Bibliografía

In the classroom

The influence of groups is a wide-ranging topic with a strong research history. Taught well, it should be fascinating for an audience. Some of the research experiments (such as Milgram and Zimbardo) are worth outlining if time allows. The key theoretical points to put across are the importance of roles and norms and the influence these have on behaviour. From a decision perspective, the dangers of risky shift and group-think can be emphasized using appropriate case studies. Awareness of the effects and the maintenance of a

sensible cockpit gradient are important countermeasures.

The subject and application of roles can be reinforced and explored by finding out what expectations captains and first officers (or pilot handling and pilot monitoring) have of their own and each other’s roles. The trainer can ask the participants questions such as: “what is a captain ‘like’ / what should a captain be like? What is an FO ‘like’?” The answers can be compared between the two groups to see if differences exist. What the facilitator is looking for is the stereotype1, because that will inform the group about the role models that influence behaviour. The facilitator can help to emphasise the effective aspects of the roles. Similar exercises can be done for any job role (e.g. cabin crew).

Classroom sessions about social influence can discuss what aspects of an aircraft operation might be vulnerable to such effects. Some examples are:

 Wanting to be accommodating to ATC

 Wanting to please of passengers

 Wanting to impress others (e.g. flying a friend or doing an airshow)

 Not wanting to hold others up (e.g. accepting an abbreviated circuit) or keeping up a higher speed than desired.

 Not questioning a situation because another pilot looks comfortable with it. An ambitious and capable trainer can have a lot of fun teaching about group effects because the audience can be used to create these effects, in order that they see the issues for themselves. For example: splitting into groups of five and giving the groups a

1

A stereotype is the ‘aggregated’ set of behaviours that a person would expect from a role. Stereotyping is natural and unavoidable, although more commonly it is colloquially aligned with undesirable and

challenge such as a tricky logic puzzle can bring out many effects including role taking and group decision-making. By debriefing the groups the trainer can show how an informal leader probably emerged (why was it that person?), how the group dealt with differences of opinion, whether anyone suppressed their doubts (group think) etc. The issues

emerging should quickly be applied to a flight deck activity / example. This sort of exercise can be rewarding and useful, but if done badly is boring for the audience or could appear irrelevant to their work. A trainer should avoid this sort of exercise if not confident in their classroom management, knowledge of group effects, debriefing skills, or ability to apply emerging phenomenon to flight deck activities in real time. It is also important to note that such exercises can take a lot of time.

The classroom trainer can also explain when group-think is likely (high authority or

checking environment) and ask for ways of countering it. They should facilitate discussion in which countermeasures emerge such as the use of open questions when needing a double check. Practice at turning statements or leading questions into open questions can be done in a classroom CRM environment.

In the simulator

Social effects are difficult to teach, assess or observe in a simulated environment because the environment is socially artificial, and therefore people may act quite differently when in a real situation. For example, in the simulator some pilots may be less likely to openly express doubts and concerns to the other in case these prove unnecessary and draw the attention of the trainer to the fact that they are unsure about some aspects of the situation. The trainer needs to be sympathetic to explanations given by crews during debriefs, and be sensitive to issues that might have been caused by the simulated environment rather than the task itself. On the other hand, the trainer can use knowledge of roles, norms and groupthink to help understand and explain some seemingly strange behaviour and

CAP 737 Section A, Part 2, Chapter 14: Leadership

SECTION A, PART 2, CHAPTER 14

Leadership

Knowledge

Attempts to understand effective leadership can be traced back as far as Plato, who endorsed the theory of ‘expert embodied authority’ that stated that the most effective leader will be the person with the greatest appropriate 'expert' knowledge. Modern leadership theories understand 'expert knowledge' as just one part of one factor (the leader) determining effective leadership. For example, it is clear that the best captains are not always the most experienced pilots, and vice-versa. Such variance in leader

effectiveness points to factors other than expertise to explain good leadership.

Researchers in the mid-twentieth century recognised that the 'social atmosphere' or 'social climate' of a group was more responsible for its overall effectiveness than the leader. Because of this, a big part of effective leadership is now understood to be about optimising that climate. In the 1950s Bales noted that leader interactions fell into two distinct strains; those oriented towards the completion of the task, and those oriented towards the

maintenance of relationships (in this respect, the similarity to group decision-making and other social phenomena is clear).

The later part of the twentieth century saw more models of leadership emerge, such as situational trait approaches, where effective leadership was seen as a happy match of a leaders’ traits and the situation that the group was in. This predicted that where some people may be good leaders in some situations, they might be poor in others. More modern theories such as situational behavioural models describe effective leadership as being a combination of situational variables and leader behaviours (rather than simply leader traits).

Scientific research in leadership is usually of the observational and self-reporting nature (i.e. observing leader behaviours and comparing these to effectiveness and group satisfaction), or examining case studies.

The three classically researched styles of leadership are autocratic, democratic and

laissez-faire. Pure autocratic leadership is where all leader interactions and behaviours are focused on productivity (effectiveness), and relationship factors such as social cohesion are effectively ignored. An autocratic leader is not necessarily one who interacts in a hostile or stern manner but this can sometimes be the characterisation of a purely task- orientated leader. Democratic leadership is characterised by inclusive leader behaviour where ‘followers’ are given overt responsibility and included in steering tasks such as strategic decision-making. Democratic leadership can be roughly characterised as a balance between task-oriented and relationship oriented leader behaviour. Laissez-faire leadership is where the leader allows the group members to do whatever they wish (the leader may set or explain the tasks, but then does not stipulate or manage group

behaviour). Although usually researched as distinct groups, these leadership styles are best thought of as a continuum.

Early studies by Lewin, Lippit and White found strong evidence that (in classroom

situations) autocratic leadership was the most effective for simple productivity, followed by democratic leadership. Laissez-faire was very poor. Democratic leadership led to more group satisfaction and therefore a more sustainable climate. In the temporary absence of the leader, productivity suffered seriously in the autocratic climates but little in democratic climates.

In general, a balance of task-orientated behaviour and relationship maintenance predicts more effective leadership. An imbalance in either direction can be detrimental.

In informal groups (such as groups of friends or classmates) leadership emerges ‘naturally’, whereas in formal and professional situations leaders are appointed. Either way, a balanced and effective climate is easier for a leader to produce if a leader has implicit ‘authority’ within the group. The term ‘authority’ is used here in a colloquial sense, as a way of describing the combined facets of the leader that make the group members implicitly consider that leader as being above them in the social hierarchy. In this sense, leader authority is a property of the followers, not the leader themselves. An informal leader who emerges has the advantage of implicit authority almost by definition (that is the reason that they are the leader), whereas a formal leader must ‘create’ that perception of authority. The characteristics and behaviours that make informal leaders emerge would be helpful to formal leaders too.

In the case of captains, the formalised position within the organisation is an important signal of authority, reinforced by seating position, uniform, etc. These identifiers help to establish authority, but are not in themselves sufficient. Clearly, overall respect for the organisations’ command process will contribute to this. Beyond this, authority is helped by task factors (such as expertise, good track record, ability to achieve goals, etc.) and social factors (such as being liked, respected, attractive, feared, etc.).