culture clashes on board the mv sten bergenmaritimesymposium-rotterdam.nl/uploads/route/culture...

33
Rotterdam Mainport University of Applied Sciences, bachelor of Maritime Operations Culture clashes on board the MV Sten Bergen STUDENTS Jasper Claerhoudt Martijn Huijgens Koen van de Langenberg Chris van der Plas Frank Poelstra Mario Rodrigues Jorge Mr. van Kluijven Research guidance 2016-2017 Rotterdam

Upload: hatuong

Post on 27-Jul-2018

220 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Rotterdam Mainport University of Applied Sciences, bachelor of

Maritime Operations

Culture clashes on board the

MV Sten Bergen

STUDENTS Jasper Claerhoudt Martijn Huijgens Koen van de Langenberg Chris van der Plas Frank Poelstra Mario Rodrigues Jorge Mr. van Kluijven Research guidance 2016-2017 Rotterdam

Research - Culture clashes

1 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

Management summary The objective of this research is to prevent culture clashes on board, by means of supplementary guidelines for the company’s Safety Management System, so that the safety and efficiency on board will be improved. This is managed by answering the main question ‘How can culture clashes on board be prevented?’ The report is built up by sub questions based on four dimensions of Hofstede: masculinity, individualism, power distance and uncertainty avoidance. The following conclusions have been made:

i. Legislation has to be taken into account. Not all nationalities are recognised as merchant

officers.

ii. Too many nationalities are on board MV Sten Bergen.

iii. The dimensions’ power distance, uncertainty avoidance and individualism have a major

influence on the working environment on board. Masculinity has a minor influence.

iv. The survey is not valid to use, due to lack of response.

The following recommendations came out:

i. Minimize the number of nationalities on board.

ii. Combine nationalities which get along.

iii. Politics and religion should be considered.

iv. An extended survey should be carried out.

Research - Culture clashes

2 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

Preface Rotterdam Mainport University (RMU) offers four different maritime related studies. One of those studies is bachelor of maritime operations. For this study, RMU initiated several projects throughout the year for first year students. A part of the second project is a research. The class is divided in two groups, based on their ambitions. Both groups have to conduct a different research. This research will answer the main question; How can culture clashes on board be prevented? Mrs. Van der Drift, lecturer on RMU, is the expert and assignor of this research. Our project group consists of six individuals who aspire a nautical future. Some of us have sailed as a cadet and some already as a merchant officer. Mr. van Kluijven, lecturer on RMU, is coached our group. Initially, our plan of approach introduced 6 sub-questions. The last sub-question though, is considered redundant and is processed within the conclusion. The other five sub-questions are divided over pairs within the group; Koen and Chris answered sub-question 1, 2 and 3, Mario and Frank answered sub-question 4 and 5, Jasper and Martijn completed the report including conclusions, recommendation and editing. As a check on our desk research, we initiated an online survey. However, the survey was mainly filled out by Dutch people and is not valid to use. Due to lack of time, the survey could not be extended. The results are attached to the report, but are not considered in the conclusion. Rotterdam, 25-01-2017 Martijn Huijgens Jasper Claerhoudt Koen van de Langenberg Chris van der Plas Frank Poelstra Mario Rodrigues Jorge

Research - Culture clashes

3 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

Table of contents

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 5

1.2 Problem description ................................................................................................................ 5

1.3 Problem definition ................................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Objective.................................................................................................................................. 5

1.5 Main question.......................................................................................................................... 5

1.5.1 Sub questions .................................................................................................................. 6

1.5.2 Borders ............................................................................................................................ 6

1.6 Research methods ................................................................................................................... 6

1.7 Composition ............................................................................................................................ 7

2 Legislation ........................................................................................................................................ 8

2.1 Shipmaster ............................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Officers .................................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Summary and conclusion ...................................................................................................... 10

3 Masculinity versus femininity ........................................................................................................ 11

3.1 Masculinity ............................................................................................................................ 11

3.2 Femininity .............................................................................................................................. 11

3.3 Nationality comparison ......................................................................................................... 12

3.4 Summary and conclusion ...................................................................................................... 14

4 Individualism versus collectivism .................................................................................................. 15

4.1 Individualism ......................................................................................................................... 15

4.2 Collectivism ........................................................................................................................... 15

4.3 Nationality comparison ......................................................................................................... 16

4.3.1 The Netherlands ............................................................................................................ 16

4.3.2 Oman ............................................................................................................................. 16

4.3.3 Ukraine .......................................................................................................................... 16

4.3.4 Russia ............................................................................................................................. 16

4.3.5 Indonesia ....................................................................................................................... 17

4.4 Summary and conclusion ...................................................................................................... 18

5 Uncertainty avoidance .................................................................................................................. 19

5.1 Uncertainty avoidance .......................................................................................................... 19

5.1.1 Strong uncertainty avoidance profile ............................................................................ 20

5.1.2 Profile uncertainty tolerance......................................................................................... 20

Research - Culture clashes

4 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

5.2 The uncertainty avoidance index .......................................................................................... 21

5.2.1 The Netherlands ............................................................................................................ 21

5.2.2 Philippines ..................................................................................................................... 21

5.2.3 Russia and Ukraine ........................................................................................................ 21

