Attitudes and Leadership in Sustainable Shipping 27August 2015 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Attitudes and Leadership in Sustainable Shipping

27August 2015 Kalmar

Y ael Tågerud & Mats Hammander

Vasco Da Gama Training for Greener and Safer Maritime Transport 1

Raison d'être

2

Raison d'être

3

Sustainable shipping

Lecturers: Yael TÅGERUD and Mats HAMMANDER, Linnaeus University Introduction Leadership in Cross-Cultural Contexts

• Culture as concept
• Impact of cross-cultural
• Leadership

Leadership in relating to changing and unchanging attitudes about sustainable transport

• Attitudes vs. behaviour
• Briefly, Theory of ReasonedAction (Ajzen and Fishbein)
• Managing changes
• Exercise

Motivation of crew members and employees in greening operations

• Briefly, a case study on greening of corporate culture (Howard-Greenville)
• Background to our pilot study
• W

estrum/Reason/Hudsons incorporated model

• Results from the pilot study
• Summary discussion

4

Leadership in cross-culture

5

’Culture is a pattern of meanings (Geertz, 1973) that are represented and recreated through the actions and communications of members of a group. These patterns do not simply arise arbitrarily; they are developed as a group ‘solve[s] its problems of external adaptation and internal integration’ (Schein, 1992). In other words, cultures evolve from their members’ interactions with the outside world and with each other . Culture offer their members ready-at-hand categories for problems (Douglas, 1966) and repertories of ‘strategies for action’ (Swidler , 1986) that are particularly suited to solving the problem recognized by the culture. But they are also historical, adaptive and emergent social phenomenon (W eeks and Galunic, 2003), that are neither perfectly nor immediately responsive to the outside world, nor fully designed by individuals. Cultures take on complex multifaceted lives of their own; members of a group tend to recreate or , less frequently, alter them through their actions, though not all with the same effect or for the same reasons. Inherent in any culture is a certain amount of inertia and a certain amount

• f unintended consequences. This paradoxical relationship between human agency and

culture evolution is summed up in the observation that culture is ‘created by institutional activities but is not an intended project’(Giddens, 1984:27).’

6

One scientific definition of culture

Howard-Grenville, J., A. 2007. Corporate culture and environmental practice: making change at a high-technology manufacturer.

The Iceberg Concept of Culture

7

language

8

finances art fashion heroes literature music food history myths architecture technology educa4on poli4cs religion celebra4ons media

The complex whole of solutions which a human community inherits, adapts or invents in order to meet the challenges

• f its natural and social environment.

(Thierry G. V erhelst, 1994)

9

(Klyukanov 2005) 10

Leadership vs management Challenges in the cross-cultural context Skills and strategies for the cross-cultural context

Leadership perspective

11

‘W e have faith in attitudes as solutions to environmental problems because we think behaviours are perfect reflections of attitudes. They aren’ t.’

12

Attitude vs. behaviour

Heberlein, T. A. (2012). Navigating Environmental Attitudes. New York: Oxford University Press.

Background factors Individual Personality Mode, emotion Intelligence V alues, stereotyps General attitudes Experiences Social Education Age, gender Income Religion Race, ethnicity

Culture

Information Knowlege Media Intervention

Behaviour beliefs Normative beliefs Control beliefs

Attitude toward

the behavior Subjective norm Perceived behavioral control Intention

Behaviour

Actual behavioral control

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and Changing Behaviour – The Reasoned Action Approach. New York: Psychology Press.

Attitude vs. behaviour

13

Four principles related to the attitude variable:

Identity – hard to change because it require strong reformation on our beliefs, Consistency – attitudes are usually consistent, however to avoid uncomfortable situations people may tray to ’invent attitudes’ in order to avoid painful or awkward situations, Specificity – the more specific an attitude is the better interpreter it is

• f the actual behaviour,

Experience – having been involved gives effects on attitude changes.

14

Heberlein, T. A. (2012). Navigating Environmental Attitudes. New York: Oxford University Press.

Attitude vs. behaviour

Attitude vs. behaviour

15

• Each participant grades his/her own attitude level regarding environmental

behaviour on a 10-level scale. Following this, Participant A interviews Participant B for two minutes (then vice-versa) Participant A provides a 10 scale grade for Participant B and vice-versa. Finally, Participant A compares his/her own 10 scale grade with the grade given to him/her by Participant B. Then vice-versa. .

