Introduction
The analysis of the Ship Board management highlights the ways in which effective and proper management has an overall impact on the ability of an organization to meet its goals effectively. Management should be thoroughly aware of how their practice affects the dynamics that create a healthy working environment in which the employees are motivated and are proud to identify themselves with (Rose 2013). Unfortunately, from the case study, it was evident that the Captain and his leadership were not equipped with appropriate management mettle.
Organizational Hierarchy
Management theories evoke a sentiment of skepticism, as they are perceived by those in practical management practice to be unrelated to what actually happens in the real management practice. However, the proponents of management theories are individuals who are well read in the field of management (Lunenburg 2010). The Captain gained his managerial prowess by rising through the ranks during his career, through which he accumulated knowledge and experience. While this is not a bad learning experience, the knowledge scope may be too narrow as it is derived from a singular setting. Some practices may, therefore, not be very effective.
General Management Theory
General Management Theory is a culmination of all management theories and includes Scientific Management, Bureaucracy, and Administration (Thenmozhi 2010).
A lack of planning was evidenced by the absence of set standards for performance. Captain, Charles Xavier gave the Chief Officer the task of management of the ship and then made himself inaccessible.
When the Captain delegated the task of running the ship to the Chief Officer, the Chief Officer became overwhelmed by the numerous tasks that he was appointed to accomplish. He distributed some of his workload to the junior officers and cadets to perform these tasks. This did not order well with the Second and Third Officers. If the Captain had given the management responsibility to the Chief Officer with a clear work plan, he would not have been overwhelmed.
The management style that can be observed in this context is a combination of laissez faire management and autocratic management. Laissez faire style of management is completely hands off, and subordinates are allowed to make all the decisions. Captain Charles Xavier left the management of the ship to the Chief Officer. He was then rarely seen, or heard from. Responsibility of running the ship fell squarely on the Chief Officer’s shoulders.
Autocratic management on the other hand, is evidenced by the inability of the Chief Officer to approach the Captain when he became overwhelmed with running the ship. It is an indication that whatever the management decides has to be obeyed and is not open for deliberation.
Leadership and Motivation
Motivation can be defined as the level at which perpetual effort is geared towards an ideal outcome. The autocratic style of leadership, which entails the “do as I say”, is the concept that has a negative impact on motivation. This type of leadership compels the employees to execute their duties. Motivation is in form of coercion and threats. As a result, there is no employee commitment, innovation or creativity. This causes unsalvageable damage to an organization (Chen, Sharma, Edinger, Shapiro & Farh 2011).
The crew on the ship did not seem motivated in the sense of exerting effort towards their duties. An instance of de-motivation was highlighted when a cadet on the ship wished to quit his position, as life was tough on the ship. This is indicative that his constant output did not yield any ideal outcomes. Master turned down his request and advised him to toughen up. Making a mockery of the plight of employees creates a notion to the employee that they do not matter to the organization, and it is highly demotivating. However, the Chief Officer took up the matter and assigned the cadet lesser duties. Organizations’ management systems should consider the plight of employees within reasonable parameters because human resources are the most valuable of all resources that an organization possesses. Without work force, the assets, investments and finances are pointless.
In a similar case, the Third Engineer requested transfer to another ship. He felt that he was not acquiring sufficient experience and mentorship to equip him with the skills to advance to the position of Second Engineer. The Second Engineer was willing and capable of training the Third Engineer. The Chief Engineer disapproved of this arrangement because according to him, the effort to learn and progress was futile since the junior officers would never progress in rank. When the Third Engineer tried to take up the matter with the Master, he was dismissed.
The Second Engineer was also discouraged from helping the junior officers with their studies. If he was allowed to help them advance in their studies, the valuable time spent on recreational and sporting activities with the cook and other members would instead have been utilized towards studying which is more beneficial to the junior officers and the organization.
Human and Group Behavior
Employee and group attitudes can be used to gauge the success of an organization. The employee attitudes on this ship were those of resentment towards the senior officers. The environment was not conducive for career progression or learning.
The working relationship between the Captain and Chief Officer was strained. There was obviously a lot of tension between them. The Chief Officer kept to himself and the Captain did not monitor his progress, or how he handled the management of the ship.
