Maritime organizations are debating the inherent difficulties of crewing vessels to maximize the operational output of platforms. Maritime crews, unlike their civilian team-counterparts, work, live, and play together 24 hours a day in an isolated capsule environment, subject to environmental, human, political, and mechanical influences. Psychological research provides evidence of the relationship between teams, individual ownership, cohesion, and productivity. Different crewing strategies change the dynamics of those psychological factors in the same way that structure changes function in any organization. The psychological relationship between alternative crewing strategies and the resulting morale, ownership, cohesion, and readiness, is integral to the expectations the Navy has of its crews.
The Imperative for Changing Crewing Strategies
Military organizations around the world are under pressure to achieve greater operational output with fewer resources and reduced cost. The U.S. Coast Guard has argued that the difficulties and expense of filling large crewing requirements cause serious readiness vulnerabilities. Experienced sailors who have just rotated to shore assignments following three- and four-year tours at sea augment critical positions or cutters deploy short-crewed. This has had a harmful effect on retention and influenced the decision to consider unmanned aerial vehicles, automated propulsion and auxiliary systems, advanced new multi-hull ship designs, and multiple-crewing concepts.
As a result of increasing costs and the effects of new technology, there is a worldwide trend to review crewing strategies for naval vessels. Alternative crewing regimes can extend the time a vessel is available for deployment in a year. The Royal Australian Navy maximizes the use of the Hydrographie Survey Ship through a multi-crewing regime by assigning three crews on a rotational basis to two ships. Other methods of alternative crewing such as six-months on and sixmonths off (rotational crewing), are used by merchant navies around the world. The many alternative crewing regimes, whether ad hoc, multi-crewing, three-watch-crewrotation, or dual crewing all have inherent costs and efficiencies.
In 1998, the U.S. Navy conducted an analysis of the manning and training of operational forces for 2015 and beyond, which resulted in a formal recommendation for "a concept for crew rotation on extended forward deployed ships that entailed an assigned crew of 135% (4/3) of normal requirements."1 Arguments put against this alternative crewing strategy claimed that breaking the connection between the rotation of the ship and its complement would likely result in less pride in ownership and cohesion among the component teams/units/divisions of the ship's complement, while increasing stateside shore infrastructure and its associated budgetary impact.
While the financial savings of keeping a vessel at sea for optimal periods and maximizing crewing can be estimated, the human factor cost, an indirect expense, is not so easily identified or translated into a fiscal equation. Human psychological factors as they relate to operational effectiveness have not been seriously addressed. Navy crews work, live, and socialize together. The on-board environment presents an impermeable demarcation between work and leisure, and work and home.
The Psychology of Crews and Teams
To understand the individual nature of various crewing strategies, their complexity must be unravelled. This study requires identification of the team variables that are necessary for performance and the extent to which they are inherent in different crewing regimes or teams. Just as changing the design of a keel often results in a change of vessel stability and hull performance; changing the team structure and characteristics changes team performance.
Structural factors that affect team processes include tenure, group size, and leadership. Team characteristics include length of time working together, type of work done, and commitment to the group. The longer individuals are together, the more familiar they become with one another. Familiarity engenders trust and reliance on others to protect and participate.2 Experience from the U.S. Navy suggests that on-board manning levels and the proportion of new crewmembers are factors that affect the materiel condition of ships. Logically this makes sense, as newer, more unfamiliar crewmembers would not have knowledge of the nuances of a particular vessel, regardless of vessel class.
Lower levels of familiarity are associated with reduced productivity and some months are needed for a diverse group to develop into a cohesive team. Crew cohesion, mutual trust, and support are essential factors in sustaining battle readiness.
These team structures and characteristics shape a team's collective identity, which can influence the team process. Both military and commercial psychological research into teams and groups has found that:
* Group morale was a predictor of innovative outcomes,
* Commitment to task predicted performance,
* The correlation for short-lived groups was generally smaller than for enduring groups where past performance can positively affect cohesion,
* Cohesion enhanced perceptions of combat readiness,
* Cohesion positively impacted on readiness, and
* Winning produced cohesion.
This research shows a complex, yet direct relationship between morale, cohesion, commitment, and team performance.
