Screening the Master to Ensure Adequate Qualification for Command - Term Paper Example

Screening the Master to Ensure Adequate Qualification for Command Student’s Name Institution Tutor’s Name Course Date Screening the Master to Ensure Adequate Qualification for Command Introduction The main purpose of screening masters is to ensure that the masters are properly qualified for command of the vessel and the crew in it as required by paragraph 6.1.1 of the International Safety Management (ISM) code. A master, according to the ISM Code, has crucial duties and responsibilities to undertake to ensure the security and safety of the ship he is assigned to take care of (Cartner & Fiske 2009, p. 172). It follows that a less qualified shipmaster can easily make mistakes that can cause accidents and tragedies, including damages to property as well as the environment, and even loss of lives (Cristina & Gheorghe 2009, p. 397). This paper proposes the use of simulation-based assessment, psychological test, peer-group exercise, interview, and competency test, for use by crew managers to screen the masters for effective leadership and managerial abilities needed for proper command and monitoring of the vessel and the crew in it. A Brief Overview of Master’s Functions A master is a mariner, who is licensed and authorized to command a ship or any other sea vessel. Consequently, the master is responsible for ensuring the safety of the ship and any other thing that is carried in it. The master is also responsible for efficient cargo operation, management of the crew and navigation (Iordanoaia 2010, p. 140). He, in addition in accordance with the provision of ISM Paragraph 6.1.1, should ensure that the ship complies with the safety standards outlined in the international law and the flag state policies. The ISM code states that all the persons on board, including the crew and staff members, are under the master’s authority and it is his ultimate responsibility to ensure that they are safe (Cristina & Gheorghe 2009, p. 396). A master is a commander as well as a manager when the ship is in transit. He commands and gives directions to all the other personnel in a ship. He also oversees other activities, including the ship’s inventories, payrolls, and accounting procedures. He ensures that the ship and the crew comply with all the relevant custom and immigration regulations (Iordanoaia 2010, p. 141). Screening the Master The most effective assessment tools that can be used by crew managers to evaluate the ability of shipmasters to effectively command the crew and other staff that they are assigned to work with include: simulation-based assessment, psychological test, peer-group exercise, interviews, and competency tests. The master needs to possess generic competencies and managerial and leadership qualities to be able to successfully carry out his duties as a commander (Cartner & Fiske 2009, p. 173). The proposed screening devices are mainly used to measure the leadership and managerial qualities of the masters. The screening devices are considered very important tools for crew managers when sourcing for the best masters to command their vessels and crews when on-board (MPA 2005, p. 1). 1. Simulation-Based Assessment This is one of the most effective assessment methods that a crew manager can use to screen the master to ensure that he is adequately fit for command. It involves the use of a full-mission ship handling (FMSS) done physically on those who would want to be shipmasters. The crew manager needs to set the FMSS using all the facilities that are required on board. For conclusive results, a modern ship’s bridge is recommended for use in this assessment practice. The candidate who wants to be considered for the position of a master assumes the role of the shipmaster in the assessment exercise. In the exercise, the ship is supposed to be subjected to a number of tricky situations with a variety of emergencies. The candidate is supposed to take command of the ship and ensure that he contains the situation before it gets out of hand (MPA 2005, p. 2). 2. Psychological Test The psychological assessment tool is the second screening device that a crew manager needs to use to check whether a master is suitable for command. In this kind of assessment, the candidate is issued with a psychometric questionnaire in which he is supposed to provide information relating to his leadership style, personality, stress coping ability, and managerial skills (MPA 2005, p. 1). To ensure that the information provided in the questionnaire is genuine and valid, the psychological assessment is followed by a one-to-one psychological interview. The interview is meant to help the crew manager gain an in-depth understanding of the psychological features of the person applying to be the shipmaster. The results from the psychological assessment and the one-to-one interview are combined to make an elaborate psychological evaluation of the candidate (MPA 2005, p. 1). 3. Peer Group Exercise This assessment exercise is meant to assist the crew manager to check whether the master has adequate ability to work collaboratively with the crew he is assigned. The exercise requires that the candidate be presented with a challenging situation in which he is supposed to work together with other people to solve it. In this exercise, a time limit is set as the candidate is supposed to demonstrate his ability to work with a group of people to solve the challenging task within the shortest time possible (MPA 2005, p. 2). The peer group program is also meant to enable the crew manager to assess the abilities of the master inside and outside the ship environment. The master is expected to give orders to his crew and other staff members to keep the emergency or the challenging situation, under control. This majorly depends on his ability to effectively guide the members of his team. Consequently, the master should demonstrate smart behavioral patterns that would make every member of his team respect him and have confidence in him (Cartner & Fiske 2009, p. 173). 