.
The maritime industry has concentrated on improving ship structures and ensuring the enduring quality of the ship's framework for the past 40 years
The concept of non-technical skills first emerged in the aviation field
NTS principles, called Crew Resource Management (CRM) in aviation, have been transferred to the maritime as Bridge Resource Management (BRM) training
Some research has been carried out on the cognitive and interpersonal skills of NTS in maritime sector
The working environment onboard requires teamwork, a high degree of cooperation, knowledge sharing, and crew members' confidence in each other's professional achievement and social skills. The length of the contract duration, difficult working conditions, and the lack of social life cause stress and burnout and negatively affect the performance of seafarers
When examined NTS studies on interpersonal skills, none of them conducted a study under the leadership of the ship master dealing with the communication and some sub-factors of bridge officers. For this reason, the study aimed to examine the effects of interpersonal skills (leadership and communication) of NTS of bridge officers at critical times and bridge watches. It is thought that it will shed light on future NTS studies and contribute to BRM training. In this direction, three hypotheses are discussed.
A total of 40 questions, consisting of 25 questions of 5-point Likert scales, 2 questions of multiple choices, and 13 demographic questions were filled by 400 seafarers via online survey method.
All participants are volunteers.
|
|
N |
% |
Gender |
Men |
274 |
68.5 |
Women |
125 |
31.2 |
|
Prefer not to say |
1 |
0,3 |
|
Marital Status |
Married |
245 |
61.2 |
Single |
139 |
34.8 |
|
Divorced |
6 |
1.5 |
|
Widowed |
10 |
2.5 |
|
Age (years) |
18-24 |
153 |
38.2 |
25-34 |
177 |
44.2 |
|
35-44 |
62 |
15.5 |
|
45-54 |
7 |
1.8 |
|
55+ |
1 |
0.3 |
|
Country |
USA |
169 |
42.2 |
India |
84 |
21 |
|
Turkey |
54 |
13.5 |
|
Brazil |
50 |
12.5 |
|
Russia |
43 |
10.8 |
25 questions of 5-point Likert scale (1: Strongly Disagree- 5:Strongly Agree) are asked to participants.
Mean ±SD |
Med (Min.- Max.) |
|
q16. The master must take conn and stay on the bridge in emergencies and abnormal situations. |
3.94±0.87 |
4(1-5) |
q17. Masters should encourage the bridge team members to ask questions under normal sea conditions and emergencies. |
3.80±0.80 |
4(1-5) |
q18. Even if it is thought to be the best for the interests of the company, the bridge team should never violate watchkeeping standards. |
4.05±0.88 |
4(1-5) |
q19. The master should be aware of and responsive to the personal problems of all deck crew. |
3.79±0.96 |
4(1-5) |
q20. I expect to be consulted on matters that affect my job performance. |
3.85±0.93 |
4(1-5) |
q21. Senior officers deserve more wages and privileges than other crew. |
3.99±0.88 |
4(1-5) |
q22. When my workload is excessive(or approaching the limit), I notify bridge team members. |
3.92±0.87 |
4(1-5) |
q23. A briefing on procedures and decisions after each voyage is an important part of ensuring and maintaining an effective bridge team and deck crew coordination. |
3.89±0.96 |
4(1-5) |
q24. Young and inexperienced officers should not question the decisions of the master or senior officers. |
3.84±0.96 |
4(1-5) |
q25. I tend to make decision-making mistakes in emergencies. |
3.83±0.93 |
4(1-5) |
q26. It is better to agree with other team members than to express a different opinion. |
3.73±1.08 |
4(1-5) |
q27. The bridge team should share the responsibility of prioritizing the activities in cases where the workload is intense. |
3.85±0.96 |
4(1-5) |
q28. Successful management of the vessel depends primarily on the capability of the master. |
3.98±0.88 |
4(1-5) |
q29. If I find that there is a problem with the operation/management of the vessel, I will notify the issue without thinking about who will be affected. |
3.74±0.99 |
4(1-5) |
q30. I'm embarrassed if I make a mistake in front of bridge team members. |
3.89±0.99 |
4(1-5) |
q31. My efficiency drops significantly when I am stressed or tired. |
