Workplace Communication: Part TWO: Behaviors Affecting Safety

Last month we presented four fairly common workplace behaviors that are difficult to handle appropriately. These behaviors can undermine the best of intentions and leave you (and your crew) feeling frustrated, irritated, incompetent and/or helpless.

Are the people who behave in this manner to express their frustration intentionally being difficult? Probably not. Are they evil people? I doubt it. Are they dealing with one of life’s difficulties? Probably so. Are they aware of just how challenging they are to talk to and work with? Probably not. Do they wish to be less difficult? Probably. Is your best course of action to just leave them alone? Possibly, and possibly not. Would helping them talk about it benefit all involved? Probably. Will it be an awkward or uncomfortable conversation? Possibly — but it doesn’t have to be.

We know the results of a series of safety slips. Skipped steps, ‘seeing’ but not recognizing or acknowledging, not recalling prior actions, checking work again and again and again — these are all symptoms of an unsafe situation. When we are preoccupied with an irritating or worrisome situation, our attention is splintered and the possibility of one of those safety slips occurring increases. Becoming more aware of where our own thoughts take us improves our ability to notice this in others.

Have you watched your team’s interactions during the past month? Have you been able to view their actions and hear their words without assigning any biases or inferences? Have you noticed behaviors that you might have missed before? By noticing more about your surroundings (both your physical environment and your interactions with others) you will become more attuned to anomalies. The sooner you can correct a potentially unsafe situation, the sooner you and your department members can return to what you enjoy and do best.

Let’s do a quick review of the four behaviors (in the interest of time and space, we will combine the first two), offering possible responses and consequences for those responses below each situation.

Passive Aggressive

Passive aggressive behaviors contradict what the person really believes. They might agree in public yet disagree and demonize decisions in private. They will minimize their concerns when approached by management, yet freely express their opinion with their peers.

In their daily meeting, supervisor Stan is reviewing the schedule and timelines for the aircraft. Everyone updates their status and mechanic Mike is asked to help mechanic Tom. When the meeting ends, Mike complains under his breath about helping Tom. As he walks back to his work station, his face is scowled and he is obviously irritated. When Stan asks if anything is wrong, Tom replies “No, I am just working out a problem in my mind,” or something similar.

The “I’m too busy to …” (could be a subset of Passive Aggressive)

As a continuation of the above scenario, mechanic Mike is hoarding his time and suggestions to mechanic Tom, perhaps even taking longer than normal to complete his current task.

Even though Mike agreed to help Tom, throughout the day Stan sees they are not working together. When asked, Mike apologizes and gives (seemingly valid) reasons why he cannot help Tom at this time, citing his current activities. He responds with “in an hour I should have this finished and be able to help Tom.”

Supervisor Stan’s options are:

1.  Accept mechanic Mike’s explanation and leave him alone. This option sends a message that his behavior is acceptable. As such, he will be encouraged to repeat this behavior — and supervisor Stan is not giving him any reason to change that behavior.

2.  Tell mechanic Tom to keep asking mechanic Mike for help until he helps mechanic Tom. After all, Tom needs to learn how to fix this particular problem and he should be responsible learning it.

Supervisor Stan is putting Tom in an uncomfortable position that will only serve to discourage any positive relationship between the two. Stan is also asking Tom to do his work — to address the issue. Mike’s reaction could be one of anger, severe frustration or over-reaction, none of which promotes a healthy safety environment.

3.  If mechanic Mike has not helped mechanic Tom after several hours, go to mechanic Mike and demand he stop his own work to help Tom. Demanding that someone do something only raises their defenses and can have the opposite effect. In essence, supervisor Stan is aggressively challenging Mike’s actions and overriding his decisions. In Mike’s state of mind, this can spark stubbornness, embarrassment, over-reacting and other drastic behaviors, to say nothing of resenting Tom’s presence. This has clear safety implications.

4.  Ask mechanic Mike to step into his office and ask him why he won’t help mechanic Tom. As Mike is taking that long walk to supervisor Stan’s office, his mind has plenty of time to project the discussion — and in doing so he feeds his defensive reactions. By the time he gets to Stan’s office, it is possible that he has become agitated and ready to defend his lack of cooperativeness vocally. Once again, this puts a damper over the hangar and can leave others wondering how Mike will react when he leaves Stan’s office.

5.  Ask mechanic Mike to have a cup of coffee (or tea, or water) and approach him from the “How are things going?” perspective. This approach carries a concerned voice, not an accusatory one. It presents a non-judgmental question and lets mechanic Mike know that supervisor Stan is looking to help, not hinder his situation. Taking the discussion away from the work environment means no interruptions or distractions, and no chance of “prying ears” hearing Mike talk about what’s on his mind. If he replies “nothing, everything is OK”, do not despair. A follow-up question like “Are you sure? You don’t seem to be yourself today. You are usually happy to help others,” or something similar is usually enough to break the ice.