The Master’s rigidity in his leadership style, coupled with the Captain’s disappearing act on delegating all authority to the Chief Officer, stifling of advancement opportunities for the crew and junior officers, demeaning of the junior officers and disapproval of the informal working groups only worked towards exacerbating of the strained, dysfunctional working relationships.
Informal Grouping
Formal and informal groups sometimes overlap depending on the cohesiveness, communication structures and presence of the members. An Informal group usually emanates within the organizational structure, but its constitution is not governed by that of the organization (Chen, Sharma, Edinger, Shapiro & Farh 2011).
It can be observed from the ship that informal groups prevailed over the formal groups, when they came together to engage in recreational activities outside working hours. Despite the fact that informal groups are not governed by organizational policies, they have a lot of positive attributes. Group members may come up as planners and organizers because there are few inhibitions in the informal setting.
Management can work together with such informal group leaders to motivate employees and promote the organization’s agenda through them.
Perception
The Chief Engineer discouraged the second engineer from adopting the third engineer as an understudy. The Chief Engineer was of the perception that junior officers supplied by the agency in Philippines could not rise to higher ranks. This was misplaced because often, perception is a function of personal judgment that is sometimes distorted by incomplete facts or selective perception where one only sees what they want to see (Thenmozhi 2010). The Chief engineer did not know for sure the learning and leadership potential of the third engineer. He judged his capacity based on the agency that hired him.
Conflict Resolution
When the Chief Officer got overwhelmed with his responsibilities and distributed some of the responsibilities to the Second and Third Officers, they became displeased. The Chief Engineer sensed conflict and took up the matter with the Master, who dismissed him and asked him to manage his department. A lack of a conflict resolution channels in an organization stirred contempt among employees.
Avoiding conflict altogether may seem like an ideal strategy, but it is not. The Captain of the ship, in an effort to motivate the employees, threw parties every Sunday evening, which ran late. However, the crew got too tired and was not able to carry out their duties effectively on Monday morning. The Chief Officer chose Mondays for training and drill exercises. Although the parties were counterproductive, the Chief Officer did not express his concern to the Captain in order to avoid a conflict. Valuable time was spent on training instead of engaging in tasks that were more productive. This could have been rectified, if the Chief Officer had not avoided stirring up a possible conflict.
An entire absence of conflict leads to an apathetic workforce (Rose 2013). Too much conflict is indicative of lack of cohesion and detachment from peers.
Problem Solving
There is evidence of lack in problem solving skills on the part of the Chief Officer, Captain and Chief Engineer. The Chief Officer could not broach the issue of work overload to the Captain, and the Chief Engineer could not quell the problem of poor delegation of duties. The steps to problem solving include: definition of the issue causing conflict, creating alternative solutions for the issues, establishing the most favorable alternatives to the problem and incorporating the best solution (Rose 2013). If these steps could have been taken, there would be no resultant feelings of resentment when conflicts arose.
Communication
The most basic requirement for efficient functioning of the organization is the ability to communicate effectively (Lunenburg 2010). Emotional barriers take place where the initiator of the message is apprehensive about putting the message across due to various reasons. Interpersonal barriers are evidenced where communication is hampered due to a strained relationship or tension.
The perceptual barrier is highlighted where the cadet was dismissed on requesting to be relieved of his duties. The response given to him by the master was unprofessional and disrespectful. For communication to flow, the participants must adopt a listening habit.
Conclusion
Management styles and leadership practices may not have a perceived impact on the paper. However, this case study demonstrates the opposite. The practice of management and the concepts that pertain to them make insurmountable differences to organizations and people, depending on whether they are applied effectively. There is no right or wrong style of leadership. The most important thing is the context in which that leadership style is practiced.
Reference List
Chen, G, Sharma, P, Edinger, K, Shapiro, D, & Farh, J 2011, Motivating and de-motivating forces in teams: cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 96. no. 3, pp. 541. Web.
Lunenburg, F 2010, Communication: The Process, Barriers, and Improving Effectiveness. Web.
Rose, A 2013, Human behavior and social processes: An interactionist approach, Routledge, London. Web.
Thenmozhi, M 2010, Evolution of Management Theory. Web.