The document discusses finding the right balance in ship management between protecting asset value and providing returns. It argues that ship managers have become too focused on micromanaging vessels without considering crew impacts. Good management requires valuing crew skills and experience, and supporting shipboard staff rather than viewing them as merely providing a service. The document advocates for inclusive management practices that encourage crew input and motivation in order to enhance safety and commercial success while reducing turnover costs.

1. FINDING THE RIGHT BALANCE
Article originally published in Lloyd’s Ship Manager
The ship manager is tasked with protecting the asset value of the vessels he manages while
providing the owner with the best possible return on capital employed, through maximising
the earning potential. This is a balancing task that is by no means easy.
In traditional shipowning companies, the master and chief engineer were an integral part of
this, however in recent times these individuals have become marginalised. Vessels have
become micromanaged, decisions are being made without consideration of the impact on
shipboard staff and there is a failure to value the skills, experience and knowledge of those
that serve on board.
Ship management companies stand or fall on the quality of their shipboard personnel but
many of those working ashore in ship management view the staff on the vessels as providing
a service to those in the office. This view is fundamentally wrong. It is time to focus on the
importance of the master and chief engineer in the operational success of the vessels and to
appreciate that the task of those within the office is to support the shipboard management
team and not vice versa.
A high turnover of staff and poor levels of motivation are, sadly, not unusual in shipping and
are often symptomatic of poor management practice. However, much can be learnt from the
ISM Code. The code has evolved from a long line of quality assurance models that have
served many industries well. Although the objective of the Code is safety, the same guiding
management principles that achieve a safe operation can equally be applied to creating a
commercially efficient environment, with a culture that attracts, motivates and keeps high-
quality and high-performing crews.
Section six to the preamble of the code states: “The cornerstone of good management is
commitment from the top. It is the commitment, competence, attitude and motivation of
individuals at all levels that determines the end result.”
Encouraging and developing the correct attitude, commitment and motivation in the crew is
one of the biggest challenges faced by the industry. Peter F Drucker, in his book The Practice
of Management defined the manager’s job as being “the systematic organisation of economic
resources”. While all agree that crew are a resource, many will view them as no more than a
task-based one.
However, the human resource is much more than this. By making use of the skills,
knowledge and experience of staff through encouraging their input, involving them in the
design of company systems and using their experience to make the operation more efficient,
the result is enhanced safety and greater commercial success. Additionally, it should come as

2. no surprise that a highly motivated and effective workforce, valued as such, will not seek
other employment.
Positive thinking
Too often, there is a tendency to focus on what is wrong with organisations and individual
managers. Rather than focus on the symptoms of poor management, it is better to identify
what makes a good manager. There are a number of characteristics that are symptomatic of a
healthy company, where staff will feel valued and the goals of commitment, correct attitude
and motivation are more likely to be in place.
The list does come with a caveat, though. No statistical authority can be provided: this is no
more than the writer’s personal list. It is based on 30 years’ observing management practices,
both good and bad, first as a seafarer, then as a quality auditor and last as a lawyer, attending
casualties and investigating ship board related loss.
When a vessel fails to perform effectively or has a series of accidents the first question often
asked is: who is to blame?
Yet the only function a manager cannot delegate is that of failure.
Where an employee fails to perform, the wrong reaction is to blame him or her. The
consequence of following the instinct to blame an individual when something goes wrong, is
resentment and ineffective communication. A barrier is created between those that should be
working together.
When things go wrong, a manager that takes responsibility will ask whether there has been:
• Appropriate supervision;
• Provision of adequate resources to do the job;
• Sufficient training;
• Clear instructions.
If the answers to these four questions are in the affirmative, the final question the manager
must ask is whether the correct person has been selected to do the job? The common thread
running throughout these rhetorical questions is: “what have we as an organisation, or what
have I as a manager, not done correctly and how can any recurrence be prevented?”
Effective disciplinary procedures are not just about getting the paperwork right so that a
dismissed employee does not sue for wrongful dismissal. Termination of employment should
always be the last resort.
It is not unusual for individuals to be unaware that their performance levels do not meet the
required standards. Disciplinary procedures can provide a vehicle where inadequacies can be
highlighted in a structured, non confrontational manner. Goals and time scales can be agreed,
2

