Individual Differences and Interpersonal Relationships
Hans Eysenck and Personality
Hans Eysenck’s major contribution to psychology is his theory of personality. He confirmed the model as illustrated in Figure 12.2. However he described “Anxiety” as “Neuroticism”.
Thus in Eysenck’s PEN (Psychoticism, Extroversion-Introversion, Neuroticism) Model, Personality is divided into:
•Extroversion
•Introversion
•Stability
•Neuroticism
He defines neuroticism as a tendency of the sympathetic system (autonomic arousal) to act too quickly. This special definition needs to be noted as it is not a meaning that is generally associated with the word.
His research proved that perfectly “normal” people can score high on the neurotic scale. This individual usually has a lot of “drive”. The only problem that comes about is when the person who scores high on the neurotic scale is subjected to a great deal of stress. He/she is then likely to suffer from a neurotic disorder.
Furthermore he presented the hypothesis that a Stable Introvert possessed “Ego Control” whereas a Neurotic Extrovert tended towards Psychoticism.
He confirmed the view that personality is largely innate and genetically determined.
Interactive Style
Introduction
When individuals are working as a team towards a common goal it is helpful to consider the individual’s team or interactive style. The way they interact may be classified in a number of ways. The authoritarian individuals are dogmatic, and will not easily tolerate dissent from their subordinates but when confronted by someone they perceive as having a higher status become submissive. This kind of personality often has a clear and defined perception of hierarchy, rank and status.
Other styles are the paternalistic and democratic. Any individual’s style may change with time. The submissive first officer can become an authoritarian captain.
Circumstances may change the style required. A democratic approach to problems on the flight deck is desirable as long as time is available and the democratic approach is directed to reaching the goal, but a more autocratic approach may be necessary in an emergency situation.
Goal/Person Directed Styles.
There are two main factors that characterise interactive style. The first concerns the achievement of the task (goal directed style: G), and the second is concern to keep the team members happy (person directed style: P).
On a two dimensional model the individual may be classified as P + G-, P + G+, P - G+ or P - G-. In general the G+ individuals will have a keen desire to complete the designated task, whilst the G- will care little for the job and will not exert themselves unduly. The P+ persons will have a concern for the other team members and will consult them as needed. The P- individuals couldn’t care less about other team members.
12
Individual Differences and Interpersonal Relationships 12
231
12 Individual Differences and Interpersonal Relationships
The ideal pilot should have a P + G+ interactive style. They will be as concerned for the morale and well-being of the other team members as they are for the efficient operation of the flight.
Relationships Interpersonal and Differences Individual 12
Figure 12.3 Interactive style
The Individual’s Contribution within a Group
Introduction
The Group or Team implies that there are certain characteristics shared amongst those present which set them aside from others and which give them a sense of belonging. It also implies that there are shared goals, values, interests and motives amongst the group members.
It is relatively easy to work and make decisions on ones own. However, to work effectively within a group is something quite different. A reorientation of attitudes is required (sometimes called “Groupthink”) in which flexibility of thought, an ability to listen and an appreciation of the mutual interdependence of each other are among the factors which go towards the making of an effective group member. However, Groupthink can have very negative results when there is too much cohesion within the group. This phenomenon has been illustrated, for example, in the massive foreign policy fiascos such as Britain’s appeasement towards Hitler prior to the outbreak of WWII and the Bay of Pigs invasion during J.F. Kennedy’s presidency. In both cases close-knit groups developed a clubby feeling of “we-ness” which prohibited group members from introducing or entertaining unsettling information for fear of upsetting the group.
The effectiveness of a team, and the effectiveness of any individual’s contribution to the common task is determined by a number of factors. Among these factors are: Ability, Status and Role.
Ability
The competence of any individual in a team will play a significant part in his/her effectiveness. Perceived competence will, in conjunction with his interactive style, determine what other team members think of him/her. People will more readily accept deficiencies in personality and interactive style if they perceive that the individual is good at his/her job.
232
Individual Differences and Interpersonal Relationships 12
Perceived high ability does have a negative side. It is possible for a P+ G- team member to allow a colleague, whom he perceives as competent, to proceed much further on an inappropriate course of action because he feels the operator ‘probably knows what he is doing’.
