CRM and the Pentagon
On safe passenger flights, Douglas MacArthur, and the need for high-ranking officers who tell civilian leaders what they need to hear
One of the most important safety-related insights of the last several decades has been the realization that honest, direct feedback and reporting on observations free of deference to authority can be a life-saving tool. This has most prominently been adopted within commercial airplane cockpits, where it takes the form of CRM, or crew resource management. Cockpits remain hierarchical places, but if any member of the flight crew observes something alarming, contemporary CRM says it’s their job to say something without deference and it’s the commanding pilot’s duty to listen without prejudice.
■ CRM goes farther than that, to be certain, but the idea holds that everyone on board is safer if everyone up front is considered a contributing member of the decision-making system. This concept was born out of tragic experience, including crashes that probably could have been avoided if pilots in command had listened to their first officers, or if junior officers hadn’t been reluctant to speak up.
■ CRM has a place in upper leadership, too. When general and flag officers are sidelined or forced out because their professional perspectives are inconvenient to their overseers, something highly problematic is brewing. Just like a co-pilot needs to be able to say “I think we’re in danger and need to go around”, a general needs to be free to say, “I think we’re pursuing a misguided strategy”. Not only that, but statements of honest dissent need to be welcomed.
■ Ultimate authority (and responsibility) lie with civilian officials under our Constitution, and there’s no doubt that sometimes a person wearing a lot of stars needs to be let go (see: Douglas MacArthur, who was pretty clearly insubordinate). But it should be a rare thing for upper-echelon talent to be jettisoned without obvious cause.
■ Just as in the cockpit, it’s not just important for all sets of eyes to be on the action, it’s essential that professional judgment be heard without prejudice. Real national security isn’t the product of individual genius; it’s altogether too complex for that.
