Question

The following are two case study examples from NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS), in the original text submitted, including grammatical errors. The reader will see traces to the different components of individual human performance, professionalism, and the components of the CRM Pyramid model. Finally, we will consider the case of a solid CRM positive example in the case of JetBlue Flight 292.a

Ramp Operations: Example of Disregard for Authority

On gate and time for push back, the push crew said that they would take the brakes and hold the push waiting for clrnc from ramp. There was an acft behind us, so the wait was extended. Without prior coordination, the forward cargo door opened, and bags were loaded. I asked the tug driver who had given clrnc for the pit to be opened. He said that we were just sitting there, and he had told the rampers to throw the bags into the pit. I reminded him that the capt was the one who gave permission to open the doors after the brakes have been released. This opening the doors without coordination has become common with the rampers. The tug driver then stated that they could do this if we were waiting for clrnc. I then said, ‘not without talking to the crew.’ He then said, ‘so write it up.’ I then stated that he should read up on the procs. At this point we had been given permission to push and I informed the tug driver. He started the push by pumping the accelerator on the tug and bunching the tow bar against the nose gear several times. At least four times. I then directed him to stop the push, without a response at first. I had concern for the acft nose gear and for the flt attendants standing in the aisle doing their demos. Only after the second command to stop the push did the tug driver stop. Not wanting him to continue the bumping of the acft and realizing that he was mad at me, I directed a return to the gate and then directed for another push crew. We informed ramp of the problem and informed coordination ctl. The coordination ctlr was of no help in the sit and became very unprofessional and abusive to the crew insisting that the push crew was qualified to do the push and thus should be allowed to do it. She stated that we were being very unprofessional for keeping the pax waiting and that we should accept the push crew and go. The coordination ctlr made these statements without knowing what was going on. The ramp lead got on the headset and informed me that I had ‘no right’ to request another crew. I informed him that I had every right to protect the acft and the crew and that I would not accept an individual who takes his irritation out on the acft. He informed me that it would be five to ten minutes before they could get another crew, and I said fine. Soon after, the ramp supervisor arrived and had the jet bridge pulled back, and we discussed the sit. He said that he would look into the prob and requested a rpt be filed. I told him I would file the rpt and forward it to him. We pushed back with the new crew and departed. Ramp personnel opening the cargo doors without clrnc from the flt crew, tug drivers not using the proper terminology, or improper pushes have become a problem. Intentionally taking frustration out on an acft cannot be accepted.

Discussion question for the reader: How can an airline encourage the concept of professionalism known as empowered accountability among employees who are paid minimum wage or close to minimum wage?

Answer 1

How can an airline encourage the concept of professionalism known as empowered accountability among employees who are paid minimum wage or close to minimum wage?

In organisations like airlines where roles are very specialised, it can be challenging to coordinate workflows between specialists as the roles depend more on internal decision-making. This internal decision making can be positively influenced in the following ways :

1. Prompt a change by expressly communicating the ownership of tasks and a clear delineation of duties. This can be in the form of regular meetings that reiterate the ownership of duties, or role-play style training that clearly shows the scope and boundary of activities under the role's purview - especially as a lot of minimum wage earners are not likely to be highly educated but they will be trained in their line of work. Explicitly endorse the idea that every worker is responsible for their own tasks and that this is what should be the personal goal for everyone. Workers should be encouraged to use their own initiative and explore their own/new ways of completing tasks and pursuing innovation, as long as they comply with the overall company directives. Owning a task and having the freedom to explore personal variations and creativity, can help workers feel more accountable and empowered to ensure that they meet that accountability. (Johnson, 2015)

2. Positive reinforcement for acceptable behaviour can be a strong influencer when it comes to adopting complicated or harder-to-do or unwanted tasks/processes that workers might not prefer/want to do. This can be in various non-expensive forms, if monetary value can not be attached to good behaviour, that include verbal recognition and praise, selecting employee of the month, mr/ms congeniality, best reviews received (from othe groups), best safety statistics etc. The promise of a reward has always been a popular and effective way to endorse and encourage good behaviour. For people earning minimum wage (or just above it) however, monetary value is likely to be a strong motivator and bonuses based on salary are a popular choice e.g. 1% bonus for each month you have a good safety record, 2% for being employee of the month etc. Small pecuniary recognitions and rewards will be well received and enable a healthy competition among the team. Non monetary rewards can be - Free lunch for a week for the employee of the month, box of chocolates for best reviews/congeniality winners, 2 free lunches for best safety metrics etc.

3. Use the same model listed above across teams to show fair and unbiased treatment of all employees. Employing the same tactics to all teams - pilots, flight attendants, ground crew etc. but maybe with slightly different rewards (rewards linked to salary will anyway translate to more the higher your wage), will also help the minimum wage workers feel like they are being treated on par with the other employees. They too can provide feedback about others ensuring that good behaviour will have to go both ways. This will provide each worker with the option of voicing issues with other workers/teams and make for a more equitable work environment.

4. Changing the corporate culture is the most difficult but also the most effective way to encourage the concept of empowered accountability among lower wage workers. Building a work culture of respect and trust among workers will help to build a professional and accountable work environment. Constantly enforcing the idea of treating everyone with respect, pursuing a path of collaboration and cooperation will build a more positive mindset and work atmosphere resulting in a more confident and empowered workforce, that pursues excellence and accountability in day to day activities.

(Bradt, 2016)

References :

Bradt, George (2016) Accountability: The Essential Link Between Empowerment And Engagement. Forbes : Leadership strategy.

Johnson, Art (2015) How to use accountability to empower your employees. The Business Journals.