4.03±0.88 |
4(1-5) |
q32. In unusual situations that may occur on the vessel, I trust my superiors about what to do. |
3.94±0.85 |
4(1-5) |
q33. Team members should not question the master's decisions or actions, unless they endanger the safety of the vessel and crew members. |
3.74±1.03 |
4(1-5) |
q34. Team members should clearly discuss different opinions to resolve conflicts. |
3.87±0.92 |
4(1-5) |
q35. The chief officer should never take control of the vessel, except when the master is experiencing complete incapacity. |
3.93±0.92 |
4(1-5) |
q36. A true professional bridge team member can leave personal problems behind during a watch. |
3.69±1.02 |
4(1-5) |
q37. Bridge team members should feel compelled to report their psychological stress or physical problems to other team members before or during a watch. |
3.69±1.05 |
4(1-5) |
q38. Written procedures are required in all sea, wind, and traffic conditions. |
3.87±0.92 |
4(1-5) |
q39. Personal problems can negatively affect my performance. |
3.84±0.91 |
4(1-5) |
q40. An effective bridge team coordination requires team members to consider each other's personality traits. |
3.58±0.99 |
3(1-5) |
Overall Score |
3.85±0.43 |
3.92(1.4-4.6) |
Descriptive statistics were used to define continuous variables. Frequencies (n) and percentages (%) were used to define categorical variables.
Explanatory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted to examine the validity of the survey. Bartlett's test of sphericity and Kaiser Meyer Olkin’s measure of sampling adequacy was used as pre-tests of explanatory factor analysis. Besides, the anti-image correlation matrix was examined in terms of sample size adequacy. Explanatory factor analysis was performed using Varimax, Kaiser Normalization Rotation Method, and Principal Components Analysis. Scree plot test, eigenvalues-greater-than-1 rule, explanatory percentage of total variance were used to decide the number of factors.
Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient was used to evaluate internal reliability. Split half method Spearman-Brown correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the inter-rater reliability.
EFA was performed to evaluate the validity of the survey. Some pretests were used before factor analysis. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) criteria were examined for sample adequacy. The KMO
The Bartlett test evaluates the diagonal elements of the correlation matrix to 1 and non-diagonal terms to be 0. This test also shows the suitability of the data for multiple normal distribution. In this study, we can say that the population correlation matrix is not a unit matrix since the Bartlett test is calculated at 0.05 significance level and p value should below 0.05. So, all EFA assumptions have been provided.
The survey is found reliable (Cronbach’s alpha= 0.840) and inter-rater reliability is sufficient (Spearman-Brown coefficient r = 0.880). So, the validation analysis can be utilized. The assumptions of the EFA are provided (KMO=0.845, Bartlett test p<0.001). The diagonal values of the anti-image correlation matrix range from 0.571 to 0.933. This range indicates that the sample size is suitable for factor analysis. Total variances are indicated in
|
Percent Variance |
Cumulative% |
Factor1 |
15.738 |
15.738 |
Factor2 |
7.165 |
22.902 |
Factor3 |
6.186 |
29.088 |
Factor4 |
5.886 |
34.974 |
Factor5 |
5.751 |
40.725 |
Factor6 |
5.711 |
46.436 |
Factor7 |
5.688 |
52.124 |
According to EFA, the survey consists of 7 sub-scales. Rotated component factor loading are shown in
Items |
Factor1 |
Factor2 |
Factor3 |
Factor4 |
Factor5 |
Factor6 |
Factor7 |
q16 |
-.137 |
.183 |
.336 |
.444 |
.374 |
-.160 |
-.012 |
q17 |
.186 |
-.042 |
.170 |
.135 |
-.069 |
.451 |
.476 |
q18 |
.078 |
.337 |
-.026 |
.084 |
-.151 |
.589 |
.229 |
q19 |
.680 |
.064 |
.125 |
-.028 |
.019 |
.124 |
.131 |
q20 |
.229 |
.204 |
.401 |
-.302 |
.102 |
.282 |
.126 |
q21 |
.050 |
-.052 |
.028 |
.637 |
.140 |
.209 |
.004 |
q22 |
.116 |
.485 |
.074 |
.064 |
.095 |
.035 |
.084 |
q23 |
.171 |
.614 |
.265 |
.131 |
.004 |
.010 |
-.061 |
