A Leader, or in our case a Masters Career and the fate of his vessel and Bridge team are determined by the effectiveness of his behavior. Leadership is considered crucial for success and has been considered by most researchers to be the most critical ingredient (Lussier and Achua 2009). I would describe a leader as being someone who directs and controls a group of people to perform a task. In this case the Master controls and directs his Officers to safely navigate the vessel, safety of the crew and the cargo. Unlike other businesses who will have multiple leaders, the Master is the sole leader on a vessel upon which all responsibility lies on. The way the Master deals with all his responsibilities is to delegate to his Officers. Each of his Officers essentially also become managers of possibly their own group of workers. The Master leads his managers (Officers) to perform the tasks required to maintain the vessel.
An important distinction is made between being a manager and being a leader. To be a manager means to direct and to accomplish. To lead means to motivate and inspire. Leaders who are effective, inspire their team to strive and pursue excellence. It has been said that managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing (Peter F.Drucker 1955).
For a Master to be a good leader he needs to be able to motivate his officers effectively. A masters personal factors will have a big influence on how well he/she motivates the team. I have worked with a few Captains each with their own different leadership styles. No two leaders work in the same way, each leader develops their own individual style. Some of the factors that affect a Master may develop over time and experience, whilst some may develop due to their environment e.g. type of vessel or bridge team. Some Masters may even have to adapt their leadership style to the surrounding environment and to company requirements.
Obviously one of a Masters main personal factor is his/her personality. The leadership style may be an extension of the personality. I found that two of the four Masters I worked with tend not to communicate directly to some. The two Captains that preferred the method of communicating to his team directly or face to face were more outgoing and assertive. These Captains also seemed to trust their officer more, for example they rarely did any of the maneuvers when coming in and out of port, they allowed the lower ranked officers to take control and were keen to lead and teach. The other two Captains seemed to want to lead by example as they were more reserved and rarely came up to the bridge other than when required. These Captains always did maneuvers themselves and preferred the hierarchical method. They preferred meeting with the next in command as a method of communication to the lower ranks, instead of addressing the entire team.
Another personal factor is the level of control a Master likes to have, which influences the leadership style. The Master has overall control of all decisions made on his vessel but some are more laid back than others. A Master that has a high level of control will want to be involved in all day to day operations and the decision making process. A more trusting Master may not want the burden of the decision making and will take a step back and delegate responsibility. As this is the case on most vessels a Master that delegates his responsibilities will normally need to create another layer of management, this responsibility is normally handed to the chief mate or second in command.
Another factor that may affect the leadership of a Master is the Organisation or company itself. There is a hierarchical structure on vessels whereas there is a divisional structure within a company. The company’s structure and operating methods may dictate the leadership style that the Master must adopt. The Master must implement all policies that the company set out and maintain them as checked by auditors.
A Masters experience, both as a leader and length of time with a particular company can affect his leadership. A Master who has only recently been promoted may want to lead by the book and follow all procedures to the dot, whilst they are still inexperienced as Masters. A Master who has more experience at the job ad with the company may have more confidence by following their own interpretation of the regulations set out by the company. The more experience a Master has and more familiar they are with the company will result in the Master being more comfortable making decisions in turn being an effective and confident leader.
Another organizational factor in affecting a Masters leadership is his crews’ ethnic diversity. Especially on passenger vessels which can hold on average over 1000 crew, which can have 55+ different ethnicities. Luckily for the Masters on passenger vessels a department system is run so he does not have to directly deal with all 1000+ crew. He/She only has to directly deal with the Deck department and will only need to speak to his crew in any disciplinary action. Even on the bridge there can be a range of nationalities (from personal experience) To be a successful leader of multiple nationalities the Master may take a servant approach, where they provide the employee’s with everything they need so that the team stay motivated and make for effective teamwork. Maslow’s theory shows these needs in better detail. A Master as a leader can only provide so much to his crew before having to comply with the companies policies, which is also set out in the ISM code.
To conclude there are many factors on which a Master needs to balance out to be an effective leader, he/she must think about the needs of the crew (Maslow’s theory) whilst also keeping the Organisation happy by complying with their rules and procedures. In my personal experience I have found that Masters with effective leadership also like to take a step back and allow his officer to be the main part of the decision making process and have confidence in his team.
Communication is a key factor when trying to complete an operation smoothly and safely. We communicate all the time, it comes natural to us like breathing, but being able to communicate clearly and with a bit of finesse is quite difficult, especially when you may have a multinational crew onboard.
Onboard the ships I was working on we had this issue of a vast variety of nationalities. Working on cruise ships means you can have over 1000 other crew to deal with. To overcome the issue of language and communication the company set out the policy that the working language be English, and all crew must have a good understanding of the English language, this includes officers as well.
Working a lot with the deck crew who were all either Philippine or Indonesian, I experienced quite a bit of a language barrier between them and the Bosun who was Italian. The Bosun was not keen on speaking English and tried to avoid it as much as possible. In this part of the work I found that only verbal communication was used to issue the jobs to the deck crew for the day. At the best of times I could barely understand the Bosun. To improve on this it would be a good idea to have work rotors posted on a notice board in the workshop so the deck crew can easily refer to see what their jobs are for that day and who they are working with.
On the bridge the Officers consisted of British and Italian speakers. Again anything related to work i.e. collision avoidance ad emergencies had to be spoken in English. Personally I found that communication on the bridge between the team during operations and maneuvering were without fault. We used the closed loop communication method, where the person receiving the orders repeated them so the officer knew he had understood the order. Whilst the Captain had overall charge of the operation, our staff Captain took the role of Operations director. His job was to communicate with the officers down in the mooring stations, who used the same closed loop method.