5.2.4 Indonesia ....................................................................................................................... 22

5.2.5 Oman ............................................................................................................................. 22

5.3 Summary and conclusion ...................................................................................................... 23

6 Power distance index .................................................................................................................... 24

6.1 Power distance index ............................................................................................................ 24

6.1.1 The Netherlands ............................................................................................................ 24

6.1.2 Philippines ..................................................................................................................... 24

6.1.3 Russia and Ukraine ........................................................................................................ 24

6.1.5 Indonesia ....................................................................................................................... 25

6.1.6 Oman ............................................................................................................................. 25

6.2 Profiles ................................................................................................................................... 26

6.2.1 High power distance profile .......................................................................................... 26

6.2.2 Low power distance profile ........................................................................................... 26

6.3 Summary and conclusion ...................................................................................................... 27

7 Summary and conclusion .............................................................................................................. 28

7.1 Research ................................................................................................................................ 28

7.1.1 Legislation ...................................................................................................................... 28

7.1.2 Nationalities .................................................................................................................. 28

7.2 Survey .................................................................................................................................... 28

8 Recommendations......................................................................................................................... 29

8.1 Nationalities on board ........................................................................................................... 29

8.1.1 Russia and Ukraine ........................................................................................................ 29

8.1.2 Dutch officers ................................................................................................................ 29

8.2 Further research .................................................................................................................... 29

8.2.1 Survey ............................................................................................................................ 29

8.2.2 Politics and religion ....................................................................................................... 29

9 Literature ....................................................................................................................................... 30

10 Attachments .............................................................................................................................. 31

11 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ 32

Research - Culture clashes

5 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

1 Introduction

1.1 Background Rotterdam Mainport University (RMU) offers four different maritime related studies. One of those studies is bachelor of maritime operations. For this study, RMU initiated several projects throughout the year for first year students. A part of the second project is a research. The class is divided in two groups, based on their ambitions. Both groups have to conduct a different research. This research will answer the main question; “How can culture clashes on board be prevented? Mrs. Van der Drift, lecturer on RMU, is the expert and assignor of this research. This group of students consists of six individuals who aspire a nautical future. Some of them have sailed as a cadet and some already as a merchant officer. Mr. van Kluijven, lecturer on RMU, is coaching this project group.

1.2 Problem description MV Sten Bergen has a mixed crew of different nationalities; Filipinos, Russians, Ukrainian, Dutch, Omani and Indonesian. Al those nationalities come with different cultures. Consequently, a culture clash occurred on board MV Sten Bergen during one of her voyages. Subsequently, an unsafe situation found place. As mentioned before, different nationalities come with different cultures. Different religions, ethics, ideology, languages may result in irritation, disagreements, insults, misunderstandings and eventually in clashes. The company wants to prevent such situations in the future in order to create a safe working environment.

1.3 Problem definition Culture clashes, and thereby unsafe situations, occur on board.

1.4 Objective Prevent culture clashes on board, by means of supplementary guidelines for the company’s Safety Management System, so that the safety and efficiency on board will be improved.

1.5 Main question How can culture clashes on board be prevented?

Research - Culture clashes

6 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

1.5.1 Sub questions

1. What legislation exists for this issue?

2. How does masculinity and femininity go together?

3. How does individualism go together with collectivism?

4. In what level does uncertainty avoidance occur on board?

5. How does hierarchy influence cooperation on board? (Power Distance)

6. What is the influence of different nationalities on board?

Sub question 6 is considered redundant.

1.5.2 Borders

i. Religions will not be researched, since contracts are based on nationalities.

ii. Politics will not be researched. There are too many tendencies within politics. Besides that,

politic situation will alter continuously. Therefore, politics are too comprehensive for this

research.

iii. Finances will not be beard in mind during the research. A conclusion and recommendation

will be made, however it’s up to the company whether to adopt or not.

iv. The fifth dimension of Hofstede is assumed not to be of importance.

1.6 Research methods The research – and thereby the sub-questions – is mainly based on the dimensions of Hofstede.

1. What legislation exists for this issue?

i. Qualitative desk research by means of literature.

2. How does masculinity and femininity go together?

i. Qualitative desk research by means of literature.

ii. Quantitative field research by means of an online survey.

3. How does individualism go together with collectivism?

i. Qualitative desk research by means of literature.

ii. Quantitative field research by means of an online survey.

4. In what level does uncertainty avoidance occur on board?

i. Qualitative desk research by means of literature.

ii. Quantitative field research by means of an online survey.

5. How does hierarchy influence cooperation on board? (Power Distance)

i. Qualitative desk research by means of literature.

ii. Quantitative field research by means of an online survey.

6. What is the influence of different nationalities on board?

i. Qualitative field research by means of an interview.

ii. Quantitative field research by means of an online survey.

Sub question 6 is considered redundant.

