Workplace frustration leading to task deviation and accidents at sea: A sociocultural perspective on the maritime human element

Rajapakse, Asanka; Emad, Gholam Reza Article Workplace frustration leading to task deviation and accidents at sea: A sociocultural perspective on the maritime human element Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics (AJSL) Provided in Cooperation with: Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Seoul Suggested Citation: Rajapakse, Asanka; Emad, Gholam Reza (2025) : Workplace frustration leading to task deviation and accidents at sea: A sociocultural perspective on the maritime human element, Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics (AJSL), ISSN 2352-4871, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Vol. 41, Iss. 1, pp. 28-37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2025.01.001 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/329754 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 41 (2025) 28–37 Available online 15 January 2025 2092-5212/© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Workplace frustration leading to task deviation and accidents at sea – A sociocultural perspective on the maritime human element Asanka Rajapakse * , Gholam Reza Emad Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, Launceston, 58, Warmbrunn Cres, Berwick, VIC 3806, Australia ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Task Deviation Frustrations Seafaring Work as Imagined and Work as Done Human element Maritime accidents ABSTRACT Seafaring continues to be risky despite the tremendous international effort to curb maritime accidents. While onboard, seafarers, as the principal human element in the maritime industry, must face myriad physical and mental stresses and dynamic safety challenges. So far, many of these challenges have remained out of the scope of the maritime industry and research communities. Our earlier research addressed some human element-related challenges, including time constraints, fatigue and performing simultaneous tasks. This study addresses a crucial element that has yet to be adequately researched: seafarers’ frustration at their workplace. It is essential because managing the high rate of maritime accidents due to task deviation and its underlying factor of frustration has been a significant challenge for the governing authorities of the maritime industry. This research constitutes a significant qualitative investigation, utilising interviews to explore an underlying factor contributing to maritime accidents. We show that workplace frustration is a significant cause of task deviation, leading to dangerous situations at sea. This paper presents four reasons for frustration at sea: physical hardship in conducting a task, social isolation, working with undesirable people, and severed expectations. Additionally, the main steps that the maritime industry can take to mitigate seafarers’ frustration at sea are recommended. Introduction Shipping is the lifeblood of the world economy. More than 80 % of world trade by volume is done by ships (UNCTAD, 2023). Unfortunately, the high frequency of maritime accidents and their consequences remain the industry’s main challenges (IUMI, 2017; EMSA, 2023). A significant part of the aftermath of a maritime accident is the investigative analysis of its root causes (Hyten & Ludwig, 2017). The investigation into maritime accidents shows that seafarers’ task deviation significantly contributes to most accidents (Rajapakse et al., 2022). Task deviation occurs when seafarers, to achieve the assigned objectives best, deviate from the prescribed action tasks provided by their shipping companies (Leveson, 2004; Rajapakse & Emad, 2021). The world maritime regulatory body, International Maritime Organisation (IMO), has adopted maritime safety regulations such as the International Safety Management (ISM) code and the Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping of Seafarers (STCW Convention) with the aim of minimising accidents at sea. However, studies show these efforts have achieved less-than-perfect results (Batalden & Sydnes, 2014; Knudsen & Hassler, 2011). This might be because the maritime industry perceives shipping as a technical linear operation overlooking the complexity of the seafarers’ role in conducting tasks in a dynamic work environment (Oltedal & Lützh¨ oft, 2018). The existing literature indicates that accident theories and models have emerged from diverse disciplines, adapting to societal changes. This underscores the intricacy of maritime accidents within a sociotechnical context (Awal & Hasegawa, 2017; Dekker, 2004; Rasmussen, 1982; Reason, 1990, 2000; Sanders & McCormick, 1993; Sulgan & Sosedova, 2016). Prior research also demonstrates the dynamic nature of the shipping industry, with seafarers’ misperformed non-technical skills being identified as a primary contributor to maritime accidents (Galierikov´ a, 2019; Rajapakse et al., 2019; Saeed et al., 2017). The maritime industry exhibits complexity, encompassing independent yet interconnected components that give rise to non-linear operational processes. (Caschili & Medda, 2012). The degree of seafarers’ involvement in onboard operations may add to the complexity and uncertainty in terms of human factor attributes such as frustration (Dingus et al., 2016; Strayer et al., 2014). Hence, the way work is conducted by seafarers (Work as Done) may be different to the manner anticipated by the shipping companies (Work as Imagined) (Hollnagel, 2014; * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Rajapakse). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ajsl https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2025.01.001 Received 20 February 2024; Received in revised form 20 December 2024; Accepted 9 January 2025 The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 41 (2025) 28–37 29 Rajapakse et al., 2019). Recognising distinctions between Work-As-Imagined (WAI) and Work-As-Done (WAD) within a workplace has been emphasised as a crucial element for organisations aiming to attain optimal safety (Carvalho et al., 2018; Dekker, 2003). Hence, comprehending the reasons behind these variations is imperative for ensuring safe and reliable maritime operations (Anderson et al., 2016; Braithwaite et al., 2017). Many scholars have detailed the direct factors of an incident or risky actions aboard ships (e.g. ineffective communication or inadequate supervision), yet they fail to explain the underlying psychological reasons that could cause discrepancies between WAI and WAD in the maritime domain (Bergstr¨ om et al., 2009; Lützh¨ oft et al., 2006; Praetorius & Lundh, 2013; Praetorius & Hollnagel, 2014; Rajapakse & Emad, 2021; de Vries, 2017; Yuen et al., 2020). This research aimed to understand the factors causing seafarers’ frustration at sea and how they may influence task deviation, leading to dangerous situations at sea. Insights on factors causing seafarers frustration leading to accidents may assist the maritime industry in introducing measures to minimise this problem. Background Causes of frustration in the workplace Frustration in the workplace can arise from various sources, often contributing to decreased job satisfaction, lower productivity, and higher