Human Communicative Errors - Example

Designated Person Ashore (DPA) Introduction The prevalence of maritime accidents caused by human error has increased vehemently in the recent past. As a matter of fact, subsequent studies have established that a significant proportion of marine accidents and cases of pollution are attributable to human error rather than equipment hitches. It has been established that approximately 80 percent of marine accidents and pollution result from human errors. Human Communicative Error (HCE) is among the major human factors in the maritime sphere; with other factors being fatigue among crew members, pressure from the management, poor equipment design, poor decisions by pilots and negligence among other factors. Communication errors have further been magnified by the increasing prevalence of multi-cultural crews such that communication becomes difficult. This paper is a discussion communication error as a human factor in the maritime environment and how it can be mitigated in order to minimize accidents and pollution. It places special emphasis on the use of Standard Marine Communication Phrases as a precaution against human communicative error. Human Communicative Errors The significance of effective communication in any organizational setting is definitely indisputable. As a matter of fact, the success of an organization is highly dependent on how information is relayed and how members of that organization make use of the information to perform their daily obligations. Unfortunately, communication errors remain a major threat to maritime activities and have been known to cause a considerable number of accidents (Koester & Pyne, 2005). Alternatively referred to as Human Communicative Errors (HCE), communication errors occur when the crew members are unable to exchange important information; vital for the safety of a vessel. The fact that navigation is dependent on the coordination of a team of individuals makes effective communication very imperative. At the same time, it is important to ensure that the navigators can communicate in a common language so as to avoid instances of misunderstanding (Koester & Pyne, 2005). Miscommunication could lead to loss of lives, cargo and pollution hence the reason why this human factor must be taken seriously. Miscommunication in the maritime sphere has led to increased scrutiny of multi-cultural crews. According to Weintrit (2009), 80% of merchant ships in the world with multi-ethnic and multi-lingual crews have faced the reality of communication errors during their operations. Misunderstandings, suspicions and lack of mutual confidences are prevalent such that the maritime risks are greatly increased. It is therefore important that there is a common language among crew members in order to avoid human errors resulting from miscommunication. Apart from multi-cultural crews, communication errors are also caused by other factors such as attitude, occupational stressors and individual cognition abilities (Grech, Horberry & Koester, 2008). It is common to find that people who are stressed are likely to have low levels of concentration such that they may fail to assimilate information easily thus leading to mistakes. At the same time, they are more likely to transmit information wrongly as opposed to people who are not stressed; either because of their attitude towards work or due to poor concentration. Weintrit (2009) notes that differences in cognition abilities tends to distort the meaning of certain messages such that they do not reach the intended recipient in their original form. This could be risky for a vessel especially where information has to be passed from one person to the other before reaching the executor of the instruction. In order to avoid this, there must be a common way of translating relayed information. Significance of Human Communicative Error in relation to goals of human factors The goals of human factors aim at eliminating errors that could lead to treacherous outcomes if they are not mitigated. As far as human communicative error is concerned, it is important for a shipping company to alleviate possible errors in order to enhance safety, improve comfort and increase productivity. The significance of addressing human communicative errors in the maritime domain with respect to the goals of human factors is as follows. It is a common goal for marine companies to take precautions in their operations so as to reduce human errors. Mitigating human communicative error is therefore a vital undertaking since it helps in reducing risk. Notably, errors of communication could jeopardise the safety of vessels and endanger people’s lives. Reducing errors would in turn reduce the number of accidents which is invaluable for a shipping company especially where its reputation is at stake. Reducing communication errors could improve a company’s productivity; mostly due to the elimination of avoidable mistakes. This relates to the reduction in expenses when vessels are not involved in accidents. Shipping companies spend millions of shillings in court cases when their vessels kill people; more so due to the fault of crew members (Dhillon, 2007). Further, vessels involved in accidents have to be repaired and this often costs the companies a lot. The worst could also happen when vessels sink and there is no way of recovering them. The cost of replacing vessels is exorbitant and is likely to affect a shipping company to a large extent. Effective communication between members of the crew can eradicate all these problems and thus increase a company’s productivity. Reducing communication errors is essential in enhancing comfort of the passengers as well as the crew. Passengers are likely to enjoy the services of a marine company if their travel is hassle free and if they do not encounter uncertainties on the way. It is unfortunate when errors in communication lead to technical hitches and unavoidable discomforts resulting from delayed vessels, unwarranted