The amount of time members spend together in the team affects cohesion. Cohesion was most prevalent in military units having higher membership stability over a 10-week period, than in teams whose membership was subject to constant change.3 Team cohesion and stability show the team characteristics that directly affect team performance.
Psychological Ownership
Psychological ownership, defined as "psychological possessiveness and being psychologically tied to an object," relates to vessel ownership and has a direct influence on crew performance and productivity. Although the crew does not legally own their boat or ship, there is often a high degree of psychological ownership. The crew perceives they have ownership of their vessel, and so will have control over and personalization of space and a symbolic home.
The benefit of psychological ownership is that people take pride in their possessions, develop stewardship, and expend extra effort to care for it, defending and protecting it when its integrity is at risk. The disadvantage is that when one is reluctant to share his or her possessions with others, it can impede cooperation with disruptive and dysfunctional behavior, ranging from minor inconvenience to industrial sabotage.
When the U.S. Navy hull swap (i.e., crew rotation) occurred between the frigates USS Gary (FFG-51) and USS Thach (FFG-43), it caused "friction between the crews." In particular, it was noted that:
The two crews quarreled like students at rival high schools, competing to see who could write up more "casualty reports" of poor maintenance on the other crew's ship. Many sailors took favorite tools from one ship to the other, leaving gaps in both ships' inventory. The tension got so bad, the two ships eventually were separated -to prevent a brawl, according to Gary sailors.4
From the Gary and Thach experience, crew or hull swapping procedures in the U.S. Navy have resulted in modified crew and hull exchange procedures to prevent or minimize disruption. Trickle exchange of crews starting six months before the swap, with sailors emailing their counterparts, and flying in advance teams has proven invaluable.
Relevance to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN)
Culture, traditions, and customs of the RAN have always originated from practical considerations and changing crewing strategies is no different. The RAN experience with alternative crewing is relatively new and untested, but the lessons learned from the Hydrographie Ship point to psychological implications for crew and materiel readiness. Two fundamental aspects of ship and boat capability are organization and personnel. Hence, impaired crew cohesion and psychological ownership could put capability at risk, as well as safety of life at sea. These psychological factors will need to be considered to an even greater extent by the RAN as it embarks on implementing a multiple crewing regime in the Armidale-class patrol boat. The Royal Australian Navy continues to experiment with alternative crewing strategies aiming to maximize vessel on-station time, and provide necessary training, respite, and quality of life for crewmembers.
From a strategic financial perspective, alternative crewing strategies, with smart technology, and multi-purpose platforms, are becoming more popular throughout the world of naval weight-watching. Alternative crewing methods that increase on-station time "raise serious issues concerning maintenance, training, and crews' sense of ownership of the ships they serve on-which can contribute to the efforts they make on behalf of their ships."5 However, the impact on the crews' abilities to perform their tasks at sea needs to remain of primary importance.
Successful implementations of alternative crewing strategies need to address supportive naval infrastructure, and the idiosyncrasies of team dynamics. Little operational benefit would be gained if crew performance were to be sacrificed or compromised for financial economy.
1 Defense Logistics Agency. "Technology Initiatives Game 1998 Quicklook Report," Ft. Belvoir, VA, 1998.
2 E. Smith-Jentsch, K. Kraiger, J. Cannon-Bowers, E. Salas. "Familiarity Breeds Teamwork: A Case for Teammate-Specific Competencies," Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, Orlando, FL, 2001.
3 P. D. Nelson and N. H. Berry. "Cohesion in Marine Recruit Platoons." The Journal of Psychology 68, 1968, pp. 63-71.
4 S. Liewer. "Yokosuka Ships Wrap Up Successful Hull Swap," Stars and Stripes, 26 July 2000.
5 R. O'Rourke. "Transformation and the Navy's Tough Choices Ahead: What are the Options for Policy Makers?" Naval War College Review, 2001.
Commander Daniels joined the Royal Australian Naval Reserve as a military psychologist in 1984. Her naval activities have included recruiting, security, counseling, neuropsychological and clinical psychology, critical incident stress debriefings, and studies in alternative crewing strategies.