Last month, I introduced the aviation term “experience gradient” to describe the gap in experience between a pilot and first officer. The steeper this gradient — that is, the greater the difference in experience — the less likely the junior member of the cockpit crew is to challenge the captain when errors in judgment, action, or inaction occur. The same dynamic exists in maritime transportation, and the consequences can be just as severe, if not quite as spectacular or quick to unfold.
It’s the awareness of this important dynamic — shaped by decades of accidents and disasters —that eventually led to the parallel development and adoption of crew resource management training in aviation and bridge resource management in the maritime industry. The differences are few, and the goals are identical: to avoid another Tenerife airport disaster, a runway collision between two 747 jumbo jets at the cost of 583 lives, in part attributable to reluctance to question a captain.
There is more than one type of experience gradient. In addition to the gradient between individuals, each person also has their own gradient relative to overall experience — measured in terms of time, diversity, and quality. A captain of seven years (or well more) might have a steep gradient relative to the mate with just one, but there’s far more to it than that. Where have you been, what have you done, in what kind of environments? There are many variables, each with its own relative weight, and all experience is not of equal value. Depending on the circumstances, a mate may, in some cases, have more relevant experience than the captain.
What’s even rarer than a mate who has the knowledge, judgment, self-confidence, and willingness to risk possible job or career repercussions by challenging and/or correcting an errant captain? That would be a captain with the self-confidence, self-awareness, and humility to be able to accept feedback gratefully and gracefully for the greater good.
