At 10:39 AM 1/31/97 -0500,Geoffrey wrote:
>At the risk of wasting everone's time with a reiteration, I must
>disagreewith Dr. Merrits "Anglo" cultural generalization. Brits are
>not Americans with a "posh " accent, as I learned from 4 years of
>flying on exchange with them. There is much more natural cooperation
>there than here in the US, paradoxically coupled with a lot more
>direct, dismissive opinions expressed. Political correctness is
>laughably American. (And it is...) NOONE in the UK is above average;
>thisis a cultural expectation. Do you know of an American who doesn't
>hink himself superior???
First, I could not agree more that Brits are not Americans, and I am sure
there are many British folk out there who would stridently agree. As an
Australian who has lived in England for two years, and the USA for the past
7 years, I also strongly endorse Geoffrey's observation, especially about
the "national self-esteem of Americans" which seems to lead them to the
conclusion, and I'm going to cite Geoffry who I assume is an American so I
won't come into direct line of fire, when he said "Do you know of an
American who doesn't think himself superior???" It is a very interesting
quality that I believe distinguishes the "typical" American from the
"typical" Australian or Brit, and expresses itself in many behaviors, from
humor to personal interactions, to curriculum vitae!! We all recognize and
(hopefully) appreciate the differences (personally, having lived in the
three countries, I can see definite advantages and disadvantages to the two
styles).
With gentle humor intended, I might also point out the cultural group that I
identified was called "Anglos" not "Americos", and that rather than saying
"Brits are Americans with posh accents" one might more accurately say that
"Americans are Brits with twangy accents" :-)
But, to be more serious, let me clarify something about my research. When I
say there is an Anglo cluster of countries where the pilots had similar work
attitudes and values, I am referring in particular to command preferences,
assertion, and attitudes toward automation. When pilots from 16 countries
are included in the analysis, the Anglo countries (Countries where English
is the first and usually only language spoken, e.g. USA, NZ, Oz, UK) emerge
as a single cluster, their views similar to each other and dissimilar to the
other countries in the sample. Now this is obviously a broad sweep
(anything at the level of national culture is..) and certainly there are
differences within the Anglo countries. Indeed within any one country,
across different airlines, there are likely to be differences in some
attitudes... and in reference to Goeffrey's second comment on the difference
between British and US military personnel, I'm sure that it is quite true -
we have observed large differences within the US, within the military, the
reserves, the major airlines, and the commuters that can attest to
differences. BUT at the same time, there are broad commonalities based in
our cultural values, which bind these pilots in their attitudes on some
fundamental issues.
That is why I strongly advocate local solutions for common global problems.
If one diagnoses the local conditions, then national culture is one concern,
but so too is organizational environment, past training experience, pilot
background and experience, managerial support, government regulation, and
general infrastructure. I don't want anyone to think I am suggesting that
you can create a Swedish CRM course, an Oz CRM course, a Vietnamese CRM
course that will then fit all aviation personnel with that national
identity. What I am saying is that an understanding of broad cultural
similarities or differences can help to challenge and dispel any culturally
bound solutions.
For example, Geoffrey says " It's American, and USAF culture that expects
students, and the rest of us aviators, to behave per
rule-based structures. CRM has a long way to go in the US..." I would ask
Geoffrey what he thinks CRM is? does he believe there is something
inherently anti-CRM in "rule-based structures"? Perhaps his version of CRM
reflects his own values? Not too crazy about rule-based structures? Well
there are a number of pilots, in a number of countires, who are! And there
are a number of situations, admittedly not all, where safety can be improved
with the application of some rule-based structures. Remember "safety", the
original rasion d'etre for CRM??
National culture is just one parameter, along with many others, that should
be included when considering how safety and efficiency can be improved.
CRM has suffered in the past because we have assumed that one size fits all
- that one size often conveniently reflecting our own values. (here, I think
I may be disagreeing with others on this bulletin board who seem to think
that CRM is a pancea for all life's ailments). Only by diagnosing the local
conditions can one design an intervention that will work. Otherwise, we are
treating one patient with another patient's diagnosis.
.....oh yes, did I mention that an Australian trait was "directness"? I hope
I have not been too blunt, if so then I apologize..
Ashleigh Merritt, Ph.D.,
Aerospace Crew Research Project
1609 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 200, Austin TX 78757 USA
ph: 512 480 9997 fax: 512 480 0234 Homepage:
http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/helmreich/nasaut.htm