Research - Culture clashes

7 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

1.7 Composition This research is based on four dimensions of Hofstede: power distance, individualism, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance. The fifth dimension of Hofstede – long term orientation – is considered not to be of importance in culture clashes on board. Therefore, the fifth dimension is not taken into account. The first sub question gives an overview of all legislation existing on crewing. The second and third sub question give answers on how masculinity and femininity, and individualism and collectivism go together on board. Stereotypes are described in terms of nationalities. In this chapters, literature is consulted to make hypotheses. The suppositions are compared with the results of an online survey. The fourth sub question describes the occurrence of uncertainty avoidance on board and whether it influences the working environment. Stereotypes are described in terms of nationalities. Literature and the online survey are consulted to make a hypothesis. The fifth sub question describes hierarchy and its influence on board. Is hierarchy a positive of negative factor in terms of culture clashes? Stereotypes are described in terms of nationalities. Again, in this chapter, the survey is used to check the hypothesis made. The final sub question, describes what nationalities could be a good combination on board or not. Information from the previous chapters is gathered and used to make a hypothesis. The online survey is used once more to check this hypothesis. Finally, a conclusion is made and an advisory guideline is made for the crewing department. The guideline shows what nationalities could be a good combination or not.

Research - Culture clashes

8 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

2 Legislation This chapter gives an overview of legislation existing on crewing and nationalities.

2.1 Shipmaster MV Sten bergen operates under Dutch flag, thus Dutch law. The Dutch law prescribes that ship owners can be granted exemption from the obligation to assign a Dutch captain on board ship for a certain period of time. But only if the ship’s manager is able to demonstrate that no Dutch master could be found. Existing legislation states that not all nationalities can be captain on board a Dutch vessel. According the Legal Handbook of Shipmasters, there are three shipmaster possibilities on board:

i. Shipmasters with a nationality of the Netherlands; ii. Shipmasters from EU member states;

iii. Shipmasters with a nation who has an agreement with the Netherlands. For a shipmaster, there exist two exemptions from the requirements of having a Dutch nationality. An exemptions can be granted to a shipmaster, with a nationality other than the above mentioned, when:

i. The approval procedure is completed and approved. ii. The certificate of the shipmaster has been approved.

If an exemption is granted, a document of approval has to be kept on board with the crew list. If this document is invalid, it is restricted to have a foreign shipmaster on a Dutch vessel. (Kruit, 2013)

Research - Culture clashes

9 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

2.2 Officers The regular demand for officers at the Dutch fleet, cannot be satisfied with merely Dutch officers.

Because of the increasing demand for merchant officers, the Dutch ship owners are forced to hire

foreign officers for their ships. (De Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2002)

Therefore, the Netherlands recognises certificates of competence of a number of countries. Those

countries are:

i. Bulgaria

ii. Estonia

iii. Latvia

iv. Lithuania

v. Poland

vi. Romania

vii. Australia

viii. Canada

ix. China

x. Hong Kong

xi. Indonesia

xii. India

xiii. New Zealand

xiv. Ukraine

xv. Pakistan

xvi. Russian Federation

xvii. Singapore

xviii. Vietnam

xix. South Africa

xx. Philippines

xxi. Netherlands Antilles and Aruba

Research - Culture clashes

10 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

2.2 Summary and conclusion The ship owner is responsible for manning her vessels. Yet they have to comply with the Dutch legislation as described in the paragraphs above, which means that not all certificates of competence of all nationalities are recognised, however there is a big number of nationalities who are recognised as shipmasters or merchant officers. One of the advantages is that the ship managers can take more flexibility in the composition of the crew. The risk of social isolation, where officers can get into when they are on board between only foreign seafarers, with different mother tongue and cultural background, can thus be prevented. (De Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2002)

Research - Culture clashes

11 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

3 Masculinity versus femininity This chapter gives answers on how masculinity and femininity go together on board. Stereotypes are described in terms of nationalities. Literature is consulted to make hypothesises.

3.1 Masculinity Masculinity is a dimension that represents an organized society. This society will be driven by achievement, competition and success. Success in particular can be defined as the winner over all. People in this society are competitive, they are rivals. The quality of life is less important when standing above all other people. From school where it all starts it is admirable to keep on achieving success. Men are supposed to be focused on the material success, and women need to be more tender and keep the quality of life in mind. (Hofstede, Culture consequences, 2001) Key features within masculinity:

i. Religion a. One of the most important subjects in life; b. No exception, women cannot be priests.

ii. Work a. Men should do the work in this society; b. Earn as much money as possible.

iii. Family a. There must be a strict family structure; b. Failure is not an option.

iv. Social norms a. Work, work, and more work to earn a rated spot; b. Egocentric, as long as everything go well for yourself.

3.2 Femininity Femininity is the opposite of masculinity. In this society, it is important to keep everything in a certain balance. A dominant value is caring for other people. A sign of success is the quality of life, where everybody is involved with cooperation. Both genders, men and women are supposed to be tender and keep the quality of life in mind. (Hofstede, Culture consequences, 2001) Key features within femininity:

i. Religion a. Not very important; b. Men and even women are allowed to be priests.

ii. Work a. Men and women can work, equally divided; b. Less working hours is preferable.

iii. Family a. The family structure can be very flexible; b. Fall and rise, again and again until it becomes better.

iv. Social norms a. Quality of life is very important; b. Good relationships required.