Exercise

16

• Each participant grades his/her own attitude level regarding environmental

behaviour on a 10-level scale. Following this, Participant A interviews Participant B for two minutes (then vice-versa) Participant A provides a 10 scale grade for Participant B and vice-versa. Finally, Participant A compares his/her own 10 scale grade with the grade given to him/her by Participant B. Then vice-versa. .

• Discuss whether a combination of variables e.g. nationality, rank, shape of

vessel, family would affect your previously obtained attitude level, positively

• r negatively.

Exercise

17

Solutions to environmental problems. Three categories:

Structural solution – i.e. changing regulations or change structural behaviour by e.g. introducing ‘key’cardholders connected to the light in hotel rooms. T echnological solution – basically the most frequently used solution in the shipping industry. This does not necessarily change people’s attitudes and behaviour. Cognitive solution – exemplified with information or education in the hope that this will have an effect on individual attitudes and behaviour.

18

Heberlein, T. A. (2012). Navigating Environmental Attitudes. New York: Oxford University Press.

Green operations

Internal factors

Howard-Grenville, J., A. 2007. Corporate culture and environmental practice: making change at a high-technology manufacturer.

19

• Organizational culture
• Others (e.g. managerial

incentives) External factors

• Regulatory
• Economic
• Social

Green operations (a case-study)

Internal factors

• Organizational
• culture

Others (e.g. managerial incentives) External factors

• Regulatory
• Economic
• Social

External condition ’Problem setting’ Solution/strategy for action Adopted environmental practices Reinforce or revise cultural meanings Company’ s practices can shape the external norms and regulations over time Influences culture over time as organization adapts to external conditions Tech-dep Env-dep

Green operations (a case-study)

Howard-Grenville, J., A. 2007. Corporate culture and environmental practice: making change at a high-technology manufacturer.

29

How Do Y

• u Measure Green Culture in Shipping? The Search

for a T

• ol Through Interviews with Swedish Seafarers

21

A pilot study

• M. Hammander, P

. Karlsson, C. Österman & C. Hult Kalmar Maritime Academy, Linnaeus University, Sweden

A brief view of the model

Green Culture

Level (i)

Commitments Learning Empowerment Communication Pathologic and Reactive BARRIERS Bureaucratic NEUTRAL Proactive and Generative FACILITATORS Information hides or is misunderstood. The messenger is ‘killed’

• r ignored.

Responsibility is avoided or neglected or personally accountable. Bridging discouragedor

• nly against

Requirement. Mistakes are hided or punished. New ideas is crushedor ignored. Information can be ignored. The messenger is tolerated. Responsibility is shared. Bridging is toleratedbut discouraged. Mistakes are treated all right. New ideas create problems. Information is shared and actively required. The messenger is regulated and trained. Responsibility is controlled and shared. Bridging is a natural part and is promoted. Mistakes are investigated and lead to new investigations. New ideas are shared and are embraced.

Level (iii)

22

Unspecified

Level (ii)

Safety Environment Safety & Environment

The model

level one and two

Level (i)

Commitments Learning Empowerment Communication

Level (i) based on e.g. Fernández et al. 2003

23

Unspecified

Level (ii)

Safety Environment Safety & Environment

The model

Green Culture

Pathologic and Reactive

BARRIERS

Bureaucratic

NEUTRAL

Proactive and Generative

FACILITATORS

Information hides or is misunderstood. The messenger is ‘killed’

• r ignored.

Responsibility is avoided or neglected or personally accountable. Bridging discouraged or

• nly against

Requirement. Mistakes are hided or punished. New ideas is crushed or ignored. Information can be ignored. The messenger is tolerated. Responsibility is shared. Bridging is tolerated but discouraged. Mistakes are treated all right. New ideas create problems. Information is shared and actively required. The messenger is regulated and trained. Responsibility is controlled and shared. Bridging is a natural part and is promoted. Mistakes are investigated and lead to new investigations. New ideas are shared and are embraced.

Level (iii)

Based on Westrum (2004; 2014), Reason (1997) and Hudson (2007).

24

The Pilot Study

Two focus groups with in total nine respondents Four individual interviews ——————————————————- At present data from 25 respondent

25

B

26

A

‘…these types of ships where you all the time need to be in the lead and keep up a good reputation, then you, we have them, all the systems up-to-date …’ ‘…we do have everything in place, even in regard to oil, due to US so all things are in place, as they should be. If we have a bunker operation, or if we have a situation where the client wants to fill up diesel in their generators, standing

• n deck or compressors or whatever it

may be, so, then we have a checklist, we have everything in place precisely because we don’ t dare to have it in any

• ther way.’

