By: Aaron Glassman

Diversity and Crew Resource Management

Master of Aeronautical Science Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Table of Contents

Crew Resource Management……………………………………………………3 Diversity in the Airline Industry………………………………………….…..…4 The Challenges of Diversity on the Flight Deck..……………………….……...5 Cultural Differences…………………………………………………………….6 Culture and CRM………………..……………………………………….……..7 Women and Leadership……..…………………………………………………10 Gender, Leadership, and Culture……..………………………………….…….12 Group Composition and Effectiveness…………………………………………14 Conclusion……………………………………………………………….……..16 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………19

2

The purpose of this paper is to examine CRM (Crew Resource Management) in the context of employment diversity, specifically cultural and gender diversity. The paper will begin with a discussion of CRM, and then the role of diversity in the airline industry will be examined. A discussion of cultural diversity and gender diversity will follow, along with the leadership implications of these two types of diversity. Finally, the airline industry’s response to diversity and the implications for successful CRM will be discussed. Crew Resource Management Orlady and Orlady (1999) provide a succinct description of CRM and its goals. They state that the main purpose of CRM is to increase fight safety and the effectiveness of the flight crew.

Because an important part of CRM is leadership, the authors discuss how a

leader can develop a good team. It is important for the leader to delegate, when appropriate. When a decision is required, a good leader listens to others, evaluates the various options, and then makes a decision. While the final decision is the responsibility of the captain (the leader), it is important that the captain seek and consider the opinions of other team members if sufficient operational time permits (and it is not simply a routine decision). After a decision is made, other team members should get an explanation from the captain about the reasoning behind the ultimate decision. Furthermore, if the captain’s decision turns out to be wrong, the captain should admit it. Finally, the captain must be willing to relinquish his role as leader

3

when another crew member has greater knowledge (e.g., when the first officer is more familiar with a particular airport).

Diversity in The Airline Industry The first Black pilot entered the cockpit in 1963, and the first woman followed a decade later in 1973 (Henderson, 1995). Nearly 40 years later, there are still few women and minorities in the cockpit. As of 2001, only about 1% of pilots were Black and approximately 5% were women (WSJ, 2001). Given this under-representation of women and minorities in among pilots, it is not surprising that the airlines are making a concerted effort to add diversity. As an example, Delta gave a $1.65million grant to Western Michigan University in 2001 to pay for flight training for women and minorities. (“Delta air will give” 2001, January 10). Other airlines are also making a commitment to recruit more minorities. United Airlines’ web site (2005) lists a number of organizations it supports to foster diversity in the industry including the Organization of Black Airline Pilots, the Hispanic Alliance for Career Enhancement, and the Organization of Chinese Americans, among others. Southwest’s web site (2005) points to its Spanish language website which allows customers to make reservations entirely in Spanish. As a result of Southwest’s efforts to reach out to Hispanics, the February, 2004 issue of Hispanic magazine listed Southwest as one of the 100 best places for Latinos to work. 4

In addition to being socially responsible, there is a financial benefit to diversity. According to an article in Advertising Age (Fitzgerald, 2001), Continental credited diversity hiring and multi-cultural marketing as playing a role in its turnaround. It is clear that the airline industry plans to become more and more diverse, whether it be on the flight deck or in air traffic control. And, while there will be many benefits to this increased diversity, there will also be challenges, particularly as they relate to cultural differences. The Challenges of Diversity on the Flight Deck Although pilots for U.S. carriers must be U.S. citizens, it is not unreasonable to expect that these U.S. carriers will have crew members from different cultural backgrounds, some who will want to maintain a strong cultural identity. Today, the U.S. is no longer a “melting pot,” but is a collection of sub-cultures. During earlier periods of immigration, most immigrants were expected to identify as Americans and melt into the pot. Those who came to the U.S. to become citizens did not see themselves as “hyphenated Americans.” In this context, someone from a collective culture, such as Indonesia, would not only be expected to become more individualistic, but would want to in order to fit into American society. (For a discussion of these issues, see O’Neil (2002) and Bond and Pyle (1998).) Today, the American melting pot has been replaced by a stew-like concept. Newer immigrants and the children of earlier immigrants feel more comfortable exhibiting the characteristics of their country of origin. They don’t feel a need to “act American” and many see themselves as hyphenated Americans. In the U.S. today, we do not have a defined set of 5

cultural norms and values that people strive to embrace. Rather, we have many different cultures living and working together. As discussed in this paper, the lack of a national culture and America’s willingness to adopt a “stew” philosophy does have implications for the airline industry and CRM.