3. with additional training resources applied where necessary. Willingness to take disciplinary
action where appropriate demonstrates effective and decisive leadership.
A ship is a closed, isolated society remote from the office. A single poorly written email to
vessels by a manager, superintendent or an auditor can undo much good work and result in
alienation. Managers should aim to avoid communications that could cause conflict. It is
better not to send the instruction you know cannot be followed and is not compatible with
existing quality or safety procedures.
Those onboard will know that such requirements are unrealistic and be aware that the
originator knows this to be the case. The subtext of such a message is that some requirements
are not expected to be followed or worse, are to be followed at the expense of the documented
management system. Either outcome is unacceptable.
Lastly, managers should put themselves in the position of the master or chief engineer who
sends a message to the office but gets no reply. There may be compelling reason why an
answer cannot be given, but those in the ship do not know this. A policy requiring that all
messages originating from a vessel receive a reply within a specified number of working days
is advisable. It is sufficient that such a response be a holding message saying that a fuller
reply will follow and giving time in which it can be expected. Such a policy gives assurance to
those onboard that they are being listened to and their enquiries will be dealt with.
Suggesting improvements
It is the individuals who perform tasks on a daily basis who are best positioned to suggest
how shipboard processes can be improved made safer and more commercially cost effective.
Many managers will argue that the staff they employ simply are not interested in making
such suggestions. However the master or chief engineer who does not have some thoughts on
how matters for which they have functional responsibilities can be improved is a rare creature
indeed.
Silence from the vessel is not evidence of a lack of interest but rather mistrust of the system.
There maybe a perception that suggestions will be ignored, or worse still individuals will be
penalised for challenging the system. On the contrary, accepting and incorporating
suggestions into systems give “ownership” to those that have contributed. The system will
become “our” system rather than something that has been imposed on the vessel from
outside.
Further, where an individual on a vessel has made a valuable contribution, a senior manager
should take the time to write a letter of thanks. It takes a matter of seconds to dictate or type
an email but the effect on morale onboard where a communication of thanks is received
cannot be overstated.
In too many organisations, the only time a communication is received from a senior manager
is to highlight shortcomings inefficiencies or a call for greater economies. Those at board level
should make their mission to see that their name is associated with good news and
congratulations.
3

4. Contact with crew
The master and chief engineer are entrusted with protecting the asset value of the vessel.
They are critical in ensuring a smooth, accident-free voyage, avoiding off-hire and protecting
the owner’s interest. When considering the value of the asset with which they are being
entrusted they are among the most important employees that an owner or technical manager
has. It is essential that those at senior and board level set time aside to see these individuals
when they are visiting the offices for briefings. An environment should be created where
masters and chief engineers feel comfortable enough to provide feedback about the
effectiveness or otherwise of company operations to those at the most senior levels.
Common courtesy dictates that all employees should be valued – and this applies equally to
ratings. Ratings are used to being at the bottom of the food chain – yet a disgruntled crew can
be a recipe for disaster. Whenever a senior manager, or indeed any other company
representative, visits a vessel, they should take time to talk and listen to the crew.
Not only does this demonstrate in a practical way that the crew are valued, which engenders
loyalty, but it may also be possible to solve small problems before they become large ones.
Even where it is not possible to solve existing crew problems, once the cause is understood, it
may be possible to prevent recurrence in the future.
There are, of course, two sides to every story. There has always been an “us and them”
approach to communications between the vessel and the office. One of the reasons for such a
barrier is a lack of understanding or empathy of the problems faced by those on the other side.
Since the majority of superintendents and auditors are ex-seafarers, they have the experience
of shipboard life and its constraints – though some do forget rather quickly. Such
forgetfulness must not be tolerated.
However, it is very difficult for masters and chief engineers, to understand how the office
works, how limited resources and competing priorities can restrict the assistance given to a
vessel to solve a problem.
There is great value in bringing senior officers into the office for short periods, the equivalent,
perhaps, of one contract. Their practical experience will be an invaluable resource to the office
staff. Additionally, they will return to the fleet with a much greater experience of how supply
logistics and decision-making processes work, with an understanding of the problems and
limits faced by the shoreside staff in effectively serving the needs of the vessels.
One of the greatest barriers to effective management is the failure to exploit the skills,
experience and knowledge of the labour force that perform tasks on a daily basis. The
characteristics described above can best be described as inclusive management. A by-product
of inclusive management is that employees will be motivated; they will feel ownership of the
system and as a consequence, a greater propensity to stay with the same employee, thereby
reducing turnover and the costs associated with induction and training of new employees. It
is also no coincidence that in organisations where inclusive management is practised, there is
a greater safety culture and a greater awareness of how the commercial goals are to be
achieved. These are the very attributes that are essential to the long term success of any
company.
4

5. Ian Maclean is a master mariner and solicitor and works for Ince & Co, London, as a Senior
Associate.
Mob: 07866 129862
Email: icm@creekmail.co.uk
5