turnover rates. Both qualitative studies in diverse work environments reveal critical patterns in the factors leading to frustration. Role ambiguity and role conflict Role ambiguity, where employees are uncertain about their responsibilities, and role conflict, where conflicting demands arise, are two significant sources of frustration. Research has demonstrated that unclear job roles lead to confusion, stress, and dissatisfaction (Rizzo et al., 1970). These factors are prominent in maritime contexts where unclear responsibilities may contribute to seafarer fatigue, which in turn increases the likelihood of accidents (Rajapakse & Emad, 2021). The inability to prioritize or meet conflicting expectations exacerbates frustration and is often linked to workplace stress and burnout (Schmidt et al., 2014). Work overload and time pressure Work overload, where employees perceive they have too much work in too little time, is another critical contributor to workplace frustration. Time pressure, combined with inadequate resources, can leave employees feeling helpless and overwhelmed (LePine et al., 2005). This sense of being overburdened, especially common in high-pressure environments such as seafaring, leads to emotional exhaustion and increased frustration, potentially resulting in unsafe behaviours (Spector & Jex, 1998). Lack of autonomy Autonomy, or the degree of control employees have over their work, significantly affects frustration levels. When workers feel they have little influence over how they perform their tasks, their sense of ownership diminishes, leading to dissatisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). In maritime studies, limited autonomy, particularly among seafarers facing rigid organizational hierarchies, has been identified as a factor that amplifies fatigue and frustration, increasing the likelihood of accidents at sea (Sparks et al., 2001). Ineffective communication and poor leadership Poor communication between employees and management is another significant source of frustration. Ineffective communication leads to misunderstandings and unmet expectations, contributing to feelings of isolation and alienation in the workplace (Clampitt & Downs, 1993). In high-risk environments like shipping, poor communication can exacerbate stress, fatigue, and ultimately, frustration (Braun & Clarke, 2016). Moreover, leadership style plays a crucial role, with autocratic or unsupportive managers linked to heightened frustration (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009). Unfair treatment and lack of recognition Perceived inequities in treatment, such as unfair work assignments, lack of promotions, or inadequate rewards, significantly contribute to workplace frustration. According to equity theory, employees compare their input to the outcomes they receive, and perceived imbalances result in dissatisfaction (Adams, 1965). In the maritime sector, where long hours and demanding conditions are common, the absence of recognition for hard work often amplifies feelings of frustration and demotivation (Allen & Rogelberg, 2013). Interpersonal conflicts and fatigue Interpersonal conflicts between colleagues or supervisors are a frequent source of frustration in the workplace. These conflicts can stem from differences in work style, values, or goals, which disrupt teamwork and collaboration (Jehn, 1995). In maritime settings, these conflicts can lead to strained relationships and increased stress, further contributing to fatigue. Studies have shown that fatigue among seafarers is closely linked to frustration and unsafe behaviours, with interpersonal conflicts compounding these effects (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Frustration and unsafe behaviour As shown in Fig. 1, research shows that frustration is one of the underlying factors distracting seafarers, leading to task deviation at sea. Substantial research supports the fact that frustration has a considerable effect on cognition and physical, emotional, and behavioural attributes of people at work in industries such as health, aviation, and road transport affecting safety (Arkes et al., 1988; Berkowitz, 1989; Beisswingert et al., 2015; Brandenburg et al., 2017; Fessler et al., 2004; Gasper & Clore, 1998; Ge et al., 2017; Lerner & Tiedens, 2006; Lowenstein & Lerner, 2003; Mesken et al., 2007; NTSB, 1994). These studies show that frustration causes headaches, forgetfulness, lack of concentration, lack of attention to detail, confusion, errors in decision-making, lack of confidence, and carelessness, which lead to consequential outcomes at workplaces. Further, frustration has been identified as a trigger for anger (Berkowitz, 1993), resulting in factors such as aggressive behaviour and risky behaviour (Ge et al., 2017; Nesbit et al., 2007; Precht et al., 2017; Szasz et al., 2010; Wickens et al., 2016; Zhang & Chan, 2016). While frustration is also associated with risky behaviours at work (Baumann & DeSteno, 2012; Jeon et al., 2014; Lennon & Watson, 2015; Stephens & Groeger, 2011; Stephens & Ohtsuka, 2014; Stephens et al., 2016), frustration may divert attention required to safely perform a task (Strayer et al., 2014). Research carried out in the road transportation industry found that driving under the influence of frustration increases the risk of a road accident by a factor of 9.8 (Dingus et al., 2016). Further, Nesbit & Conger (2011) identified frustration as a source of distraction. Engaging in tasks while experiencing frustration has been identified as a form of impairment, as supported by multiple studies that highlight its significance as a key contributor to unsafe behaviour (Dahlen et al., 2005). Therefore, it can be argued that an impaired perception of the benefits of undertaking a particular health-seeking behaviour during a work task may negatively affect risk-taking behaviour (Greer et al., 2015; Konkor et al., 2019; Minhad et al., 2017). Further, Wang et al. (2020) show that A. Rajapakse and G.R. Emad The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 41 (2025) 28–37 30 a frustrated attitude has a negative effect on transport safety awareness. Other studies show that the human ability to follow a procedure could be compromised while frustrated due to reduced accuracy, focus and lack of sound judgement, resulting in task deviation (Nadrian et al., 2019; Rajapakse & Emad, 2021). With the introduction of the ISM code, shipping companies need to provide their crew with work procedures and checklists in the ship’s safety management system (SMS) to enhance safety. These must be followed linearly for most technical work seafarers conduct at sea. However, when preparing the work procedures, it is improbable for the designers to foresee phenomena such as frustration, which may distract seafarers when following the procedure at sea. The unforeseen consequences arising from the dynamic and challenging characteristics inherent in the maritime industry, combined with the unpredictable human factor, can lead to a divergence between the envisioned work procedures (WAI) designed by work planners and the actual work performed by seafarers (WAD) (Fenneman & Frankenhuis, 2020; Ma et al., 2023). These discrepancies may lead to accidents at sea (Hollnagel, 2021). The literature on