Diving Into the Situation

In our previous article, you were going to mediate the disagreement between Joe and Mike. You might be thinking, “Is it really that bad? It’s just a minor disagreement and they will work things out — I don’t have to get involved.” Before we get to any actual discussions or steps you can take, let’s review the implications of the situation to determine if it warrants you stepping in.

Let’s look at this from a situation awareness perspective: your understanding of how each individual’s thoughts and actions collide, and how changing these elements will affect others in your department. First, let’s review two important aspects:

1. The levels of situation awareness:

a. Perception: What behaviors are you seeing? What words are they saying? This level is not judging or interpreting behaviors or words, and it is not interpreting these actions to determine an attitude.  For you, the person not involved in the discrepancy, it is simply fact based.

b. Comprehension: What do their behaviors mean? What is your understanding of the situation? Are these behaviors normal for those involved? Could there be underlying reasons for their reactions?

c. Prediction: What will happen if this behavior or conflict (between flight department members) continues?  This includes outcomes in both the short term and the long term. Will other flight department members take sides? Will there be undermining of future projects — either consciously or unconsciously?

Most often, the method used to settle any type of disagreement, conflict or human error is thinking based.  It is looking at the situation from a mental, logical and objective lens. This does not take into account the people side of these situations. It looks into the person’s (or persons’) physical or mental state of mind. This model only looks at what incorrect actions led to the disagreement, not to why it made sense for the person to react in that manner. That is the missing link in this model.

2. The Dirty Dozen contributors to human error (even if no error has been made yet). Five of these can be tied directly to this common situation:

• Lack of awareness. The awareness could be of their surroundings, of the interaction (or lack of) with others, the effect their actions and attitudes have on others, or even that they are not focused on the task at hand.

• Lack of assertiveness. Assertiveness means speaking up professionally and calmly to express a dissenting opinion or view. Not speaking up can intensify stress (another contributor — keep reading) and focus thoughts on any perceived wrong doing.

• Teamwork: Working together to accomplish objectives.  This requires clear communication (see next bullet point) with and respect for others. Lack of awareness can inhibit teamwork, as can poor communication.

• Communication: Exchanging information in a clear, non-ambiguous and professional manner.

• Stress: When expectations are not met and a loss of control is felt.

Specifically, you can ask yourself these questions:

• Why did Joe or Mike become unaware of their surrounding situation? What caused them to focus on this specific situation and be unaware of what is going on around them? What actions did they perceive as a threat?

• Did either of them address their concerns with the other person, or did they share those concerns with other team members?

• Does Joe or Mike believe the other is not a team player? Do they realize the effect on the team their actions are having?

• Are their interactions with each other or with others short? Curt? Blunt? Explanatory? How are they different than their usual communication style? Remember that some people withdraw and become sullen when stressed; others become more talkative and/or animated, while still others become sarcastic or abrupt. The task-oriented people are likely to become quiet and the people-oriented are apt to talk more. Those who have a need to be in control will become more direct and aggressive, while those who need structure will focus more on accuracy and details. This all comes out in their communication.

• What other factors (real or perceived) contribute to this situation? How can these stress factors be mitigated or minimized?

Let’s walk through two discussions you might have. Of course, use the words with which you are most comfortable. The first situation will be with Sam, who seems preoccupied. He is wrestling with a problem and you are not certain what it is. You think it might be of a personal nature. You notice he is distracted, preoccupied and taking longer to complete routine maintenance tasks. Others have come to you to complain about Sam’s lack of timeliness. What can you do?

You: “It looks like you are not quite yourself today. What’s going on?” (The purpose is to let him know his behaviors are noticeable. It also puts him at ease by showing you are concerned for him as a person, not simply him as a worker.)

If he denies it, or says “nothing is wrong,” starts to squirm or look like this is a difficult conversation, you must deal with what he is feeling before you can get to the facts of what is bothering him.

You: “You are usually smiling/upbeat/focused/precise/helpful (or any other description of their normal behavior), and that seems to be missing today.”

