CRM TRAINING AND BOOMERANG EFFECT

CRM Training and Boomerang Effect 1

Running Head: CREW RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TRAINING AND THE

BOOMERANG EFFECT

Crew Resource Management Training and the Boomerang Effect

Mersie A. Melke

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Daytona Beach, Florida

Department of Distance Learning

Instructor: Timothy Collins

October 13, 2009


Abstract

The necessity of Crew Resource Management has become evident in contemporary aviation

and aerospace industry. Incident and accident reports that investigated aviation mishaps have

borne witness to this fact and as a result, regulators and operators are aiming to a CRM

directed work environment. However, a portion of the flight crew population has a negative

response to the CRM training. This paper addresses psychological make up of humans in

response to new ideas and training in order to put the subject in perspective. In addition, it

will address the impact of the way CRM training proceeds that will trigger such kind of

response amongst crews. Together with this, discussion of findings from studies that analyze

boomerang effect is a part of this paper.


Introduction

According to a detailed review of 10 years of air transport accidents prior to 1979,

accidents resulting from lack of knowledge or technical skill were extremely rare (Chidester,

Helmreich, Gregorich, Geis, 1991). Instead, breakdowns in communication and workload

distribution were the causal factors. To this end, Crew Resource Management training (CRM)

functions to instill qualities other than technical ones in to the flight crews’ capacity. CRM,

formerly referred to as Cockpit Resource management, is a procedure by which

crewmembers of a particular aircraft carry out a safe and efficient flight to a desired

destination. While accomplishing this task, crews have to be aware of all the available

resources that they may use. These resources include but are not limited to the equipment

onboard the aircraft, fellow crewmembers, air traffic controllers and their inputs, maintenance

personnel and their inputs etc. In addition, not only do they have to be aware of the above,

they also should have the skill of properly utilizing the resources for the optimal output of the

flight leg, which is a safe and efficient flight.

CRM training is the means by which the crew achieves the above required skill and

knowledge. CRM training covers areas of effective communication and aeronautical

decision-making as a tool to carry out a safe and efficient flight. It also includes areas of team

building and associated team maintenance during the phase of flight and beyond, like the

debriefing and briefing phase of the flight. One of the essences of an optimal flight

performance by a crew is the capability of building and maintaining a team that works for the

desired out puts of a flight phase mentioned earlier. In addition, CRM training addresses the

workload management techniques and situational awareness skills expected from CRM

compliant crew.

Despite the fact that CRM training has the above desirable advantages, it also

produces undesirable outcomes. These undesirable outcomes if not countered will effectively


destroy the work done in enhancing the crew, since teamwork is the core of aviation crews.

This is to mean that, even though statistically a majority of the crew population shows a

positive change, due to a small population that reacts negatively to CRM training the whole

team will be inefficient and unsafe. This negative reaction, which is also termed as

boomerang effect, is the agenda of the following pages. Analysis on individuals with such

kind of a character from the viewpoint of human psychology is one of the discussions for this

paper. In addition, CRM training methods that could initiate boomerang effect is another

topic addressed.

CRM training methods that invoke Boomerang effect

In a commercial aviation context, CRM training works on changing the already

existing working culture of an organization from a flight operations point of view. In doing

so, it requires a closer than before working environment between departments that play a role

in the dispatch and flight of an aircraft. This means that work behaviors paraphrased as

follows are invalid, “I have done my part…. It is their baby now”. Crewmembers, must

understand that the success of one is the success of the team and the failure of one is the

failure of the team.

In order to have this kind of synergy amongst crewmembers, initially there should be

commitment from upper management to create a working environment that will facilitate

such a behavior. A conscious effort by management and respected role models is required to

produce desired changes in attitudes and behavior (Helmreich, Wilhelm, 1991). Developing

such kind of an environment calls for understanding from management’s side, about the

advantages of CRM training. Consequently, a commitment to create such an environment is

necessary for an effective CRM training.