The Pilot Study

Example commitment

‘Y es, we pretend to be 14000-certified yet still use paper dishes in the galley at evenings, it doesn’ t match up.’ ‘W e are an ISO 14000 company, it is still the case that we cheat, there are of course, we have partners who have broken the contract with us because we do not meet the requirements that we

• urselves have promoted ourselves with.’

B

27

A

‘Y es, all of us on-board shall do such, Seagull [trademark] CBT

• courses such

computer based, specifically on ISO 14001...’ ‘... everyone on board needs to do, all maritime crew members must go through the ISO 14001 course.’

The Pilot Study

Example learning

‘I would say that I think a little about the environment as well, I like to use my bike, and now I haven’ t had a car for two ‘...me and my partner spend time talking and she is on the same..., so it becomes a natural part, and then it's with washing and such things, using the clothes a couple of times you can hang them up and we have no fabric softener ...’ years...’

B

28

A

‘Sometimes, it is of course a bit too much, it is obvious, but on the other hand, we do have some support, if you want to use money in any way to improve safety or the environment or anything you can ever use the QA-system and looking for , because everything, it’ s all about motivating yourself…’ ‘W e have that! It's not like working for a large well-established [shipping company] like I came from before I started in [this company].’

The Pilot Study

Example empowerment

‘...I've been over 20 years in one shipping company so it was a bit shocking to come to a management company and a new shipping company that is also controlled from the top and they have [the owner] basically, but this management company wants to check everything you do, then I can’ t sign off from an expenses at 100 SEK but I drive around with 500 million and 20 human lives, but I can’ t sign off on 100 SEK’ ‘...but in the old days it was in fact an employed master and he was the owner's extended arm on the ship and the owner trusted the master ...’

B

29

A

‘Sometimes, it is of course a bit too much, it is obvious, but on the other hand, we do have some support, if you want to use money in any way to improve safety or the environment or anything you can ever use the QA-system and looking for , because everything, it’ s all about motivating yourself…’ ‘W e have that! It's not like working for a large well-established [shipping company] like I came from before I started in [this company].’

The Pilot Study

Example empowerment

’…I drive around with 500 million and 20 human lives, but I can’ t sign off on 100 SEK’ ‘...but in the old days it was in fact an employed master and he was the owner's extended arm on the ship and the owner trusted the master ...’ ‘...then it's the fault of the ship and it’ s even so if it is us who might have proposed long ago that we must replace x number of hoses but then it's too expensive and they [the company] don’ t want it, but if you don’ t change the hose [the ship] becomes laid-up...’

B

30

A

‘Now, we have had one of those responsible for recruitment, he has been

• ut now, going with us, [I] have spoken to

him, [he] was interviewing, what we thought, asked a bit, how we liked it and so on. He got some input, not only going through the captain and so on, but also asking people.’

The Pilot Study

Example two-way communications

‘W e sent in the report to the company, since then we haven’ t, the company hasn’ t, well, what they have done with the report, I don’ t know.’ ‘...if we phone the office, we tell them that we record the conversation...’.

Illustration from the Pilot Study

Green Culture

Unspecified

4.6 B Level (ii)

Safety Environment

4.4 B 4.5 A + 4.5 B 4.7 B

Safety & Environment

4.4 A 4.6 A 4.7 A Level (i)

Commitments Learning Empowerment Communication

Pathologic and Reactive

BARRIERS

Bureaucratic

NEUTRAL

Proactive and Generative

FACILITATORS

Information hides or is misunderstood. The messenger is ‘killed’

• r ignored.

Responsibility is avoided or neglected or personally accountable. Bridging discouraged or

• nly against

Requirement. Mistakes are hided or punished. New ideas is crushed or ignored. Information can be ignored. The messenger is tolerated. Responsibility is shared. Bridging is tolerated but discouraged. Mistakes are treated all right. New ideas create problems. Information is shared and actively required. The messenger is regulated and trained. Responsibility is controlled and shared. Bridging is a natural part and is promoted. Mistakes are investigated and lead to new investigations. New ideas are shared and are embraced.

Level (iii)

31

Summary discussion

32

Mats Hammander PhD Student mats.hammander@lnu.se Y ael Tågreud Lecturer yael.tagerud@lnu.se

33

Thanks!