Wessex Business School Bridging Module Jodi Martin-Flaven

Project Proposal
An investigation to
determine the impact of
changing the length of
deployments from 6 to 9
months on a psychological
contract of naval personnel
employed as junior ratings
on board HMS Duncan.
Date 13 SEP
2018
Word Count 1647
words
Introduction
The 2010 defence review required the Royal Navy to reduce its personnel numbers from
36,000 to approximately 31,000. After 3 waves of redundancies, the Royal Navy consisted of 30,310
trained personnel by April 14. It became evident that morale within the service was low as the
majority of redundancies were taken voluntarily, less than 1,000 personnel lost their employment
unwillingly. More than 4,000 serving members volunteered to leave the service which was largely
presumed to be a result of undermanned warships and over worked sailors. While the Royal Navy
was being forced to decommission warships, it seemed that reducing personnel numbers was
logical. Unfortunately, the manpower cut was not proportionate to the reduction in ships and even
before 2010 the Royal Navy was undermanned.
General Sir Nicholas Houghton, the chief of defence staff, stated that “The Royal Navy is perilously
close to its critical mass in terms of manpower.” He also stressed that “The loss of trained and
experienced people causes lasting damage to the service that is hard to remedy. As the core of long
service sailors is reduced, the reputation, spirit and ethos of the service is eroded because there are
simply fewer people to pass it on to the next generation”. (Ministry of Defence 2013)
As a result of the severe manpower shortfalls, in October 2014 Vice Admiral Sir Phillip Jones
announced on the Royal Navy’s Two-Six channel that Frigate and Destroyer deployments on Atlantic
Patrol Task and Operation Kipion were to be extended from 9 months instead of the current 6
months. The Vice Admiral stated that “There will be more leave periods before and after 9 month
deployments and lower intensity periods with slightly reduced ships compliments carrying out
training serving only in the UK or European waters” thus suggesting more time at home and with
families.
From 2013-2017 The author was assigned to HMS Duncan, a Type 45 Destroyer in the role of a
Leading Warfare Specialist. In March 2015 HMS Duncan was the first Royal Navy Destroyer tasked to
undertake Operation Kipion as a 9 month deployment. As HMS Duncan was the first ship to
undertake this kind of operation, ships company participated in various surveys, questionnaires and
focus groups in order to provide feedback to fleet regarding the new deployment duration. Whilst
deployed on board HMS Duncan, the author felt that the general consensus regarding the extended
deployment period, particularly from junior ratings was predominantly negative and therefore
intends to investigate and research further to determine the impact this had on morale and
operational effectiveness.
Aim
To investigate and determine the impact on morale of changing the length of deployments from 6 to
9 months, on a psychological contract of naval personnel employed as junior ratings on board HMS
Duncan.
Objectives
In order to facilitate the author’s achievement of the aim, the author has set the following
objectives:
1. Undertake a literature review in order to develop the author’s knowledge and
understanding of the psychological contract.
2. Develop a methodology to investigate the research topic and allow the author to ascertain
the most effective research method.
3. Undertake primary research by means of anonymous survey to gain feedback from junior
ratings onboard HMS Duncan.
4. Critically analyse research findings in order to make recommendations.
5. Synthesise research findings and literature in order to evaluate, interpret and draw
conclusion.
6. Submit a report to the university prior to the issued deadline.
Literature Review
The psychological contract is a deep and varied concept and is open to a wide range of
interpretations and theoretical studies, it is an increasingly relevant aspect of workplace
relationships and wider human behaviour.
Www.businessballs.com cited that the Psychological contract commonly and somewhat loosely
refers to the actual but unwritten expectations of an employee or workforce towards the employer.
The psychological contract represents, in a basic sense, the obligations, rights and rewards that an
employee believes he or she is “owed” by their employer, in return for the employee’s work and
loyalty.
Attempts to understand the employment relationship as an “exchange” or “contract” has a long
history. In 1989 organisational scholar Denise Rousseau developed the concept of a psychological
contract in order to better specify how employers and employees understand the employment
relationship. Rousseau suggests that the psychological contract represents the mutual beliefs,
perceptions and informal obligations between an employer and an employee. It sets the dynamics
for the relationship and defines the detailed practicality of the work to be done. It is distinguishable
from the formal written contract of employment which, for the most part, only identifies mutual
duties and responsibilities in a generalized form (Rousseau 1989).
Although Rousseau's 1989 article as highlighted by Coyle-Shapiro "was very influential in guiding
contemporary research” (Coyle-Shapiro 2008) the concept of psychological contract was first
introduced by Argyris (1960) "Since the foremen realize the employees in this system will tend to
produce optimally under passive leadership, and since the employees agree, a relationship may be
hypothesized to evolve between the employees and the foremen which might be called the
"psychological work contract".
Psychological contract violation has gained the attention of both practitioners and academics in
recent years. Critical commentaries have questioned whether breaching such a contract has
implications for employee attitude and behaviour, and ultimately organisational
performance. Pate (2003) It is suggested that violations produce more intense responses than
unmet expectations and inequity as they have a tendency to linger and generate anger. Rousseau
suggests that this results as employees: “experience a changed view of the other party and their
interrelationship” (Rousseau 1989, p129)
Assuming there is agreement on expectations, what actually is to be exchanged – money in
exchange for time at work, social need satisfaction and security in exchange for work and loyalty,
opportunities for self-actualisation and challenging work in exchange for high productivity, quality
work and creative efforts in the service of organisational goals; or various combinations of these and
other things” (Schein, 1965, p64-65).
The work of Schein recognised clear links to Motivation Theory in relation to sustaining a positive
psychological contract but also integrated the impact that different work place cultures have on the
contract.
The author has demonstrated within the literature review that there has been vast research
conducted on the psychological contract including many different definitions, views and theories.
The author intends to further research the positive organisational psychological contract and the
impact on motivation and morale of a psychological contract breach. Mitchell defined motivation as
“the degree to which an individual wants and chooses to engage in specified behaviour” (Mitchell,
1982, cited Mullins, 1993, p444).
Methodology
“Methodology can be usefully thought of as an organised critical discussion of the principles and
methods of a subject area”. (Horn, 2009 p108)
A research paradigm is a framework that shows research should be conducted based on people’s
philosophies and their assumptions about the world and the nature of knowledge (Collis & Hussey
2009).
Saunders et al (2000, p85) state that “Two views about the research process dominate the literature:
positivism and phenomenology”
In a positivist approach views are aligned philosophically with scientific processes, “working with an
observable social reality and that the product of such research can be law-like generalisations similar
to those produced by the physical and natural scientists” (Remenyi et al, 1998 cited Saunders et al.
2000, p85)
In contrast, a phenomenologist approach would argue that, “the social world of business and
management is too complex to lend itself to theorising by definite ‘laws’ in the same way as physical
sciences” (Saunders et al, 2000 p86)
The author considered two research methods to use in this study, deductive and inductive. Gabriel
(2013) suggests that the main difference between inductive and deductive approaches to research is
that whilst a deductive approach is aimed at testing theory, an inductive approach is concerned with
the generation of new theory emerging from the data. A deductive approach usually begins with a
hypothesis, whilst an inductive approach will usually use research questions to narrow the scope of
the study.
Horn (2009, p108) suggests inductive research is “bottom-up reasoning … this involves observing
instances of something, looking for a pattern in the instances, building a tentative theory and then
testing that general theory to provide generalisations about behaviour” and proposes that deductive
research is “top-down reasoning” starting with a theory, then focusing down to a hypothesis and
finally confirming or refuting the hypothesis”
For this study, no such theory or hypothesis has been established therefore the author intends to
conduct research using an inductive approach. The author will use quantitative research to gain
feedback, gathering numerical data using statistical analysis of results collected through survey.
Ethics
Subjects will be informed that the survey is to be conducted for research purposes only and that by
ticking the consent box they are consenting to the ethical use of their answers. All surveys will
remain anonymous and all information gathered will be retained confidentially. To ensure
anonymity each respondent will be referred to only by rank.
Scope
The research will be limited to junior rates of various specialisations, whom served onboard HMS
Duncan during its 9 month Operation Kipion deployment and not representative of the wider Royal
Navy.
Resources
Having sought approval from the Commanding Officer of HMS Duncan to conduct the study, the
author chose to construct a short survey in order to maximise the number of respondents (Appendix
A). The author intends to issue the survey to 25 junior ratings using an online survey tool to design
this allows fast and effective distribution and collection of data whilst maintaining respondent
anonymity. There are no financial implications or requirements for conducting this study.
Time plan
The authors proposed time plan is annotated at Appendix B. The author has factored leave periods
in to the time plan which may be utilised if required, however the author has chosen not to fill these
periods in anticipation of requiring a break from the study.
References
Argyris, C (1960); Understanding Organizational Behavior, Homewood, IU.: Dorsey Press.

