COMPLACENCY AS
AN ELEMENT OF MARITIME ACCIDENTS
SAFETY on board modern ships –
NOT SATISFACTORY
75 – 96% of accidents include
CREW´S ERROR
Errors made by crewmembers:
- Management errors – 71%
- Operational errors
Management errors on board ship and in relation ship – external factors are mostly
caused by COMPLACENCY
COMPLACENCY can be divided into:
1. MANAGEMENT COMPLACENCY
2. LEADERSHIP COMPLACENCY
3. SELF-INDUCED COMPLACENCY
1. MANAGEMENT COMPLACENCY
negative influence of Shipping Companies
expressed through dominant communication COMPANY- SHIP in
which process the crew meet the interests of the Company against their
own beliefs and attitudes which are eventually lost, or become passive and
transform into submissive attitudes
Good communication Company-Ship ensures that you follow what you are
supposed to do…
…otherwise…you hit what you should have easily missed…
2. LEADERSHIP COMPLACENCY
negative influence of leadership expressed through Master´s domination in which
case the crew meet the requirements of the authority suppressing personal
attitudes and beliefs
Shipboard duties…right person for the right job
Shipboard duties…right person for the Shipboard duties…right person for the right job…right job…
Senior officers have the burden of due Senior officers have the burden of due diligence while assigning jobs.diligence while assigning jobs.
…other wise….
OOPS !!!
Your crew is your responsibility…
3. SELF-INDUCED COMPLACENCY
negative influence of the acquired feeling of superiority and personal
significance to the change of personal previously positive
attitudes
Perhaps, if there had not been lack of communication…
... the container would have been on the plane…!!!
Psychological point of view:
COMPLACENCY represents a process of gradual change of attitudes that
transforms a “good” seaman into a “bad” seaman.
In such a state of inhibition
the crew unconsciously, in compliance with newly formed attitudes, stop using
potential knowledge and experiential resources.
Passivization of knowledge, creativity and motivation
is in fact
activation of the notion of Management Complacency!
In that sense
change into inhibition begins as a spontaneous reaction to
bad communication or unpleasant environment (hierarchical relations) within
which the individual(s) can feel insignificant.
Consequently,
active knowledge, creativity and motivation are gradually suppressed.
The crew still potentially have knowledge and creativity
but they are not stimulated to use them (inhibition).
Journey from Complacency to Rules…
Titanic (1912) = SOLAS (1929)
Torrey Canyon (1967) = MARPOL (1973) & STCW (1978)
Amoco Cadiz (1978) = SOLAS & MARPOL 1978 Protocols
Herald of Free Enterprise (1987)
= ISM & SOLAS Ch. II-1
Exxon Valdez (1989) = OPA’90
Journey from Complacency to Rules…Various Bulk Carrier losses – early 1990s
= SOLAS Ch. XII (1997)
Estonia = SOLAS Ch. II-1 (1995)
Erika (1999) = EU package I & II
Prestige (2002) = New IMO rules – phase-out of single hull tankers
Functional organizational model of the Shipping Company structure
supports complacency because of:
• centralized control
• marked hierarchy
which ensure efficiency and successfulness through adaptation of persons to the mechanistic model of behaviour and carrying out duties.
Figure 1. Functional Organisation
Source: Human Resources Management – IMO 1992., Part D, page. 28
OWNER
ADMIN. INS. ACCOUNTS OPS oper.
ENG. CREW SUPPLY
MASTER
CHIEF ENGINEER CHIEF STEWARDS Glavni konobar
MAR.
Functional organizational model
insufficient motivation, communication and cooperation among officers
job dissatisfaction, superficial interactions of the employees,
HUMAN ERROR Caused by Complacency Syndrome.
Therefore,
Complacency is reflected in:1. Risk of maritime accident due to bad
relation Ship-Company2. Risk of on-the-job accident involving
crewmembers, due to the crew discontent
3. Risk of damage of the ship and her cargo due to bad work organization
4. Risk of environment pollution 5. Higher insurance policy
Measures of protection from complacency syndrome (CS)
• Introduction of ISM code (SMS) on board
is not efficient enough to prevent CS
• Reorganizing matrix
functionally organized organizational
companies structure
Figure 2. Matrix Organisation
Fleet X
Fleet Y
Fleet Z
Source: Human Resource Management – IMO 1992. Part D, p..29
OWNER
ADMIN. INS. ACCOUNTS
OPS. FLEET MANAGEMENT
CREW TECH. SUPPLY
FLEET MGR.
FLEET MGR.
FLEET MGR.
Basic difference of matrix organizational structure
=
decentralized management
greater motivation and initiative by the Master, Chief Engineer and the Officers on
board
Decentralised decision-making
• Need for forming the fleet management
• Establishing the function of the project manager
The basic function of the project manager
in Company – Ship relation
is
building balance between ship´s demands and functional sections of the Company that, in order to satisfy interests of the
whole, are prone to neglect the interests of individual ship
Managerial team on board +
the other Officers (2nd and 3rd Officers) and Engineers ( 2nd and 3rd Engineer)
develop new relations
as regards
mutual advising and planning
the upgrading of ship´s safety (SMS) and
possible reactions in an emergency
CONDITIONS OF
REAL TEAM WORK
CAN BE ESTABLISHED AND DEVELOPED ON THE BASIS
OF
MATRIX ORGANISATION
THANK YOU!