research performed on frustration and accidents in the maritime domain remains limited in the context of WAI and WAD. More importantly, no compelling findings from the existing studies could be discerned regarding the factors contributing to seafarer frustration through an exhaustive literature examination. This can be observed in the reaction of the maritime industry to mitigating task deviations with methods such as tighter procedures, extended training, and utilising technology (Dekker, 2018; Emad & Roth, 2008, 2009; Rajapakse & Emad, 2023), leaving underlying factors such as seafarer frustration unaddressed. Consequently, marine accident reports demonstrate that these approaches failed to achieve the desired safety results (Batalden & Sydnes, 2014). As per the authors’ knowledge, the present study is the first that seeks to understand workplace frustration and how it may contribute to task deviations, which may lead to accidents at sea. WAI & WAD and its impact on task deviation Seafarers must follow the prescribed procedure for each technical operation they need to perform onboard ships. These procedures are preplanned as linear operations by the shipping company at the blunt end (WAI). In contrast, seafarers’ operations at the sea’s sharp end are dynamic, evolving, and non-linear (WAD) (Hollnagel, 2014; Oltedal & Lützh¨ oft, 2018). The mismatch between WAD and WAI while attempting to perform these maritime operations and the obligation to align them can frustrate seafarers (Rajapakse et al., 2021). Most accident investigations blame seafarers at the sharp end for accidents because they failed to follow the procedures correctly (Chan et al., 2016). Shipping companies rely on the procedures in the Safety Management System (SMS) to evaluate seafarers’ safety performance and to demonstrate compliance with regulatory standards, such as the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, to stakeholders (Valdez Banda et al., 2019). Research indicates that various human factors, at both personal and organizational levels, can compel task performers to deviate from the procedures outlined in a ship’s SMS to complete tasks more efficiently (Dekker, 2006). Thereby, seafarers may sign off on procedures and checklists without fully adhering to them (Rajapakse & Emad, 2021). This practice results in discrepancies between the documented compliance and the actual execution of tasks. Although these deviations do not always lead to accidents (Kontogiannis, 1999), they create latent risks. If such deviations are not identified and corrected in Fig. 1. Task Deviation at Sea Model. Source: Rajapakse et al# (2019). A. Rajapakse and G.R. Emad The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 41 (2025) 28–37 31 time, they could lead to significant and adverse outcomes. Marine authorities investigating these consequential outcomes blame seafarers for these incidents. However, safety science is experiencing a paradigm shift from blaming humans for errors leading to accidents (Safety-I) to the significance of a systemic approach to the human element in preventing accidents (Safety-II). However, the shipping industry is yet to support the paradigm shift (Teperi et al., 2019). So far, instruments such as the ISM code have largely overlooked task deviation among seafarers regarding human elements, such as the role of seafarer frustration in preventing accidents (Rajapakse et al., 2022). Historically, task deviation due to frustration has been examined from sociobiological assessments (Freud, 1930; Lorenz, 1974), predictable consequences (Dollard et al., 1939), revenge mechanism (Berkowitz, 1993), quantifiable characteristics of personality (Buss & Durkee, 1957), & as an unfavourable personal behaviour issue (Tillman & Hobbs, 1949). Nevertheless, accidents caused by frustration remain an elusive topic to study. Research method This study, part of a broader investigation examining the influence of human factors in hazardous maritime conditions (Rajapakse & Emad, 2021), employed a qualitative approach to gain deep insights from participants (Bernard, 2013). Qualitative research enables the construction of meaning and emphasizes interpreting data within its specific context (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Through this method, the study accessed participants’ experiences, perspectives, and interpretations (Sutton & Austin, 2015), allowing for a comprehensive understanding of how seafarers perceive their experiences and the reasons behind behaviours that may lead to maritime accidents. Data collection One-to-one in-depth interviews were carried out to gather data for this research study. Interviewees were selected based on their involvement in maritime accidents and incidents, which provided the contextual basis for the interviews. The interviews enabled the researcher to capture reliable perspectives of research participants in the subject matter (DeVane & Squire, 2012). Further, encouraging interviewees to openly express their thoughts and feelings allowed for the preparation of detailed reports that provided comprehensive accounts of the incidents discussed (Berg, 2007, Rajapakse et al., 2022). In contrast to other data collection methods, the video-recorded one-to-one interviews provided additional data regarding people’s tone of voice, interruptions, body gestures, pauses and different mannerisms, which added to the richness of the collected data (Drew, 2009; Yin, 2011). Data from sixty-one interviews were used for the study. Interviewees comprised deck and engine officers, crew, and the catering department staff. Their nationalities represented various geographical areas, including Australia, Europe, Asia, and West Africa. During the interviews, the participants were part of an active maritime workforce of different industry sectors, including tanker vessels, container carriers, bulk carriers, general cargo ships, reefer carriers, and offshore support vessels. Research participants were asked to elucidate, to the best of their recollection, the circumstances and chronological sequence of events that led to maritime accidents associated with deviations from assigned tasks. In instances where frustration was cited as a cause for task deviations, participants in the research were prompted to expound upon the underlying reasons for such frustrations. In adherence to ethical requirements, no additional information concerning the accident was acquired aside from details on its nature. The Human Research Ethics Committee (Tasmania) Network (HREC) approved the interview structure used in the study. The HREC, a collaborative initiative between the Department of Health and Human Services and the University of Tasmania, has approved this study with the project reference number H 0016348. The interviewees were either directly involved in or witnessed these accidents and incidents. “Directly involved” indicates that the participant was the seafarer performing the task or was a team member engaged in the task that led to the accident. “Witnessed” refers to participants who were present at the accident or incident location and observed the events leading up to the accident. The interviews lasted thirty minutes to three hours and were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data