Command In Crisis: Abandoned Cruiseship!

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

---

A captain in command who chooses to abandon his ship and all of the souls whom he is sworn, by ethics and Maritime Law (the "Law Of The High Seas") to protect, without regard to his own safety until the last of his charges is safe is a coward. He made a decision to be derelict in his sworn duties. He is not a leader. There is no gray area here -- the implications are carved starkly in black and white: He probably should be blindfolded, hands tied behind his back, and made to walk the plank.

Having said this, this article is not about the captain, but about the Officer-In-Charge at the Port Authority, who spent an hour of critical time engaging in a futile conversational exchange with the derelict deserter in an attempt to "convince" a proven self-serving coward to cooperate, instead of immediately using the threat of lethal force to accelerate the cowardly captain's compliance. The OIC was an enabler, if not an accessory, to this circus of childishness surrounding a heinous crime.

-----------------

Synopsis, excerpted from a situational case study by the American Management Association: Please read through this rather indecisive, uninstructive situational analysis by a bright group of people with an analytical but "non-action" orientation, and then read my more pointed TAKING COMMAND comments, which follow:

-----------------

"When a tragedy claims lives in a shipwreck or an aircraft crash, like the Italian vessel that capsized this week, working out responsibility is urgent and important. The causes and the chain of command get investigated and blame gets apportioned. It’s not always that way in life.

The wreck of the Italian liner Costa Concordia is desperately sad, and shocking for anyone involved. Inevitably, there will be an investigation, prosecutions, and law suits. This is a tragedy—people have died, and the environmental impact could also be devastating.

In an incident such as this, the questions of responsibility—whose fault is this? What happened? Will be critical—and they will be answered.

In business life, we often look at questions of responsibility when things go wrong: who gave the orders? Who responded? What happens when people make mistakes?

The answers are usually shades of gray rather than black and white. And the chains of consequences are hard to work out. Things go wrong because of many factors, and it’s often hard to say whose “fault” something is. We usually end up by saying, in a vague way, that “mistakes were made.” ####
--------------------
TAKING COMMAND Commentary...

The captain should now, simply put, walk the proverbial plank. But he was not the OIC - Officer In Charge. He was not the commander. Sometimes the situational dynamics dictate who is justly and most effectively in command.

In certain situations, an individual must determine whether or not a person-in-charge is competent to be there, and must take action accordingly. The communications officer at the Port Authority had become, after very simple situational assessment, the OIC. From the second he made that determination of the captains lack of willingness or ability, it was his obligation to take complete command.

Instead of a childish back-and-forth duck-and-dodge game of asking questions and trading sarcastic insults which wasted a precious hour and caused further damage and loss of life, the OIC should have made it clear (perhaps with some audacious bluffery involved):

"Captain. You have abandoned your ship, and have been derelict in your duty. You are hereby commanded, in accordance with law, and under penalty of death, to return to your ship and board immediately, without delay. Once there, you will contact me immediately to give me a full situation report. You have 30 minutes to do this -- if you have not confirmed that you are back on board the vessel within exactly 30 minutes, I am prepared to issue the order to fire on your life vessel. Am I perfectly clear? [pause and wait for acknowledgement].
Do not contact me until you are on board the vessel. Over."

The object, on the part of the OIC was to get the cowardly captain back on board his vessel immediately. The easiest way to accomplish this would be giving the captain a simple, definitive choice -- re-board the vessel, or face execution.

Extreme approach? Possibly. Effective? It certainly would have generated better results than the travesty that we will all be reading about in the mainstream media for months.

Douglas E Castle [http://aboutDouglasCastle.blogspot.com] for
Taking Command! [http://TakingCommand.blogspot.com]