However, in the absence of an organizational culture that fosters CRM practices,

CRM training alone will be of no consequence. In the worst case, emergence of individuals


that exhibit boomerang effect is inevitable. This is due to the mismatch of real life

environment and classroom reality. Individuals that show boomerang effects, will loose trust

in the training not because of its genuine nature, but because of its lack of non-applicability in

real life. They may even go to the point of inferring these unfortunate circumstances in to

other CRM trainings not attached to their organization. Effectively, lack of understanding and

commitment in creating a conducive environment for CRM, creates individuals with negative

reaction towards the concept of CRM training.

Helmreich and Wilhelm (1991), in their paper entitled Outcomes of Crew Resource

Management Training on page 291, realized the purpose of management and leading pilots’

readiness before CRM training introduction as follows. Appendix A shows a pictorial

representation of the results.

In our study, data relevant to this hypothesis were available. In both organizations, an

anonymous survey of pilots' attitudes was conducted more than 1 year prior to the

introduction of formal CRM training. Return rates of 45% and 50% were achieved on

the baseline measure. During the intervening period between the baseline

measurement and the initiation of training, several actions were taken to improve the

organizational climate in both organizations. A series of briefings by respected

members of management was held for line pilots. The need for CRM training was

stressed, course content was described, and crewmembers' fears that the training

involved some kind of brainwashing were allayed. Also during this period, check

airmen and instructors were given the training along with additional instruction in the

evaluation of crew performance. An empirical indication of shifts in the

organizational culture was found by comparing baseline attitudes with those measured

just prior to CRM training.


The pivotal action, without which an occurrence of boomerang individuals would prevail,

was the understanding and commitment of management and check airmen for CRM training

concepts.

Another cause for the manifestation of the boomerang effect after CRM training is the

specific course content and the capabilities of the instructors themselves (Helmreich,

Wilhelm, 1991). As mentioned earlier, any CRM training must cover issues coherent with

communication, workload management and the like. However, in doing so different

instructors employ various type of training technique. In the process of the training, emphasis

to some parts of the training and weaker coverage of others occurs. This mainly is because of

the bias of inexperienced training instructors. Thus, despite measurable differences in the

effectiveness of instructors, differential acceptance of CRM concepts continues to be present

(Helmreich, Wilhelm, 1991).

Coherent with this cause, the dynamics of the group exposed to CRM training also

steers an individual to exhibit boomerang effect. Group dynamics or process are manifested

primarily through verbal communication (Wiener, Kanki, Helmreich, 1993).In addition, since

CRM training is based on a simulation of what is going on in the field, trainees must have the

ideal representation of the group processes while in class. This representation includes but is

not limited to the following inputs: briefings, inquiry or assertion, leadership, group climate,

vigilance and navigation (Wiener, Kanki, Helmreich, 1993). Lack of any of the above

defining factors of group dynamics or process, or decrease in quality of these factors will

trigger a boomerang effect on individual members of the group.

In addition, defining bad and good seminars as those that received the most positive

and negative overall evaluations respectively, Helmreich and Wilhelm (1989) deduced that

boomerang effects clustered amongst the bad seminars with more than 30 percent of the

population under study showing negative effects on an evaluation scale termed as


communication and coordination. Positive effects clustered amongst the good seminars with

nearly 40% of the population showing positive changes (Helmreich, Wilhelm, 1989).

However, bad seminars appear to turn for the better by a charismatic participant(s) who can

assume leadership of the group and impose his or her views on others. (Helmreich, Wilhelm,

1991). Consequently, it is evident that a group comprised of individuals with pessimistic

views toward CRM training or a group that lacks the charismatic participants mentioned

above will develop individuals with boomerang effect towards CRM.

