Managing Cultural Diversity in Crew Resource Management Program
Research Aims
This proposed research attempts to achieve the following objectives:
1. To illustrate the need for a Crew Resource Training and Management Program in reducing the incidences of accidents and human error in the aviation industry
2. To analyze the Chinese cultural background (using Cathay Pacific as a case study) in relation to their work and training in the aviation industry
3. To evaluate the demand for a crew resource management program that shall integrate cultural factors and diversity problems in training using Cathay Pacific as a case study
4. To recommend a training program that integrates the need for a crew resource training that responds to the cultural diversity in the aviation industry particularly that of China
Research Questions
In accordance with the research aims of this proposed study, the following will be asked:
1. What are the cultural differences of Western and Chinese (Cathay Pacific) aviation workers and crew resource management practices?
2. What are the needs of the Chinese aviation industry (Cathay Pacific) and how effective is CRM in addressing these problems?
3. Is there a need for a culturally specific CRM training in Cathay Pacific?
4. What kind of CRM training program is effective in the Chinese aviation industry?
Introduction
According to Salas, Bowers and Edens (2001), the goal of CRM is to improve safety, to reduce human error, and to promote effective teamwork and decision making in aviation. This is because in aviation, accidents and mishaps have been attributed to human error in 60% to 80% of cases (Bowers, et. al., 2001; Freeman & Simmon, 1991). A large part of these are attributable to failures in coordination among cockpit crews (Bowers, et. al., 2001). For example, poor pilot performance and faulty crew resource management (CRM) have been cited as contributing factors in numerous accidents and incidents reported by major airlines during the period covering 1983 to 1985 (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1997). The U.S. General Accounting Office (1997) found that CRM deficiencies (e.g., lack of coordination among cockpit crews, captain’s failure to assign tasks to other members, and a lack of effective crew supervision) were a contributing cause in approximately half of accidents that occurred between 1983 and 1985 that involved one or more fatalities.
In an effort to manage some of these problems with teamwork and the resulting safety issues, the aviation industry introduced the concept of CRM (Salas, Bowers, & Edens, 2001; Wiener, Kanki, & Helmreich, 1993). CRM was introduced as a way to train aircrews to use all available resources — equipment, people, and information — by communicating and coordinating as a team. CRM has been used within the aviation industry for more than 20 years and has undergone several evolutions with varying foci (Helmreich, Merritt, & Wilhelm, 1999; Maurino, 1999).
Thus, CRM training is now a global psychological intervention. Johnston (1993) reported that the accident rate in some emerging nations is nearly eight times that in industrialized nations. As a result, CRM has made its way into other cultures. In fact, a body of research is available to CRM training developers that can aid in the development of CRM programs for airlines in other nations.
According to Helmreich and his colleagues (Helmreich & Merritt, 1998; Helmreich, Wilhelm et al., 2001), cultural differences often impede the implementation of off-the-shelf CRM programs developed in the United States. Helmreich and Wilhelm (1998) identified four types of culture that influence CRM: national culture of the pilot, professional culture of the pilot, organizational culture, and the organization’s safety culture. The professional culture of pilots reflects certain attitudes toward stress, fatigue, and vulnerabilities to stressors that may have an impact on the effectiveness of CRM (Helmreich & Wilhelm, 1998). In addition, Merritt and Helmreich (1996) found a relationship between organizational climate and CRM attitudes. Their study revealed that pilots who endorse organizational climates that the majority view as negative demonstrated less positive CRM attitudes, whereas a positive organizational climate correlated positively to CRM attitudes. The organizational culture also determines the safety culture.
Furthermore, it has been shown that national culture plays a powerful role in determining the effectiveness of CRM training programs (Maurino, 1994). Specifically, attitudes that define the core concepts of CRM differ dramatically across national borders (e.g., individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and division of roles between sexes; Hofstede, 1988). As such, initial attempts to apply CRM globally were often unsuccessful because of a failure to recognize the power of national culture (Helmreich, Wilhelm, Klinect, & Merritt, 2001). Finally, anecdotal evidence and reactions to CRM training generally suggest that cross-cultural CRM training can prevent accidents (Kayten, 1993) and that CRM is being applied in domains outside aviation (Flin, 1995).
This body of evidence suggests that successful CRM training depends on many factors outside the program itself, such as cultural sensitivity on training, expectations of trainees depending on their cultural background and values, management support for training, a climate that supports learning, and trainee expectations about and previous experiences with training. As such CRM training cannot be isolated from other factors that influence its success.
Significance of the Study
This proposed study seeks to motivate both scientists and practitioners to continue working on understanding human performance in complex environments and providing training and other interventions as solutions. It seeks to present a useful resource book for many professionals and researchers interested in human error and team functioning.
