At a recent Nautical Institute (Singapore) conference, during a panel on sustainability and future fuels, a comment from a well-regarded voice in maritime innovation struck me. Su Yin Anand, Strategy & Transformation Leader at IBM Consulting, explained how anxiety surrounding new fuels may have less to do with the fuels themselves, and more to do with how we introduce them. Or rather, how we frame them.
That observation changed the way I thought about the entire session. Because when it comes to crew training, the industry often defaults to technical instruction and compliance checklists. What we don’t always do, and what Anand’s remark indirectly spotlighted, is: think about the psychological framing of new knowledge: how the message lands, what emotional reactions it triggers, and what beliefs it challenges or reinforces.
The fear of the “new” is mostly a trick of perception
If you’ve worked in any operational environment, whether on board or ashore, you’ll know that resistance to change is rarely about laziness or incompetence. It’s often about fear: the fear of appearing unskilled; fear of having to relearn what you thought you already knew; fear that this “new thing” will upend a system that, for all its flaws, works.
But here’s the thing: in many cases, the “new thing” isn’t actually new. It’s just unfamiliar.
Take ammonia. It has been transported safely for years. The safety protocols are known. The technical know-how exists. Sure, using it as fuel introduces a different operational context, with new variables to manage, but the foundation isn’t new. What’s changed is the application – it’s a reframing of function, not a reinvention of physics.
This distinction matters. Because how we frame new information can shape whether someone leans in with curiosity or freezes with apprehension.
From psychology to practicality
There’s a well-established concept in developmental psychology called the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). In short, it refers to the space between what someone can already do, and what they can do with just a little bit of guidance. Training is most effective when it works within that zone, where learners are challenged, but not overwhelmed. When we tell seafarers, “This is all brand new, buckle up,” we widen that zone into a chasm. But when we say, “You already know parts of this. Let’s build on it,” we anchor learning in familiarity.
Another concept worth bringing in is cognitive reappraisal – a technique we often use without realising, to regulate emotion by reinterpreting events. Applied here, it means helping crew shift their view from “this is alien and dangerous” to “this is a variation on what I already understand.” That shift can reduce anxiety and increase engagement. It’s not about oversimplifying; it’s about grounding the unfamiliar in something recognisable.
And when people feel more competent, they learn faster and retain more. That’s self-efficacy, another psychological cornerstone. It’s not just confidence; it’s the belief that “I can handle this.” You can’t instil that by throwing technical PDFs at someone. You build it through good communication, peer reinforcement, and relatable framing.
Culture eats training for breakfast
We need to stop pretending that training happens in a vacuum. One of the most important, yet often overlooked factors in whether people embrace change is the social environment they operate in.
If a ship’s senior officers are wary, sceptical, or dismissive of “newfangled” systems, that attitude trickles down. Junior crew learn quickly which expressions of curiosity are welcome and which aren’t. That’s classic social modelling—a phenomenon visible in every group setting, from classrooms to mess decks. If the prevailing attitude is “this is stupid,” good luck getting anyone to take the training seriously.
The training content might be right. The timing might be right. But if the environment signals resistance, uptake will be low.
What are we really trying to say?
Every training programme is ultimately a message. And too many times, those messages sound like this: Here’s a system you don’t understand. It’s important. Learn it.
There’s little thought given to emotional framing. To whether the message conveys continuity or rupture. To whether it builds confidence or erodes it.
Effective communication, especially in times of change, isn’t just about data transfer. It’s about emotional alignment. It’s about helping people feel capable, not clueless. And it requires more than technical expertise. It requires psychological insight.
I’ve seen this too often; companies over-invest in facts and under-invest in framing. They assume that because they’re right, the message will land. But if your crew feels like the change is being done to them rather than built with them, the resistance will be real, even if the rationale is sound.
So what can leadership do?
Stop treating change like a one-way broadcast. Start treating it like a dialogue. Anchor new systems in familiar concepts. Involve respected crew early so they can set the tone for others. Reframe training not as correction or instruction, but as reinforcement and evolution.
Perhaps most importantly, recognise that the way we communicate change is as important as the change itself.
Because when people believe they already have the foundation — and they usually do — they’re far more likely to build on it.
