Descripción de la Pyme Colombiana

The field data showed that organisational hierarchy, power and discipline could affect communication between shore management and ship’s crew. In this section I explore the influences of each of these in further detail, situating the discussion with reference to the wider literature.

a) Hierarchy — In general, the contrasting views between crew and shore based managers presented in the previous four data chapters reflected the significant influence of hierarchical factors on their communication.

In section 2.5.2, it was mentioned that management control was achieved by

communication across the hierarchy in an organisation (Walton, 2003). Hierarchical structures are central to many contemporary organisations (Harley, 1999; Magee and Galinsky, 2008). Within such a hierarchical system, people are expected to accept their positions and fulfil their roles within it rather than challenge the order (Shi and Westwood, 2000, p.197). The essence of a hierarchical system is to establish order, exercise control and achieve efficiency in the application of the work force (Walton, 2003, p.116). The influence of hierarchy in organisational communication can also be seen from the literature. For example a study in aviation industry also showed that hierarchy was a serious problem that affected communication between flight pilot and attendants (Eisenberg et al., 2005). Byers (1997) found the situation did exist that managers at higher positions complained their little knowledge about the situations several levels below them. Similarly, the study showed that the gap of understanding existed between those at different hierarchical levels. A similar situation prevailed on board ship with the consequence that the management-crew communication did not meaningfully facilitate management’s understanding of shipboard OHSM conditions. For example, although the management showed their eagerness to know crew’s thoughts and working conditions, particularly during a ship visit (as seen in section 6.3.1), the findings presented in Chapter 7 indicated that management’s knowledge about shipboard OHSM was very limited.

Most significantly, as stated in Chapter 7 and 8, the hierarchical structure could affect crew’s upward communication especially in relation to safety reporting and suggestions for improvements. This is also a finding that is aired in previous literature. For example, Leonard et al. (2004, p.186) noted that hierarchy, or power distance, could inhibit employees from speaking up. In my study, during interviews with crew, some terms such as

‘hierarchical difference’, ‘the gap of social statuses’ and ‘lack of common background’

were referred to by them (see section 6.3.2). Rogers and Agarwala-Rogers (1976, p.85) pointed out the problems of organisational communication alike were caused by

‘bureaucratic hierarchy’. It suggests the hindrance of hierarchical gap in upward ship to shore communication.

In a similar sense, I reported how shipboard hierarchy could affect ship to shore communication, as illustrated in section 8.3.2. Typically, some of the important events occurred or views shaped at the lower levels of shipboard hierarchy could not pass through the hierarchical structure to reach shore management.

A further point of relevance here is that several observers such as Chapman (1992) and Kitada (2010) have likened the nature of shipboard working environment to that of a ‘total institution’, as that defined by Goffman (1961). Goffman (ibid) argued that an individual could be subordinated to the authority of the institution within which he/she resides. To some extent, a ship is a kind of institution. The interviews with crew showed that many of them cared much about their immediate leaders – crew’s at senior positions rather than shore management. Thus, they would not attempt to do things that they believed to be against the wishes or interests of these superiors. In this way shipboard hierarchical structure could also influence ship to shore communication such as by preventing the reporting of certain incidents or activities, for example the non-conformity reporting illustrated in section 7.3.2.

In brief, this study showed strong presence of hierarchical factor in shore-ship vertical communication process (many further examples can be seen in Chapter 6, 7 and 8).

b) Power — Within an organisational structure, different levels of formal authority are distributed to various positions in the hierarchy. In practice, the influence of hierarchy is externalised by the organisational power attached to each of the positions within it (Harley, 1999). In a similar sense, the study showed that the communications between management and crew are considerably influenced by the power relations between them.

Magee and Galinsky (2008) and Antonsen (2009, p.49) interpreted power as control of activities, resources and employee performance. In section 2.5.2, it was pointed out that the division of labour in an organisation leads to power differences between management and employees (Pfeffer, 1992). In a shipping company, the shore management, situated at a higher hierarchical level, was therefore entitled to exert controlling power over the supply of material, shipboard OHSM practice and crew’s employment. In Chapter 5, the examination of shore-ship communication showed that the supply of material resources as an essential precondition for OHSM was eventually decided by shore management. In Chapter 6, I reported how the communication for management control was achieved by instructions or orders given via technology-based communication as well as through ship visits. Typically, the former was characterised by the control of ship’s sailing schedules, while the latter was dominated by shipboard safety inspection. They all suggested the

prominence of managerial power in play during such communication activities.

Moreover, the study showed that shore to ship communication could be affected by the managerial power over crew’s work arrangements. It was stated in section 4.3 that, in both companies, the managers from crewing, marine affairs and marine engineering departments had equal decisive power on appraisal of crew’s performance as well as appointment of individual crew, particularly those of senior crew. In this context, being evaluated by them as a good performer was very important for individual crew, since it closely linked to crew’s job security. Thus, for the crew, maintaining a high level of consistency in their declared willingness to follow managerial dictates in communication with shore management was important. Otherwise, they believed the impact on their appraisal would be negative. A typical example was that delays of sailing schedules were usually seen as a violation of shore management’s order. The case was similar to the situation described in Perrow’s work (1999) that management could shape a wrong impression that a captain wanted to maximise crew’s comfort at the expense of company’s interest. As a consequence, the captain’s performance appraisal would be affected negatively. In my study, although the shore interview data showed the management to believe it exerted a ‘moderate and reasonable’ controlling power over crew and ship’s OHSM activities, the interviews with crew on four ships indicated they shared a very different perception, in which they feared greater control (see Chapter 6 and section 9.3.2 for details). In general, this perception of the presence of management’s controlling power over ships and crew did not help to facilitate an open and negotiable communication atmosphere that was conducive to the improvement of workplace OHSM.

c) Discipline — The research further revealed that the management’s controlling power was underpinned by disciplinary actions.

The role of disciplinary actions has been discussed in section 2.5.2, and the result was generally positive in OHSM (Eakin et al., 2000; Wokutch and VanSandt, 2000; and Robson et al., 2007). As showed in section 6.3.1, 7.3.2 and 7.3.4, the reward and punishment scheme, applied for the appraisal of crew’s performance, was often mentioned by the shore management as well as crew in both companies. Hutter (2001, p.296) points out that some form of discipline is necessary when dealing with employee’s non-compliance actions and it is commonly found in modern organisations (Goulielmos and Goulielmos, 2005). An