Aviator Psychology Associated with Boomerang Effect

The last section, focused on the external factors of an individual pilot that may invoke

the undesirable negative effect after CRM training. An equally evident factor that is

associated with boomerang effect on CRM is flight crew psychology. The portion of pilot

psychology linked with such an effect is the attitude and personality of the individual that

goes through CRM training (Chiedester, Helmreich, Gregorich, Geiss, 1991). Some

determinants of pilot performance are ability, personality and attitudes. Obviously, training

cannot provide an individual with ability that one does not possess (Helmreich, 1987).

However, before going into the details of how these factors affect the outcome of CRM

training, it is necessary to address the definition and scope of them as a human psychological

entity.

Attitudes are learned patterns of responding that are more or less modifiable through

training (Chiedester, Helmreich, Gregorich, Geiss, 1991). Personality traits, on the other

hand, are stable, deep-seated predispositions to respond in particular ways (Chiedester,

Helmreich, Gregorich, Geiss, 1991). “It has been argued elsewhere that training of the type

employed for cockpit management can influence attitudes but is unlikely to effect any

changes in underlying personality factors” (Helmreich, Foushee, Benson, Russini, 1986).

Therefore, comprehending the fact that CRM training will have an effect on only the attitudes


of individual pilots will help in identifying what the causes of boomerang effect are from the

other pertinent psychological factor, which is personality.

In an attempt to quantify the personality traits of aviators, Gregorich, Helmreich,

Wilhelm and Chidester (1989) conducted a study that developed a sample population

representative of the actual flight crew population, results of which help to keep in

perspective the personality trends associated with aviators. Gregorich et al. (1989), in their

paper entitled Personality based clusters as predictors of aviator attitudes and performance on

page 687, identified the measuring units of aviator personality as follows,

The Personal Characteristics Inventory (PCI) captures two broad underlying trait

dimensions: instrumentality or goal orientation and expressivity or interpersonal

orientation. Instrumentality has as its core, achievement motivation. The PCI breaks

these concepts down into several interrelated dimensions: Mastery, an interest in

undertaking challenging tasks and in improving skills; Work, the desire and

satisfaction gained from working hard; competitiveness, the desire to best others in

one’s activities; and more globally, instrumentality taps the broader construct of

achievement motivation. The PCI also contains the negative instrumentality sub scale,

which reflects an autocratic, dictatorial orientation. Expressivity reflects an

interpersonal orientation and the notions of warmth and sensitivity to others. Verbal

aggression, a form of negative expressivity refers to a type of nagging hostility

directed towards others.

Consequently, the study deduced personality clusters that are representative of the

population under study. The first cluster depicted above average levels of instrumentality,

expressivity, mastery and work and below average levels of negative instrumentality and

verbal aggression. This cluster, labeled as the right stuff, has its elevation of positive

instrumental and expressive attributes in addition to its relatively low scores on the negative


dimensions. This combination of characteristics is optimal for the close coordination required

of crewmembers in multi crew aircraft. The second cluster has above average levels of

instrumentality, negative instrumentality and verbal aggression as well as work, mastery and

competitiveness. This cluster, labeled as the wrong stuff, has high instrumentality, especially

of the negative form, and low positive value in expressivity. Individuals whose traits

resemble this pattern have rugged personality rather than being team players. Largely low

scores on instrumentality, expressiveness, mastery, work and competitiveness marked the

third cluster. This cluster, labeled as the no stuff, has a depressed score on measured

attributes (Gregorich, Helmreich, Wilhelm, Chidester, 1989).

After defining the above personality types, it will be necessary to see the reaction

these persons would have to CRM training. In a study conducted by Helmreich and Wilhelm

(1991) based on the personality clusters identified above and the coordination and

communication scale out of the cockpit management attitudes questionnaire (CMAQ), the

researchers observed that personality influences both initial position and training outcomes.

The CMAQ contains 25 statements describing attitudes found to be indicators of crew

coordination in National Aeronautics Space Agency (NASA) research. In particular, out of

the personality clusters defined, those with no stuff show a net boomerang effect with mean

final attitudes less positive than initial position (Helmreich, Wilhelm, 1991). Appendix B

shows a pictorial representation of this finding.