on events leading up to seventy-four maritime accidents were obtained. These interviews were supplemented with casual discussions with twelve other senior marine officers. Although insights gained from these conversations enhanced the understanding of data collected through interviews, they were excluded from the data analysis phase, as they were not gathered under HREC regulatory guidelines. Given that the interviewees had direct involvement or witnessed the accidents and incidents under study, this research has diligently followed ethical research protocols established by the Human Research Ethics Committee (Tasmania) Network (HREC) to ensure their anonymity. To participate in the study, all research participants were required to provide informed consent through a consent form reviewed and approved by the HREC. Data analysis A theoretical thematic analysis (TA) approach was applied to identify recurring patterns within the qualitative interview data collected. TA serves as an effective methodology for detecting themes within a dataset and interpreting their significance (Braun & Clarke, 2016; Javadi & Zarea, 2016). Among the various methods of thematic analysis, this study utilized Braun & Clarke’s (2006) six-step framework, which is widely regarded as a foundational and reputable approach to qualitative data analysis, gaining significant popularity over the past decade (Braun et al., 2016). The six stages of this framework include familiarizing with the data, generating codes, developing themes, reviewing and revising themes, naming themes, and finally writing up the analysis. Initial and major codes were established through theoretical saturation (Bertaux, 1981; Bernard, 2000), achieved by continuously refining patterns until no new properties emerged (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 2001). These codes captured analytically significant aspects of the interview dataset and informed the development of themes. The codes were then clustered to create coherent and patterned themes across the dataset. These themes were organized into distinct categories that represented key ideas relevant to the research question, specifically addressing "why seafarer frustration persists, potentially leading to accidents." The review phase ensured that the analysis remained aligned with the research question and accurately represented the data, before proceeding to the final phase of defining themes. The writing phase involved compiling and refining the existing analytic insights, providing a clear presentation of the data analysis process. Findings Four categories emerge that impede the objective of an aligned WAD (by seafarers) with WAI (by shipping companies) due to frustration at sea, as depicted in Table 1. Frustration among seafarers impacts their decisions and guides their actions to deviate from the plans and procedures, regardless of whether the decisions are related to the source of frustration (Lerner & Keltner, 2000). The first category in the findings of this research is physical hardship to conduct the task. Seafarers get frustrated when the job task becomes physically too demanding. As a result, seafarers deviate from the shipping company’s task—discharging ship duties. At the same time, ill or medically unfit is also a contributing factor. Managing the physical strain while conducting the task is sometimes perceived as a separate A. Rajapakse and G.R. Emad The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 41 (2025) 28–37 32 job. Further, the sequence of tasks cannot be executed in the prescribed order sometimes due to unexpected circumstances not predicted at the planning stage (Kalisch & Aebersold, 2010; ¨ Osterman & Hult, 2016; Spooner et al., 2015) demanding more physical activities. Further, external and internal safety, security, environment and quality audits in port were sometimes too physically demanding, especially after the night out ashore without sufficient rest, causing frustration among seafarers. The second category is isolation from loved ones and society. Seafarers are continuously frustrated due to the nature of shipping, which requires seafarers to be away from loved ones and the community for an extended period. This is exacerbated when the communication arrangements provided by the shipping company for seafarers are limited or broken down (Borovnik, 2007; Caesar, 2016). Further, family and personal issues cause frustration which may lead to task deviation. On some occasions, seafarers under the influence of frustration due to personal family matters may display aggressive behaviour, which is a cause of dangerous situations at sea (Fessler et al., 2004). The third category is working with undesirable people. It is evident from this study that working with undesirable people is a cause of frustration and may lead to accidents due to task deviations. Seafarers are impacted by colleagues, supervisors, ship companies, port operators, auditors, and personnel on nearby ships. The more frustrated seafarers feel the more they perceive others as responsible for an adverse event (Quigley and Tedeschi, 1996). This, in turn, leads to task deviation due to unprecedented judgments and risky choices (Fessler et al., 2004; Lerner & Keltner, 2001). The fourth category is severed expectations. Frustration arises when circumstances do not occur in the ways expected, which may lead to task deviations (Fraine et al., 2007; Hennessy, 2008; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1999; O’Brien et al., 2004; Shinar & Compton, 2004). This study confirms that a range of issues related to the human element causes disappointments in seafarers at sea, including financial losses, family issues, and even actions taken by other ships regarding navigation. These categories are further elucidated below. Physical hardship to conduct a task This research shows that mandatory international safety regulations enforced by maritime authorities require a medical examination of all seafarers to assess fitness for work at sea before joining. However, some activities assigned to seafarers on board may be perceived or be beyond the physical capacity of the individuals, which causes task deviation due to frustration. A junior officer (R9) explained: We need to understand that everyone is not equally strong. One of the ABs was tasked with moving 200 L oil drums using a barrel mover. But he was not strong enough to move them over all the pipe protection ramps on deck. He was so p * ** ** (angry) off and ended up leaving them here and there without lashing. During heavy weather, the barrels moved and destroyed pipes and ship railing. Some went overboard, and it was very dangerous to stop them from moving. Older seafarers may also be vulnerable to frustration due to various tasks. Work at sea includes physically demanding work such as climbing high stairwells and ladders, which some older seafarers may not be able to perform efficiently even though they are cleared to work onboard (Agyemang & Ojo, 2023). Research participants also mentioned that working in unfavourable weather conditions caused frustration among seafarers leading to task deviation. These incidents are in line with many other incidents where research participants mentioned that they could not