q24 |
.540 |
.006 |
-.144 |
-.106 |
.235 |
.019 |
.232 |
q25 |
.202 |
.349 |
.353 |
.051 |
-.102 |
.099 |
.378 |
q26 |
.766 |
.024 |
.166 |
.046 |
.057 |
.040 |
.049 |
q27 |
.146 |
.574 |
-.219 |
-.144 |
.354 |
.185 |
.052 |
q28 |
.086 |
-.014 |
.698 |
.247 |
.071 |
.168 |
.036 |
q29 |
.635 |
.284 |
-.147 |
.013 |
-.063 |
.215 |
-.013 |
q30 |
.332 |
.073 |
.167 |
-.224 |
.542 |
-.040 |
-.011 |
q31 |
.149 |
.209 |
.025 |
.681 |
-.206 |
-.027 |
.102 |
q32 |
-.052 |
-.133 |
.052 |
.129 |
.408 |
.049 |
.613 |
q33 |
.618 |
.298 |
.213 |
.035 |
.142 |
.080 |
-.027 |
q34 |
.262 |
.260 |
.027 |
-.090 |
-.100 |
-.089 |
.658 |
q35 |
.175 |
-.008 |
.183 |
.052 |
.185 |
.713 |
-.169 |
q36 |
.669 |
.207 |
.271 |
.073 |
.036 |
-.087 |
.062 |
q37 |
.569 |
.279 |
-.060 |
.021 |
.185 |
.215 |
.164 |
q38 |
.251 |
.278 |
.476 |
-.245 |
-.015 |
-.010 |
.128 |
q39 |
.215 |
.167 |
-.027 |
.128 |
.643 |
.072 |
.025 |
q40 |
.684 |
-.002 |
.078 |
.082 |
.107 |
.072 |
.027 |
These factors are named as the subjects that are related to. So, F1 is named as “teamwork skills”, F2 is named as “sharing workload”, F3 is named as “leadership”, F4 is named as “efficiency of the officer”, F5 is named as “personal attitudes”, F6 is named as “operational safety decision-making”, F7 is named as “communication”.
|
Teamwork skills |
Sharing workload |
Leadership |
Efficiency of the officer |
Personal attitudes |
Operational safety decision-making |
Communication |
Mean+SD |
3.72+0.69 |
3.88+0.62 |
3.9+0.62 |
3.98+0.59 |
3.89+0.61 |
3.99+0.7 |
3.83+0.62 |
Med. (Min.-Max.) |
3.88 (1.25-4.88) |
4 (1-5) |
4 (1-5) |
4 (1.33-5) |
4 (1.33-5) |
4 (1-5) |
4 (1-5) |
There is a weak positive statistical correlation between teamwork skills and sharing workload, leadership, personal attitudes, operational safety decision-making, communication. So, while the teamwork skill is improving, sharing workload, leadership, personal attitudes, operational safety decision-making, communication will be getting better. This result is supporting hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 which are revealed that there is a relationship between teamwork skills and communication, personal attitudes. There is a weak positive statistical correlation between sharing workload and leadership, personal attitudes, communication. So, while the sharing workload is increasing, leadership, personal attitudes, communication will be getting better. There is a weak positive statistical correlation between leadership and personal attitudes, operational safety decision-making, communication. So, while the leadership is increasing, personal attitudes, operational safety decision-making, communication will be getting better. This result is supporting hypothesis 3 that reveals that there is a relationship between leadership and communication. Finally, it is found that there is a weak positive statistical correlation between operational safety decision-making and communication (
|
Factor1 |
Factor2 |
Factor3 |
Factor4 |
Factor5 |
Factor6 |
Factor7 |
|
|
|
1.000 |
|
|
.045 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.372 |
|
|
|
||
|
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
|
|
|
1.000 |
|
.044 |
|
.093 |
|
|
|
. |
|
.382 |
|
.063 |
|
||
|
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
||
|
|
1.000 |
-.035 |
|
|
|
||
|
. |
.489 |
|
|
|
|||
|
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
|||
|
|
|
1.000 |
.076 |
-.041 |
-.008 |
||
|
|
. |
.131 |
.412 |
.874 |
|||
|
|
|
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
1.000 |
.039 |
.066 |
|
|
|
|
|
. |
.434 |
.185 |
||
|
|
|
|
400 |
400 |
400 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
400 |
400 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
400 |
A weak positive statistical correlation is found between “The master should be aware of and responsive to personal problems of all deck crew” and “Masters should encourage the bridge team members to ask questions under normal sea conditions and emergencies”. It is obvious that bridge team members who think the master is responsible for all problems on board, including an event caused by the personal problem of a crew member, also need to ask whatever is on their mind in any situation. Hence, they think masters should encourage crew members to ask.