Understanding the reason why the individuals in the no stuff cluster react the way

they do will help address the root cause of such kind of a personality. From the scores these

persons get on the evaluation of their psychology, one can infer that, these are the people that

need the teachings of CRM training (Helmreich, Wilhelm, 1991). However, the fact that they

are the ones that reject it should create extra caution amongst recruiters on the type of crew


they select. Technical efficiency should not be the only criteria if a crew with safe and

efficient performance is required.

Theoretically individuals in the no stuff personality cluster, or the other clusters for

that matter, will experience psychological reactance to an event that will eliminate or

threatens to eliminate their freedom in engaging in a given behavior pattern (Brehm, 1966).

This freedom of behavior should be physically and psychologically conceivable by the

individual. “Whether or not a person ‘really’ has freedom he can and most certainly will

believe that he has” (Brehm, 1966). Psychological reactance is a motivational state directed

toward the reestablishment of the threatened or eliminated freedom (Brehm, 1966).

Consequently, the magnitude of the reactance is in direct relation between the importance of

the freedom eliminated or threatened. In addition, it also relates with the proportion of free

behaviors eliminated or threatened (Brehm, 1966).

Correlating the theoretical analysis of psychological reactance with the personality of

no stuff personality clusters, one can see that CRM training and application calls for an

instrumental, expressive and competitive crew, which are not the qualities of this cluster. In

fact, CRM training works to instill communication skills, workload management skills etc

that threatens the behavior pattern of this cluster, which is doing things by oneself.

Consequently, if the members of this cluster become part of CRM training, they will feel

threatened, and thus will maneuver towards the negative end of CRM acceptance. Therefore,

one can deduce that, people with a no stuff personality will boomerang after CRM training

because CRM concept itself threatens their defining trait.

A practical study that shows the theory of psychological reactance in action is the one

by Abelson and Miller (1967). In this study, the authors set up an opinion discussion in a

public place. In one of the variants of the experiment carried out, the researchers tried to

persuade the subject of study by just giving the information. In another variant of the


experiment, the researchers “insulted” the subject during the discussion that entailed the

persuasion process regarding the public opinion. At all the experiments, the subject was

unaware of the fact that he or she was part of the experiment, in order to maintain the

unbiased status of the subject. Consequently, Abelson and Miller (1967) reported boomerang

effect amongst subjects that were “insulted” in the course of the experiment. The “insult”

relates to the removal or threat of removal of the subject’s freedom to choose a certain

behavior in the public opinion discussion issue, according to theory of psychological

reactance. Thus in accordance with the theory, the subjects that were “insulted” did exhibit

boomerang effect.

Until now, the issue was the reasons of boomerang effect from an initial training

perspective. However, a comprehensive understanding of this effect needs input from

measurements done on outcomes from recurrent trainings as well. To this end, the study

conducted by Irwin (1991) captures the effect of recurrent training on negative persuasion

attitude. The study bases on data obtained from 5,830 flight crews at initial CRM training and

6,354 flight crews at recurrent CRM training. In addition, for 2,982 flight crews, it was

possible to match the data from the initial CRM training to the data obtained at the time of

recurrent training (Irwin, 1991).

Furthermore, the analysis done bases on the CMAQ mentioned earlier and its three

embedded personality measuring scales namely communication and coordination, command

responsibility and recognition of stressor factors. By cross tabulating global attitude change

scores, which are the mean value of all the three scales, Irwin(1991) found out that less than

1% of the sample show boomerang attitude change for both phases of training. This indicates

that there is a tendency for individuals who show extreme negative attitude change on a

subscale because of training to show extreme negative attitude change on a subscale because

of recurrent training (Irwin, 1991). However, one should keep in mind that initial training


provides a change in attitudes, but a reinforcement of CRM concepts is necessary for attitude

maintenance and the stability of attitudes across training.