think clearly, got frustrated and took wrong decisions which were different to what they had previously agreed to during work task prestart meetings (Ge et al., 2017; Precht et al., 2017; Zhang and Chan, 2016). As an example, a master (R36) mentioned: We were going to pump out water from the spider buoy space (FPSO). Setting hoses and Wildon pump is tiring work. After we set up everything the wildon pump wouldn’t work. One of my team members inspecting the wildon pump ended up smashing it on the grating in the process of removing the air hose damaging it. He was clearly upset and the hard work had flipped his switch. The data analysis shows that when seafarers undertook work tasks that were substantially difficult or beyond their physical capacity, they demonstrated frustration and, in some instances, aggression. This is due to the contradictions within the component of the subject in the seafarers’ activity system. Notably, sometimes it is evident that when seafarers leave ships on shore leave in ports, they do not get sufficient rest before they take over duties again, which may result in frustration. Similarly, during audits in port, seafarers, especially officers who do not get the statuary rest, may get frustrated. This could lead to task deviation causing discrepancies between WAI and WAD. Additionally, when the correct tools are not available to carry out a specific task, and more physical exertion is required to complete tasks, seafarers are frustrated, leading to task deviation. Some participants responded that seafarers keep working in fatigued situations because of fear of reprimand or negative appraisal if found resting during an unscheduled break period. This causes frustration and possibly leads to task deviation. As a seafarer (R53) explained: We didn’t have the proper chipping guns (de-rusting machine)but we were chipping with much heavier guns which should not have been used for more than 20 minutes at a time with 20 minutes breaks in between. They suffer unnecessarily thinking that they’d get bad reports if they rested. They keep chipping away the whole day frustrated and hurt; they fall sick, they make Table 1 Categories and themes. Categories and their themes Physical hardship to conduct the task Physical separation from loved ones Working with undesirable people Severed Expectations Lack of physical fitness Isolation and Loneliness for long periods Unfair treatment Postponed or cancelled shore leave due to work Too tired after shore leave Missing important functions at home Perceived unfair appraisal reports Delays to promised promotions Illness while at work Single parents worried about kids at home One or more team members disagree on execution method of the job Lack of human resources on board to match workload Adverse weather conditions Someone ill in the family Language barriers Perceived unnecessary paperwork Fear of reprimand or negative appraisal if found resting Death in the family Perceived damage to reputation Delays to jobs because of paperwork / permit renewal Favouritism – physically strenuous tasks not assigned equally Slow or no Wi-Fi onboard making it difficult to communicate with family Working with colleagues who are not familiar with job tasks Perceived financial losses Simultaneous tasks Going through divorce or break up with partner Supervisor blaming / insulting his own team with other supervisors Unexpected pilot errors Low quality food Isolation from long-time friends Lack of trust among seafarers Unexpected manoeuvring actions from other ships Inadequate equipment to conduct jobs   Pressure from shipping company to continue operating vessel in spite of breakdowns Audits and Inspections   Delayed sign off A. Rajapakse and G.R. Emad The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 41 (2025) 28–37 33 mistakes. What I’m going to say is that it is not the best ship to be. Other themes which emerged, causing frustration in seafarers, are unavoidable simultaneous tasks conducted with physical hardship to achieve goals (Rajapakse et al., 2019) and favouritism among the crew which results in more physical work carried out by few individuals. Our data shows that low-quality food onboard (tools) can also cause frustration due to physical hardship. As a junior officer (R21) responded: The food onboard became useless and I’m sure master was up to monkey business with our food allowances. Boys (seafarers) couldn’t eat much of the food. We might not do some jobs given to us because of no strength without eating. How to work properly with empty stomach? Many accidents during his (master’s) 3 months on board. As the above excerpts show, perceived physical hardship when performing tasks causes frustration, thereby contradicting the object of conducting ’WAD aligned with WAI’. Physical separation from loved ones and society Seafarers are subjected to a shared working and living environment – the confines of a ship steaming in the ocean (Oldenburg and Jensen, 2012). This research confirms that seafarers consider their time onboard lonely and secluded from society (Dimitrova & Blanpain, 2010). Research participants spoke of how accidents happen because seafarers are frustrated due to this isolation and being away from loved ones (Thomas & Bailey, 2009). This condition is aggravated on essential days for them and their loved ones, such as birthdays and weddings. Also, due to the nature of work, seafarers will likely miss the passing of loved ones. They are not most of the time even able to attend the funerals. Research participants spoke of how working in these circumstances leads to task deviation due to the sheer frustration of being away at sea, causing contradictions between WAI and WAD, leading to accidents. For example, a junior officer (R53) explained: I had informed the company that the baby was due on (date) I couldn’t find relief on time. I told them I don’t care I just need to get down. I was finally relieved passing Singapore. I was so frustrated and my wife and my whole family very upset thinking I was not going to make it. I didn’t do any work those few days and the captain knew it. He always came on bridge during my watch (laughing). He was not very sure of me. Research participants also spoke of how seafarers are distracted and frustrated when they learn that loved ones are going through illnesses and pain, which sometimes leads to accidents. However, accident investigations in these cases usually blame seafarers for not following company procedures or checklists without investigating the underlying causes. This research found that some seafarers do not attempt to correct or challenge these inconsistent findings but accept them as their fate. In particular, an Able Seaman (R23) stated: My wife was pregnant and sick. The baby was deformed and the doctors had advised her to go for abortion, but she didn’t want to. I couldn’t be with her because of house loan and car loan. My mother and wife fighting at home as well. That was a bad time in my sea life and I was like a mad man. The mooring accident during this bad time because always mad. Accident report blamed me and OS (ordinary seaman) for not following chief mates signal and not familiar with mooring winch operation. This is fate and life. Research participants also pointed out that