Cultural Differences The most important work on the effects of culture on behavior has been conducted by Geert Hofstede (1983). Hofstede concluded that cultures fall along four dimensions. The first dimension is anchored on one end by individualism and on the other collectivism. This dimension considers the relationship between people. At one end of the continuum are societies where ties between individuals are very loose, and people look after their own selfinterest and that of the immediate family. This is possible because of the large amount of freedom that society gives to the individual. At the other end of this scale are societies where the ties between persons are very tight. People are born into groups (which can be an extended family or even a village), and everyone looks after the interests of the group and is expected to have the opinions of that group. In exchange for giving up one’s freedom for the group, the group protects and cares for the individual when he is in need. Individualist societies are loosely integrated, while collectivist societies are tightly integrated. Societies that are the most individualistic include the United States, Great Britain, and Australia, and those that are the most collectivistic include Pakistan and Taiwan. 6

Hofstede’s dimension of power distance refers to how a society deals with fact that people are, by nature, unequal. Some societies magnify differences in power and wealth, while others do not. In a high power distance society, there is centralization of authority and autocratic leadership. Of importance, is the fact that both the people who are in power and those who are not in power understand the rules and are comfortable with their position in the hierarchy. People who have little power become psychologically dependent on those with power. The Philippines and India are large power distance countries, while Israel and Austria score low on this dimension. The third dimension discussed by Hofstede is uncertainty avoidance. Some societies believe that life is full of risks, and they teach citizens to deal with uncertainty without becoming upset. People from these societies are wiling to accept each day as it comes. They are also willing to take risks, and they tolerate the behavior and opinions of others because they do not feel threatened by them. Other societies tend to teach their citizens that the future is unpredictable. One characteristic of that group is that people become nervous, irrational, and even aggressive when faced with uncertainty. These societies, called strong uncertainty avoidance societies, usually have institutions that try to create security and minimize risk. Mechanisms for creating security include reliance on technology, laws, formal rules, and institutions. People are expected to follow the rules, and deviant behaviors and opinions are not tolerated. Another characteristic of these societies is that they have experts who pass judgment when a problem can’t be handled by existing rules, etc. Examples of weak 7

uncertainty avoidance countries include Denmark, Jamaica, and Singapore, while strong uncertainty avoidance countries include Greece and Portugal. Culture and CRM The cultural differences described above have significant implications for CRM. Applebaum and Fewster (2004) cite a 1993 study by ICAO showing how schisms between pilots from different countries can create communication problems which can lead to accidents. An article by Lima (2000) in Air Transport World discusses some of these cultural issues. Lima describes an incident involving a Filipino flight crew of an ill-fated Philippine Airlines flight. The author says that Filipinos tend toward spiritually with “instances of messianic self-sacrifice or pure service to both profession and family that transcend even the manner by which the Filipino pilot manages stress in the fight deck.” A voice recording of the accident showed that at

