You are on page 1of 9

A comparison between two leadership models for security checkpoints

Enhancing processes by optimizing crew performance
Wetter Olive Emil, Laube René, & Hofer Franziska
Zurich State Police, Airport Division, Security Control P.O. Box CH-8058 Zürich-Flughafen (Switzerland) weto@kapo.zh.ch, laur@kapo.zh.ch, hofr@kapo.zh.ch
Abstract—The impact of leadership structure and behavior on team or crew performance is well known and has been demonstrated in various studies (see e.g. Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Zaccaro, Rittmann, & Marks, 2001). However, as far as we know, there is no empirical study available on leadership structures and crew performance in the applied setting of airport security control. This study compares the structure and impact of two different leadership models for security control. The first (older) model consists of one supervisor per sector. In the supervisor's sector, there are three to eight crews at work, each consisting of five security officers (SOs). Each crew independently manages and operates one line of the checkpoint. One of the five SOs in a crew is the crew leader (CL), who works together with the crew as a normal crew member but has a few additional tasks to fulfill. The second (newer) model, which focuses more on integrated crew resource management (CRM) criteria, consists of one supervisor, assisted by two CLs per sector. Together, they form a cohesive leading team. The CLs do not work in the crews anymore but manage two to three lines from behind. The crews still consist of five SOs. It is the new CLs' task to quickly isolate and manage problematic cases so that those do not block the line anymore. Like this, the workload of each team member is reduced. Another task is to keep an eye on the working quality and to communicate with the crews in such a way that working quality is enhanced. The impact of this reinforced leadership on indicators of working quality such as compliance with rules and regulations, as well as its impact on passenger flow (throughput) are analyzed using different statistical procedures such as T-tests, U-tests and Chi-square tests. Moreover, the job models of the new leadership structure are presented in detail and SOs' ratings of their acceptance and liking of both systems are presented. In sum, this study offers another, different approach to the human factors perspective in airport security focusing on leadership structures, crew resource management, and their effects. Keywords-Leadership; team performance; crew performance; security control; airport security; aviation security; crew resource management; human factors

I.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, several terrorist attacks on civil aviation have highlighted the needs for an effective security control. As a consequence, large efforts have been made in this domain. It has become clear that enhancing security by investing into high-tech equipment such as X-ray scanners only makes sense if the human factor is not neglected. In this field, training (e.g. X-Ray Tutor [1, 2]) and competency assessment of X-ray screeners have been developed and are set down in official documents (e.g. EC regulation No 2320/2002 [3]). The above mentioned developments and investments in airport security focus on the security officer as an individual, and, more precisely, on his individual performance. Undoubtedly, in this area, noteworthy improvements have been achieved in the past. From a wide range of scientific publications, it is well known, however, that it is not only the individual level of performance which determines the overall level of performance. When crews are at work, effects such as social loafing (e.g. [4]) or the Ringelmann effect [5], both of them well known to social psychologists, can occur. Closely observing the work at the security checkpoints, as well as analyzing results from covert tests [6] and inspections by officials, made us speculate that SOs in crews do not tap their full individual potential. In other words, we had the impression that the overall crew performance was in some cases worse than what the individual best performance of a crew member would allow for. This might hint at process losses (e.g. [7]) in the team situation. These insights were the main reason why we chose to open up the perspective from the individual level to the crew level of performance. Up to the present, it is still unknown how big the amount of teamwork at a security control checkpoint really is and if an analysis of and investments into crew factors make sense. In order to find out more about that, we have to have a closer look at the task itself. The task of a typical security control crew is to ensure that no forbidden articles, be it weapons or dangerous goods, pass the checkpoint and find their way into the sterile area. A traditional security control crew consists of five SOs at four different positions: one person at the x-ray screen, one