---

Tweet

Related articles

• Cruiseship COSTA CONCORDIA Sinks (gcaptain.com)
• Costa Concordia Tragedy: Facebook Clue to Captain's Human Error Thesis (ibtimes.com)
• Cruise Ship Sinking: Full Transcript Between Costa Concordia Captain and Coast Guard (ibtimes.com)
• Costa Concordia captain carried out unapproved manoeuvre, company boss says, as weather halts wreck search (news.nationalpost.com)
• Tales Emerge of Missing and Dead in Ship Disaster (maboulette.wordpress.com)
• Coward, I Meant Captain of the Costa Concordia Didn't Really Abandon Ship; He Tripped Into Lifeboat (pumabydesign001.com)
• Costa Concordia: Captain drove ship 'like it was a Ferrari', says former skipper (mirror.co.uk)
• Carnival shares plunge after Italian cruise ship disaster (telegraph.co.uk)
• Overheard on CNN.com: Worst-case scenario strikes luxury cruise ship (news.blogs.cnn.com)
• More bodies recovered from stricken cruise ship (cnn.com)
• The Lede Blog: Confusion and Then Anger Heard in Audio Recordings of Calls to Cruise Ship Captain (thelede.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Overheard on CNN.com: 'I would protect my ship and my people with my life' (news.blogs.cnn.com)
• Interview and link to Titanic come back to haunt captain (smh.com.au)
• Port Authority to cruise ship captain: 'Get on board, damn it' (news.blogs.cnn.com)

"Need To Know" Means SERIOUS.

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

---

In becoming involved with a project, program, strategic plan or even in building a new enterprise, it is instinctively Human to want to discuss aspects of it with others; if it's is an source of pride and achievement (actual or potential) we want to either 'sell' the circles of individuals around us on the concept and the excitement with which it is associated, or to exercise our bragging rights.

These instincts and propensities must not be indulged -- in giving in to them, we can do damage in several different ways:

1) Compromise important information;

2) Undermine the objectives of our whole inside team, or the individual members of it;

3) Make our objective appear less important, or less far along in the completion cycle. Telling stories or putting on endless "dog and pony shows" psychologically minimizes your importance as a leader or a decision-maker, just as it makes the subject of your limitless leakage seem trivialized.

Inform people on a "need to know" basis. It makes you, and what you are working on more secure, more perceptually important and far more valuable.  

General Rules:

1) Before having a discussion, determine if there is adequate "need to know." Does this other person have a serious role to play in the project or effort?

2) Insist on speaking with one selected and trusted representative of any multiparty organization, and let that person assume the role as tactical liaison with his or her organization for you.

3) Do not entertain dialogue and questions from persons who A) cannot demonstrate a "need to know," or who B)cannot clearly inform you of the purpose of the interview or meeting.

Sometimes the less others know, the stronger you are -- both in situational reality and perception. Unimportant people can spend all day talking to anyone who will listen about anything; important people are focused on achieving things and do not freely expend their time casually.

You needed to know this. You were on my list.

Douglas E Castle [http://aboutDouglasCastle.blogspot.com] for the TAKING COMMAND! Blog , at http://TakingCommand.blogspot.com.

---

Tweet

Related articles

• Wisdom Is Timeless (braintenance.blogspot.com)
• Subtle Shades Of Meaning (sendingsignals.blogspot.com)
• Intelligence Versus Force And Surprise - D.E. Castle's Four Fundamental Settlement Options (takingcommand.blogspot.com)
• Leaders Cannot Hide - Aftershocks And Recoveries (takingcommand.blogspot.com)
• Where is your momentum for 2012 coming from? (fitforrandomness.wordpress.com)
• The 4 Questions: Social Media and a Strategic Plan (technorati.com)
• Key Principles for Structuring Compensation for Agency Executives (smartbrief.com)
• How to assess the effectiveness of internal control (normanmarks.wordpress.com)
• Location + Meaning = Place (technorati.com)
• When A Delay Means On Track (fakeplasticsouks.blogspot.com)

Breaking Your Word Or Pledge - Sensibly

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

---

There are times when you have made a pledge that no longer makes any practical sense to honor. You are faced with an immediate dilemma: "How do I 'undo' this pledge that no longer makes sense without appearing to be weak, indecisive, or untrustworthy?" It is an issue involving negotiations, diplomacy and public relations.

Recently a pledge made by the Americans For Tax Reform created a legislative gridlock because the parties involved were terrible negotiators -- they were at loggerheads -- simply restating their pledges and inferring that there was no basis for discussion. Any negotiator knows that a door must be left open for some discussion, exchange, and flexibility.