seafarer frustration leading to task deviations occurs during divorce or relationship breakups. Most of them tried to hide it from their colleagues because they were embarrassed about their situation. However, they displayed undesirable behaviour during work, consistently resulting in risky decision-making and accidents. This may be due to the uniqueness of the work context at sea since, in most other work environments, they could seek assistance from family, friends, and even professional psychologists. A master (R24) explained: When officers or crew are going through court cases it is extremely tricky to work with them. You can’t only trust them to get through jobs safely, but it is very difficult to speak to them about a job. They don’t argue with me, but I always get complaints from others that they are not safe to work with because of their aggressive behaviour for no reason. Never know when the next accident is with these people. This research also supports that the quality of communication facilities on board is a critical factor that can cause seafarers’ frustration (Thomas & Bailey, 2006; Thomas et al., 2003), leading to task deviation. Research participants spoke of how dealing with difficulties in contacting loved ones, especially when it is expensive, caused frustration on board. A master (R57) divulged: The 2 nd mate was making phone calls during the midnight to 0400 watch on the sat phone and fudging the timings on call log. He was caught after only 2 months since he started doing it. His excuse was he was doing it out of frustration simply because sat was too expensive and he had issues at home. That is apart from the fact that he was totally neglecting his watch which was a major issue. He was sent home the next port, but in reality, this would have not happened if the company provided us with better internet to call home. Two sides of the story here. But the 2 nd version is not only accepted but not even considered to my knowledge. This research has shown that isolation from loved ones and society contributes to seafarer frustration, causing discrepancies between WAD and WAI. Thus, seafarers deviate from their tasks, which has the potential to cause accidents at sea. Working with undesirable people Our research participants agree that working with undesirable people causes frustration among seafarers leading to task deviation and subsequent consequential events. This research found that unfair treatment onboard is perceived as undesirable. This phenomenon is common in other workplaces (Baron, 1994; Kinney, 1995; Mantell, 1994), which mostly goes unreported. However, research participants mentioned that seafarers sometimes engage in aggression against their supervisors (Neuman & Baron, 1997). For example, a master (R32) explained: They (shipping company) has all certificate copies and all documents. They don’t need to ask me. But when they need something they always ask me. I have to cater to all these nonsense otherwise it can affect my job you know. These people easily s * ** * (ruin) my happiness if I don’t do what they ask. Research participants showed that seafarers are subjected to unfair treatment in different circumstances by elements in the shipping industry hierarchy, onboard as well as ashore. Respondents mentioned that when seafarers "spoke up" to point out safety concerns, unsafe practices or welfare concerns on board, they were sometimes blamed and labelled as "trouble makers". This affected their chances of reemployment in the same company. Gaps in interpersonal trust among seafarers lead to a deteriorating safety culture and human errors (andMakarova,2017). Also, perceived racism is frequent on board. Some research participants shared their experience on how some supervisors and colleagues did not even respond when they greeted them. Abuse by senior officers is also prevalent, and sometimes physical abuse, but these cases almost always go unreported. However, some seafarers behaved aggressively, verbally and sometimes physically in some situations towards the person (s) mistreating them. They were dismissed on behavioural violation grounds without investigation. A junior engineer (R26) mentioned: When I was a cadet, chief (engineer) shouted at me in filth in the (engine) control room all the time in front of others during tea time for various things. Some were genuine mistakes but it was hell. He once kicked me as well but no one said anything because he was a senior chief engineer in the company and he could sack anyone anytime. I injured my fingers during a simple lift on that ship because I was always upset. We can’t change these people. There was also a senior captain who sacked second mates all the time. The funny thing is company obliged all the time without at least an investigation just by going on the captain’s bad report. When seafarers are under the impression that their reputation among the other crew members on the ship is blemished due to mistakes, blame from supervisors, rumours, and issues at home seafarers get frustrated A. Rajapakse and G.R. Emad The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 41 (2025) 28–37 34 and may engage in task deviation. Similarly, seafarers experienced frustration when their supervisors spoke negatively about them as a team or individually to other supervisors. Additionally, perceived unfair appraisal reports by supervisors are a critical cause of frustration for seafarers. A master (R09) explained: When crew actually get negative appraisal report, we discuss with them how they can improve and some of them take it objectively. But some obviously think it is unfair and disagree and think it will affect their future job prospects and act anxious. Because they want to continue to work peacefully, they don’t write any opposing comments but I know from their behaviour that for one they are so unhappy for days if not months and also their quality of work decreases, try to hide mistakes, don’t help others and try to always show they are better by taking short cuts out of sheer frustration. Appraisal reports in today’s form is a recipe for disaster. Moreover, seafarers are frustrated, which leads to task deviation when they are part of a team but do not agree with the procedure followed and agreed by the rest. Research participants mentioned how their concerns as team members are sometimes dismissed. However, the team decides to go ahead with the job causing frustration. Seafarers are also frustrated when other team members are unfamiliar with the job tasks and must compensate for their shortcomings. Additionally, language barriers when working with other nationalities give rise to frustration leading to task deviation among seafarers, potentially causing accidents. Severed Expectations This study confirms that frustration occurs due to unmet expectations of seafarers leading to task deviations, as also shown by other researchers (Fraine et al., 2007; Hennessy, 2008; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 1999; O’Brien et al., 2004; Shinar & Compton, 2004). Seafarers have personal expectations regarding their work environment and their future. When these expectations are cut short by prevailing circumstances, they work under the influence of frustration. This research found that seafarers