978-1-4244-4170-9/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE

59

one person who searches suspicious bags manually and two persons at the WTMD1. e. This nomenclature has been adopted throughout this research paper. A lot of very important conclusions could be drawn from such and similar studies. supervisors can support and represent each other. As stated above. There lies a deep truth in the sentence “We cannot change the human condition. In this context. the crew has to follow a certain emergency procedure in which they can only be successful if they help each other and work together as a team. Research should try to find those factors that make a security system or organization resilient to individual errors. In other words – an error rarely occurs because of one single individual but rather because of multiple circumstances. several authors have sought to distinguish between teams and crews in order to allow for an accurate. similar to that in aviation safety. As one can imagine. [13-14]). leadership and management styles) may lie within the system for many years before they combine with active failures to evoke an accident opportunity. we would suggest that it be more accurate to talk of security control crews rather than teams. Traditional vs. “crew” In English. extensive training and standardized performance guidelines. X-ray-screening task) can best be described as additive. Both the traditional and the new model shall be explained in detail in Section II.g. In the supervisor's sector. should therefore shape the content of future research in airport security. One of the five SOs in a crew is the CL. latent conditions (e. Disambiguation “team” vs. The importance of teamwork is well known in aviation safety and there is also recent empirical evidence that training on CRM really improves teamwork skills in the cockpit [9]. Due to these findings. According to the typology by Steiner [8]. However. The term crew (or cockpit) resource management first appeared 1979 at a workshop sponsored by NASA [10]. which have been noticed and attributed to suboptimal team and leadership aspects. This was the time when researchers pointed out that most of the aircraft accidents occurred because of human errors. Teamwork and communication among the members of a security control crew become especially important in an emergency case. we can also ensure that classical criteria from crew resource management (CRM) are met. each consisting of five SOs. 1 shows the traditional leadership model. it makes sense to have a closer look at overall team performance. II. Therefore. come in various forms and sizes and can be of different longevity [15]. Teams can exist for several reasons.g. METHOD A. B. upon detection of an improvised explosive device (IED). Furthermore. clear and consistent nomenclature. the term “team” is broader and encompasses more different forms of groups of people than does the term “crew”. structural weaknesses of the organization. who works together with the crew as a normal crew member but has some additional tasks and responsibilities to fulfill. Like this. the overall task of a security control crew could best be described as conjunctive. Crews are defined in the literature by their performing of specialized tasks together effectively and the limited duration of working together [16-19]. time pressure. They are characterized by high expertise. errors occur because of a causal chain of failures or neglects and are never a product of one single reason. communication or leadership failures or errors in decision making. thus probably rendering a group development process less important. new leadership model Fig. B.g. the individual subtasks (e. 60 . taking over responsibility for minor problems within the security control line or when changing location. With adequate and well functioning leadership structures. there is one supervisor at work who manages one sector. a new leadership model has been developed. a live trial with the new leadership structure should yield further clues about the importance of leadership and crew aspects at security control checkpoints. which is also well known under the name “Swiss Cheese Model of Human Errors”. they require to form and perform together immediately and effectively. Last but not least. future 1 One female and one male in order to conduct a gender-specific pat-down search. Due to the fact that one supervisor per sector cannot be present throughout the whole shift (breaks. As a result of this. In the past. For example. Each crew independently manages and operates one line of the sector. there are about three to eight crews at work. have been the starting point for the development of a new model.g. In addition to this individual approach. e. To our understanding. research should not neglect the whole system. According to this model. etc. research on human factors in airport security focused a lot on the individual cognitive abilities and knowledge (e. Reason [11-12] developed a comprehensive and systemic model of human errors. the two words “team” and “crew” might both be used in order to describe the group of SOs working together at a checkpoint. As Reason [12] argues.g. A systemic approach. office work to be done. Those findings encouraged thoughts about leadership models for security control checkpoints.person in front of the x-ray tunnel. One of these shortcomings is that supervisors have repeatedly reported that they were sure that the quality of work be lower if they were absent.) and that he has a lot of other duties besides monitoring crew performance. but we can change the conditions under which humans work” (after [12]). In this configuration. the tasks are quite different from each other. the logical consequence would be to install more than one supervisor per sector in order to avoid situations in which no supervisor is on-site. Certain shortcomings.