“the final moments of expression before impact, a pilot’s

foremost thoughts are of his family and creator, not on trying to battle whatever gremlins are wreaking havoc upon the aircraft engines or airframe, but rather delivering up of his very being to God Almighty.” In another example of how cultural differences can compromise safety, Lima (2000) describes the crash of an Avianca flight. The captain was hand-flying the aircraft because the autopilot was inoperative. The junior crew members became aware of a critical fuel problem, but did not effectively communicate the severity of the problem to the captain. This may not be unusual, since Colombia is a high power distance country. A junior crew member would 8

not be expected to communicate in a direct manner with a superior. Even though they had inadequate fuel, they did not declare an emergency and instead followed Air Traffic Control’s (ATC) instructions to divert 40 miles. Because of the junior officer’s culture taught him to not question authority, “the power of the tower” prevented him from disagreeing with orders and the flight crashed. Lima (2000) cites other instances where cultural differences may influence CRM and safety. The author discusses how in high power distance cultures such as China and Brazil, junior crew members don’t question captains and they accept automation without question, while pilots from low power distance cultures will question their superiors and they are more willing to disengage automation. Lima (2000) also explains that in individualistic cultures such as the U.S. and Australia, the pilot is likely to be seen as the lone man braving the elements. As a result of this cultural orientation, crew members may be less attuned to the group aspect of CRM. Often, their communication is straight forward and as non-emotional as possible.

In a

collectivist culture, where teamwork is favored, communication between crew members is likely to be elaborate and non-direct. With respect to uncertainty avoidance, Lima (2000) looks at how crew members are likely to respond to rule-governed behavior and clearly defined procedures. Cultures high on uncertainty avoidance such as Korea accept CRM concepts that clearly define required behaviors. Operationally, behavioral flexibility is low. Therefore, in an emergency, these 9

pilots will adhere to the checklist, even though an objective observer would say that the checklist procedures should be modified to improve safety. In the U.S., crews are trained to be operationally flexible, which results in a weaker adherence to standard operating procedures.

The emergency checklist is more likely to be viewed as a guide and it is

understood that is may be necessary to deviate from it to enhance safety. Imagine the conflict that could occur with a mixed U.S. and Korean crew in an emergency. One can only imagine the U.S. crew member saying, “If we follow the checklist we will die” and the Korean crew member responding “That’s okay. What is important is that we follow the checklist, not whether we live or die.” Women and Leadership It is been slightly more than 30 years since the first woman took command of an aircraft, yet the percentage of pilots who are female is still small. The flight deck is still essentially a man’s world, and in an age of diversity, this can cause problems. Applebaum and Fewster (2002) reported the results of a study conducted by the International Society of Women Pilots. It showed that both sexual harassment and discrimination were problems for female pilots. One possible explanation for these difficulties may be the differences in leadership styles between men and women. Van Engen, Van der Leeden, and Willemsen (2001) argued that one explanation for women’s lack of advancement in male-dominated organizations such as the airline industry is that women don’t use the “right” leadership style. To maintain their 10

status, a female manager in a male environment is expected to use a leadership style that suits a man’s world. Masculine methods of management are characterized by being competitive, hierarchical authority, and an emphasis on control. These qualities are synonymous with characteristics considered typical of men.

The authors cited work by Schein and her

colleagues showing that successful managers are perceived to be more similar to men, and not women, despite the recent popularity of so-called feminine modes of management. Because women managers face normative pressures to behave in a feminine way, they find it difficult to exhibit the expected male leadership characteristics. Van Engen, Van der Leeden, and Willemsen (2001) describe studies indicating that leadership styles have clear cut gender connotations. The stereotypical feminine style, which is consideration or people-oriented, is characterized by the nurturing of interpersonal relationships. The stereotypical masculine style includes a structure or task orientation, an emphasis on task performance, and strong goal achievement. These styles relate to gender because of the stereotypes of men as being instrumental, competent, rational, and assertive, while women are seen as being sensitive, warm, tactful, and expressive. One might assume that the recent management trend toward participation and empowerment would help to legitimize female leadership methods and make it easier for women to take leadership roles since participation and empowerment are consistent with the feminine stereotype. A participative leader articulates a vision, uses non-traditional thinking, encourages individual development, gives regular feedback, uses participative decision11