Research - Culture clashes

12 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

3.3 Nationality comparison Every nation has its own norms and values. Due to this fact, not every nation has similar thoughts about masculinity versus femininity. Disagreement and dissidence can occur on board. Judgements to other nationalities are made easily on board when this difference is not taken into account. In order to find the dissimilarity in nationalities with its cultures Mr. G. Hofstede did a research to find out the height of value what is given to masculinity. A high percentage illustrates a nation with a high value for masculinity. A low percentage in the results concludes a nation prefers to be more on the side of femininity. The Netherlands has a feminine society. This is concluded with the comparison of the six nations as shown in the table. Masculinity scores very low, which means feminism is more important here. Dutch people are people that discuss and negotiate to reach their goals. A manager is successful when decisions are made including involvement of his employees. Solidarity and equality are important in the life of the workers. The Dutch society attaches more value to the quality of life instead of working all day and being egocentric. (Hofstede, Geert-Hofstede's dimensions) After the Netherlands, Ukraine is the second nation that scores low on masculinity. This nation is, like the Netherlands, more a nation that desires the quality of life. Standing out above other people is not desirable. It is accepted when a boss has a position with influence and a dominant behaviour, but this is not accepted among colleagues.

(Hofstede, Itim International Comparison Tool)

Russia as third also scores low at the value of masculinity. This is remarkable, because Russian people have a slight preference to status. The reason Russia scores low on the value of masculinity is because it attaches great importance to other dimensions like Power Distance. There hasn’t been a study on Oman’s culture with its dimensions. According Hofstede Oman is comparable with other Arabian nations. No values are found for the dimension masculinity versus femininity. However, the Arabian countries are found with a high on masculinity. This was found in an article what refers to the book of G. Hofstede. Due to this Oman, will be compared using an average of the Arabian nations what results in a value of 48% masculinity. (Shanfari, 2012)

14

64

36

46

27

48

N E T H E R L A N D S P H I L I P P I N E S R U S S I A I N D O N E S I A U K R A I N E O M A N

MASCULINITY

Percentage (%)

Research - Culture clashes

13 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

Indonesia, like Oman, is a nation that has a combined society. Still it is less feministic than other

Asian nations like Japan and China. Success and status is important, but it is not the only thing what

keeps the society motivated. The Indonesian people are also seen as people with other outward

appearances.

The Philippines scores the highest at masculinity. Philippine people ‘live to work’. Religion is one of the most important things there is for the society, and failure is not excepted. If it is possible they like to stand above all others with a dominant behaviour. In their eyes achievement and success are the best gained results. The results of the masculinity versus feminism are developed in a table on the next page according the comparative dimensions with the corresponding nation. (Hofstede, Itim International Comparison Tool)

Research - Culture clashes

14 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

3.4 Summary and conclusion Masculinity stands for status. Femininity stands for the quality of life. Both are important but the question is which motivates people. If a person chooses for status, he or she will be masculine. If a person chooses to do what he or she likes to do, it will be feminine. Everybody works according to ranks. When looking at the division of ranks, people from the Philippines have lower ranks than the other nationalities. On MV Sten Bergen, the captain has a Russian nationality. In comparison to Philippines, Russia scores low at the value of what is given to masculinity. All other nations on board score low at masculinity, which indicates they could work together well. All nations who score low at masculinity already have a good status on board when looking at their ranks. This can be seen as a motivation for the Philippine people who obvious have lower ranks. The Philippine get motivated by the feminine nations on board to earn their place and status on board. The results show that different nationalities vary in masculinity. Philippines predominate in masculinity, but as long as they are satisfied with their ranks or have the opportunity to ‘grow’, it should not be a problem. It is, like mentioned before, the person himself, who can make the difference. Thus the dimension masculinity is considered as a minor cause of culture clashes on board.

Research - Culture clashes

15 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

4 Individualism versus collectivism This chapter gives answers on how individualism and collectivism go together on board. Stereotypes are described in terms of nationalities. Literature is consulted to make hypothesises.

4.1 Individualism “The high side of this dimension, called individualism, can be defined as a preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of only themselves and their immediate families”. Key features within individualism:

I. People taking care of themselves (including immediately family only); II. Self-orientation;

III. Identity based on individual; IV. Guilt culture; V. Making decisions based on individual needs;

VI. I-mentality; VII. Emphasis on individual initiative and achievement;

VIII. Everyone has a right to a private life.

(Hofstede, Culture consequences, 2001)

4.2 Collectivism “Collectivism is the opposite of individualism. It represents a preference for a tightly-knit framework in society in which individuals can expect their relatives or members of a particular in-group to look after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.” Key features within collectivism:

i. Expect absolute loyalty to group;

ii. Group orientation;

iii. Decisions based on what is best for the group;

iv. Identity based on social system;

v. Shame culture;

vi. Dependence on organization and institution;

vii. We-mentality;

viii. Emphasis on belonging;

ix. Private life ‘invaded’ by institution and organizations to which one belongs.