When two parties just sit on opposite sides of the room with their arms crossed, refusing to acknowledge that their biggest problem is not the issue under discussion, but the paralysis that the gridlock is producing, and the fact that no problem is being solved as a result. It's as simple as saying, "We've made pledges to our constituents about our firm positions, but we each have an obligation to move forward toward a solution. Circumstances have changed. This has gone too far. It is injurious to each of us as well as our respective sides to refuse to solve the problem as a matter of some principle. Our real task now is to sit down and solve the problem to minimize the damage caused by our inability to cooperatively arrive at a solution. Let's find someplace to talk."
------------

The following is excerpted from an article provided courtesy of CBS Newswatch:

"The pledge may be the biggest reason Washington is gridlocked, and this is harming everyone. Republicans enter budget discussions unable to even explore raising taxes. The result is a mutant form of negotiation in which people almost always stop listening, demonize the other side, and pile up so much ill will that people can barely talk to each other. Sound familiar?

The overwhelming evidence in negotiations research is that the best deals arise out of people stating their positions -- including how taxes cannot be raised -- and then setting them down. Great negotiators know that if they set a demand aside, and have an open conversation where they'll learn about the interests and values of the other side, they often come to common ground on core values. Once they get to this point (technically called "alignment"), they can construct a global solution that expresses those values. This isn't compromise, or meeting in the middle. It's innovation and creativity that often leads to a far better deal than either side initially had in mind.

People have to be able to let go of their original demands, even though it's possible, and often likely, that the final agreement will include those demands.

There are two problems with pledges like the one made to ATR. First, they prevent effective negotiations, alienate the other party, and ensure gridlock and childish behavior.

Second, pledges encourage bad decisions by shutting off people's ability to think. Robert Cialdini's book Influence is one of the most important of the last 50 years. He writes that after making something like ATR's pledge: "We don't have to sift through the blizzard of information we encounter every day to identify relevant facts; we don't have to expend the mental energy to weigh the pros and cons; we don't have to make any further tough decisions. Instead, all we have to do when confronted with the issue is turn on our consistency tape, whirr, and we know just what to believe, say and do." Lack of thinking leads to "dumb ass syndrome," and that's what we see across America -- in government and in the corporations.

If pledge takers could find a way to undo it, the benefits would far outweigh the risks of alienating ATR, Grover Norquist, and a few voters. First, people could actually enter into good-faith negotiations that would produce better results for the country. Second, elected officials -- are you sitting down -- might actually start to think. Third, Congress would appear to be more committed to the welfare of their constituents than to re-election.

The question is, how do elected officials who are having a change of heart "undo" the pledge? And how can we undo a promise we made -- to an employer, an employee, a business partner, or a friend? Most of us don't know the mechanics of how pledges and promises work, including how to "unpledge."

Practically, here's what to do when you have a pledge, promise or agreement that makes sense to undo. First, state why the pledge no longer makes sense at the time. Second, offer a former "revocation" of the pledge. Third, make a new pledge to the core values that are the same as the original pledge. Fourth, deal with, and take any responsibility for, any train wrecks that your actions cause.
---------------
When two parties just sit on opposite sides of the room with their arms crossed, refusing to acknowledge that their biggest problem is not the issue under discussion, but the paralysis that the gridlock is producing, and the fact that no problem is being solved as a result. It's as simple as saying, "We've made pledges to our constituents about our firm positions, but we each have an obligation to move forward toward a solution. Circumstances have changed. This has gone too far. It is injurious to each of us as well as our respective sides to refuse to solve the problem as a matter of some principle. Our real task now is to sit down and solve the problem to minimize the damage caused by our inability to cooperatively arrive at a solution. Let's find someplace to talk."

It bears repeating: Nothing good can come of a pledge that is untenable. If you promised to land at an airport in St. Louis but the airport is fogged, you have to set aside you initial pledge and look at the greater directive of finding a safe place to land. It's as simple as saying, "We've made pledges to our constituents about our firm positions, but we each have an obligation to move forward toward a solution. Circumstances have changed. This has gone too far. It is injurious to each of us as well as our respective sides to refuse to solve the problem as a matter of some principle. Our real task now is to sit down and solve the problem to minimize the damage caused by our inability to cooperatively arrive at a solution. Let's find someplace to talk."

The greatest problem in leading a negotiation is adhering blindly to a pledge that is either no longer plausible, or which is creating problems which are far greater than those which are the subject of the frozen negotiation. It is always sensible to 'unpledge' or move from your fixed position if an issue of greater importance obscures the nature of the smaller argument which you are not having because neither side knows how to approach the other. To be a problem-solver, to retain command, you must be able to walk across the room and persuade the other party to enter into productive discourse.

Douglas E. Castle 

for TAKING COMMAND! and for BUSINESS AND PROJECT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT.

---

Tweet