Copilot Leadership: What We Can Learn from the Airline Industry

What if I told you that context and culture can kill people?  For both Korean Air flight 801 and Air Florida flight 90, differing perceptions of the environment and a lack of cultural awareness led to the deaths of hundreds.  Pilots in the airline industry were not the only ones where this knowledge delta matters.  While not all leaders will face life-or-death situations, their leadership is none-the-less critical in countless other areas.  Leaders and leader(ship) development programs do not always include cultural components or do not allow for adaptations given the environment.  Both leaders and leader(ship) development programs must account for the complexities of the global operating environment, particularly cultural differences, if they are to be effective.  These oversights could be costly for leaders, followers, and the employers.  The flight deck serves as an important case study and provides many hard lessons, lessons that costs hundreds of lives.  These tragedies highlight the true impact perceptions and cultural differences have in the decision-making process and how people interpret the world.  A better understanding of these key concepts will better prepare leaders, regardless of industry, for whatever challenges they may face in the future.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Korean Air experienced multiple airplane crashes, well above the industry average.  The problem became so bad that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was brought in to investigate the root causes.  The U.S. Army even forbid soldiers from traveling on Korean Air flights during this time (Gladwell, 2008).   NTSB investigators focused in on the communications between those on the flight deck of the plane.  On Korean Air flight 801, the first officer and captain had the following exchange while preparing to land in Guam:

“First officer: Do you think it rains more in this area?

Captain: (silence)

Flight engineer: Captain, the weather radar has helped us a lot.

Captain: Yes. They are very useful” (Public Speaking Toolkit).

This exchange seems simple enough, but there are a lot of cultural dynamics at play.  Korean culture values a high power distance relationship, meaning members of the culture expect there to be defined and distinct levels of power (House, et al., 2004).  Additionally, “Korea’s authoritarian structure, not surprisingly, is reflected in its industries including aviation, where co-pilots traditionally have not been encouraged to challenge senior pilots” (Wee, 2013).  In the case of Korean Air flight 801, the first officer was attempting to warn the captain that it may be not safe to visually approach the airport; that they should rely on their instruments, such as radar (Public Speaking Toolkit).  However, per cultural norms, the first officer was defering to the captain’s authority.  The first officer did not want to upset the captain.  The NTSB found this failure to challenge the captain’s performance as “causal to the accident” (National Transportation Safety Board, 1997, p. 173). 

Air Florida flight 90’s voice recorder captured a dialogue similar to Flight 801’s dialogue. 

“First Officer: Look how the ice is just hanging on his, ah, back, back there, see that?

First Officer: See all those icicles on the back there and everything?

First Officer: Boy, this is a, this is a losing battle here on trying to de-ice those things, it [gives] you a false feeling of security, that’s all that does.  [Finally, as they get clearance for takeoff, the first officer upgrades two notches to a crew suggestion:]

First Officer: Let’s check those [wing] tops again, since we’ve been setting here awhile.

Captain: I think we get to go here in a minute” (Gladwell, 2008, p. 196). 

Flight 90’s first officer was attempting to warn the captain that he felt the wings were too icy, yet the first officer never explicitly stated this.  Flight 90 crashed shortly after takeoff due to ice buildup on the wings, killing 78 (Wheeler, 2014).  A causal factor was the deferential treatment and intimidation of authority. 

The captains of Korean Air flight 801 and Air Florida flight 90 never fully understand the warnings given by their first officers.  They did not connect the cultural components of the communication with the verbal components.  Thus, they failed to act and avert a crisis.  Pioneer of social and organizational psychology, Kurt Lewin, helps to explain this.  He developed an equation, stating that behavior is a function of a person and their perception of the environment (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013).  The captains had a different perception of their environment than the first officers and thus acted differently than the first officers anticipated or hoped. 

