The Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence (PCDEs) are a set of skills and behaviours that are considered by some to be the key factors in determining success in elite human performance. Primarily developed for use in sport psychology, the theory has been successfully applied in a range of talent development environments and this essay will examine whether the theory can be adapted for Military Flying Training (hereafter MFT). It will first give some context to the discussion of talent in military aviation, before examining some of the work that has contributed to the development of PCDEs and some related studies conducted in MFT. The essay will then conduct a case study of an elite performer in the field, former test pilot and astronaut Colonel Chris Hadfield, to examine the extent to which PCDEs can explain his success. Finally, using Hadfield as an example, the essay will discuss some of the disparate elements of coping with pressure and their relative merits in MFT. 

Nature vs Nurture in military aviation 

The notion of talent is a difficult thing to define in performance psychology, and no less so in military aviation. In his 1979 biography of Project Mercury, Tom Wolfe defined the ability of aviators to succeed at the highest level as ‘The Right Stuff’, and the phrase stuck in popular culture. This old-fashioned notion of what it took to become an elite pilot was loosely defined as ‘the quintessence of manly daring’ (Wolfe, 1979). But while fun and evocative, this genocentric attitude may have contributed to a lingering faith in fixed, innate talent in military aviation. 

More recently, The  Haddon Cave Report (2009) cited a failure of culture within the Royal Air Force, and a tendency to apportion blame rather than learn and grow. Even in December 2020, the passing of legendary test pilot Chuck Yeager, the first human to go supersonic, brought forth dozens of obituaries quoting fellow aviators describing him as ‘gifted’ and ‘a natural pilot’ (e.g The Times, 8 Dec 2020). This despite a refutation from the man himself in his 1985 autobiography: “There is no such thing as a natural born pilot. Whatever my aptitudes or talents, becoming a proficient pilot was hard work, really a lifetime’s learning experience” (Yeager & Janos, 1985). 

Perhaps this tendency to attribute success to innate talent has contributed to the paucity of psychological research within the MFT domain. While sport and performance psychology has conducted decades of research into talent identification and development (TID), comparatively few studies exist on developmental pathways within MFT. Therefore, although this essay aims to investigate the interaction of PCDEs and talent development in military aviation, it will draw heavily from work done in sport psychology.  

The origins and current state of play of PCDE theory and research 

In their 2017 paper, Collins and MacNamara wrote that the various approaches to TID are crystallising into 3 different categories- Experiences, Attitude, and Skills (Collins & MacNamara 2017). The Attitude approach is typified by Dweck’s (2006) work on mindset and Duckworth’s (2007) work on grit, whereas the Experience approach relies on recent research by Fletcher, Sarkar, and Howells that suggests experiencing some adversity can have beneficial outcomes for talent development (e.g. Sarkar & Fletcher, 2014; Howells & Fletcher, 2015). Collins and MacNamara (2017) argue that these theories, while insightful, lack practical applications. “[Based on their findings], what should (indeed could) a coach do differently?” This stance appears to imply that performers require a step-by-step prescriptive process for learning. However, just gaining an understanding of a concept like growth mindset can often be enough to flip an individual’s perception and improve performance (Dweck, 2006). 

The third approach to TID is skills, which is where we find PCDEs. Rather than being born in isolation, the product of a single piece of work, PCDEs are an amalgamation of numerous theories developed over several decades. As such, it is difficult to trace the exact lineage of the theory, but a case could be made for it originating with a classic series of studies by Walter Fenz et al (e.g. Fenz and Jones, 1972). They identified distinct differences in coping strategies between more successful performers and those considered to be poor performers. In dealing with stressful situations, the good performers employed a problem-focused coping strategy; they focused on task-relevant cues and on events over which they had control. The poor performers, by contrast, focused on perceived threats and events over which they held little control.  