Results show that people who expect to be consulted on matters that affect their job performance, also think their personal problems can negatively affect their performance. There is a weak positive statistical correlation between factors “I expect to be consulted on matters that affect my job performance” and “Personal problems can negatively affect my performance”.
Bridge team members who feel stressed or tired also feel the fear of making mistakes on their duties especially in front of other members. A weak positive statistical correlation is founded between factors “Bridge team members should feel compelled to report their psychological stress or physical problems to other team members before or during a watch” and “I'm embarrassed if I make a mistake in front of the bridge team members”. The recent studies show that officers make mistakes during cargo operations under stress or factors such as long working hours, time pressure and fatigue
There is also a weak positive statistical correlation between factors “An effective bridge team coordination requires team members to consider each other's personality traits” and “Team members should openly discuss different opinions to resolve conflicts.” Participants who believe in personality traits and behaving each other member accordingly, also believe an effective and smooth workspace can only be achieved by discussing different opinions and communicating.
Ships are complex and high-risk structures where human-related errors are seen in high rates, interdisciplinary relationships exist, and dependence on technical and non-technical skills is high. Non-technical skills closely related to factors shown in
It is aimed to stress the importance of interpersonal skills for a safe navigation of bridge officers in this study. Although IMO says it is "necessary" for officers to take the BRM training, it will be more effective to hold an examination at the end of the training as in aviation and for the officers to work on ships only when they pass this exam. This can be important in preventing ship accidents. Further, the training of non-technical skills is essential and to develop these skills and reduce the risk of error, the crew with different professional levels can be trained together, not separately for an active team work and communication. As we have mentioned earlier, studies on NTS in maritime are limited and NTS concepts are not totally explained. This study provides an explanation and understanding of the interpersonal skills of NTS with sub-factors in Maritime. Additionally, the results can contribute to BRM training and future studies.
Because of the frequent occurrence of human errors, the high-risk ship environment requires bridge officers with non-technical skills as well as technical skills. Leadership and communication are interpersonal skills of NTS, and they influence a safe ship navigation and bridge watch. In this study, the impacts of non-technical skills of bridge officers were examined in terms of interpersonal skills. According to results obtaining from the study, there is a weak positive correlation between leadership and communication. Furthermore, it is shown that there are sub-factors related to interpersonal skills which are teamwork skills, operational safety decision-making, teamwork skills, sharing workload, efficiency of officer and personal attitudes. These sub-factors have a positive effect on the bridge officers. It is found that there is a weak positive statistical correlation between teamwork skills and sharing workload, leadership, personal attitudes, operational safety decision-making, communication. Similarly, there is a weak positive statistical correlation between leadership and personal attitudes, operational safety decision-making, communication. Finally, there is a weak positive statistical correlation between operational safety decision-making and communication.