Participants The new leadership model is not an experiment conducted in a laboratory. Table I shows the category names as well as the tasks that are covered by the respective category.g. Evaluations started not until March 20th in order to give the staff enough time to become reasonably familiar with the new model and the slightly different tasks. Like this. The supervisors have been selected especially for this new task among the pool of supervisors. Evaluations took place on four days when the new leadership model was either active or not. In order to assess job profiles. T-tests (both one. Staff involved. the staff indicated their liking of both leadership models in a combined scale. It is the new CLs' task to quickly isolate and manage problematic cases so that these do not block the line anymore. changed on a daily basis. The crews still consist of five people. all of them being of equal status. trained SOs. III. The new leadership model described in Section II. the probability of detecting failures but also outstanding performance should be higher compared to the traditional model. RESULTS 1 Supervisor 1 CL 1 CL Sector 5 SOs 5 SOs 5 SOs 5 SOs 5 SOs Figure 2. Because the CL is taken out of the operational process of the crew. 61 . several other statistical procedures have been applied in order to assess if the obtained results are significant. the staff rated the perceived quality of work. On a subjective level. 2009. samples had to be evaluated due to limitations in the amount of available personnel for observation. All staff working in the sector have been evaluated (population level) except for the evaluations of the quality of work and the CL's job models. assisted by two CLs per sector. current satisfaction with work and working atmosphere. CLs and supervisors with an age range from 20 to 64 years. Quality of work was operationalized for both observation and rating as compliance with internal and external regulations. C. Fig. A. PROCEDURE AND MATERIALS Figure 1. In these domains. The methods used are presented in more detail in the standard literature on statistics (e. U-tests have been used to compare ranks and Chi-square tests have been used to compare frequencies.Sector 1 Supervisor 1 CL 1 CL 1 CL 1 CL 1 CL 4 SOs 4 SOs 4 SOs 4 SOs 4 SOs D. Moreover. the management set up a job profile for the new leading team that forecasts how much time might be invested for the different task categories (Fig. but has been implemented in the daily business of operations. Overall. [20]). Moreover. Evaluation times consisted of phases with high passenger volume (“rushhour”) as well as phases with low passenger volume. the tasks to be fulfilled have been analyzed and assigned to categories.and two-tailed) have been used to compare means. New leadership model. the different job profiles of supervisors in the traditional and the new leadership model were determined by observation as well. the individual workload of each crew member should be reduced. Quality of work as well as passenger throughput could be measured using objective indicators. The main difference to the traditional model is that the CLs do not work in the crews anymore but manage two to three lines from behind. Throughput was operationalized as how many passengers passed the Walk-Trough-Metal-Detector (WTMD) per hour. On designing the new leadership structure. 3). 2 shows the new leadership model. B. All evaluations that later involved a comparison of data between the two leadership models took place in the same sector. In this configuration. Job profiles have been defined by the management on setting up the new leadership model and have been observed during the daily operation accordingly. Moreover. Statistical analyses Apart from descriptive statistics. IV. The participants were ordinary. the total number of females was higher than that of males. The field of interest encompassed a comparison of both leadership models using objective and subjective measures. this reinforced leadership structure should offer better possibilities of monitoring the security control crews' working performance. Traditional leadership model. has been put in place between March 11th and April 7th. Job profiles It can be expected that supervisors' and CLs' job profiles change along with the new leadership structure. there is a cohesive leading team at work consisting of one supervisor. as well as their assignment to crews. whereas all the other staff have been assigned to crews and checkpoints as usual. Crews always consisted of males and females.

etc. 4) has been assessed during 267 min. 5) and supervisors (Fig. Job profile forecast. Traditional CL job profile. An open test consists of an interview. the leading team should conduct open tests with their crews during phases with low passenger volume (see Table 1 for more details on the procedure of an open test). As can be seen. some members of the leading team have been idle rather than using this time for briefings. much more time than predicted has been spent for management tasks. communicating with crews in order to keep them motivated and providing them feedback on their work. correcting and praising SOs Working with and helping crews Briefing Taking over a case on SO's request Taking over a case spontaneously and on own initiative Carrying out open tests with SOs.TABLE I. Moreover. there could have been less cases than expected or the leading 97% Management Taking over on request Collaboration Taking over on own initiative Briefing Open tests Figure 5. Interestingly. no open tests have taken place during the time span evaluated. In the daily operation. open tests. Raters had the impression that especially at times with low passenger volume. 13% 13% Management Taking over on request Collaboration Taking over on own initiative Briefing Open tests As mentioned earlier. it can be noted that the time spent for dealing with cases is much lower than predicted by the management. As a consequence of this. As an innovation. instructions. 62 . 6) have been assessed as well. of observation. most of the time was expected to be spent for management tasks such as keeping an eye on the working quality in the sector. Due to this. 2% 4% 7% 12% 75% 8% 13% 43% Management Taking over on request Collaboration Taking over on own initiative Briefing Open tests 13% Figure 4. in which a SO is asked to explain the content of an x-ray image of a bag controlling. Category Management Collaboration Briefing Taking over on request Taking over on own initiative Open tests CATEGORIES AND TASKS COVERED Tasks covered Observing the situation. team might not have been called for assistance as often as predicted. Actual job profile. the traditional job models of the CLs (Fig. changing the leadership model also means a change in the responsibilities and tasks to be fulfilled by the leading team. 1% 3% Figure 3. the actual job profile (Fig. This might have several reasons: For example. both in phases with high and low passenger volume.