(Hofstede, Culture consequences, 2001)

Research - Culture clashes

16 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

4.3 Nationality comparison In individualist cultures, individual uniqueness and self-determination is valued. A person is all the more admirable if they are a "self-made man" or "makes up their own mind" or show initiative or work well independently. Collectivist cultures, on the other hand, expect people to identify with and work well in groups which protect them in exchange for loyalty and compliance. Paradoxically, individualist cultures tend to believe that there are universal values that should be shared by all, while collectivist cultures tend to accept that different groups have different values. In addition, in collectivistic cultures a direct confrontation will always be avoided. Expressions or phrases are used which describe a disagreement or negative statement instead of saying no. Saying 'no' would be tantamount to destroy harmony in the group. The relationship between employer and employee is based on trust and harmony and a deep understanding of moral values. (Hofstede, Geert-Hofstede's dimensions)

4.3.1 The Netherlands

The Netherlands, with the very high score of 80 is an Individualist society. This means there is a high preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. In Individualist societies offence causes guilt and a loss of self-esteem, the employer/employee relationship is a contract based on mutual advantage, hiring and promotion decisions are supposed to be based on merit only, management is the management of individuals.

4.3.2 Oman

There has not been a study using Hofstede’s index to measure Oman’s culture. However, Arab countries in general were found by Hofstede (1980) to be high power distance, high uncertainty avoidance, low in individualism, and high on masculinity. Oman’s culture and social norms are quite similar to many Arab countries, especially the Arabian Gulf states that have overlapping historical and social characteristics. Although these intangible factors are very complex and require time to change. (Al-Shanfari, 2012) Oman, with a score of 25 is considered a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member 'group', be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount, and over-rides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies offence leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, management is the management of groups.

4.3.3 Ukraine

If Ukrainians plan to go out with their friends, they would literally say ‘we with friends’ instead of ‘I and my friends’. Family, friends and not seldom the neighbourhood are extremely important to get along with everyday life’s challenges. Relationships are crucial in obtaining information, getting introduced or successful negotiations. They need to be personal, authentic and trustful before one can focus on tasks and build on a careful to the recipient, rather implicit communication style.

4.3.4 Russia

If Russians plan to go out with their friends they would literally say ‘we with friends’ instead of ‘I and my friends’, if they talk about brothers and sisters it may well be cousins, so a lower score of 39 even finds its manifestations in the language. Family, friends and not seldom the neighbourhood are extremely important to get along with everyday life’s challenges. Relationships are crucial in obtaining information, getting introduced or successful negotiations. They need to be personal, authentic and trustful before one can focus on tasks and build on a careful to the recipient, rather implicit communication style.

Research - Culture clashes

17 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

4.3.5 Indonesia

Indonesia, with a low score 14 is a Collectivist society. This means there is a high preference for a strongly defined social framework in which individuals are expected to conform to the ideals of the society and the in-groups to which they belong. This is clearly visible in the aspect of the family’s role in relationships. For example, In Indonesia, if one wishes to marry, it is important to meet a woman’s family because the family is important to her. If a man wants to be taken seriously by a woman, he has to visit the latter's family and introduce himself formally to the parents of the girl. It is inappropriate to court a woman and formalize the relationship without informing the parents of the girl first. Another example of the collectivist culture of Indonesia is the equation between child and parent. Indonesian children are committed to their parents, as are the parents committed to their children. Their desire is to make their parents' life easier. There is a desire to take care of parents and give them support when they become older. There is an Asian saying that is accepted in Indonesia, "You can get another wife or husband but not another mother or father". This family loyalty is also apparent in the fact that Indonesian families keep elders (such as grandparents) at home instead of sending them to any institution. In Individualist societies the focus is on the nuclear family only. (Hofstede, Geert-Hofstede's dimensions)

(Hofstede, Itim International Comparison Tool)

80

32

39

25

14

25

N E T H E R L A N D S P H I L I P P I N E S R U S S I A U K R A I N E I N D O N E S I A O M A N

INDIVIDUALISM

Research - Culture clashes

18 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

4.4 Summary and conclusion Individualism and collectivism is a dimension which may clash easily since the key features are absolute opposites. On top of that, their key features influence the working environment directly. For example; when a Chief mate has to decide whether to continue to work in overtime or not, he or she could decide:

i. To continue work, to save his or her own skin. (Individualism)

ii. To stop work and take rest, for everyone’s sake. (Collectivism)

The international comparison tool shows that Dutch people predominate individualism. All other nationalities on board MV Sten Bergen are opposite, collectivists. This might cause a culture clash between the Dutch and other crewmembers. Thus the dimension individualism is considered as a major cause of culture clashes on board.

Research - Culture clashes

19 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

5 Uncertainty avoidance This chapter describes the occurrence of uncertainty avoidance on board and whether it influences the working environment. Stereotypes are described in terms of nationalities. Information is gathered trough literature and the website of Geert Hofstede. Qualitative desk research is done by means of literature. Quantitative field research is done by means of an online survey. At the end of this research there will be a graphic scheme with the scores of each nationality on board of the five dimensions by Geert Hofstede.

5.1 Uncertainty avoidance The uncertainty avoidance dimension expresses the degree to which the members of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. It has to do with the way that a society deals with the fact that the future can never be known. Some nationalities are more into controlling the future and do things to be prepared and other nationalities are more relaxed about the future and wait what the future has to bring. This ambiguity brings with it anxiety and different cultures have learnt to deal with this anxiety in different ways. Cultures who are strongly uncertainty avoiding can misperceive culture-based behaviour of foreigners as unprincipled or amoral. Cultures who are weakly uncertainty avoiding can misperceive culture based behaviour of foreigners as rigid or paranoid. (Hofstede, Culture consequences, 2001) This aspect of a culture has been called Uncertainty Avoidance as opposed to Uncertainty Tolerance. Uncertainty tolerant ones are more likely to adapt to others while the strong uncertain avoidance see change as a danger.

