Followership and Human Operator Performance - Essay Example

Contents Contents Sheep-style Followers 2 Yes People 3 Alienated Followers 3 Survivors 3 Effective Followers 4 Physical and Psychological Factors influencing Human Operator Performance 4 Crew Aircraft Environment System Performance 4 Conclusion 6 Works Cited 6 Followership Introduction Flight operations heed for improvements in both decision-making and followership. There lies an importance in creating awareness in the types of followers that exist, while determining the impact of each one of them during a time of crisis. The Crew Resource Management has seen the developments through four distinct stages to help with better management of crisis, as described below. Followership In every decision-making process, there normally are a number of distinct followers. Tony defines a number of ways in which followers can be distinguished; according to the reaction they undertake in their performances of the team-player duty in every process (Helmreich and Wilhelm, 27). Being a follower of decisions made by the leader entails following personal attributes of taking appropriate course of action, suiting the leader as well as to the situation unveiling. Crew Resource Management stipulates that an evident good art in following is critical in the event of the time constraint situation of the cockpit (Tony, 72). The five classifications of an aircrew follower are outlined below. Sheep-style Followers These are those followers defined by the followership model, who do not come with much help in the event of a crisis during the flight. More often than not, they will sit at their destined positions offering very little help to the situation (if any), and they watch as their responsibilities go on with very little response from them. However, they may appear to mollify the team as they try to rectify the situation. Yes People The followership model awards the yes people with the most adverse characterized follower of the flight crew. These followers usually concur with every decision made by the pilot, regardless of its consequence to the situation. Normally, they are the most distinct followers of the aircrew team as they move all over the vessel trying to accomplish their possibly detrimental duties (Helmreich and Wilhelm, 26). Alienated Followers These followers are very creative members of the crew and they possess very critical decisions in the crew membership (Shea and Robert, 290). However, their interests are hidden in their minds, giving no effort to try remedying the situation. They are mostly alienated by the crew as a whole, possibly by the organization as a whole, and they are pessimistic. They rely on the failure of others to justify their possible courses of action which they do not emulate. If not rehabilitated, they should be eliminated from the group. Survivors Helmreich and Wilhelm (32) reveal that survivor followers normally hold many of the junior flight crews of many organizations. They will shift between the four groups, while causing chaos in the dilemma, trying to fit every group that seeks to ensure their survivor. These followers do not possess any help to the group as a whole and are merely panicky. Their existence in the group only seeks to improve the level of confusion in the group, thereby being a problem for the whole group. Effective Followers The CRM describes the character of effective followers as key to the operations of every flight. They do not fall in any other group of followers; they function without fear from leaders and pilots, thereby exercising their obligation in their capacities to question faulty decision-making, while offering additional help to the entire group, and are therefore the key to good decision-making in times of crisis. They may often possess leadership qualities to crisis situations. Physical and Psychological Factors influencing Human Operator Performance Crew Aircraft Environment System Performance According to Helmreich and Wilhelm (30) the crew environment system performance seeks to elaborate on the psychological factors that drive the developments and occurrences in the flight operations, identifying remedies that could help in the event of crisis during flight travel. The NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System developed in 1997 under the President Clinton’s administration sought to reduce the number of flight deaths. A critical assessment was done on the psychological factors influencing the performance of flight crew. This followed to the implementation of the Crew Resource Management module up to the fifth generation. Flying is the safest means of travel in the world today. Being as such, there has been various procedural undertaking seeking to establish precise resolutions ensuring the safety of flying. The crew resource management is a model of safety management that guides towards rectification of errors. CRM’s constituents are enhanced towards ensuring flight safety, cohesive communication between the crew, among other safety ensuring undertakings (Shea and Robert, 254). The third generation CRM advocates for a broadening of the scope of leadership and followership, ensuring good cockpit climate and structure that is important in ensuring that there is a serene environment for effective communication, necessary in dispute resolution and emergency situations. The atmosphere in the cockpit highly influences the level of emergency response necessary in a time of crisis. Management should ensure that good communication between the cockpit members is highly enhanced so as to allow for better response to emergencies (Helmreich and Wilhelm, 20). The third generation of CRM entails advocacy for the management ensuring that their members of the crew possess relevant knowledge essential in both decision-making and followership (Tony, 80). The pilot should be able to maintain creativity in rendering their leadership skill during flight operations, while attendants are trained on how to actively offer effective followership skills during crisis. Further, the need for inter-professional assimilation in aviation is elaborated. In these, management may be advised to impose active crisis management skills available in other modules of profession. These dimensions engrave the crew’s mind with relevant psychological preparedness and encouragement in times of crisis. The fourth generation of CRM entailed a development into Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) that advocated for the addition of relative course (Shea and Robert, 200). This is a major development in the decision-making process that aids in emergency situations where a professional possesses the skill of another to aid in times of crisis. According to Tony (81) commercial operations in aviation face a great hurdle in the implementation of the CRM model. This is because it bears high economic costs to effectively train all members of the crew. Additionally, the exercise does not reach all members of the flight crew. Conclusion The CRM model has come up with a variety of resolutions to the conflict and decision-making problem encountered in flights through the evolution through the four generation stages. This has seen a vast improvement in the problems occurring from inter-professional and interpersonal communication in flight crew. Through the identification of types of followers and developing a wider scope of every type of professionalism in flight attendant, the impact is portrayed in better management of emergency situations in the commercial flight industry as a whole. Works Cited Tony, Kern. “Culture, environment, and CRM” New York: McGraw-Hill Professional 2001. Pp. 72-89. Helmreich, Auther and Wilhelm, Jeffrey. “The Evolution of Crew Resource Management training in commercial aviation: International Journal of Aviation Psychology” 9(1) Texas: University of Texas, 1999. Pp. 19-32. Shea, Gregory and Robert, Ellin. “Gunther: Your Job Survival Guide: A Manual for Thriving in Change” Nevada, FT Press. 2008. Pp. 198-300. Read More