the team. If that autocratic leader is competent, he will obtain a better result than an autocrat with low ability. The low-ability autocrat, on the other hand, may be regarded with distaste and derision by his team members. And here's the really serious risk: other crew members may allow that low-ability autocrat to proceed on an incorrect course of action, hoping he will end up in trouble just to 'bring him down a peg'. That behaviour on a flight deck is obviously unacceptable. It's a dangerous game to play when lives are at stake. Let's move on to Status. On the flight deck, status is normally determined by the number of rings on one's uniform — those stripes on the sleeves. The status of the individual, combined with perceived ability and interactive style, will play a significant part in decision making on the flight deck. A dominant captain will readily question the actions of a junior first officer, but the opposite will not be so. A junior first officer will need to be absolutely sure that the captain is getting it wrong before he airs his anxieties. That's a high bar — you have to be certain before you speak up. The effect of status in decision making is significantly different within differing cultures. In some Middle and Far Eastern cultures, the thought of questioning a senior's course of action would be unthinkable in any circumstances. In West European and North American cultures, junior colleagues will much more readily question the senior individual's actions. And a study has shown the least status-affected pilots to be Australian nationals, who place much greater emphasis on perceived ability than any other factor. So culture shapes how status influences the cockpit. Finally, we have Role — the third factor that is instrumental in how the team functions. The excerpt cuts off there, but you can see that role joins status and perceived ability as a key piece of the interpersonal puzzle on the flight deck.