“That’s just the way he/she is … he/she doesn’t mean anything by it”

This behavior transfers accountability from the one performing the offensive behaviors to the person receiving the behaviors. It also sends a message that these hostile actions are acceptable, and perhaps even encouraged.

As mechanic Molly works on the plane, mechanic Vernon comes up behind her and says, “Aw, come on, you are using that wrench like a girl! Put some muscle into it!” He laughs and walks off, leaving Molly insulted and fuming with anger. When Molly tells supervisor Alan about it, Alan’s response is “Oh yeah, Vernon does that to everyone. Just forget about it. Vernon has always done that. He means it as a compliment.”

Supervisor Alan’s options are:

1.  Ignore mechanic Molly’s complaints and leave mechanic Vernon alone. This option sends a message to Vernon that his behavior is acceptable. As such, he will be encouraged to repeat this behavior and supervisor Alan is not giving him any reason to change that behavior.

2.  Tell mechanic Molly to avoid mechanic Vernon.

See Option No. 1 above.

3.  Call mechanic Molly into his office to explain to her that she needs to ‘toughen up’ and get a ‘thicker skin.’ After all, this is a hangar — she chose this profession and this industry, so she needs to learn to ignore those type of comments. See Option No. 1 above. (Are you seeing a pattern here?)

4.  Listen to mechanic Molly’s complaints with an open mind. Acknowledge her anger. Ask questions such as “What does his <words or actions> mean to you?”, “Why does that bother you so much?”(said in an inquisitive, non-demeaning manner), and “Why do you think he said that?” Imagine yourself in that situation. What would you like your boss to say to you?

5.  Have a talk with mechanic Vernon.

If you do not express your displeasure (and perhaps taking additional action that will affect him), he will continue to harass his colleagues. Who knows? You might lose them and, in today’s marketplace, not be able to replace them quickly or with the same caliber of skills.

Mr./Ms. Know it all

They have the very best solution to any and all challenges and do not hesitate in sharing that information (including the history and the “why”) with everyone. They also can be unaware of the rolling eyes and other signs of disinterest from their colleagues.

In a team meeting, mechanic Dean explains a procedure he recently used. Mechanic Lionel chimes in with his commentary, interrupting Dean’s every other word. Lionel proceeds to explain, in detail, underlying reasons why the procedure works and why other procedures don’t work. The meeting runs later than scheduled and less was accomplished than what was needed. Unfortunately, Lionel continues his sermon throughout the day.

You, as mechanic Lionel’s director, have the following options:

1.  Ignore mechanic Lionel’s actions. This option sends a message to mechanic Lionel that his behavior is acceptable. As such, he will be encouraged to repeat this behavior. You, as the director, are not giving him any reason to change that behavior.

2.  Tell mechanic Dean to avoid mechanic Lionel. See Option No. 1 above.

3.  Tell mechanic Lionel to not talk as much. You run the risk of Vernon taking your comment very personally and, in this emotional anger/hurt, he might believe that he is not welcome in the hangar. As a result, his behaviors might take a 180-degree turn and he will be very quiet.

4.  Invite mechanic Lionel to talk about the most recent meeting. Get his feedback on why it ran longer than scheduled and what could be done to ensure the next meeting ends on time. Steer the conversation toward his participation and address it gently. The goal is to have him realize how much he talked, and to determine if it all the information was relevant at that time or could be shared later. Explore alternatives such as having an ‘informational minute’ where he could speak on something relevant, or for him to write a short article to be posted or otherwise distributed.

The important element in all these situations is to not aggravate or placate the person with the offending or inappropriate behavior. The longer you allow these behaviors to continue, the more energy (mental and emotional) it takes for you and your crew to manage your own reactions. Your energy does not regenerate after the person walks away. You can continue to think about it and react. These thoughts and actions can be contributing factors to safety lapses and these can lead to accidents.

Remember: generally speaking, we feel more comfortable talking about objects, facts, data and tangible items. We approach situations armed with our logic and reasoning, based on our experience and our written documentation. Handling people-to-people interactions is (initially) more time consuming and energy draining than dealing with physical items. By using the above techniques, you will create a secure environment in which your crew can acknowledge and respect one another’s views, collaborate and work as a high-performing team, and minimize safety lapses that can so easily and unknowingly occur.   

Raising personal awareness of potentially disruptive or unsafe behaviors before they occur are the focus of Dr. Shari Frisinger’s programs. Her human factors and TEM behavioral programs give her clients the tools to influence, empower and motivate which eases conflict, enhances safety and elevates service. Dr. Shari Frisinger is President of CornerStone Strategies LLC, and her doctoral dissertation linked crisis handling with interpersonal situational awareness. She is a member of NBAA’s Safety Committee, an NBAA PDP provider and an adjunct faculty member facilitating leadership courses. She has presented CRM/HF to numerous flight departments and aviation companies. Her upcoming WATS presentation is on “Countering the Effects of Interpersonal Emotional Contamination” For more information, visit www.ShariFrisinger.comor call 281.992.4136.