the better for the quality of work with regard to security. more 2 random pat-down searches have been carried out compared to the old leadership structure. They will no more spend most of their time working in the crew like an ordinary SO. p < .4% 10% 3% 11% % PAX p < .05 72% Old Management Taking over on request Collaboration Taking over on own initiative Briefing Open tests New Leadership structure Figure 7. Additional body search independent of quota or metal alarm Quota alarm of WTMD % PAX Old Leadership structure New Figure 8. 6 respectively. the number of random pat-down searches of passengers was measured. SOs partly rely on technical equipment (the quota alarm of the WTMD) and partly on their own feeling in order to select the required number of passengers for an additional pat-down search. A one-tailed T-test reveals a significant result with t(13) = 2. This implies that the quality of work was higher in the new leadership structure. In the new leadership structure. 8 shows that the random alarm of the WTMD appears3 to have been higher during the evaluation phase of the new model. For CLs. Since a passenger cannot predict whether he will be subject to a patdown search or not. instructing and training the CLs for the new tasks.e. we found out that this was probably not the case. Fig. 63 . Taking into account that the 3 No statistical analyses have been calculated due to too low numbers within cells.05. B. 2 Since all numbers are considered security sensitive information. Traditional supervisor job profile. 7 shows the rate of random pat-down searches in both leadership models. there will be a big change in their daily work. Random pat-down search rate for quota alarms (WTMD) and manually selected passengers separately. On conducting this study. There seems to be no difference between the number of manually selected passengers in both leadership models3. On comparing Fig. 4 with Fig. Figure 6.06. Fig. the rate of manually selected passengers appears to be independent of the number of technical alarms. they are not indicated throughout this paper. On having a closer look at the data. but will dedicate a big amount of their time for management tasks. i. This result is in keeping with the hypotheses. 5 or Fig. the higher the number of random pat-down searches. it becomes clear that there would be no big change for supervisors in case the new leadership model should be adopted in the future. SOs partly rely on technical equipment (the WTMD) to select a passenger for a pat-down search. Quality of work – objective data In both the old and the new leadership model. Random pat-down search rate (means and standard deviations). however. In order to be compliant with the current regulation. we assumed the number of selected people by the WTMD be equally distributed in the new and old leadership model. As described before. This might hint at the necessity for particularly preparing.