Conceptual Framework
The utilization of Kirkpatrick’s typology in this proposed study and corresponding revisions serves several important functions within the training evaluation process. First, it has served to organize the type of information that should be collected in the assessment of training. Second, it has served to argue for the added benefit and/or importance of collecting more than one level of evaluation information. Although both points perform important functions, the second has been more difficult to put into practice than has the first.
The most popular framework for guiding training evaluations is Kirkpatrick’s (1976) typology. Kirkpatrick argued for a multilevel approach to training evaluation consisting of four levels of evaluation: reactions, learning, behavior (i.e., extent of performance change), and results (i.e., degree of impact on organizational effectiveness or mission success). Within recent years, this typology has been expanded by several researchers (Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, 1993; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). Goldsmith and Kraiger (1997) have built upon this work by describing a method for the structural assessment of an individual learner’s knowledge and skill, a method that has been successfully used in aviation research efforts (Kraiger, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1995; Stout, Salas, & Kraiger, 1997).
Methodology
This proposed study will use the descriptive approach- utilization of interview, observation and questionnaires in the study. The purpose is to describe the situation as observed by the researcher.
The study will determine whether cross-cultural CRM techniques can resolve problems in the aviation industry. Particularly, the integration of personal values, traditions, skills and cultural background of the crew needs to be taken into consideration in devising a crew resource training program.
The primary source of data will come from the research-conducted questionnaire distributed to CRM trainers and strategists, and aviation crews who have undergone CRM training. Secondary data will consist of interviews, published articles from journals, theses and related studies on CRM, trainings and cross-cultural implications of training.
For this research design, the researcher will gather data, collate published studies from different local and foreign universities and articles from social science journals, distribute sampling questionnaires; arrange interviews; and make a content analysis of the collected documentary and verbal material. Afterwards, the researcher will summarize all the information, make a conclusion based on the null hypotheses posited and provide insightful recommendations on the management of Crew Resource training in the aviation industry.
References
Bowers, C., Burker, S., Salas, E. and Wilson, K. (2001) Team training in the Skies: Does Crew Resource Management (CRM) training work? Human Factors, Vol. 43.
Flin, R. (1995). Crew resource management for teams in the offshore oil industry. Journal of European industrial Training, 19(9), 23-27.
Freeman, C., & Simmon. D.A. (1991). Taxonomy of crew resource management: Information processing domain. In R. S. Jensen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th Annual International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 391-397). Columbus: Ohio State University.
Goldsmith, T., & Kraiger, K. (1997). Structural knowledge assessment and training evaluation. In J. Ford, S. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas, & M. Teachout (Eds.), Improving training effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 19-46). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Helmreich, R. L., Merritt, A. C., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1999). The evolution of crew resource management training in commercial aviation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9, 19-32.
Helmreich, R. L., Wilhelm, J. A., Klinect, J. R., & Merritt, A. C. (2001). Culture, error and crew resource management. In B. Salas, C. A. Bowers, & E. Edens (Eds.), improving teamwork in organizations: Applications of resource management training (pp. 305-331). Mahwah, NI: Erlbaum.
Helmreich, R., & Wilhelm, J. (1998). CRM and culture: National, professional, organizational, safety. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 635-640). Columbus: Ohio State University.
Hofstede, G. (1988). McGregor in southeast Asia. In D. Sinha & H. Kao, Sr. (Eds.), Social values and development: Asian perspectives (pp. 304-314). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnston, N. (1993). CRM: Cross-cultural perspectives. In E. L. Wiener, B. G. Kanki, & R. L. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource management (pp. 367-398). San Diego: Academic.
Kayten, P. J. (1993). The accident investigator’s perspective. In E. L. Wiener, B. G. Kanki, & R. L. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource management (pp. 283-314). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 78, 311-328.
Kraiger, K., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (1995). Measuring knowledge organization as a method for assessing learning during training. Human Performance, 37, 804-816.
Maurino, D. E. (1994). Cross-cultural perspectives in human factors training: Lessons from the ICAO Human Factors Program. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4, 173-181.
Maurino, D. E. (1999). Safety prejudices, training practices, and CRM: A mid-point perspective. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9, 413-427.
Merritt, A. C., & Helmreich, R. L. (1996, April). CRM: I hate it, what is it? Error, stress, arid culture. Paper presented at the Orient Airlines Association Air Safety Seminar, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Salas, E. Bowers, C. and Edens, E. (2001) (Editors). Improving Teamwork in Organizations: Applications of Resource Management Training. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 356 Pages.
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471-499.
Stout, R. J., Salas, E., & Fowlkes, J. E. (1997). Enhancing teamwork in complex environments through team training. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(2), 169-182.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Human factors: FAA’s guidance and oversight of pilot crew resource management training can be improved (GAO/RCED-98-7). Washington, DC: Author.
Wiener, B. G. Kanki, & R. L. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource management (pp. 399-420). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment