What Product Marketing Management can learn from Aviation and Crew Resource Management

When the captain banked the plane to the left, the faulty inertial navigation unit (INU) sent erroneous data to his attitude directional indicator (ADI), preventing the instrument from showing the aircraft was in a bank. The comparator alarm sounded repeatedly, which was an indication that the aircraft's two ADI displays were in disagreement. The first officer, whose own ADI displayed the correct angle of bank, according to information from the aircraft's flight data recorder, failed to participate, saying nothing to challenge his captain's actions nor making any attempt to take over the flight with his own controls.

This is a tragic story of Korean Air Cargo Flight 8509, one of multiple aviation accidents in the ’80s and ’90s that highlighted the importance of Authority Gradient and led to the development of Crew Resource Management (CRM).

What is Authority Gradient?

Authority Gradient refers to the established and/or perceived command and decision-making power hierarchy in a team, crew, or group situation, as well as how balanced the distribution of this power is within the team. A concentration of power in one person leads to a steep gradient, while a more democratic and inclusive involvement of others results in a shallow gradient.

In the above example, a steep Authority Gradient led to the first officer not speaking up, which was one of the key factors that contributed to the disaster.

Authority Gradients in Business Decision-Making

Thankfully, few decisions made in business have such catastrophic impacts on people's lives. Yet, bad decisions can still result in wrong strategic bets, failed launches, business decline, and people losing their jobs.

Product marketing is one of the functions that relies heavily on decision-making, characterized by the following aspects:

• Ambiguity. Even with access to research, perfect information rarely exists in business. It is almost always the case that "if we just knew this...". Thus, product marketing and other functions must make decisions based on incomplete information, often with multiple ways to address each specific situation.
• Reversibility. While it may seem that messaging, positioning, and campaigns can be changed at will, it is important not to underestimate their weight. Pivoting an organization multiple times takes significant effort and has negative externalities, including a lack of commitment and resolve.
• Weight. Many decisions within product marketing directly influence business outcomes. What makes this more complex is that the time horizon for these decisions is usually mid-to-long-term rather than short-term.

When making decisions that are important, ambiguous, and hard to reverse, it is crucial to use all available tools to make the best possible choice. This is where Authority Gradient within a team comes into play.

Too Steep Authority Gradient

A steep Authority Gradient doesn't necessarily manifest as the overbearing Full Metal Jacket-style of communication. It often disguises itself as "fake collaboration," where an authoritative manager presents themselves as open to opinions but, in reality, has already made up their mind and is only doing this to make people feel heard.

The only thing that matters is whether the team believes their opinions can truly influence the outcome.

Every leader should keep a mental count of times they have changed their mind based on team input. If the ratio is close to 0%, then something is obviously wrong.

Too Shallow Authority Gradient

A shallow Authority Gradient doesn't always lead to extremes such as insubordination. Just as with a steep Authority Gradient, its most dangerous manifestation is disguised as consensus-seeking. While not universally bad, excessive consensus-seeking often leads to prolonged discussions, watered-down decisions, lack of responsibility, and a failure to take decisive action.

Every leader should ask themselves, "Are we just looking for consensus now?" If every single decision results from converging toward some abstract "middle" rather than an evaluation of the best alternatives, something needs to change.

Establishing the Optimal Authority Gradient

This is not an easy task, as establishing a proper Authority Gradient takes time and relies on several factors within the team:

• Mutual respect. The leader must respect team members' opinions and believe in their competence. It is impossible to consider someone's opinion if the leader thinks their team members are not experienced, smart, or wise enough.
• Psychological safety. Speaking against someone of senior rank almost always comes with some level of fear (otherwise, we wouldn’t have hierarchies, would we?).
• Mutual trust. Team members should trust that their opinions will be taken seriously and evaluated as part of the decision-making process. Otherwise, why bother?

At the same time, the leader must remain the person in charge, as the final responsibility rests with them. They should have the ability and the trust of the team to override decisions, even if some team members disagree.

The Only Question That Matters

Are we making the best possible decision?

This is the question that every leader should constantly ask themselves, no matter how small or inconsequential a decision may seem. If they can't honestly and confidently answer "Yes" to this question, then they need to adjust their behaviour and/or actions.

Note that the focus is on "the best" decision, not necessarily "the right decision". This is because most of the time you can't predict whether the decision is right or wrong due to incomplete information and external factors beyond control. The only thing you can do is to make "the best possible decision" with the information that you have.