making, and promotes a cooperative and trusting work environment. Despite these intuitive stereotypes that suggest men and women managers should use different leadership behaviors, research does not support this. According to Van Engen, Van der Leeden, and Willemsen (2001), the evidence that men and women engage in different leadership styles is weak. A meta-analysis done on studies from 1961 to 1987 showed that women actually are as task-oriented as men, but those results could be due to situational factors. Overall the authors concluded that the results of studies examining male/female differences in leadership show more similarities than differences (although inconsistencies can still be found). They attribute this to methodological differences such as whether the study was conducted in the lab or field, the measures used, (e.g., observation, self-report, other’s ratings), and the industry being investigated. Gender, Leadership, and Culture It appears that no matter what the culture, the “think management-think male” notion holds true (Sczesny, Bosak, Neff and Schyns, 2004). That is, the attributes most closely associated with a manager are closer to that of a typical man than a typical woman. The authors say this is true in many cultures including Germany, United Kingdom, China and Japan. It has also been found with subjects from countries that differ significantly on a Gender Empowerment Measure which assesses gender inequality in political participation and control over economic resources. The results were the same whether there was low gender inequality in the country (e.g., Germany and Australia) or high gender inequality (e.g., India). 12

As such, it appears that throughout the world, being a leader means being a man. Despite the generalization, there are some situational variables that affect the femaleleadership relationship. For example, group composition moderates the effects of gender and culture on leadership (Stelter, 2002). Women leaders are less likely to be interpersonallyoriented or use a participative leadership style, both of which are characteristics attributed to female leaders, when they work in a male-dominated firm. However, even though female leaders exhibited fewer female leadership characteristics, they did not receive high evaluations. Stetler says that this could be due to the fact that the men who were doing the evaluating were sensitive to any behaviors that fell outside their expectations. While the women were expected to act like women, they had acted more like men. This conclusion suggests that female leaders are often in a “can’t win” situation. If they ignore the “think management-think male” rule, they will receive poor evaluations since they have not acted as a leader should, i.e., like a man. However, if they follow the “think management-think male” stereotype, they will be evaluated poorly because they are not acting as expected, i.e., using a more people-oriented, democratic style. Research cited by Sczesny, Bosak, Neff and Schyns (2004) suggests that the evaluator’s sex impacts the grading of men’s and women’s leadership abilities.

Some

findings indicate that men evaluate women more negatively relative to men, but female evaluators do not.

Both male and female college students have similar perceptions of

prototypical managers and male managers. Male students, however, were more likely (than 13

female students) to have negative views of female managers. Male students were less likely than female students to describe female managers as ambitious, competent, intelligent, objective and well-informed, and more likely to describe female managers as easily influenced, nervous, passive, and having a strong need for social acceptance. Furthermore, prejudice toward female leaders is more likely to occur in situations that heighten the perception of incongruity between the feminine gender role and more masculine leadership roles. Another author, Gibson (1995), looked at the emphasis males and females put on leadership behavior in four countries representing two cultural groupings, Norway and Sweden versus Australia and the U.S. No “gender by cultural grouping” interaction was found. Furthermore, not all of the hypotheses with respect to either gender or cultural grouping were supported. Despite hundreds of studies on the effects of gender and culture on leadership, there appears to be few hard and fast rules. An explanation for the conflicting results has been provided by Klenke (1996), who offered four reasons for the inconsistent results. The first explanation has to do with the research setting (i.e., whether the research was conducted in the lab or in the field). In a typical lab study, participants are students without personal knowledge of the leader. These participants likely base their evaluations on stereotypes, the observation of strangers who interact with other strangers, or on hypothetical descriptions in contrived settings. As such, differences are more likely to be found if a study was conducted in the lab. 14

Klenke’s second explanation for the conflicting results has to do with the measures used to assess leadership-related variables. Most response choices are bi-polar, either/or measures that preclude equality (i.e., saying they are both the same).

Furthermore,

respondents, especially in a contrived lab setting, may be answering in a certain way because think they are supposed to (e.g., think management-think male). The third explanation is that the results are affected by situational factors.