frequently experience disappointment on board which may lead to task deviation causing accidents. For example, an electrical engineer (R10) explained: 2nd engineer told fitter to do a repair on the boiler feed pump / dismantle and overhaul. Fitter expected this job was postponed because of two three difficult shifts earlier. Red hot argument no fighting but almost. Fitter started to dismantle the feed pump. He was fuming when he started the job. Because of the argument he forgot to close (isolate suction and discharge valves). I Heard after 30 minutes two three people shouting from below decks (2nd deck) because of the accident. Delays to expected promotions are another reason seafarers get frustrated. Some seafarers wait many years expecting promised promotions, but shipping companies make excuses to delay promotions even further. Also, some seafarers experience salary shaving due to salary scale adjustments by shipping companies while onboard, leading to severe frustration. These situations lead to task deviation, as a junior officer (R28) explained: I had the valid contract with my salary clearly stated for the whole time (tenure) on board. The company decided to decrease junior officer wages and mine was affected too. I was shocked and devastated. I had so many things going on at home and I needed the money. I couldn’t fight the company. I was so upset and depressed feeling helpless. I couldn’t concentrate on watch always thinking about the money cut. Basically, the thought of not doing a good job because my salary was reduced running in my head. Furthermore, unexpected administrative work, commonly called paperwork on ships, frustrates seafarers. Research participants spoke of how frustrating it is when jobs are unexpectedly delayed because of paperwork such as permit validation at shift change. Similarly, seafarers perceive many administrative tasks as unnecessary and distracting, causing frustration. These frustrations lead to taking shortcuts and sometimes neglecting the job altogether, hence task deviation leading to potential accidents. Another cause of seafarer frustration on board is the lack of human resources to match the expected workload even though the crew sizes comply with international regulations. A chief engineer (R18) explained an example of a sequence of events building up to an accident: We couldn’t cope up with the work. We had to get help from deck people to work in the engine room to get the repairs done on the genes (generators) and main engine. Although we didn’t talk about it, we knew that we didn’t have enough people and we were pretty frustrated about it because if we had more people, it would be an easy couple of jobs. Just because we have enough people as per the safe manning certificate, doesn’t mean that we have enough people to do the work safely. This is not what we expect when we come to work on a ship. Research respondents pointed out that wheelhouse frustration occurs due to unexpected manoeuvres from other ships. Watchkeepers display aggressive risk-taking manoeuvres in violation of company procedures in the perception of collision regulations violations from other ships leading to close-quarters situations and sometimes accidents. Another source of frustration is unexpected pilot errors. A master (R56) explained: A master expects the pilot to know his * ** * (be competent). Most of the time everything goes smooth. Sometimes not. If it comes to a point that I need to take over the con from the pilot, we already into deep * ** * (trouble). It is very difficult to save the situation from there. At this point of time you are so frustrated for trusting this fellow (pilot) to do a good job, it is so difficult to get your * ** * (act) together in this state of anger to follow procedure and do the right thing. Thus, it could be stated that severed expectations cause discrepancies in WAD aligned with WAI at sea by seafarers, resulting in contradicting the safe operation of ships. Discussion and conclusion Today, there is a significant need to identify the sources of erroneous human actions and address underlying contributing factors to improve maritime safety. Although some maritime safety aspects have improved since the introduction of safety instruments by the IMO, such as the ISM code (Karakasnaki et al., 2018), there is considerable room for improvement in aligning work-as-imagined and work-as-done (Rajapakse and Emad, 2021). This research explores frustration as a contributing factor to task deviations and, subsequently, may lead to accidents at sea among seafarers. The study emphasises the physical hardships involved in specific tasks, such as those beyond individual physical capacities, leading to frustration and potential accidents. Additionally, the isolation from loved ones and society during extended periods at sea is identified as a significant source of frustration, impacting seafarers’ mental states and contributing to task deviations. Working with undesirable individuals subjected to unfair treatment also leads to frustration and subsequent task deviations. Further, the study highlights how unmet expectations, such as delayed promotions, unnecessary administrative tasks and salary adjustments, contribute to seafarers’ frustration and potential accidents. Overall, the research identifies multiple elements within the seafarers’ activity system that, when conflicting, result in discrepancies between work-as-imagined (WAI) and work-as-done (WAD), potentially jeopardising the safety of maritime operations. In an era where safety science is undergoing a paradigm shift from traditional error-based safety management (Safety-I) to one which concerns the capability of the human element in safety management (Safety-II) (Hollnagel, 2014), the shipping industry seems to resist the change. This could be the reason for consistent shipping mishaps throughout the world. This study supports the findings of Teperi et al. (2019), which shows that safety management systems on board are perceived as technically focused, neglecting human elements, such as seafarer frustration in maritime operations. The study also supports the findings of Greer et al. (2015) and Lerner and Tiedens (2006), which A. Rajapakse and G.R. Emad The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 41 (2025) 28–37 35 point out that frustration may hinder objectivity, rationality and risk aversion abilities, leading to undesirable situations. Therefore, it is apparent that the shipping industry may require a new focus on policy, procedures, and seafarers’ competence to curb maritime accidents. