A vessel is approaching a berth. The bridge team has a passage plan, functioning equipment and experienced officers. Then one officer notices that the vessel is setting closer to the edge of the planned track than expected. The master is engaged with the pilot. The officer has the information, but pauses before speaking.
This is an illustrative situation, not a report of an incident. Its significance lies in a question that applies far beyond one bridge: how quickly does an observation become information that the whole team can use?
We spend considerable time and money teaching people the technical aspects of their roles. We should. But operational excellence also depends on what happens between recognizing a change and responding to it together. Knowledge held silently by one person cannot improve a decision made by another.
The Part of Competence that is Easy to Miss
Over the past three years, our organization has supported Enhanced Bridge Resource Management with more than 300 deck officers. The work has reinforced something I have believed throughout my career in human factors training: communication, leadership and self-awareness cannot be treated as optional additions to technical competence. They influence whether technical competence is used when circumstances change.
Bridge resource management already recognizes situational awareness, teamwork and challenge. The difficulty is that agreement with these principles in a training room tells us little about what a person will do under pressure. A junior officer may know that they should challenge a decision yet still worry about interrupting the master. A master may sincerely welcome challenge yet close it down with an impatient first response. A team can follow its procedure and still fail to build a shared picture.
Consider two possible calls from the officer in our opening example. “Something doesn't look right” leaves others to work out what has changed. “Our lateral movement is greater than planned; I recommend we verify our position before continuing” gives the team an observation, its significance and a proposed next step. The master's reply then determines whether that information is examined: “Show me what you're seeing” is a short invitation with an operational purpose.
Where Emotional Intelligence Earns its Place
Emotional intelligence can sound remote from navigation until we describe it in behavior. It includes recognizing our own response, regulating it and taking account of how another person may receive what we say. Under pressure, an officer may need to recognize their hesitation without allowing it to delay a clear message. A master may need to notice a defensive impulse and listen to an unwelcome observation before making a decision.
That does not mean replacing command with a discussion group. The master remains accountable. The aim is to give that person the fullest available picture. When an officer speaks clearly and the person in command responds constructively, hierarchy can support a decision rather than obstruct the flow of information.
In our programs, we ask people to examine the moment when an observation either becomes a conversation or stays in someone's head. What was noticed? What was assumed about what others knew? What made it difficult to speak? How did the response affect what the team did next? These questions make the human factor observable and give people a way to practice it.
The Bridge is Not the Whole System
The same issue arises in the engine room, on deck and between vessel and shore. A handover can omit a constraint because the person giving it thinks the receiving team already knows. A crew member can notice a departure from normal operation yet struggle to raise it across rank or department. Shore management can create schedule pressure without intending to discourage a pause.
This is why I believe leadership matters at every level. The conditions for good decisions are set by many small interactions, not only by the person who gives the final order. Before an operation, a leader can state which changes would cause the team to stop and reassess. During it, they can ask for a second view. Afterwards, they can thank someone for raising a concern even if the original plan proved sound. Those responses tell people whether speaking up is genuinely useful.
The responsibility runs both ways. Team members need to describe a concern promptly and precisely. Leaders need to make it possible for that concern to be heard. Neither behavior is strengthened by a poster declaring that everyone has a voice.
How Would an Operator Know it is Working
A completed course is evidence of attendance, not proof that behavior has changed. We need to look for the actions that the course was intended to develop. In a simulator exercise, for example, an assessor can note when a deviation was detected, when it was voiced, how the message was acknowledged and whether the plan was revised. A structured debrief can then explore both the technical result and the decisions that produced it.
An exercise can end safely even when an important observation was raised too late. That is still valuable evidence. It creates a chance to discuss the hesitation without waiting for a poor outcome. Equally, an early challenge and a well-judged response should be recognised, even if no dramatic maneuver follows. The quality of the team's process matters alongside the result.
Observation needs clear criteria. “They communicated well” is too vague to guide development. Did the person describe the change? Explain its operational implication? Receive an acknowledgement? Confirm the next action? These are behaviors that can be practiced, observed and discussed. Follow-up on board can help establish whether they survive outside the training environment.
This also gives managers better questions to ask after a difficult operation: what information was available, who held it, when did it become shared, and what made the conversation easier or harder? The answers may point to coaching, a handover practice, workload or a shore-side decision. Blaming the last person in the chain rarely gives the organisation the whole picture.
The Next Critical Moment
I am not suggesting that emotional intelligence alone will prevent incidents or guarantee performance. Ships need sound equipment, technical competence, procedures and effective oversight. My point is that these investments depend on people connecting with one another at the right moment. The ability to notice our own response, communicate a concern and hear one from someone else deserves the same practical attention as the other parts of the operation.
The next critical moment may look entirely routine until someone sees a small difference. Will that person speak? Will the rest of the team listen and act? If we train technical skills thoroughly but leave these human capabilities to chance, what information might never reach the people who need it?