For example, if the task is identified as

masculine, then an effective leader should be a man. Another situational factor is sex composition of group, which will be discussed in detail below. Klenke’s final variable is the role of power. There are gender differences in the perception of power, which is often thought to be a part of leadership. Some participants may believe the stereotype that women and power are mutually exclusive. Group Composition and Effectiveness Powell and Graves (2003) discuss some of the research on group composition and group effectiveness. In general, all-male groups perform better than all-female groups, and all-male teams are particularly better at activities requiring high task behavior. This suggests that an all-female cockpit crew is likely to be less effective than an all-male crew in an emergency situation.

The authors discuss that mixed gender teams may perform worse

because the similarity and social identification of the majority often causes them to reject outsiders. This may not play a strong role in the cockpit when the flight deck crew size is two, but it may impede training and be present in other settings such as waiting at the airport. 15

Studies reported by Powell and Graves (2003) found that gender diversity reduces the attraction to the team, making it less cohesive. It also leads to more turnover. Furthermore, conflict between team members can jeopardize performance. One problem of mixed gender teams is that women’s task contributions are ignored or devalued since these behaviors are inconsistent with the women-as-manager stereotype. (It is worth noting that a study cited by Sczesny, Bosak, Neff and Schyns (2004) showed that over time female managers increasingly possess male-stereotyped traits such as assertiveness.) Research reported by Powell and Graves (2003) suggests that effectiveness may decline as diversity increases; although the firm’s organizational culture (e.g., a strong statement about the importance of diversity) can mitigate the negative effect. The longer a group is together, the less stereotyping occurs. Unfortunately, this solution may be a greater challenge for the airline industry because crews are not scheduled as teams. It is unlikely that a crew will work together long enough to overcome stereotypes. If the stereotypes can be overcome and the woman is viewed as a team member, rather than a female, then relationships can be formed based on underlying values. To minimize stereotyping, teams that will work together over a period of time should be diverse on several characteristics with overlapping membership to avoid singular gender or culturally-based groupings.

Unfortunately, this solution seems unlikely to occur in the

aviation industry. Selecting a person to be part of a group to achieve a diversity goal is counter productive, since that person’s capabilities will always be questioned. . 16

Conclusion Given the ever-increasing racial, cultural, and gender diversity of flight crews, it was hoped that the literature would provide insights into how to make flight crews more effective and safer. Unfortunately, the literature is not only inconclusive, but it suggests that as flight crews become more diverse, CRM will be even more difficult. Even so, there are some steps that can mitigate the problem. First, and perhaps most important, company policies must support CRM (Orlady and Orlady, 1996). This means that CRM principles must be integrated into all aspects of training and reinforced at all operational levels.

In addition, airlines should continue to place

emphasis on hiring people with good communication skills and the ability to work in teams (Orlady and Orlady, 1996). It is important for the industry to hire strong candidates. Second, the industry must decide what factors are important for good CRM. Orlady and Orlady’s description of good CRM was presented earlier; however, they didn’t specify how those goals could be achieved. For example, they say that a leader must delegate when appropriate. When is it appropriate? It is crucial that current and future pilots be presented with a series of expectations so that both they and their employer can determine if there is a fit. Essentially, they need a good script to learn. Third, the industry should try to present CRM not from a cultural perspective, but from a professional perspective. People often play different roles and sometimes these roles are in conflict. For example, a U.S. pilot can play cowboy when he is flying his own aircraft, 17

but when he puts on his uniform, he must change his role. He must go from being a cowboy to being a member of a flight crew with a very defined set of rules. Similarly, when the Indonesian first officer puts on his uniform, he must play a new role. In that role, he is expected to be direct with the pilot. There is some evidence that developing a set of role expectations that define the professional pilot may help CRM. It is critical that a Chinese pilot behave professionally in the same way as a South African pilot. Lima (2000) cites a study of over 13,000 pilots from 16 countries that found that, regardless of nationality, most agreed to the following statements: (1) there should be good communication and crew coordination, (2) pre-flight briefings are important, and (3) pilots should monitor one another for signs of stress and fatigue. In fact, there was agreement with respect to every safety issue. The fourth step is that indoctrination and training must be on-going. The use of the word indoctrination was deliberate because the goal of indoctrination is to turn the new hire into a pilot who will follow the airline’s CRM policies. A pilot must be taught to be a pilot first and an American/Indonesian/etc. second. According to the U.S. Marine Corps web site, it takes 13 weeks to turn a civilian into a Marine recruit, so it is hard to see how the current training methods would turn pilots into strong crew members. Since CRM training is relatively limited, there should be constant monitoring of how pilots interact and work together in the cockpit. Such constant monitoring would prove that the industry is serious about CRM. Of course, whether the unions would ever agree to this is 18