94. Most likely.5 3 2. Employee satisfaction and model preference One of the most important aspects for the implementation of a new leadership model is its acceptance among the employees. they Last but not least. Firstly.5 Quality 4 3. If a model has too little support. that the supervisors in the new system managed to create a better atmosphere (e. show an advantage of the new model over the traditional one.technical alarm rate seems to have been higher during the evaluation of the new leadership model. compliance with WTMD process instructions is significantly better in the new leadership model than in the traditional one (χ2 (1. all SOs of the respective sector (N = 41) have been asked to provide ratings of the current working quality at the place on a scale from 1 (very poor) to 6 (excellent). however.50. Rate of correctly following WTMD process instructions. They either underestimate the working quality of the 64 . SD = 0. D. In a two-tailed t-test. Supervisors' ratings of quality of work (means and standard deviations). It becomes clear that supervisors are somewhat less optimistic about the quality of work than the SOs. it has to do with the leadership structure. The current satisfaction of the employees working in the new leadership model (M = 4.001.05). the SOs do not notice this difference. that the SOs do not think that the working quality is higher in the new leadership model than in the traditional one. This can be interpreted as an increase in working quality: although the technical alarm rate appears to have been higher. SD = 1.. C.83) = 4. supervisors have been asked to provide ratings as well. Apparently. it can be expected that the quality and the amount of work decrease and absenteeism increases. At the same time.29. To us. It cannot be ruled out. as well as the working quality concerning the WTMD and the carry-on baggage in particular (Fig. Different internal process instructions are to be followed depending on the alarm a passenger raises on passing the WTMD. However.90. Due to that. B. Quality of work – subjective ratings Right after the analyses stated in Section IV. 9. The more likely explanation seems to be that the supervisors have an overview of the checkpoint processes from outside and are thus more likely to get a realistic and accurate view of the quality of work.g. On a scale from 1 (very poor) to 6 (excellent). this result is significant with t(36.21). p = . with this study. it has been evaluated how good the reputation of the new leadership model is among the employees. that remains to be proven in detail. However. p < . There are several possible reasons for this finding.66.05 Figure 10.59).04). It might be the case that the supervisors are in general more pessimistic and have higher levels of aspirations than the SOs. As can be seen in Fig. objective data and subjective impressions can be directly compared.5 2 1. However. one can argue that SOs did not compensate this higher rate of technical alarms. It has been analyzed how well these different instructions are followed by the SOs. However. Like this. it has been evaluated whether the correct procedures for manual cabin baggage search have more closely been followed in the new leadership model than in the traditional one. they rated the overall working quality in the sector. A total of 41 employees rated their current satisfaction on a scale from 1 (very poor) to 6 (excellent) (Fig. 11). new model or they overestimate the working quality of the traditional system. N = 180) = 0. the manually selected number of passengers appears not to have decreased in the new model. Ratings in the traditional and the new leadership model do not significantly differ from each other (U = 167. 10). p = . the employees' present satisfaction of work has been assessed in the traditional and the new leadership model. B. N = 173) = 4.5 1 Overall WTMD Carry-on baggage Old structure New structure % correct p < .57. it cannot clearly be determined to what this effect can be attributed.77) is higher than the one of the employees working in the traditional model (M = 3. the objective data stated in Section IV. p < . 6 5. this appears to be unlikely based on our personal experiences. this has not been the case: there have been no significant differences (χ2 (1.5 5 4. This means. Old New Leadership structure Figure 9.

Taking into account that the leadership model was new and that the supervisors as well as the SOs have not been instructed to care for high throughput as a goal. analyses on passenger throughput are interesting as well. p = . one can argue that we experienced an increase in Figure 12.5 0 -0. thereby indicating no preference for either system. Secondly.5 2 1. 12 shows that there is no preference for either system among the employees (see Fig. representing the middle of the rating scale. Further statistical analyses 65 . we found some first results that favor the new leadership model. That is to say.5 1 Old New p < . we have come to the conclusion that the new leadership model – as it was set up in the experimental phase – had no effect on throughput. Having analyzed data collected automatically by the WTMDs. Negative values indicate a preference for the traditional model and positive values indicate a preference for the new leadership model. N = 46) = 0. Additionally. 12). In order to produce an intuitively intelligible Figure. which can be regarded as an increase in working quality. nor negatively. external factors). E. Employees' current satisfaction (means and standard deviations). the results are noteworthy all the same. it neither influenced passenger throughput positively.5 2 1.5.55. 47 employees have been asked explicitly how they like the new leadership model in comparison to the traditional one. as well as the acceptance of the new model among the SOs have been assessed. Therefore. Evaluating both models. This was obviously not the case in the new model. 2. A closer look at the data shows that this was mainly due to differences in the technical alarms (quota alarms). If this was the case.e. the scale has been chosen as follows: A rating of 3. as an operationalization of the security standards. Passenger throughput From an operational perspective.5 3 2. for example by preventing blocked lines. it is unclear to which extent throughput is influenced by factors of the security control itself (i.5 -2 -2. The employees' model preference has been assessed based on ratings on a scale from 1 (strong preference for old model) to 6 (strong preference for new model). we are about to analyze this more closely because this issue is of major importance to further studies in the field of passenger throughput at security checkpoints. V. up to now. or even by interactions of both types of factors. Employees' model preference (mean and standard deviations).5 In this study.5 SOs' model preference (ipsative) 1 0. Fig. If it should turn out that throughput can be positively influenced by a new leadership structure.36). One could assume an inverse relationship between the number of technical alarms (quota and metal alarms) raised and the probability that a SO manually picks out a passenger for a patdown search. two models for security control checkpoints are described: A traditional one with one supervisor per sector and CLs working in the crews. Results show that the rate of random pat-down searches. DISCUSSION 6 5. although throughput is neither a perfect measure for efficiency nor for productivity.001 Leadership structure Figure 11. suggest that it cannot be ruled out that the old model is preferred as often as the new model (χ2 (1. has indeed been significantly higher in the new leadership model. One problem is that.might have been especially nice to the employees) than the ones in the traditional model. thereby indicating no clear model preference by the employees. has been set to 0.5 -1 -1. this would be a major advantage weighing up against the additional costs created. the change in job profiles of supervisors and CLs. as well as a new one with a leading team of one supervisor and two CLs per sector leading “from outside”. internal factors) versus by factors coming from the outside to the checkpoint (i. positive effects on security as well as on facilitation have been expected.5 4 3. which in fact is an enhanced leadership on-site with regard to security.5 Current satisfaction 5 4. From the new leadership model. In an ongoing study.e. the effect would have come about because of characteristics of the supervisors instead of the two different leadership models. SOs did not compensate these differences in the new model.

