CRM or conscious disobedience
When people agree with me right away, I feel like I'm wrong.
Oscar Wilde
Story
In aviation, there is a method for reducing human error: Crew resource management. CRM began to develop after the disaster in Tenerife in 1977, when two Boeings collided on the runway – more than 500 people died. The pilots ignored the flight engineer's doubts that the runway was clear, which was one of the causes of the accident.
Historically, the captain on board an airplane or ship is king and god: as he says, so it will be. There was no habit of objecting or arguing with the captain. If the crew saw that something was going wrong, they could express polite doubt. Whether the captain would take it into account or not was a matter of chance. In Korean airlines, this habit was superimposed on the cultural custom of not arguing with elders and became a systemic problem in the 80s.
Analysis of accidents has shown that many accidents could have been avoided if pilots had listened to the crew. CRM is a method for establishing communication in a team so that the captain cannot ignore the crew's opinion.
In 1981, United Airlines was the first to implement the CRM methodology. Then the methodology began to spread to aviation, the navy, firefighters, etc. A meta-analysis in 2008 showed the effectiveness of CRM methodology training – the methodology really does reduce the number of errors.
Submission to command
Humans tend to make mistakes.
Seneca
Can we say that a captain or a manager is always right and always gives the right orders? Definitely not, they are also people, and they also make mistakes: unconsciously or intentionally. The responsibility of a commander for giving an illegal order is clear. But what is the responsibility of a subordinate for carrying out an illegal order? Is it possible to blindly obey an order?
One of the Nuremberg trials determined that the excuse “I was simply following orders” does not mitigate the sentence. The principle was formulated:
“The fact that a person acted pursuant to an order of his government or of a superior does not relieve that person from responsibility under international law if making a conscious choice was in fact possible for him.”
And although the principle was formed in 1945-48, the problem persists to this day. In companies, a reference to the management's opinion is the most universal argument: “The CEO said so.” And that's it, you don't have to think about it anymore. In reality, the belief that no one has ever been fired for following an order works better! Following an order is, in most cases, safer for an employee.
Dr. Milgram conducted a series of experiments in 1961-62 studying obedience to authority. It turned out that people can do a lot by following the instructions of an authority. In some experiments, up to 90% of people continued to follow orders, even though they knew they were harming another person.
Subordination and management
In management, the problem of subordination to superiors is no less acute. The concept of internal control (COSO 2013) calls management's neglect of company procedures one of the most serious problems. You can build processes as carefully as you like, but if a top manager or CEO wants to bypass processes, they will do it.
There are many cases where employees do what their superiors say, even if it is wrong or illegal. Ira Chaleff, in his book, Conscious Insubordination, gives the following examples:
Police were forced to underreport crime statistics when politicians needed to demonstrate their effectiveness in combating street violence.
Clinic administrators were told to inflate the cost of procedures performed when recording requests for insurance payments.
Loan officers were advised to give people false sources of income so they could get mortgages they couldn't actually afford.
Financial firm employees were told to write automated eviction reports without checking the accuracy of the data.
Grocery store employees were required to transfer expired eggs into cartons labeled with a different expiration date.
VA hospital administrators falsify patient wait times to cover up slow emergency care.
Everyone can give their own examples. I have often seen ineffective or thoughtless actions. When asked: “Why did you do it this way?” – the standard answer was: “We were ordered to do so.” Employees are not used to arguing with their superiors.
Following authority sometimes turns into following an “invisible” authority, which is even worse. Here the decree is not a specific order, but an opinion about the order or about generally established rules: “This is how it has always been done.” When I asked where it was written or what would happen if I did it differently, an error appeared in my eyes: “This is how it has always been done, what other justification is needed?”
Where does the habit of following authority come from?
Even though the Giraffe was wrong,
But it's not the Giraffe's fault,
And the one who shouted from the branches:
“The giraffe is big – he knows better!”
V. Vysotsky
Here we can ask differently: where does the habit of arguing with superiors and, no less importantly, the habit of accepting the objections of subordinates develop?
At school they teach you to listen to your teachers. If a student expresses a different opinion – “How do you talk to your elders?” The institute – maybe some more freedom. However, argue with the teacher – there will be problems with passing the exam. I won't even mention work: objecting to the boss – looks like the beginning of a riot!
The most interesting thing is that the habit of not discussing orders has become part of the flesh and blood of companies: most orders are written without justification of why a particular decision was made. But without justification of why such an order was made, it is impossible to understand to what extent the application of the order is justified in each specific case. No need to think – just follow it.
The whole system is set up so that people follow decisions from above: “there was no order to think”. Only then we cannot find normal managers who would think and make decisions independently.
Often employees use silent rebellion, especially when the boss is far away. This type of insubordination is described by Dr. Milgram. Employees do not say “no”, they simply do not do what they are ordered. This allows to reduce the damage in case of an incorrect order, but it does not allow to understand the reason for resistance and improve the system.
In Dr. Milgram's experiments, silent rebellion was used to prevent harm to an employee. In a company, exactly the same silent rebellion will be used to prevent a beneficial change, for example, the same electronic document management.
What is conscious disobedience?
If a man can only obey and does not know how to disobey, he is a slave; if he can only disobey and does not know how to obey, he is a rebel; he acts out of anger, disappointment, indignation, but not out of conviction or principle.
Erich Fromm
Conscious disobedience is not about rebelling against the system, it is a way to make the system better. That is why we talk about conscious disobedience. There is no point in always saying “no”. Conscious disobedience is saying “no” when you need to say “no”.