another matter. Fifth, the industry must be willing to distinguish between those times when diversity is and is not appropriate. It is appropriate when the industry is trying to encourage women and minorities to become pilots. However, for the safety of the flight, unique gender or cultural differences cannot be tolerated. There must be a common cockpit culture that is designed to promote CRM, and everyone must adhere to it. Lastly, the airline industry may want to re-consider how it sets crew schedules. To whatever extent possible, a crew should repeatedly work together. Research indicates that this can reduce the chance that the female pilot will be seen as “a woman” rather than a fully capable member of the crew. NASA Space Shuttle crews are generally one of the most diverse flight crews imaginable. They spend two years training together for a 10-day mission. Other than visual differences, such as gender and race, media interviews with Shuttle crewmembers show a homogenous group that act, talk, and even think in a similar manner. Although physically diverse, they seem technically and behaviorally similar. It would appear that rigorous training could account for these similarities. Although airline crews cannot spend two years training together, it seems reasonable that with some amount of training and crew pairing, we can ensure that diversity doesn’t stand in the way of a safe flight. References Applebaum, S. H. & Fewster, B. M. (2002). Global aviation human resource management: contemporary recruitment and selection and diversity and equal opportunity 19

practices. Equal Opportunities International, 21(7), 66-80. Applebaum, S. H. & Fewster, B. M. (2004). Safety and customer service: contemporary practices in diversity, organizational development and training and development in the global civil aviation industry. Management Research News, 27(10), 1-26. Bond, M. A. & Pyle, J. L. (1998). Diversity dilemmas at work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 7(3), 252-260. Delta Air will give school grant to train minorities as pilots. (2001, January 10). Wall Street Journal, A6. Gibson, C. B., (1995). An investigation of gender differences in leadership across four countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(2), 255-280. Fitzgerald, K. (2001). Diversity turns airline around. Advertising Age, 72(8), S6. Henderson, D. K.(1995). The drive for diversity: Part 1. Air Transport World, 32(9), 33-41. Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, Fall, 75-88. Klenke, K. (1996). Women and leadership. New York: Springer Publishing Co. Lima, E. P. (2000). Paradigm shift in the cockpit. Air Transport World, 37(11), 85-89. Orlady, H. W. & Orlady, L. M. (1999). Human factors in multi-crew flight operations. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate. O’Neil, D. J. (2002). Caveats concerning multi-culturalism. International Journal of Social Economics, 29(3/4), 238-251. Powell, G. N. & Graves, L. M. (2003). Women and men in management (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sczesny, S., Bosak, J., Neff, D. & Schyns, B. (2004). Gender stereotypes and the attribution of leadership traits: a cross-cultural comparison. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 51, 631-646. Southwest Airlines. (2005). About SWA: Colleen’s Corner. Vamanos con Southwest Airlines. www.southwest.com/about_swa. Retrieved July 14, 2005. 20

Stelter, N. Z. (2002). Gender differences in leadership: current social issues and future organizational implications. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(4), 88-100. United Airlines. (2005). About United. Diversity. www.united.com/page/ article/0,,1365, 00.html. Retrieved July 14, 2005. U.S. Marine Corps. (2005). Enlisted programs. Recruit training. www.marines.com/ enlisted_marines/recruittraining.asp. Retrieved July 14, 2005. Van Engen, M. L., Van Der Leeden, R., & Willemsen, T. M. (2001). Gender, context and leadership styles: A field study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74 (5), 581-599.

21