The autocratic leader who is competent will obtain a better result than the autocrat with low ability, who may be regarded with distaste and derision by his team members. There is a serious risk that other crew members may allow the 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’. This behaviour on a flight deck is obviously unacceptable.
Status
On the flight deck status is normally determined by the number of rings on one’s uniform. 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.
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. 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.
Role
The third factor that is instrumental in determining interpersonal behaviour in the cockpit, is role. The roles of pilots change, depending on whether they are the handling or non-handling pilot.
It is clear from a number of accident reports that it is very difficult for one pilot to take control away from another, since doing so may be perceived as a lack of faith in the other’s ability. This reluctance to interfere is particularly evident when both pilots are of the same status, i.e. two captains on a training detail. An example of the importance of the interaction of these factors is given:
The twin prop commuter aircraft was commanded by a pilot who was also a senior manager in the airline and known to be somewhat irascible. The first officer was junior in the company and still in his probationary period. At the end of a long day the captain was plainly annoyed when company operations asked for a further flight, but he reluctantly undertook it. During the approach at the end of this leg, the first officer completed the approach checks without receiving any responses from the captain. Rather than question or challenge the captain, the first officer sat tight and let the captain get on with it. The aircraft flew into the ground short of the runway because the first officer did nothing to intervene. It transpired that the captain had failed to respond to the checks not because he was in a bad mood, but because he had died during the approach.
Status/Role
Some high-status individuals find it difficult or are uncomfortable to move to a perceived “lower” role. An example of this might be when a senior commander finds himself/herself carrying out co-pilot duties to a captain who is perceived as being of lower status. This situation may lead to escalating conflict unless handled professionally.
Individual Differences and Interpersonal Relationships 12
233
12 Individual Differences and Interpersonal Relationships
Cohesion
Relationships Interpersonal and Differences Individual 12
Cohesion can be defined as the sum of the forces which bind crew members together. It generally goes hand-in-hand with a shared attitude towards problems and is based upon:
•The mutual motivation of the crew towards the job.
•Inter-appreciation of the members of the crew one to another.
Individual acceptance of standards and roles depends upon how tightly or loosely knit are the links between the members of the group. Group cohesion is a major advantage in times of difficulty or danger and crews tends to draw personal strength from their relationships with other crew members.
Group Decision Making
Introduction
In a multi-crew aircraft any decision may be improved by consultation among the crew members. It is generally true that the decision reached by a group will be better than the average decision made by individuals within the group.
The group decision will, however, seldom improve on the problem-solving ability of the ablest member of the group. From this point of view there may be valid reasons to increase crew complements to improve the chances of having an able member. The tendency with modern aircraft is, however, to reduce crew members thereby reducing operating costs.
Factors Affecting the Group/Team
A number of factors (and, in some cases, disadvantages) will affect the group’s deliberations in reaching a correct solution and agreement on that decision. The factors involved are:
Conformity, Compliance, Status and Obedience, Persuasion, Risky Shift, Group Duration, Role/Norm, and Coordination and Cooperation.
Conformity
People like to conform since non-conformity is stress-inducing. To conform with a group is a strategy for minimizing stress and people do not normally wish to be seen as the ‘odd one out’. An experiment can be conducted in which a group of subjects are asked to judge comparative lengths of coloured blocks of wood. Before the experiment four stooges are briefed to give the wrong answer. It will be found that the fifth member will often go along with the group against the evidence of his senses. His response is what he sees as the social expectation (what other people expect of him) rather than giving the correct response. The effect is maximised when the group holding the opposing opinion is just four. It has been found, however, that if the single subject is provided with a partner, his conformity dramatically decreases.
Such conformity is not confined merely to judgements of length. Individuals will accept group opinions and attitudes on many subjects. Readiness to conform appears to differ between races, sexes and nationalities.
234
Individual Differences and Interpersonal Relationships 12
Compliance
This is the term used to describe an individual’s likelihood of complying with a request. If a large and unreasonable request is made, there is a greater likelihood of it being complied with if it has been preceded either by an even more outrageous request that has been denied, or if a smaller more reasonable request has already been accepted.