In 1988, a landmark study by Orlick and Partington used interviews and questionnaires to assess 235 Olympians for their levels of mental readiness and mental control. The investigation found that successful competitors relied on a variety of action plans they had created for competition, for performance evaluation, and for dealing with disruptions or setbacks. They harnessed performance anxiety and viewed it as positive arousal rather than a debilitating emotion. They also demonstrated a level of commitment that was not matched by their less successful counterparts. Further evidence was found for the benefits of goal setting, and using imagery to rehearse stressful conditions, focus attention and visualise successful outcomes. 

Further work by Mahoney, Gabriel, and Perkins (1987), Durand-Bush and Salmela (2002), and Abbott and Collins (2004) lent weight to the role of psychological skills in exceptional athletes. Outside of sport psychology, MacNamara, Button, and Collins (2006) went some way to dispelling the gifted musician myth with their study of elite performers. They found evidence that it was in fact psychological characteristics, not musical talent, that were the ultimate determinants of excellence.  

It was Krane and Williams (2006) who reviewed this large body of research to identify a common set of psychological skills related to peak performance. The outcome of this review was a set of cognitive and behavioural skills that the reviewers went on to argue could be taught and honed like any physical skill or competitive strategy. Building on this, MacNamara, Button, and Collins (2010a) proposed a list of Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence consistent with previous research. Since then, the PCDE theory has been honed and its advocates propose that above a certain threshold of natural ability, the effective development and deployment of PCDEs is the most essential factor in the realisation of latent talent.  

Research into psychological skills and characteristics in military aviation 

Despite the plethora of research listed above, it may have been as late as 2004 before any research was conducted on Psychological Skills Training (PST) for military pilots. Roth and Andre (2004) attempted to ascertain the value of ‘chair flying’, with some positive results. This very old but fairly undocumented imagery practice (also referred to as ‘armchair flying’ in the UK) involves pilots sitting in a chair and mentally rehearsing an upcoming flight. Later, Fornette et al (2012) and McCrory et al (2013) both found evidence to support the use of PST to improve the performance of MFT students, but Hohmann and Orlick (2014) were the only researchers mentioned here to study fully qualified, elite pilots. They conducted in-depth interviews of 15 Royal Canadian Air Force F-18 pilots, largely framing their conclusions around Orlick’s Wheel of Excellence (1997). 

Although limited in number, these studies show distinct similarities to those conducted on athletes and musicians. The evidence suggests that, like sport, success in military aviation is at least partially dependent on developmental pathways and not just innate talent. It is therefore worth investigating whether advancements in sports performance psychology, like the use PCDEs, can be adapted and applied to MFT. 

Case Study- Colonel Chris Hadfield and the Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence in Military Aviation 

Table 1.  Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence

Commitment  Focus and distraction control  Effective Imagery  Realistic performance evaluation  Quality practice  Goal setting  Coping with pressure  Planning and self-organisation  Self-awareness  Actively seeking social support

Collins and MacNamara, 2017

How PCDEs are applied differs depending on the domain, and even within a given domain the behavioural component of any one PCDE might vary to suit the challenge at hand (MacNamara, 2011). Therefore, any example behaviours given here that relate to MFT have necessarily been adapted from the original theory. Table 1 gives the PCDEs set out by Collins and MacNamara (2017). The list differs slightly from previous versions with the inclusion of ‘Actively seeking social support’.  

Colonel Chris Hadfield is one of the most successful performers in military aviation. As a Royal Canadian Air Force fighter pilot, test pilot, astronaut and former commander of the International Space Station, he has achieved elite status at every stage of his career. He has conducted numerous interviews, authored and co-authored several articles and studies, and also written a book, An Astronaut’s Guide to Life on Earth, which forms the basis of this psychobiography.  