movements within the vessel and the danger of taking wrong directions. By addressing communication errors, a shipping company can easily avoid such discomforts and therefore attract repeat customers in future. The consequences of miscommunication can be easily ascertained by the serious accidents that occur due to communication errors. Accordingly, enhancing safety ought to be one of the major goals for a shipping company. This is because failure to do so could result in the loss of life, damage of property and severe losses to the company. Such losses could also jeopardise a company’s position in the market such that customers may tend to move to competitors if a company’s vessels are constantly involved in accidents (Dhillon, 2007). The need for proper communication among crew members can be explained in two ways. To begin with, members of the crew must be able to communicate easily with each other in order to enhance safety. This is in regard to giving instructions within the vessel and in the ability to communicate with people on the ground. Miscommunication could lead to panics and serious accidents as incorrect commands are executed; thus compromising the safety of lives and goods. The second concept has to do with enhancing the safety of passengers within the vessel. This insinuates a company needs to ensure that crew members in the customer care department can be able to communicate with the passengers easily (Fotland, 2001). This way, effective communication can save many lives in times of danger. Human Communicative Error in Relation to Various Issues Human Physiology & Anthropometry Consequent studies ascertain that there is a relationship between behaviour and human biology. Consequently, people tend to base their relationships and interactions with how others look like (Thorndike, 2009). This highly affects attitude which in turn affects the ability of two people to communicate. This is mostly exhibited in the form of discrimination where a certain group of people tends to be ignored because of their physical appearance such as skin colour, size and height. For example, certain people are likely to discriminate short people such that they may not consider their contributions valuable. Such attitudes could lead to communication errors since important information could be overlooked. On the other hand, people with certain characteristics tend to command more respect among their peers such that misinformation by these people could be considered true; only to turn out dangerous once they implemented. Information Processing & Cognition Communication is highly correlated to information processing and cognition. This is because an individual relies on available information to perform various actions and to make important decisions (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2004). As a result, errors in communication could lead to dire consequences such as confusion, wrong decision making, poor coordination, accidents and pollution in the course of navigation. Information processing and cognition may be affected by a conveyed message either because of the manner in which it is communicated or by the attitude of the recipient. Different individuals portray different cognition abilities such that information is likely to be distorted when it is passed on from one person to another. Koester (2003) notes that it is very common to find that the intended person receives the wrong information due to different meanings and interpretations by different people along the communication line. Consequently, errors could occur when such information is used in executing a process or decision. Information processing and cognition are largely affected by attitude. This happens where individuals have negative attitudes towards other people or when information is not received positively. Wrong attitudes resulting from extreme superiority and controlling nature of the management for example could result in poor communication thus endangering lives (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2004). Employees could develop attitudes of fear, suspicion and distrust such that freedom of expression could result. It is therefore essential for the management to ensure that healthy employee relations are maintained. Occupational stressors The effects of occupational stressors are not only dangerous to individual employees but they also pose a serious threat to the organization. How then does this relate to Human Communicative Error? The mental state of an individual determines their behaviour to a large extent such that a person who is psychologically disturbed is likely to have difficulties in promoting effective communication (Pillay & Wang, 2003). Distractive thoughts resulting from work stress could lead to loss of concentration and subsequent confusion which in turn affects an individual’s ability to communicate effectively. Besides this, it is notable that a stressed individual may not pay maximum attention to what is being communicated to him or her. It is therefore likely for that person to execute an action wrongly due to improper cognition. Notably, communication errors are bound to cause damage. This could easily lead to feelings of guilt among employees such that they may lose confidence in their work (Weintrit, 2009). The fact that disciplinary measures could be taken may further alleviate stress levels among members of staff. Another way in which communication errors could lead to occupational stress is in circumstances where proper communication channels do not exist between employees and their bosses. As a result, they are employees are likely to shy away from expressing their ideas and making important decisions due to the fear of intimidation. Change, Leadership and Culture Effective communication plays a vital role in implementing change within any organization. Accordingly, there should be workable avenues to transmit information on the change, new expectations for employees and any