For example, a householder whose house is on a dangerous bend in the road may refuse a request to have a large warning notice on his property. However, if he had allowed a very small notice to be on the site, he would more readily accept a larger warning notice when told that the small notice was not readable at a reasonable distance. A succession of seemingly small increases in the sign size could eventually reach the stage where the originally requested size of sign is in position. Alternatively if the original request was for a massive sign, he could well accept a large sign, having turned down the first request.
Status and Obedience
The role of status in group decision making is of major importance. People will be more ready to listen to, and believe and obey, those whom they perceive to be of a higher status. This can be demonstrated by giving a problem to groups of varying status. Although the high status individuals may achieve the correct answer only as often as those of medium or low status, those of high status who do get the correct answer are able to persuade a higher percentage of their group to accept their answer.
Those of lower status, although getting the correct answer, will be less successful in persuading their group to accept their answer.
Persuasion
This should rarely be used in the cockpit. If differences of opinion cannot be solved by airing the problem and coming to a logical conclusion, the group cannot be said to be working effectively. Occasionally, if a fact has been overlooked by the rest of the group, persuasion has its role however it normally has negative connotations within a team.
Risky Shift
If a group is asked to consider a problem they will usually come to a decision that is more risky than the average made by individual group members. This tendency is known as Risky Shift and can obviously create problems on the flight deck. Many pilots like to be thought of as bold or daring individuals and combining such individuals into a crew can make for an unduly bold outcome.
Two possible reasons may explain “risky shift”:
•The spread or diffusion of responsibility for any adverse consequences of a decision-involving risk. In other words, blame is shared amongst all members of the group.
•Individuals who hold high risk attitudes tend to be more dominant and persuasive in the group assuming a leadership role. They thus have a disproportionate influence over their fellow members.
Individual Differences and Interpersonal Relationships 12
235
12 Individual Differences and Interpersonal Relationships
Relationships Interpersonal and Differences Individual 12
Many incidents have had, as a contributing factor, an element of risky shift, and an example is given below.
A large military transport was carrying out an approach to a Canadian airfield in winter. Conditions were strictly below limits but the alternative to a night stop at this location was a diversion to an airfield some 40 minutes flying time away where night stopping facilities (and allowances) were much worse.
On the first approach no lights were seen at decision height and the captain overshot. During the overshoot the engineer reported that he had seen the runway lights as they passed over the threshold. In the following discussion the captain briefed for a split approach, in which the co-pilot would fly on instruments whilst the captain would take over for the landing. As part of the briefing the captain told the other pilot not to start the missed approach at decision height but to level out until told to climb. This decision whilst strictly illegal was supported by the navigator who told the rest of the crew that the ground was level at this stage with no obstructions. With the captain, engineer and navigator looking out the co-pilot flew to decision height. At this stage one crew member called ‘lights’ and a few seconds later the captain saw the runway lights below. He took control and executed a rapid descent and a firm landing.
Only by the use of full reverse thrust was the aircraft halted before the end of the runway, and whilst taxiing back the crew were able to see by the tyre marks in the snow that the aircraft had touched down halfway along the runway, with far less landing distance available than the aircraft required.
Group Duration
Military aircrews often fly together as a ‘constituted crew’. This has certain advantages as the crew come to know each other’s habits as well as their strengths and weaknesses. The constituted crew is not a practical option in civil aviation and in a large airline it is quite possible for crew members to be flying together for the first time. This reinforces the need for standardized procedures for all aspects of the flight as they enable each of the strangers to know what other crew members will do.
There are benefits in constituted crews but without great care they may introduce particular risks. If one crew member is ill and temporarily replaced the new crew member will be unaware of the adopted procedures of the rest of the crew. He/she will not be aware of any hand signals or shortened procedures that the constituted crew has adopted. A thumbs-up sign on finals may have been an understood signal for selecting landing flap position but the new co-pilot may merely take it as an appreciation of his flying skills. There is always the danger that, if a crew has remained together for a long time, any bad habits will not be noticed but absorbed into the crew operating procedures.
Because of the above a constituted crew policy is not considered a good policy in modern aviation crewing policy.
Role and Norm
Behaviour within a group may very well depend upon the social expectation of the role played within a group. For example, an individual who finds himself/herself “Chairman” of a committee will tend to behave in a different manner to that shown when he or she was a normal member. Thus a newly promoted Commander of an aircraft may show a distinct behavioural and attitude change once in the Captain’s seat.
236