Research - Culture clashes

20 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

5.1.1 Strong uncertainty avoidance profile

Key features: i. What is different, is dangerous;

ii. Familiar risks are accepted, but ambiguous situations and unfamiliar risks are feared; iii. Rules are important, even if the rules will never work; iv. Rigid taboos exist about what is dirty, wrong or indecent; v. Time is money;

vi. There is only one truth and we have it; vii. Experts and specialization are valued.

Language: very verbal, well organized and emotional. Nonverbal: using hands and do not like physical contact. Stereotypes: rigid, obsessed with rules and can be very present in discussions. Evaluation: quickly judged. Stress: uptight and can make others stress. (Hofstede, Culture consequences, 2001)

5.1.2 Profile uncertainty tolerance

Key features:

i. What is different, causes curiosity.

ii. Ambiguous situations and unfamiliar risks cause no discomfort;

iii. Rules should be limited to those that are absolutely necessary;

iv. Aggression and emotions should be hidden;

v. Being lazy feels good; working hard is valued only when needed;

vi. Deviant and innovative ideas and behavior are tolerated;

vii. Generalists are valued, as is common sense.

Language: not loud, can be imprecise and ask open questions. Nonverbal: unhurried, informal and no taboos. Stereotypes: no principles and talk nonsense. Evaluation: judge in pragmatic, not moral, terms Stress: relaxed and take each day as it comes. (Hofstede, Culture consequences, 2001)

Research - Culture clashes

21 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

5.2 The uncertainty avoidance index Geert Hofstede has a tool to compare the scores in percentage of each dimension of two nationalities. The Uncertainty Avoidance Index is used in this research. Also a survey about culture clashes on board has been published. This was to obtain an image of the experiences in culture clashes on board and ideas for preventing them of different nationalities. This research is commissioned by the vessel’s company because a culture clash occurred on board of one of her vessels. The company’s fleet sails with a crew of different nationalities. The nationalities of the crew are used with the tool by Hofstede and to compare them between the five dimensions. First of all, the scores of each nationality on board is explained:

5.2.1 The Netherlands

The Netherlands scores 53 on this dimension and thus exhibits a slight preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behavior and are intolerant of unorthodox behavior and ideas. In these cultures, there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation. (Hofstede, Itim International Comparison Tool)

5.2.2 Philippines

The Philippines scores 44 on this dimension and thus has a low preference for avoiding uncertainty. Weak Uncertainty Avoidance societies maintain a more relaxed attitude in which practice counts more than principles and deviance from the norm is more easily tolerated. In societies exhibiting low UAI, people believe there should be no more rules than are necessary and if they are ambiguous or do not work they should be abandoned or changed. Schedules are flexible, hard work is undertaken when necessary but not for its own sake, precision and punctuality do not come naturally, innovation is not seen as threatening. (Hofstede, Itim International Comparison Tool)

5.2.3 Russia and Ukraine

Both nationalities score 95 %. The result of the comparing tool by Hofstede gives Russia and Ukraine similar characteristics in relation of uncertainty avoidance. Russians and Ukrainians feel very much threatened by ambiguous situations. Presentations are either not prepared, e.g. when negotiations are being started and the focus is on the relationship building, or extremely detailed and well prepared. Also detailed planning and briefing is very common. Russians prefer to have context and background information. As long as Russians interact with people considered to be strangers they appear very formal and distant. At the same time formality is used as a sign of respect. (Hofstede, Itim International Comparison Tool)

Research - Culture clashes

22 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

5.2.4 Indonesia

Indonesia scores 48 on this dimension and thus has a low preference for avoiding uncertainty. This means that there is a strong preference in Indonesia toward the Javanese culture of separation of internal self from external self. When a person is upset, it is habitual for the Indonesian not to show negative emotion or anger externally. They will keep smiling and be polite, no matter how angry they are inside. This also means that maintaining work place and relationship harmony is very important in Indonesia, and no one wishes to be the transmitter of bad or negative news or feedback. Another aspect of this dimension can be seen in Conflict resolution. Direct Communication as a method of conflict resolution is often seen to be a threatening situation and one that the Indonesian is uncomfortable in. A tried and tested, successful method of conflict diffusion or resolution is to take the more familiar route of using a third party intermediary, which has many benefits. It permits the exchange of views without loss of face as well as since one of the main manifestations of Indonesia’s Uncertainty Avoidance is to maintain the appearance of harmony in the workplace; an intermediary removes the uncertainty associated with a confrontation. (Hofstede, Itim International Comparison Tool)

5.2.5 Oman

There has not been a study using Hofstede’s index to measure Oman’s culture. However, Arab countries in general were found by Hofstede (1980) to be high power distance, high uncertainty avoidance, low in individualism, and high on masculinity. Oman’s culture and social norms are quite similar to many Arab countries, especially the Arabian Gulf states that have overlapping historical and social characteristics. Although these intangible factors are very complex and require time to change. (Al-Shanfari, 2012) Due to this Oman will be compared using an average of the Arabian nations what results in a value of 80% uncertainty avoidance. Oman scores 80 on this dimension and thus has a high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behavior and are intolerant of unorthodox behavior and ideas. In these cultures, there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation. (Hofstede, Itim International Comparison Tool)