After MFT in Canada, Hadfield qualified on the F-18 and was posted to a front-line fighter squadron. Here, most aircrew on the squadron could be classed as proficient journeymen (Hoffman 1998); the learning curve flattens off and ‘mere’ practice (Ericsson et al., 1993) becomes the norm. It would be perfectly possible for pilots seen as ‘talented’ during MFT to stagnate at this point and settle for relative expertise (Chi 2006). To avoid arrested development and go on to attain absolute expertise, Hadfield would have required high levels of commitment. This is evidenced in him applying for test pilot school, despite this move being scoffed at by his (ultimately) less successful peers. The training will have meant a return to intense learning- in a single year he flew 32 different types of aircraft and it “was like getting a Ph.D. in flying” (Hadfield, 2013, pp.8-9).  To volunteer for this course with no externally regulated motivation (Deci and Ryan, 1985) is a sure sign of commitment. To re-engage with the levels of quality practice required to succeed as a test pilot, after a relatively comfortable life on the front line, will have also required focus, distraction control, planning and self-organisation. Hadfield subsequently graduating top off his class at the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base. 

Other PCDE example behaviours that might be seen in military aviation include frequent chair flying, displaying resilience in the face of failed training sorties, and independently setting goals for personal revision. One might argue that these characteristics are innate, but a key quote from Hadfield shows they can be developed over time. Speaking of his first poor performance during MFT, he said: 

“The moral of the story was unmistakable: I couldn’t afford to be unprepared in any situation where I was going to be evaluated, formally or not. I had to be ready, always. I decided to change the way I prepared, effective immediately. At night, instead of studying in my room, I studied in the airplane I’d be flying the next day. I got out all the checklists and navigation procedures, and acted out the whole flight, pretending to use the instrument controls. Once I was done and had “landed” safely, I started all over again. No one told me to go sit in a cold hangar for a couple of hours and run through the flight repeatedly until I could picture the whole thing. No one had to.” (Hadfield, 2013, pp.74) 

The behaviours Hadfield describes here are a fantastic example of several PCDEs, but they should also be tempered with the need for realism. The idea that more is always better can result in an increasingly punishing work cycle interspersed with guilty rest periods that may ultimately lead to burnout (MacNamara, 2011). Significantly, Hadfield describes an increase in these behaviours as a result of a setback. This supports Hohmann and Orlick (2014) who found that the more successful pilots in their study coped with criticism by taking responsibility for their errors and seeking ways to improve. However, they also found this was not an underlying trait but rather a conscious effort to adopt a positive perspective.  

Let us take two other PCDEs, self-awareness and realistic performance evaluations. Both are evident in Hadfield’s transition from junior astronaut to space station commander. Recounting a story of an arrogant senior astronaut who saw himself as too important to push the buttons in an elevator, Hadfield describes the importance of an objective understanding of your own limitations and strengths: “You will almost certainly be viewed in one of three ways. As a minus one: actively harmful, someone who creates problems. Or as a zero: your impact is neutral and doesn’t tip the balance one way or the other. Or you’ll be seen as a plus one: someone who actively adds value” (Hadfield, 2013, pp.181).  Again, rather than possessing innate empathy or humility, these characteristics developed over time. Instead of a natural self-awareness, this PCDE manifested itself as a self-monitoring system Hadfield deliberately created.  

Hadfield also confirms Roth and Andre’s (2004) findings with his use of effective imagery. He repeatedly ‘chair flew’ his sorties, picturing the flight in great detail and correcting any errors in procedure by referencing notes after each attempt. Hadfield (2013, pp.75) describes this sort of intensive preparation as “a permissible form of cheating” because when he got in a plane with an instructor, “it was (at least mentally) the fourth time I’d made that particular flight.” An argument could be made that visualisation to this degree even meets the criteria of deliberate practice (Ericsson et al, 1993). In MFT systems where there is a paucity of serviceable aircraft and therefore reduced training continuity, an increased use of effective imagery for quality practice might make a significant difference. Chair flying is far removed from the excitement of actual flying and requires several PCDEs for it to be effective, including focus and distraction control, effective imagery, and goal setting.  

Knowledge dispels fear versus be there and cope– can coping with pressure be a dual effect characteristic in MFT? 