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first in the maritime industry that aims to understand seafarer frustration and how it may contribute to task deviations that may lead to accidents. More research on task deviation caused by frustration at the workplace is required to shed more light on this elusive topic. The following actions are recommended to the maritime industry for consideration as a stepping stone for improving safety at sea by addressing frustration among seafarers. These have been compiled from the responses provided by the participants in the research. •Shipping companies must create a ‘speak-up’ culture on their ships by rewarding seafarers for expressing their ideas, including when frustrated. A grievance procedure must be implemented on every ship, and seafarers must be educated on this so that seafarers’ frustrations are investigated and managed by shipping companies. •Shipping companies must educate seafarers to redesign jobs and provide resources for redesigning jobs where required so that seafarers of different physical capacities can conduct jobs. •Shipping companies must provide seafarers with sufficient Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for use in adverse weather conditions, such as in cold or warm climates. Flag states should consider implementing minimum levels of these PPE to be carried on ships as per their trading routes. •Flag states should consider implementing minimum standards for food regarding nutritional value on board ships, irrespective of the different nationalities working on board. •Shipping companies should consider implementing rosters for their seafarers to go ashore while in ports so that personnel going ashore can get enough rest to prevent fatigue. •Flag states should implement minimum standards for proper internet connections on ships so seafarers can use technology to virtually participate in essential functions at home. •Shipping companies should implement a reciprocal crew appraisal system where supervisors and subordinates can assess each other’s performance. •Shipping companies must provide counselling services to seafarers and educate them on the benefits of reaching out to counselling services in times of frustration. •The inclusion of ’Frustration’ as a hazard in the ’Job Risk Assessment’ template provided to seafarers by the shipping company may assist seafarers in implementing actions to negate frustrations during the job task if they exist. •Shipping companies need to reassess and reduce the maximum duration seafarers spend at sea and the minimum time ashore on vacation before being called out to work at sea again. Limitations The interviews were exclusively conducted with seafarers involved in maritime accidents and did not represent a broader population of seafarers. While this does not compromise the overall scientific integrity of the study presented, it stands as a limitation within this research. Another limitation of this research was the restriction on presenting participant data openly. Due to the sensitive nature of the information collected under HREC regulations, all presented data had to be carefully anonymized, ensuring no data could be traced back to any specific incidents described by the participants. An additional constraint in this study is the variability in individuals’ tolerance levels regarding workplace challenges and domestic issues, potentially influencing task deviations at sea. Hence, further exploration is warranted to understand this complex phenomenon better. Further, sea voyages on internationally trading vessels with personnel from different parts of the world are highly affected by voyage-specific and other sociocultural elements in the maritime industry not captured in this study, resulting in the requirement for further investigation on how to counter seafarer frustration at sea. Consequently, a solution to this intricate problem is yet to be discovered. CRediT authorship contribution statement Gholam Reza Emad: Supervision, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Asanka Rajapakse: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors whose names are listed immediately below certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-fi nancial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affi liations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. Dr. Asanka Rajapakse Dr. Gholam Reza Emad References Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299. Agyemang, E., & Ojo, T. K. (2023). “It is just annoying and time-wasting”: Understanding jaywalkers’ disdain for footbridge use in urban Ghana. ISSN 2214-1405 Journal of Transport Health, 31(2023), Article 101634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jth.2023.101634. Allen, J. A., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2013). Manager-led group meetings: A context for promoting employee engagement. Group Organization Management, 38(5), 543–569. Anderson, J. E., Ross, A. J., & Jaye, P. (2016). Modelling Resilience and Researching the Gap between Work-As-Imagined and Work-As-Done. Resilient Health Care: Reconciling Work-As-Imagined and Work-As-Done, 133–141. Arkes, H. R., Dawes, R. M., & Christensen, C. (1988). Factors influencing the use of a decision rule in aprobabilistic task. In J. Dowie, & A. S. Elstein (Eds.), Professional judgment: a reader in clinical decisionmaking. New York: Cambridge University Press. Awal, Z. I., & Hasegawa, K. (2017). A Study on Accident Theories and Application to Maritime Accidents. Procedia Engineering, 194, 298–306. ISSN 1877-7058. Baron, R. A. (1994). The physical environment of work settings; Effects on task performance, interpersonal relations, and job satisfaction. In In. B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 16 pp. 1–46). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Batalden, B., & Sydnes, A. K. (2014). Maritime safety and the ISM code: a study of investigated casualties and incidents. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 13, 3–25. Baumann, J., & DeSteno, D. (2012). Context explains divergent effects of anger on risk taking. Emotion, 12(6), 1196–1199. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029788 Beisswingert, B. M., Zhang, K., Goetz, T., Fang, P., & Fischbacher, U. (2015). The effects of subjective loss of control on risk-taking behavior: the mediating role of anger. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00774 Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. London: Pearson. Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59–73. Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its Causes, Consequences, And Control. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bergstr¨ om, J., Dahlstr¨ om, N., Van-Winsen, R., Lützh¨ oft, M., Nyce, J., & Dekker, S. (2009). Rule and role retreat: An empirical study of procedures and resilience. Journal of Maritime Research, 6(3), 41–58. Bertaux, D. (1981). From the life-history approach to the transformation of sociological practice. In D. Bertaux (Ed.), In Biography and society: The life history approach in the social sciences (pp. 29–45). London: Sage. Borovnik, M. (2007). Labor Circulation and Changes among Seafarers’ Families and Communities in Kiribati. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 16(2), 225–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/011719680701600205 Braithwaite, J., Wears, R. L., & Hollnagel, E. (2017). Methods and Solutions: Reconciling Work-As-Imagined and Work-As-Done. Resilient Health Care. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Brandenburg, S., Oehl, M., & Seigies, K. (2017). German taxi drivers’ experiences and expressions of driving anger: Are the driving anger scale and the driving anger expression inventory valid measures? Traffic Injury Prevention, 18(8), 807–812. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2017.1316493 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. A. Rajapakse and G.R. Emad