Ira Chainleff in his book gives a vivid example of conscious disobedience: when training guide dogs, they are taught to disobey the owner, but only when something can go wrong: a hole in the road, a quiet car or something similar that the owner does not see.
For this habit to work, the dog owner must understand and accept why the dog is not obeying. One of the most difficult cases is when the dog owner retains partial vision. He sees the road, but he does not see the obstacles that the dog sees. Then he begins to get angry and swear at the dog – which completely confuses the dog.
Levels of Insubordination
It is important to understand when you can and should say “no”. Pilots have 4 levels to interfere with the actions of the commander:
Level 1 – Advice: in such wind conditions, the flaps can be released earlier;
Level 2 – proposal: I propose to release the flaps;
Level 3 – order: release flaps;
Level 4 – Takeover: “I am in control of the aircraft.” If necessary, go around.
(illustrative example, if anyone can correct the technical details, please write).
The co-pilot must understand when it is too late not to extend the flaps. The takeover must take place, preferably, at the very last controllable moment. Earlier – there is a chance that the first pilot will come to his senses; later – there will be an accident.
Taking control does not mean that a person is bad or unworthy. Each of us can find ourselves in tunnel vision, tired, or for some other reason not correctly assess the situation. That is, we are not able to make the right decision. The purpose of taking control is to help a person return to an adequate perception of reality.
An important point is that the possibility of taking over control is fixed in the job description. And the choice of a safe course of action: to go around again, even if it would be possible not to go around — is not punishable. That is, the possibility of disobedience and choosing a safe course of action is supported by law.
The CRM methodology is not only conscious disobedience, it is the entire culture of communication and interaction between the crew and ground services. For example, during a flight discussion, anyone (!) can express their thoughts on the flight. The only condition is that the thoughts must be justified. Such a thing as “I have more flight hours than all of you, so you must act as I say” is not allowed.
In companies, discussions are based on the principle: I'm the boss here, I'm older, I know better, you don't understand anything here. If the captain doesn't listen to advice or recommendations from the rest of the team, he can be suspended from flying. If the manager doesn't listen to recommendations from the team or from neighboring departments, nothing will happen. Or he might even be promoted.
Implementation of CRM in Russia
CRM in Russia in aviation began to be implemented about 20 years ago. According to stories, at that time there was no interaction, pilots and flight attendants were constantly arguing with each other.
There were stages of formal implementation: if a pilot did not complete the mandatory CRM course, they could formally tick him off – we need everything to be fine on paper. Many trainers and pilots did not understand what CRM was and why it was needed. There was even such a definition of CRM:
If a commander doesn’t hit you in the face with an oxygen mask, then he is a good commander and has a good CRM!
Now the situation is much better, there is already a meaningful implementation of CRM: flight crews and ground services understand why they need to practice interaction. Mandatory trainings are held once every 2 years, if you do not pass, you will not be allowed to fly. During the trainings, the crew practices interaction with each other, including with ground services. That is why the method is called “crew resource management”.
Although, according to a number of people, the level of interaction in crews in Russia does not yet reach the level of interaction in foreign companies, that is, we have room to strive!
CRM in business
In aviation and other areas, CRM works and increases the efficiency of the team, reduces the likelihood of executing the wrong order. In ordinary business, there are also examples of ineffective cross-functional interaction, there are wrong orders. Is it possible to try CRM in ordinary business, implement it in the work of departments? In my opinion, it is possible, although there will be no easy way here.
In those same airlines where CRM works perfectly during flights, interaction in other processes remains at the same level. It is easy to find letters and posts where flight attendants complain about interaction with the company on issues not directly related to the flight.
Employees are not used to consciously arguing with their superiors, and their superiors are not used to listening to employees. Introducing conscious insubordination and a culture of cross-functional interaction into everyday life is a major cultural change that cannot be changed by an order from a superior. The difficulty of implementation is also in the fact that two elements need to be changed at once: employees who are ready to say “no” are needed, and managers who are ready to hear “no” are needed. Changing only one element is pointless, the system will not work.
Introducing the system from below will be problematic, and, most importantly, unsafe for the initiator – it is easier to start doing it from above. From my experience, learning to listen to subordinates requires time and experience of such interaction.
On the other hand, conscious disobedience and the ability to say “no” are skills, and they can be developed. It will take time, but little by little, step by step, you can introduce elements of conscious disobedience.
You can start with simple elements. A culture of openness and trust is built, among other things, on the fact that everyone has rights, including the right to say “no,” the right to express emotions and ideas, and the right to ask for and receive information.
In our department, we started by introducing an element that helps open up and creates a space for ideas to be expressed. It’s very interesting to watch employees who come to our meetings for the first time, when they initially just don’t understand what’s going on and how to react.
We start with attunement: each employee speaks about their emotions, about what they are feeling now – for 20-30 seconds. This helps in two ways: first, everyone gets used to talking, there are no more completely silent ones, and second, it helps to understand the employee's emotions. The employee may be tired, angry, have troubles at home, or, on the contrary, be incredibly happy. And although this discussion can hardly be classified as a production issue, it creates an atmosphere of openness, where it is much easier to express your opinion on a particular decision.
Further implementation of CRM in business will require several steps:
studying how CRM works in aviation, how the CRM culture was implemented, how crews moved from formal CRM implementation to real work;
adaptation and testing of elements for applicability within departments or companies;
support for embedded elements over time.
Conclusion
Implementation of CRM or similar methods will significantly transform business and improve the quality of management decisions. Decisions that will be made taking into account the opinions of employees and neighboring departments will be much more effective.
Given that communication channels are established, the probability of human error will gradually decrease. It will not be possible to reduce it to zero, but there will be a significant decrease.