Over the course of his career, Hadfield has developed what could be described as a proactive, task oriented coping strategy for improving performance. Astronauts are taught the best way to reduce stress is to “sweat the small stuff”. By anticipating as many problems as possible and figuring out how to solve them he gains “peace of mind”. “In order to stay calm in a high-stress, high-stakes situation, all you really need is knowledge. Sure, you might still feel a little nervous or stressed or hyper-alert. But what you won’t feel is terrified” (Hadfield, 2013, pp.35, 53, 72). Hadfield pays almost no heed to reactive coping – managing fear, anxiety or emotion in a situation for which you were unprepared. Perhaps the closest he comes to acknowledging performance anxiety is witnessing it in a fellow astronaut: “On Atlantis, five minutes before liftoff… I remember thinking, “Wow, something really incredible must be about to happen if Jerry’s knee is bouncing!”” (Hadfield, 2013, pp.27). 

However, in examining this testimony it is worth taking two things into account. Firstly, while Hadfield appears to display classic problem focussed mechanisms, he may not be giving due credit to concurrent emotional control strategies because for him they are so well ingrained. This would be congruent with Hohmann and Orlick (2014) who found that pilots who reported experiencing little or no stress on a day-to-day basis were those who saw stress management techniques as natural and automatic. Hadfield certainly sees his high level of proactive planning as automatic, saying it has become a reflexive form of mental discipline (Hadfield 2013, pp.72), but does he have strong emotion focussed coping mechanisms he deploys without thinking and is therefore unaware of them? He may even benefit from low trait anxiety (Carver et al 1989). Secondly, some cultures emphasise the importance of problem focussed coping over emotion focussed coping and this social desirability for one coping style over another may have introduced a bias into Hadfield’s testimony (Aldwin, 1994). This is perhaps apparent when he shows a degree of disdain for emotion-focussed coping: “The best antidote to fear is competence” (Hadfield, 2019 [00:04:35]). 

While a mature Hadfield now shows an overwhelming preference for proactive planning and preparation as a means of coping, this was not always the case. Speaking of a poor performance as a student during MFT, he admits:  

“I was forced to look inside myself to try to figure out why I hadn’t been ready [for a sortie]. Was I tired? Hungover? Not assertive enough at the controls? Too focused on the wrong things? No. The problem was simple: I’d decided I was already a pretty good pilot, good enough that I didn’t need to fret over every last detail” (Hadfield, 2013, pp.76). 

Let us examine this event in more depth. Here are three possible factors at play in the young student’s behaviour: First, a failure of secondary appraisal. Hadfield incorrectly assessed the resources he had at his disposal and his ability to meet the demands placed upon him (Cox and Ferguson, 1991). Second, insufficient self-regulation of his planning and organisation. This may have been the first time he had no external trigger for proactive behaviour, such as an instructor monitoring his preparation (MacNamara, 2011). Third, Hadfield was displaying a fixed mindset: there’s no point working, my natural talent is the key factor and will overcome any challenges I might encounter in the air (Dweck 2006).  

After the event, Hadfield’s ability to conduct realistic performance evaluations meant he correctly attributed the blame to his lack of preparation, rather than insufficient natural talent. His response was to learn from the experience and change his behaviour. However, the third possibility given above is worth a closer look. What might the implications be of fixed mindset behaviour when combined with a training development environment that praises students for their ability to cope under pressure? An environment that views talent as more important than hard work? As alluded to at the start of this essay, some evidence suggests fixed mindsets may be prevalent amongst military aviators. In this case, spare mental capacity in the air is seen as a product of high intelligence. Pilots with so much natural talent that they do not have to spend time revising are revered, they can simply ‘be there and cope.’ In this type of atmosphere, PCDE behaviours like commitment, quality practice, planning and organisational skills might be stigmatised because they imply less natural talent than a student who achieves success seemingly without effort (Dweck, 2006). While fixed mindsets are likely the root cause here, a pilot over-playing their ability to cope with pressure may aggravate the issue. A student relying on their quick wits when airborne, at the expense of proper preparation on the ground, might represent a dual effect characteristic, as proposed by MacNamara and Collins (2015). 