which is the case in most laboratory studies. A. S. & Williams. Although still to be considered as first results.g. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. we would like to conclude that it makes sense to think about leadership aspects at security checkpoints. The present study is an applied study which has been carried out at an airport during daily business. we also have to openly acknowledge some shortcomings of this first study. Contrary to such expectations.. This might hint at the necessity of having have enough personnel (supervisors) behind or outside the control lines in order to constantly monitor working quality and compliance with process instructions. Only the supervisors in the new leadership model have been able to gain a somewhat more realistic view on this subject. 10. 31-36. G. On directly asking employees to indicate how much they like the two systems in comparison to each other. Moreover. Covert Testing at Airports: Exploring Methodology and Results. in which more pat-down searches have been done and which the SOs were not at all used to. In comparison with a laboratory study. 681-706. October 13-16. Training of Airport Security Screeners. 11-13. which are based on many discussions with SOs: Standing behind or outside the security process is totally different compared to working within a crew at a specific position. we have found that the employees' satisfaction with the current working situation was even better in the new leadership model. In some analyses. Proceedings of the 42nd Carnahan Conference on Security Technology. On assessing the amount of change which the new leadership model would bring to the supervisors' and CLs' daily routine. Aviation Security International. Levinger.working quality in the new model. caring for high throughput had not been declared as a goal to neither the SOs nor to the supervisors. Official Journal of the European Communities. FEB/2004. There is still some work to be done on what the new selection criteria should look like and what they should consist of. (2003c). they all point in the same direction and indicate that the new leadership model influences working quality and security level in a rather positive way. it cannot be proved if the positive effect found is attributable to the leadership structure alone. Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. This is another argument for the presence of enough supervisors on-site. there would be major changes. Prague. O. We also found that internal process regulations at the WTMD were more closely followed the new model. In our view. however. The Ringelmann Effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 65. (2008). It could be argued that employees would not accept such a close monitoring of their work. J. their job profile would contain much more leadership tasks than up to the present. a significantly higher standard could be observed in the new leadership model. & Hofer. 05.. (1974). More work will be done in the near future in order to understand more about the impact of leadership aspects at security control checkpoints. and employee satisfaction. European Parliament and Council (2002). Karau. We for example cannot completely rule out alternative explanations for the positive effects found on current employee satisfaction and working quality. Longitudinal studies could clarify whether the new leadership model increases throughput in the long term. Ingham.G. Here. Hardmeier. F.. it is important that a longitudinal study replicates these first tentative results. In our view. This study hints at the possibility of positive effects of leadership structure on variables such as working quality. we found no effect of the leadership model on the quality of the hand search of cabin baggage. we have been able to run some analyses on the population level (assessing all SOs working in the respective sector). it should also be kept in mind that on assessing performance and maybe also working quality. Graves. D. Computer based training: a powerful tool to the enhancement of human factors. Bearing these shortcomings in mind. However..J. On the other hand. Moreover. Rather unexpectedly. For the CLs. (1993). Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security.. It is a good sign that the new leadership model. V. Taking into account the human tendency to rather stick with what is well known and familiar. (2004b). Schwaninger. REFERENCES [1] [2] Schwaninger. provided no lower figures for throughput than the well-known traditional model. a Hawthorne effect [21] is very likely to occur. & Peckham. A. this offers much more insights into the practical aspects such as feasibility and acceptance by the employees.. It is not possible to get a comprehensive or rather holistic impression of the security control process if one is an active part of it. this is no bad result at all and as such rather speaking for the new model. security level. working within a crew at the checkpoint can be stressful and there might not be any cognitive resources left for observing the whole process. This also reflects our personal experiences. A.D. Monitoring activities do not have to have a negative connotation. focusing more on leadership qualities) from the ones that are applied up to now. good or outstanding work would never be detected. Wetter. In future research. [3] [4] [5] [6] 66 . Airport. 371-84. 2008. As a consequence. K. Their new job profile would look quite similar to the one they had up to now. Without any monitoring or controlling. this change in job profiles would justify a new selection process for the future CLs. it has turned out that SOs seem to overestimate the working quality at their workplace. We have not been able to find an overall effect of the new leadership model on facilitation in terms of passenger throughput.E. They would no more be working in the crews but monitor the situation from the outside. which is certainly an advantage compared to the use of samples. it was found that the supervisors' job would not change that much. Furthermore. it turns out that there exists no overall preference for either system. Selection criteria might be different (e.