Give specific examples of what they are doing that is out of their ordinary behaviors: walking straight to their desk or the aircraft without engaging in any conversation, spending more time on a task that they have performed numerous times before, etc. Reassure him of your intentions that you only want to help him work through the issue and get him back to his usual self. This needs to be done in a non-accusatory and non-judgmental manner. Remember, your goal is to get them talking, not to become defensive or withdrawn.

At this point, you can be quiet to give him a chance to think through your questions and decide upon his answer. If he doesn’t answer, you can ask again if he would like to talk about the problem. Offer to listen if he decides he wants to talk later. If you show you are uncomfortable, that will make the situation more awkward and his thoughts will center on ending the discussion as quickly as possible.

If he does answer your question, simply listen. Keep your eyes focused on him (but do not stare), nod your head (to acknowledge his words) and offer words such as “I can see why you’d think that” and “I understand” (only if you do). If you’re unsure what his response means, repeat the confusing phrase and say “I’m not sure I know what that means.” You can also ask “…and you felt?”, “how else could that be interpreted?” or “that’s why you are (describe how they are)”. You can also start a statement with the phrase “that must have made you feel.” When you are at this point, you are at or close to the core of the problem. 

Uncomfortable? Yes. Acknowledge it by saying,“I am a little out of my comfort zone here” or “I don’t know what to say”. You can even ask, “What do you want me to say?” as long as it is said with concern and not sarcasm. It will help you get through the next similar conversation.

The second situation with Joe and Mike is that their disagreement that has spilled over and is affecting other people. They speak to each other only when necessary and exchange the minimum amount of information. Tension surrounds them and others have come to you because that environment is affecting the entire department.  What can you do?

Address the issue with them together.

You: “Mike, tell us what happened and Joe, you cannot interrupt. You will have your turn.” As Mike is relating his perspective, you can ask clarifying questions for additional details. Before you allow Joe to begin, ask, “Mike, what were you thinking, what thoughts were in your mind when this happened? Why do you think Joe did what he did?” Then do the same with Joe.

You: “Thank you both for sharing your perspective/side of the story. I see some commonalities between your versions,” then list them. Say, “The point of contention/tipping point seems to be _____.” Use Mike’s words to describe what Mike did, then ask him, “Is there anything in your words or actions that could be misconstrued or misinterpreted?” Allow Mike to respond, then ask Joe if that is how he saw it.

Then ask Joe the same questions. You’re getting a dialogue going between them. You are raising their awareness of what they said, what they did and how it appeared to others. You are helping them grow as individuals and as leaders. Most importantly, you have gotten them to talk to each other and demonstrated how to productively handle conflict.

We don’t look forward to these conversations. They can be awkward, clumsy, problematic and complex. They can make you or the other person stubborn, uncooperative, obstinate or self-conscious. As the director, it is unavoidable that at some point you will encounter a situation that warrants this type of discussion. How you handle it will spread throughout the flight department, affecting your reputation and your influence as director. Keep your thoughts clear, your words non-judgmental and your mind open. 

Human factors and modifying behaviors are the focus of Dr. Shari Frisinger’s programs, raising awareness of potentially disruptive or unsafe behaviors before they occur. These behavioral leadership programs give her clients the tools to influence, empower and motivate. This eases conflict, enhances safety and elevates service. She is a member of NBAA’s Safety Committee, an NBAA PDP provider and an adjunct faculty member facilitating leadership and aviation courses. For more information, visit www.ShariFrisinger.com or call (281) 992-4136.

Carver, B., & United States. (1987). US Air Force guide to mishap investigation. Washington, DC: Dept. of the Air Force.
NBAA Safety Committee top 10 safety focus areas:  http://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/top-10/
Stein, S. J., & Book, H. E. (2000). The EQ edge: Emotional intelligence and your success. Toronto: Stoddart.
Sulistyawati, K., Wickens, C. D., & Chui, Y. P. (2011). Prediction in Situation Awareness: Confidence Bias and Underlying Cognitive Abilities. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 21, 2, 153-174.
Tedlow, R. S. (2010). Denial: Why business leaders fail to look facts in the face--and what to do about it. New York: Portfolio.
Wiegmann, D. A., & Shappell, S. A. (2001). Human Error Perspectives in Aviation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 11, 4, 341-357.