A key insight or dreconceptualization
Cross-cockpit authority gradient

Cross-cockpit authority gradient

This is a key element of the CRM (Crew Resource Management) system. It manages the status gradient between task force members. It was developed by NASA and its implementation is credited with a dramatic decline in the number of aircraft accidents.

Example:

Analyses of aircraft incidents and disasters provide an inexhaustible source of examples of how different cultures permanently impair or enhance our personality traits. CRM (Crew Resource Management, ‡36:35.D) specialists use the eponymous parameter "intra-cockpit authority gradient." This characteristic of interpersonal relationships is referred to in other contexts as a particularly useful parameter called power distance. In various work environments, the authority of a commander or leader (their status in the hierarchy) is a regulator that enables and determines the quality of information exchange (feedback) between team members. Power distance pathologies can easily disrupt the rhythm of teamwork or distort the principles of assigning responsibility (accountability) to team members.

During disaster analyses, identifying CRM and power distance disorders is a key focus for investigators. Did the status and authority relationship allow the co-pilot to comment on the captain's errors? Was the crew member afraid to offer suggestions for corrective action? This could include critical issues such as enforcing a procedural decision to abort descent.

The essence of the problem is that institutions or cultural pathologies prohibit contesting the decisions of those higher up in the hierarchy. It turns out that the parameters of various cultures – whether on a national or corporate scale – "insidiously" block the implementation of safety procedures. As a result, optimal use of technological products or management of decision-making activities is no longer possible. The mere recognition and definition of CRM issues is the main reason for the rapid decline in the number of aviation disasters since the 1990s. But disasters caused by information flow dysfunction resulting from a culture of hierarchical regulation still occur today, even in countries and companies perceived as "orderly" and "first world."

One example is the Taiwanese flight GE222 crash on February 23, 2014. According to the report, the co-pilot did not adequately challenge and correct the captain's errors. As a result of the lack of decision-making intervention, the plane – flying in extremely unfavorable weather conditions – descended below the minimum safe altitude and crashed on approach. Elements of the culture of the ethnolinguistic group and the region's inhabitants, as well as the company's work culture and safety culture, come into play. This can include things like allowing deviations from procedures and hiring individuals with suboptimal mentalities and habit structures. Simply put… it's about hiring toxic apes in positions of power. Among the countries where cultural challenges for trainers and personnel are the highest are Korea and India.

A prime example of a disaster caused by a high authority gradient is Korean Air Cargo 8509 in December 1999. It resulted from exceptionally "tweaked" cultural parameters: the exceptionally strong hierarchical social relations in Korea, the work culture of a specific airline, the difference in seniority between the captain and co-pilot, and the fact that the captain was, moreover, a retired high-ranking military officer with a strong habit of dominating subordinates and the course of events.