As there is a hierarchy on the bridge I found that communication between the lower ranks and cadets was very minimal. I found many times that I would receive a job or an order from the staff captain that had progressed down the ranks. The problem with this was that the job would get confused and different from the original the more people it went through. This was not intentional, but would result sometimes in the job being done incorrectly. The obvious way to improve this issue is for the higher ranking officers to directly issue the work. This way questions can be asked if the task is not fully understood.
Whilst being part of mooring operations I noticed that at times there would be a lot of shouting from either the Officer or the bosun. The reason for this was that they did not know the name of individuals in the team, which would result in the words ‘hey’ or ‘you’ being shouted. This caused huge confusion between the deck crew and frustration for the Bosun or Officer. I noticed and suggested to the Officer that maybe it would be good to learn the names of all the deck team. I took the time to learn all their names and noticed how much appreciated it actually was. Not only did they respect you more, communication to an individual was far clearer as the individual knew when they were being instructed. From spending a lot of time with the deck crew I learnt that having their respect is a key factor with regards to being able to issue them jobs and keeping up motivation.
In conclusion the way I would improve communication on my vessel is for the higher ranks to be a bit more approachable and directly issue orders/work to the lower ranks. When it comes to communication between the deck crews and bosun in mooring operations, simple things like learning the deck crew’s names can prevent any confusion and any shouting.
Created by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) the International Safety Management Code (ISM) ‘’establishes safety-management objectives and requires a safety management system (SMS) to be established by the Company’’ (IMO Website). It is a set of guidelines set out for the safe operation of merchant vessels. This is achieved by a Safety Management System (SMS) which is to be created by the company who own the ship and should be specific for each vessel and its characteristics. The IMO created the ISM to ensure that international standards of safety and pollution prevention are maintained.
It achieves this by setting out 5 key objectives outlining the key purposes of the code. These are:
• To ensure safety at sea and prevent human injury and loss of life.
• Prevent damage to the environment and property.
• Provide for safe practices in ship operation and the working environment.
• Establish safeguards against all risks to the ships, personnel and environment.
• Improve safety management skills of personnel ashore and onboard.
Before a company is allowed to operate a ship, a Document of compliance must be issued for each different type of vessel. This will be issued by the flag state after an audit of the ships SMS and is valid for 5 years. An audit is carried out annually to ensure procedures described by the SMS are being complied with. Once issued with a document of compliance the administration issues a Safety management certificate which is also valid for 5 years.
It is implemented Plans and checklists form the most integral part of the implementation procedure of the ISM code on ships. Checklists for safe starting and stopping of shipboard machinery, along with plans to carry of various work procedures on board ship ensures safety of the ship and marine environment. (MarineInsight)
When analyzing the impact of the ISM code on merchant vessels the key feature is the SMS. Its main purpose is to provide safe practices in the workplace and procedures for any work or operations and emergencies. SMS is an important aspect of the International safety management (ISM) code and it details all the important policies, practices, and procedures that are to be followed in order to ensure safe functioning of ships at the sea. All commercial vessels are required to establish safe ship management procedures. SMS forms one of the important parts of the ISM code. (MarineInsight). Through the SMS the standards recommended by the IMO and classification societies ensure that every ship will comply with the mandatory safety regulations.
The SMS is created by the ship owner and implemented by the master and crew. Included in the SMS should be:
• Protection policy for safety and the environment
• Vessel details
• Guidelines on how to act in an emergency
• Procedures and guidelines for reporting incidents and non-conformities
• Information on the level of authority and lines of communication among crew members, and between shore and ship.
• Procedures for internal audits
• Vessel details (MarineInsight)
The ISM Code also affects the Masters of the vessels and their management and leadership style. They must adapt their style to smoothly implement safety and environment policies. They must also motivate the crew in accordance with the policy set out. Reviewing the SMS and reporting back to the company allows for improvement in safety management techniques onboard vessels.
As part of the ISM vessels are to have a Designated Person Ashore (DPA). The primary role of the DPA is ‘monitor the safety and pollution prevention aspect of the ship and provide adequate resources and shore base support for the ship. They also act as a link of communication to the highest management within the company’ (MarineNotes). The DPA has a big impact on the safety of ships as his main responsibility is to provide for the safe operations of the vessel.
Part of the ISM that has a big impact on safety operations and the management of the requirement for audits. An audit is an inspection where your actual performance is measured against the standards laid down. The audits can be carried out internally by either the Master or chief engineer and internally within the company. They can also be done externally. The purpose of the audit is to evaluate the efficiency of the ships SMS and to check if it is being complied with. This has an impact on the shipping industry as it allows or improvement in the SMS and can also identify any issues, possibly preventing incidents. Any gaps found in the SMS by the auditor is known as a non-compliance.
In conclusion the ISM code creates a new approach to the safety and environmental protection from pollution. The code challenges each company to take account of its safety procedures, environmental and pollution prevention aspects. It sets out its own objectives and allows for continual improvement to bring together the top management and its employees into a shared system of awareness and responsibility for achieving the safety of the vessel and the protection of the environment. The code also provides a link for ship to shore communication and again allows for improvement via the auditing of the vessels. For continuous improvement on the Safety management system, it is based on a cycle of plan, do, check and act. The ISM provides the framework to plan and review the Safety management plans and it is up to the Master to implement and maintain the plan with the help of his team and to review the plan for further improvements.