4. Written/Oral Interview This assessment exercise assists the crew managers to evaluate a candidate who wants to be considered for the master’s position, based on his ability to study, evaluate and pass judgment regarding a particular scenario. The assessment requires that a candidate be presented with information regarding a particular problem that is often experienced when people are onboard a ship. The candidate is supposed to study the information carefully and then make a judgment on how he could go about solving it. The judgment should not only be rational but also provide the best solution to the problem (MPA 2005, p. 2). 5. Competencies Test The last screening device is the competencies assessment, which allows the crew manager to evaluate the candidature of the master’s position based on the applicant’s decision-making and culture-building skills, and one’s ability to control their emotions (House & Saeed 2012, p. 124). The assessment is in form of a questionnaire designed with questions that address the candidate’s culture-building and decision-making abilities and skills to control emotional situations. The candidate may also be subjected to direct observation, while handling a challenging situation, to confirm if he possesses the desired skills (MPA 2005, p. 3). Monitoring the Effectiveness of the Proposed Screening Devices The proposed screening devices are effective in determining whether a master is fit enough to command the crew assigned to him. The programs contain multiple assessment techniques that enable a crew manager to effectively determine the suitability of a master. The screening programs are some of the most effective criteria for evaluating masters as they assess the fundamental leadership competencies, which are considered essential for a master. The programs are also standardized, realistic, and objective as it is based on real life challenging situations that a master would be required to handle onboard (Iordanoaia 2010, p. 135). There are mechanisms that can be put in place to help a crew manager to measure the effectiveness of each of the proposed screening devices. The effectiveness of the simulation-based exercise, which is meant to assist the manager to evaluate the master based on what he does, can be reinforced through the use of computer enhanced mannequins (CEMs). CEMs are efficient in assessing decision-making skills, one’s ability to work in a team, and one’s ability to command and issue guidance (House & Saeed 2012, p. 127). The effectiveness of the second screening device, the psychological assessment tool, which is designed for evaluating a master based on his leadership style, personality and ability to cope with stress, can be enhanced by hiring a qualified practicing psychologist to administer the test. The qualified psychologist is able to adequately monitor and evaluate the master based on his aptitudes and soft skills. The psychologist is then expected to use the findings to design and issue the manager with a valid psychological profile of the candidate (House & Saeed 2012, p. 174). The effectiveness of the third screening device, the peer group exercise, which is meant to test the ability of the master to work productively in a team, can be monitored by designing the exercise with the most challenging tasks that occur on board and then checking how he goes about solving the problem. For instance, the candidate for the position of master can be subjected to a very challenging task such as what he would do if the ship develops a serious mechanical breakdown (Cartner & Fiske 2009, p. 174). The last screening device, which consists of a written/oral interview, can be enhanced by presenting to the candidate a very challenging problem that a ship can encounter onboard in writing. If the candidate provides an effective written solution to the problem, then he may be considered properly qualified for the master position (House & Saeed 2012, p. 133). Screening the Master in Other Areas Apart from the aspect of command and leadership skills, the master should also be screened on his abilities and skills to handle other issues, such as communications errors, complaints from third parties, claims, and crew complaints. The master should be able to effectively deal with these issues whenever they crop up when the ship is on-board. The most effective way of screening the master on his ability to handle these issues is to design a real life scenario with these problems to see how the candidate handles them. The crew manager should be available during this test to see how the master handles the issues and to determine whether the latter has adequate abilities as per the company’s standards. Conclusion This paper proposes the use of simulation-based assessment, psychological test, peer-group exercise, interviews, and competency tests as the most effective screening procedures that a crew manager can use to check whether the master is properly qualified for command of the vessel and the crew in it. The master plays a crucial role in the ship when onboard and as a result, he should be able to command and guide his crew to prevent occurrences such as undesirable incidents, accidents and tragedies that can be easily avoided. The screening devices, which include a simulation-based assessment, a psychological test, a written/oral interview, and a peer group exercise, can effectively assess the master’s leadership and managerial skills that are required for successful command of a vessel. References Cartner, J & Fiske, RP 2009, The international law of the shipmaster, MPG Books, London, pp. 172, 173 and 174. Cristina, N & Gheorghe, S 2009, ‘Maritime human resources competitiveness through proper implementation of safety management’, Annals of Economics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 396-400. House, D & Saeed, F 2012, The seamanship examiner, Routledege, New York, NY, pp. 124, 127, 174, 233. Iordanoaia, F 2010, ‘Master of the ship, manager, and instructor’, Management and Marketing-Craiova, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 133-155, (135, 140, 141, 148). Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) 2005, Command and assessment program (CAP) to enhance the selection of shipmasters, MPA, Busan, viewed 12 April 2013, , pp. 1-3. Read More