(Hofstede, Itim International Comparison Tool)

53

44

95

95

80

48

T H E N E T H E R L A N D S

T H E P H I L L I P I N E S

R U S S I A U K R A I N E O M A N I N D O N E S I A

UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE INDEX

Research - Culture clashes

23 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

5.3 Summary and conclusion Nationalities with low uncertainty avoidance are the nationalities that can easily adapt to the standards of the other. Nationalities with high uncertainty avoidance are very purposeful, thus contact with those nationalities is mostly purposeful. Most of the time low uncertainty avoidance nationalities are a good match with each other. This is because of the easy thinking of life in general and the mentality of not controlling the future but to see what the future brings. Uncertainty avoidance has direct influence on the working environment since work is based on procedures or improvising. Two opposites which don’t go together. Thus the dimension uncertainty avoidance is considered as a major cause of culture clashes on board. According the comparison tool, Dutch people and Philippine people should go together well. As do Ukraine and Russian people. It should be kept in mind, that this is a general assumption. It is, like mentioned before, the person himself, who can make the difference. N.B. Indonesian people have about the same uncertainty avoidance level as Dutch and Philippine

people. But since there are many different cultures within the Indonesian nationality, it should be

considered as unreliable.

Research - Culture clashes

24 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

6 Power distance index

This chapter describes hierarchy and its influence on board. Is hierarchy a positive of negative factor in terms of culture clashes? Stereotypes are described in terms of nationalities; what nationalities prefer long power distance and which prefer short power distance? Besides power distance index, hierarchy is described in the attachments to clarify this subject. Maintaining a hierarchical structure on board and upholding different ranks is essential to the proper functioning of the vessel and crew. A hierarchical structure can lead to distance between crew members and a power gap may be formed. (Marcus & van Dam, 2015)

6.1 Power distance index This dimension deals with the fact that all individuals in societies are not equal – it expresses the

attitude of the culture towards these inequalities amongst us. Power Distance is defined as the

extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations within a country expect

and accept that power is distributed unequally.

6.1.1 The Netherlands

The Netherlands scores low on this dimension which means that the following characterises the Dutch style: Being independent, hierarchy for convenience only, equal rights, superiors accessible, coaching leader, management facilitates and empowers. Power is decentralized and managers count on the experience of their team members. Employees expect to be consulted. Control is disliked and attitude towards managers are informal and on first name basis. Communication is direct and participative.

6.1.2 Philippines

At a score of 94, The Philippines is a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

6.1.3 Russia and Ukraine

Russia, scoring 93, is a nation where power holders are very distant in society. This is underlined by the fact that the largest country in the world is extremely centralized: 2/3 of all foreign investments go into Moscow were also 80% of all financial potential is concentrated. The huge discrepancy between the less and the more powerful people leads to a great importance of status symbols. Behaviour has to reflect and represent the status roles in all areas of business interactions: be it visits, negotiations or cooperation; the approach should be top-down and provide clear mandates for any task.

Research - Culture clashes

25 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

6.1.5 Indonesia

Indonesia scores high on this dimension score of 78 which means that the following characterises the Indonesian style: Being dependent on hierarchy, unequal rights between power holders and non-power holders, superiors in-accessible, leaders are directive, management controls and delegates. Power is centralized and managers count on the obedience of their team members. Employees expect to be told what to do and when. Control is expected and managers are respected for their position. Communication is indirect and negative feedback hidden. High Power Distance also means that Indonesian co-workers would expect to be clearly directed by the boss or manager – it is the classic Guru-Student kind of dynamic that applies to Indonesia. Westerners may be considerably surprised with the visible, socially acceptable, wide and unequal disparity between the rich and poor.

6.1.6 Oman

There has not been a study using Hofstede’s index to measure Oman’s culture. Oman’s culture and social norms are quite similar to many Arab countries, especially the Arabian Gulf states that have overlapping historical and social characteristics. Although these intangible factors are very complex and require time to change. (Al-Shanfari, 2012) Arab country’s score high on this dimension score of 95 which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

(Hofstede, Itim International Comparison Tool)

93

92

38

94

78

95

R U S S I A U K R A I N E N E T H E R L A N D S P H I L I P P I N E S I N D O N E S I A O M A N

POWER DISTANCE INDEX

Research - Culture clashes

26 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

6.2 Profiles

6.2.1 High power distance profile

Key features:

i. Might makes right; power is good;

ii. Power, status, and privileges go together;

iii. Less powerful people are dependent on those who are more powerful;

iv. Centralization is popular;

v. Subordinates and children expect direction. They don’t speak without being asked;

vi. The ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat or ‘good father’;

vii. Style of speech is formal an acknowledges hierarchical positions.