Does emotion focussed coping have a place in military aviation?  

In certain situations, might emotion focussed coping strategies raise questions of safety? Evaluation anxiety aside (e.g. Sarason and Sarason, 1990), if a student pilot encounters a feeling of anxiousness prior to a sortie, the first port of call should not be to address the uncomfortable sensation itself but to identify the source of the unease. If the feeling is an irrational fear brought on by an incorrect perception of one’s abilities, then more realistic performance evaluations are possibly required to increase confidence. If, however, a pilot has accurately gauged their ability and found it wanting for the task at hand, then the question should be asked whether it is safe or wise to continue. Unlike sport, the ultimate price paid for poor preparation in military aviation is death, not defeat.   

So, is Hadfield’s advocacy of task oriented strategies warranted or are there benefits to emotion focussed coping in military aviation? Wilson and Richards (2011, pp.338) have perhaps said it best: “While thorough planning and preparation focus on attempting to control the controllable, equally important is ensuring that performers are competent and trained in adapting to the uncontrollable”. While a case might be made that proactive PCDEs such as planning and self-organisation are the bedrock of aviation (no amount of calmness under pressure will bestow a pilot in the air with a vital piece of information he should have acquired on the ground), the ability to control attention and emotion during high stress flights is still a vital component of an aviator’s psycho-behavioural skill set.  

In the same chapter quoted above, Wilson and Richards use a line from If, by Rudyard Kipling to illustrate the challenge faced by performers, psychologists and practitioners when it comes to coping. Ironically, this is the same line that has been bastardised in an old military joke. Perhaps just as succinctly, it illustrates the challenge facing practitioners who want to change some of the beliefs held by military aviators: “If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you, you probably haven’t fully appreciated the magnitude of your mistake.” 

Limitations 

There are some limitations to the conclusions that can be drawn from this case study. As an instructor of elite performers in his own right, Hadfield’s opinion of the psychological characteristics required in aviation are extremely valuable. However, talent development is a complex process, particularly in the early stages, far removed from the rarified atmosphere of astronaut training. Several leading experts have also expressed concerns about the use of autobiographies as the sole data source in studies of elite performers (Males, 2016; Collins & MacNamara, 2017). Any researcher should be wary of filtered accounts of past experiences designed for mass consumption; even the most prestigious performer is subject to human biases and rose-tinted hindsight when recalling the factors that led them to their current position.  

Conclusion 

This case study of a single elite aviator offers evidence that existing research on PCDEs is applicable to military aviation. The theory could be adapted to identify the associated behaviours in MFT and existing methods of enhancing PCDEs examined for transferability. 

As an absolute expert at the very pinnacle of his field, there is qualitative evidence for Hadfield possessing every PCDE to a certain extent, and evidence they were pivotal in his success. What is interesting about the Hadfield’s testimony though, is his strong preference for proactive PCDEs rather than reactive. Ultimately, this essay does not argue against the need for a pilot to have well-developed, reactive, emotion focussed coping skills in their armoury, but it should be emphasised that a cool head and an ability to ‘be there and cope’ can be a false flag for true peak performance derived from proper preparation and ‘sweating the small stuff’.  

Like most high-performance endeavours, MFT would benefit greatly from further research, especially prospective and longitudinal studies of talent identification and development. There has been so little conclusive research conducted on pilots in MFT that it is difficult to propose evidence-based psychological interventions. At the same time, it is hard to ignore the huge gains that other domains have enjoyed, for instance, through the identification and development of PCDEs. Therefore, this essay argues for the adoption of a pragmatic approach, as advised by Collins and MacNamara (2017). Even the most robust longitudinal study is unlikely to identify a unifying theory of talent development in an environment as complex as MFT, but ‘pracademics’ working alongside training systems should not shy away from their responsibility to make a positive difference by inferring the most suitable approach from the information available. There is an exciting abundance of knowledge in performance psychology waiting to be transferred and applied to MFT by well-informed practitioners.