new procedures that are likely to be employed during the change process (Holbeche, 2006). The effectiveness of change greatly relies on the organization’s leadership and the ability of managers to work with their juniors in the change implementation. The relevance of communication in leadership cannot be underestimated. Communication errors between leaders and their subjects could highly endanger the productivity of a company. Firstly, leaders should strive to eliminate negative attitudes among employees so as to ensure a smooth flow of information. As noted by Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee (2004), involving employees in decision making and allowing them to air their views could play a significant role in reducing communication barriers between them and their leaders. Secondly, there must be clear lines of communication so that junior employees do not fear to convey important information to their seniors or to act on their own accord such that the absence of their seniors could affect their overall performance. Culture has a great role to play in communication and care must be taken to ensure that miscommunication does not occur. The risk of miscommunication where different cultures are involved can be explained by the differences in language, perceptions and cultural beliefs; which are likely to affect the manner in which people communicate (Koester, 2003). Human Communicative Errors could be related to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in order to understand why a multi-cultured crew may experience difficulties in communication. Power distance: This represents the distance between a leader and the followers. In countries where high power distance exists, employees are more likely to get be afraid of disagreeing with their seniors (Koester, 2003). As a result, such employees may not give their opinions freely and they are more likely to wait for their bosses to give all the instructions. On the other hand, low power distance is effective in creating self-directed teams since employees are likely to feel more empowered. It is therefore difficult for crew members from different cultures to coordinate effectively. Individualism: Persons from individualist cultures tend to act in accordance to their self interests such that the employer’s interest must coincide with individual interest for them to work effectively. This is a great hindrance to effective communication and is likely to jeopardise the safety of a vessel unlike where low individualism is dominant. Furthermore, individual needs are often overcome by teamwork where low individualism exists. Uncertainty avoidance: Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee (2004) note that low uncertainty avoidance is necessary in creating self-direction and high participation levels. High uncertainty avoidance on the other is likely to limit team members from taking necessary decisions. It is important to note that in a vessel, a great deal of important decisions must be made. Such decisions must then be communicated to other members of the crew so as to ensure the safety of a vessel. It therefore becomes a challenge when team members have uncertainty avoidance such that they may fail to communicate their ideas due to the fear of consequences of their decisions. Human error Nature dictates that human beings are not perfect and that they are capable of making mistakes every now and then; either knowingly or unknowingly. Relaying incorrect information is therefore a common occurrence in everyday human endeavours. Furthermore, human error contributes to a higher percentage of accidents than equipment problems in the maritime domain. It is therefore important for human errors such as communication errors to be mitigated in order to avoid loss of lives and goods. Recommended interventions Training on Standard Marine Communication Phrases (SMCP) Safety in the maritime domain can be enhanced if proper measures are taken to reduce Human Communicative Error. In doing this, we must consider that multi-lingual and multi-cultural crews are constantly on the rise. This is a concept that has led to a raging debate as to whether multi-cultured crews should be avoided in order to reduce the number of marine accidents (Grech, Horberry & Koester, 2008; Weintrit, 2009). It would however be unrealistic to try and separate crew members from different origins in a bid to reduce communication errors. The most effective intervention therefore would be to make use of Standard Marine Communication Phrases (SMCP) in order to enhance communication between crew members. Koester and Pyne (2005), notes that if crew members are well conversant with SMCP, they are less likely to make mistakes from miscommunication; which in turn reduces risks. Training is highly recommended in ensuring that all crew members are conversant with SMCP. Further, refresher courses regarding the same need to be carried out so as to keep crew members updated. Improving employee relations Employee relations within an organization play a significant role in enhancing communication. Further, team work is very important in the maritime domain. This insinuates that by cultivating healthy employee relationships, the management can be assured of minimal communication errors since all crew members would be in good terms. As noted earlier, factors such as power distance and attitude highly affect how information is relayed and acted upon. It is therefore advisable for the management to ensure that power distance is reduced and that there is a clear communication path between employees and their bosses. This would enhance their relations such that employees feel free to give their views and make decisions that could be vital to the safety of a vessel. Accordingly, communication errors would be greatly reduced thus mitigating the risk of resulting accidents. Dealing with occupational stressors Occupational stressors are highly responsible for human communicative error. This is