6.2.2 Low power distance profile

Key features:

i. Inequalities among people should be minimized. Privileges a status are frowned upon;

ii. There should be, and is, interdependence between less and more powerful people;

iii. Hierarchy in organizations means an inequality of roles only, established for convenience;

iv. Decentralization is popular;

v. Subordinates and children expect to be consulted;

vi. In a conversation anyone can take the lead at any time;

vii. Powerful people try to appear less powerful than they are.

Research - Culture clashes

27 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

6.3 Summary and conclusion As mentioned before, hierarchy is even essential to the proper functioning of the vessel and crew. Hierarchy may exist in two ways: inequality of roles only and established for convenience (low power distance) or inequality power, status and privileges (high power distance). Thus hierarchy itself does not influence the working environment, but the way of implementing (power distance) does. Power distance has direct influence on the working environment. When low- and high power distance are combined it may result in culture clashes, thus power distance is considered to be a major cause of culture clashes on board. For example, when a third officer calls the captain to account for his way of leadership, the captain probably won’t accept that when he maintains high power distance. He probably will accept it when he maintains a low power distance and may even consider it as feedback. On the other hand, the third officer in question would not dare to if he or she maintained a low power distance. It is plausible to say that lower ranks, maintaining high power distance, go together with higher ranks maintaining low power distance. Conversely it will probably result in a culture clash. A same level of power distance would be preferably of course.

Research - Culture clashes

28 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

7 Summary and conclusion

7.1 Research

7.1.1 Legislation

The ship owner has to comply with the Dutch legislation as described in chapter 2. Not all certificates of competence of all nationalities are recognised. However, there is a big number of nationalities who are recognised as shipmasters or merchant officers. Ranks, other than officers, can be of any nationality.

7.1.2 Nationalities

At this moment, 6 different nationalities are on board MV Sten Bergen. This might be too much. The research has proven that it is difficult to combine different nationalities which get along. More nationalities, means more cultures, means a bigger chance of deviating dimension levels. The chance on culture clashes is increased consequently. Individualism, uncertainty avoidance and power distance are considered as major factors for culture clashes. Masculinity is considered as a minor factor and may be used as a decisive dimension. To give a clear view of all the results from the international comparison tool, they are combined in the figure below.

7.2 Survey Unfortunately, the survey was filled out mainly by Dutch seafarers. More nationalities are required to make a valid cross check of this report. The results from the survey can be found in the attachments.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Masculinity

Individualism

Uncertainty avoidance

Power distance

Netherlands Phillipines Russia Indonesia Ukraine Oman

Research - Culture clashes

29 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

8 Recommendations

8.1 Nationalities on board It might be convenient to limit the number of nationalities to two or three. Two possibly good combinations are given below. The combinations are based on the conclusions made from the sub questions. Priority is given to uncertainty avoidance, individualism and power distance. For a good overview of the level in dimension, refer to the figure in chapter 7.

8.1.1 Russia and Ukraine

Russia and Ukraine seem to have a lot in common. The level in each dimension are exactly or almost the same. It might be the most ideal combination.

8.1.2 Dutch officers

The comparison tool shows an obvious deviation of Dutch people. However, power distance and uncertainty avoidance show a level around 50%, which indicates a neutral position. This could be considered as flexible. The level of individualism of Dutch people is prominent, where all other nationalities seem to be collectivists. As mentioned in chapter 5, this should not be a problem as long as the Dutch people are officers. Dutch people with lower ranks and Dutch officers combined with higher officers from other nationalities should be avoided.

8.2 Further research

8.2.1 Survey

To check this research, an extended survey should be initiated. The survey requires more time and should be spread on bigger platforms such as ‘Humans at Sea’ (Facebook). To complete the research for MV Sten Bergen, the following nationalities should respond at least:

i. Dutch;

ii. Oman;

iii. Russian;

iv. Ukraine;

v. Indonesian;

vi. Philippine.

If other companies have interest, their survey should contain responds from the nationalities they wish to work with.

8.2.2 Politics and religion

Politics and religion are borders in this project. Different nationalities might go along according the dimensions of Hofstede, but subject like those might result in culture clashes as well.

Research - Culture clashes

30 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

9 Literature Al-Shanfari, D. A. (2012, January 16-18). Website:

http://unctad.org/sections/wcmu/docs/ciimem1_4th_Dhafir%20Awadh%20Al-

Shanfari_en.PDF

De Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat, T. N. (2002). Kamerstuk 28415, Wijziging van de

Zeevaartbemanningswet. Nederlandse Overheid.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture consequences. In G. Hofstede, Culture consequences (Vol. 2, p. 297).

Hofstede, G. (sd). Geert-Hofstede's dimensions. Website: https://geert-

hofstede.com/netherlands.html

Hofstede, G. (sd). Itim International Comparison Tool. Website: https://geert-

hofstede.com/countries.html

Kruit, P. v. (2013). Legal Handbook Shipmaster. Netherlands Shipmaster' Association.

Marcus, J., & van Dam, N. (2015). Organisatie en Management. Houten, Groningen: Noordhoff

Uitgevers.

Research - Culture clashes

31 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

10 Attachments Attachment 1 - Survey

Research - Culture clashes

32 Rotterdam Mainport University of applied sciences, bachelor of maritime operations

11 Abbreviations EU - European Union

MV - Motor Vessel

RMU - Rotterdam Mainport University

SMS - Safety Management System