These case studies provide many lessons learned for leaders.  A clear lesson is the importance of explicitly communicating a message within and across cultures.  If the first officer of flight 90 had simply stated, ‘there is ice building up on the wings, so we need to deice again,” the disaster would likely have been averted.  This example also shows the importance of fostering a climate where others can challenge those in authority when the situation dictates.  Speaking up when there are safety concerns, ethical questions, or potential legal issues, among other situations, all create an overall positive environment and serve everyone’s best interest. 

Leader(ship) development programs must emphasis the importance of speaking up.  They also must emphasize how leadership and communication may differ based on cultural differences.  The world is becoming more interconnected and the workplace is increasingly multicultural.  Understanding cross-cultural communication is an important skill, both in sending and receiving messages.  Leaders must consider the environment in which they find themselves. 

Those that oversee leader(ship) development programs need to incorporate experiences where leaders are exposed to differing cultural norms.  Many leader(ship) development models, such as the Leader Growth Model, include new knowledge and experiences as essential to the development of leaders (McCoy, 2012).  Yet, these models are only as good as the inputs themselves.  If a leader is never exposed to different cultures or environments, they will not know to consider these differences.  It is incumbent on all leaders to encourage this growth, particularly leaders of leaders. 

As a result of this and other accidents, Korean Air’s new CEO set about an ambitious organizational change.  He made English the official language of the airline, redefined roles in the cockpit, and provided extensive communications training, among other initiatives to change the culture (Wee, 2013).  Other airlines also made changes in response to the reoccurring communication challenges.  One notable change made by many airlines was to adopt a program known as cockpit resource management (CRM).  CRM requires the entire crew to work together and communicate (D’Amato, 2013).  Training programs provide specific skills and procedures to maximize communication and effectiveness.  CRM has proven to be very effective in reducing airplane crashes due to communication, regardless of cultural backgrounds. 

In the cases of Korean Air flight 801 and Air Florida flight 90 one clear statement could have saved more than 300 lives.  In each case, a series of leadership errors led to the deaths of hundreds of passengers.  Cultural and contextual factors contributed to the leaders unknowingly creating unsafe conditions.  A lack of cultural awareness and understanding of the environment was a culprit in both case studies, along with dozens of other airplane crashes.  These two case studies serve as warnings for all leaders on the importance of including cultural dimensions in their leader(ship) development programs as well as adapting programs to the specific environmental factors.  By taking a lesson from the aviation industry, other organizations can prevent similar mistakes, create better leaders and leader(ship) development programs, and possibly save lives. 

———

Chad Plenge teaches leadership psychology at the United States Military Academy and develops high potential leaders with the US Army’s Center for Junior Officers.  He holds a Master of Arts in Organizational Psychology from Columbia University, a Master of Business Administration, and a Bachelor of Science from the United States Military Academy.  Chad is a certified Project Management Professional and an active duty officer in the US Army.  In his free time, he serves as the President of the board of directors as well as an Assistant Director for a non-profit organization. 

———

References

D’Amato, G. (Director). (2013, March 11). Focused on Failure [Television series episode]. In Mayday.

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The Story of Success. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.

House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. and Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2013). Organizational Behavior (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

McCoy, Eric, (2012) The Role of Experimental Education, Reflection, and Knowledge Acquisition in Building Stronger Leaders, USMA PL300 (Military Leadership) White Paper.

National Transportation Safety Board. (1997). Aircraft Accident Report: Controlled Flight Into Terrain Korean Air Flight 801 (United States, National Transportation Safety Board). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Public Speaking Toolkit. (n.d.). The Ethnic Theory of Plane Crashes. Retrieved February 17, 2018, from http://www.publicspeakingtoolkit.com/ethnic-theory-of-plane-crashes.html.

Wee, H. (2013, July 9). Korean culture may offer clues in Asiana crash. CNBC. Retrieved February 17, 2018, from https://www.cnbc.com/id/100869966.

Wheeler, M. (2014, February 17). Asiana Airlines: “Sorry, Captain. You’re wrong.”. Retrieved February 17, 2018, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140217220032-266437464-asiana-airlines-sorry-captain-you-re-wrong.