because stressed individuals are likely to make mistakes resulting from poor concentration and negative attitudes (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2004). It is highly recommendable for the management to deal with occupational stress that may exist within their organizations. Occupational stressors can be handled from two perspectives. The first one entails focusing on individuals who are affected by stress and striving to support and advice them. This can be done through involving counsellors or using colleagues to guide one another. The other approach involves risk assessment of potential stressors and taking precautionary measures to reduce these stressors (Holbeche, 2006). Stress factors such as work overload, hostility from colleagues and bosses, poor remuneration and general work dissatisfaction should be addressed appropriately so as to enhance communication among crew members. In order to do this, the management can conduct employee surveys in order to determine the major causes of dissatisfaction and stress among crew members. The problem of work overload for example could be solved through employing more people up to a reasonable level. Allowing members of the crew to take time off after tiring journeys could also help in easing the pressure. Similarly, the management could come up with a reasonable remuneration structure in order to ensure that employees are satisfied. It is also important to create a comfortable working environment through encouraging free interaction between employees and their bosses. This way, communication could be enhanced thus reducing potential accidents. Challenges in implementing the intervention Huge financial outlays Implementing a project often necessitates huge financial outlays due to the resources required. In the case of training crew members, the company would need to hire trainers, pay rent for training venues, buy stationery and provide other requirements for the training process. Consequently, this could lead to delays in the implementation since the management would need to budget for the intervention program. Further, it is likely to affect the company’s profitability through increasing expenses; such that the management may be reluctant to implement the program. Crew availability It is observable that crew members may not have regular hours to dedicate to training. This mostly has to do with the long journeys that marine vessels undertake such that getting flexible hours for training may prove difficult for the management. Such timings could also mean that the training period is prolonged over a long time so as to cover all crew members. The challenge of crew availability therefore may highly thwart the management’s ability to implement a workable intervention. Individuality in occupational stressors Addressing occupational stressors in a group setting could prove difficult; such that this problem may not be completely eradicated. The reason for this is because individuals vary in their response to various outside factors and what affects one person may not particularly apply to the other (Thorndike, 2009). Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee (2004), note that people have different vulnerability levels and preferences. He gives an example where a keen employee may find his job interesting because he is likely to learn faster while another person may find the job stressing due to his inability to master new skills easily. Finding a common problem among employees is therefore challenging; such that the management may not succeed in solving all the stress factors at work. Conclusion This report clearly brings out the importance of eliminating human communicative errors and why failure to do so could jeopardise a company’s productivity and credibility. Miscommunication emerges as common human error which is bound to cause serious accidents if it is not addressed effectively. As noted earlier, the lives of people and the safety of goods within a vessel rely heavily on proper coordination between crew members; both inside the vessel and on the ground. The management must therefore make elimination of communication errors a priority so as to reduce risks, increase productivity, safety and comfort. This can be done through teaching common language to crew members, eliminating occupational stressors and attitudes and improving employee relations such that there is a smooth flow of communication. References Dhillon, BS 2007, Human Reliability and Error in Transportation Systems, McGrawHill, New York. Fotland, H 2001, A fragile chain of contributing elements, International maritime Human Element Bulletin, Vol 3, Issue no. 1, pp 3-4. Goleman, G, Boyatzis, RE & McKee, A 2004, Primal leadership: learning to lead with emotional intelligence, Massachusetts, Harvard Business Press, Boston. Grech, MR, Horberry, T & Koester, T 2008, Human Factors in the Maritime Domain, CRC Press, Florida. Holbeche, L, Understanding change: theory, implementation and success, Oxford, UK, 2006. Koester, T, Human factors and everyday routine in the maritime work domain, Denmark, Danish Maritime Institute, 2003. Available online at >citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.91.2739&rep=rep1&type=pdf Koester, T & Pyne, R, Methods and Means for Analysis of Crew Communication in the Maritime Domain, The Archives of Transport, Vol. XVII, No 3-4, 2005 Available online at http://www.he-alert.org/documents/published/he00640.pdf Pillay, A & Wang, J, Technology and safety of marine systems, Rio de Janeiro, Elsevier, 2003 Rothblum, AM, Human Error and Maritime Safety, Maryland, USA: U.S. Coast Guard Research & Development Center, 2000. Available online at > www.geovs.com/_UPLOADED/Human Error and Marine Safety.pdf Butterworth-Heinemann, 2006. Thorndike, EL, Individuality, Charleston, SC, BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009. Weintrit, A 2009, Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, Taylor & Francis, London. Read More