Team Leadership in Aviation

“There is no aircraft in aviation history — either developed or under development — that can match the flexibility, versatility and relevance of the C-130 Hercules. In continuous production longer than any other military aircraft, the C-130 has earned a reputation as a workhorse ready for any mission, anywhere, anytime.

With more than one million hours of flying combat, humanitarian, special operations, aerial refueling, firefighting, and search and rescue missions around the world, the C-130J stands ready for its next mission and for whatever the future holds.” – Lockheed Martin (C-130J Super Hercules, 2014).

 

Within the distinct military history of the C-130 the proven concept of crewmember teamwork has positioned itself as a defining element to its renowned success. From the Pilot-in-charge to the Flight Engineer, the concept of crew specific tasks, duties, and knowledge exemplifies the essence of a team and, though unique in itself, follows aged typical gradation seen in team development

By definition, teams collaborate towards a collective goal, must rely upon each other, and work interdependently (PSU, 2014; Sol Tree, 2009). Additionally, within a team, each individual contributes specific knowledge or completes particular tasks that must be collectively used to proceed closer to goal accomplishment (PSU, 2014). Such actions are vital to the efficacy of teams. This also makes the formation of teams unique in that the ability to communicate, both on a professional and personal level, ultimately determines the ability to interdependently utilize each member’s specificity most effectively. Such interference is not only displayed as communicational, but as bad leadership, personality conflicts, and slower than normal integration times that ultimately contribute to adverse team progression and effectiveness (Utley, Brown, & Benfield, 2009).

The aircrew set up on C-130s exemplifies a team. Each job has extreme complication, technicality, and requirements for knowledge that are only known and contributed by that one position. Each crewmember must individually contribute to the particular mission at hand—as no mission may be completed without such individual participation. This information, though contributed by specific crewmembers is utilized by each other crew positions to collectively drive towards mission accomplishment. This collective contribution utilizes explicit interpersonal communication and cooperation that drives the team, or crew, towards mission completion. The Pilot, Copilot, Flight Engineer, and Loadmaster must each interact, contribute, and function both independently and interdependently to sustain safe and effective flight.

Further, Tuckman’s four stages of team development—forming-storming-norming- and performing—match the development of an aircrew team (PSU, 2014; Tuckman, 1965). Squadron aircrews are formed based upon availability and particular qualifications that are required by certain tactical missions. As such, this often results in conflict and, at the very least, is identified as learning each members communication style and abilities. To this degree, the process of learning such intrinsic personality traits and mannerisms produce Tuckman’s storming stage. Further, and only once the learning has occurred, normalization resides. For an aircrew this is the process for which effective communication and procedural optimization is evident. Simply, a crew that has been together for a considerable about of time now understands how each member can best contribute to the mission. Ultimately this process continues and increased performance, communication, and interpersonal dependency is maximized. This is the stage when a seasoned crew, throughout the length of a 6-9 month deployment, finds superior levels of communication (which, interestingly enough, is typically displayed as non-verbal, almost intuitive, assumptions that produces crew cohesiveness and efficacy) and mission accomplishment. The ability to function within a seasoned crew through months of combat flights stands as one of the most interesting and amazing experiences of my life. I have personally never witnessed or been apart of such a group of individuals that I knew like the back of my hand and could, without a word, know their exact next move or thought in most situations. This, in my mind, is the end of Tuckman’s performance stage—the truest optimization of interpersonal communication, reliance upon each other, and mission accomplishment.

As mentioned earlier, leadership within this type of team is by position and it ultimately predicated by experience and qualification. This position, though a byproduct of qualification, is not solely a product of previous leadership performance. It is a culmination of experience, performance, test grades, and piloting skills. Very little, if truly any, leadership abilities are considered in such qualifications. To this degree, such marginalization often initially degrades both critical team leadership functions mentioned by Northouse (2013) – task function and maintenance functions. More specifically, pilots often lack the situational awareness and abilities to guild teams through complex situations or missions that require leader driven evolutions and time critical decisions that ultimately affect the outcome of the mission. Also, newer leaders often lack the ability, or empathy, to spend effort dealing with troop welfare and the general well being of the other team members. From my experience newer pilots often focus on task function well before they master and display adequate maintenance functions for their team.

Though unique in function and set up as multi-crewed aviation can be, generally Tuckman’s stages can be found in nearly all organizations to some degree. Tuckman’s model has also been described as, “the most predominantly referred to and most widely recognized in organizational literature” (Miller, 2003, p. 122). Though the process of leadership development and selection is unique in it self and would depart from the point of this blog, such a process within aviation does change how the team is assumed and constructed—for which ultimately determines their effectiveness and the probability of mission completion. As such, it is important to note that each team is unique in and of it self. There will exist particularities in each formation, conflict, normalization, and performance outcomes that any team can display and produce. Like most models or theories, Tuckman’s stages of teams stands as a generalization that is broadcasted throughout all organizations and functions of teams.

Written by: Morgan L. DeBusk-Lane

References

C-130J Super hercules. (2014). Retrieved October 22^nd, 2014, from             http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/c130.html

Miller, D. L. (2003). The stages of group development: A retrospective study of dynamic team processes. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20(2), 121-134. doi:10.1111/j.1936-4490.2003.tb00698.x

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2014). PSYCH 485 Lesson 9: Team Leadership. Retrieved October 21st, 2014 from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa14/psych485/002/content/09_lesson/printlesson.html

Sol Tree (2009, October 9). Solution tree: Rick DuFour on groups vs. teams [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hV65KIItlE

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399. doi:10.1037/h0022100

Utley, D. R., Brown, S. E., & Michael P J Benfield. (2009). Working group or team: Characteristic differences. IIE Annual Conference.Proceedings, , 415.