Conclusions

Reasons for the cause of boomerang effect in flight crews undergoing CRM training

is the subject of this paper. Observations made in to the researches that addressed this subject

have shown that, the reasons fall in to two categories. These categories are the ones that are

external to the flight crew undergoing training and the ones that are internal and coherent

with the psychological makeup of the individual. Both groups of reasons require attention in

order to correct them. Otherwise, keeping in mind that CRM is a team effort, the intent of the

CRM training will not only be disqualified on those individuals with negative persuasion, but

also on the whole flight crew in which such individuals function.

Another input that can be deduced is the fact that handling the causes of the

boomerang effect in the first category is feasible than the ones in the second category from a

commercial aviation perspective. This is because the airline business is constantly in

competition and solving problems of individuals is unlikely as compared to solving the

problem of organizational culture. In addition, airlines may opt to have a selection process in

place that will filter out individuals that are not CRM-friendly instead of investing on such

individuals to change their attitude towards CRM.


References

Abelson, R. P., & Miller, J. C. (1967). Negative persuasion by personal insult. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 3,321-333.

Brehm, J.W. (1966). A Theory of Psychological Reactance. In Burke, W.W., Lake, D.G.,

Paine, J.W. (Eds), Organization Change: A Comprehensive Reader. John Wiley and

Sons.

Chidester, T.R., Helmreich, R.L., Gregorich, S.E. & Geis, C.E. (1991). Pilot Personality and

Crew Coordination: Implications for Training and Selection. The International

Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1:1, 25 — 44.

Gregorich. S., Helmreich, R. L., Wilhelm, J. A., & Chidester, T. R. (1989). Personality based

clusters as predictors of aviator attitudes and performance. In Jensen, R.S. (Ed.),

Proceedings of the fifth symposium on aviation psychology (pp. 697-702). Columbus:

Ohio State University.

Helmreich, R. L. (1987). Theory underlying CRM training: Psychological issues in flight

crew performance and crew coordination. In Orlady, H.W. & Foushee, H.C. (Eds.),

Cockpit resource management training: Proceedings of the NASA/MAC workshop

(NASA Conference Publication No. 2455). Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames

Research Center.

Helmreich, R. L., Foushee, H. C., Benson, R., & Russini, R. (1986). Cockpit management

attitudes: Exploring the attitude-performance linkage. Aviation, Space and

Environmental Medicine, 57, 1198-1200.

Helmreich, R. L., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1989). When training boomerangs: Negative outcomes

associated with cockpit resource management programs. In R. S. Jensen (Ed.),

Proceedings of the fifth symposium on aviation psychology (pp. 692-697). Columbus:

Ohio State University.


Helmreich, R.L. and Wilhelm, J. A. (1991). Outcomes of Crew Resource Management

Training. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1:4,287 — 300.

Irwin, C.M. (1991). The Impact of Initial and Recurrent Cockpit Resource Management

Training on Attitudes. In Jensen, R.S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the sixth symposium on

aviation psychology (pp. 344-349). Columbus: Ohio State University.

Wiener, E.L., Kanki, B.G., Helmreich, R.L. (1993). Cockpit Resource Mangement. Elsevier.

San Diego, Ca.


Appendix A

(A) Baseline and pre-CRM training scores-Communications and Coordination scale. (B)
Baseline and pre-CRM training scores-Command Responsibility and Recognition of Stressor
Effects scales.


Appendix B

CMAQ Communication and scale mean: For the United States Air Force (USAF) sample,

n=882.

CRM TRAINING AND BOOMERANG EFFECT

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to CRM TRAINING AND BOOMERANG EFFECT

Similar to CRM TRAINING AND BOOMERANG EFFECT (20)

More from Mersie Amha Melke

More from Mersie Amha Melke (10)

CRM TRAINING AND BOOMERANG EFFECT