B. [17] Arrow. San Diego: Academic Press. (NASA CP-2120). White.). E. Crews as groups: Their formation and their leadership. Journal of Management. Kanki. Work groups and teams in organizations. Small Groups as Complex. M. 23(3).. Human error. and Adaptation.. Reason. R. Cummings (Eds.M. [18] Ginnett.. J. [19] Kozlowski. In E. & R... Moffett Field.C. Cockpit Resource Management. (2006). (1990). & Prince. Visual skills in airport security screening.. J. & R. [20] Sirkin. & Bailey. C. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publishing Co. McGrath.W.A. IEEE A&E Systems Magazine. [15] Cohen.E. and developments in human relations in industry. D.J. H. Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (vol. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Membership Dynamics in Groups at Work: A Theoretical Perspective. & Lauber. Jonas.E. London: Wiley. & Hofer.M. W. F.). In K. In W.L.G.E. Klimoski (Eds. 12).).. & Berdahl. (1980). (2004). Ilgen. R. Milanovich. In B. J. 67 ..J.F. June 2005. Steiner. Heidelberg: Springer. Hewstone (Eds. H. Stroebe. J. New York: Academic Press. 29-35. 302-306.. Wiener. CA: NASA-Ames Research Center. 17).J.. Does CRM Training Improve Teamwork Skills in the Cockpit? Two Evaluation Studies.G.R. J. Gruppenpsychologie: Grundlegende Prinzipien. Reason J.D.[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Nijstad. I. (2003). (2000).L..K.. & Boot. Hawthorne revisited: Management and the worker: its critics. S. (1999). C.. 239-290. Helmreich (Eds. Coordination.S. G. Development.. S. New York: Cambridge University Press. R.. D..). (1997). 41(2). Psychological Science. Statistics for the Social Sciences.D.). Research in Organizational Behavior (vol. Models and management. & L. Resource Management on the Flightdeck: Proceedings of a NASA/Industry Workshop. (2000). Staw.E. B. Group process and productivity. 15.C. Kramer. Sozialpsychologie (5th ed.. (2007). J. 320. What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite. & van Knippenberg. 326-343. & McGrath. Cooper. D.R. Systems: Formation. [16] Arrow.A. Vidoni. McCarley. (2005). (1995). J. (1958).S. & Bell. Borman. A. Hardmeier. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publishing Co. Ithaca: Cornell University. E. H. Salas. W. D. Wickens. Aviation Security Screeners Visual Abilities & Visual Knowledge Management. & M. Fowlkes. Schwaninger.. New York: JAI Press. Stout. 768-770. [21] Landsberger. A.D. B. BMJ.L.D. (1972). D.E. (1993).