Businessballs.com (2012); Building relationships, the psychological contract. Retrieved from URL:
www.businessballs.com

Collis, J and Hussey, R (2009); Business Research; A practical guide for graduates and undergraduates
(3rd Ed), Palgrave McMillan Higher Education, New York.
Coyle-Shapiro, Jacqueline A-M. and Parzefall, M (2008); Psychological contracts. In: Cooper, Cary L.
and Barling, Julian, (eds.) The SAGE handbook of organizational behaviour. SAGE Publications,
London, UK, pp. 17-34

Gabriel, D (2013); Inductive and deductive approaches to research, retrieved from URL:
www.deborahgabriel.com

Gray (2014); Doing research in the real world, 3 rd edition, Sage.

Horn, R (2009); “Researching & Writing Dissertations – a complete guide for business and
management students” London: CIPD

Judy Pate, Graeme Martin, Jim McGoldrick, (2003); The impact of psychological contract violation on
employee attitudes and behaviour, Employee Relations, Vol. 25 Issue: 6, pp.557-573.

Mullins L. J. (1993); Management and Organisational Behaviour, 3rd ed, London: Pitman Publishing.

Nicholas Houghton, (December 2013) Ministry of defence, London, HMSO

Remenyi et al (1998, cited Saunders et al, 2000, p86); Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2000), Research
Methods for Business Students 2nd ed, Harlow, Pearson Education.

Rousseau, D.M (1989); Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee

Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2: 121-130.

Schein, E. H. (1965, 1980); Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Appendix A

A survey to determine the impact on morale of changing the length of deployments from 6 to 9 months

The following survey is to be conducted for research purposes only, by completing this survey and ticking the
final consent box you are consenting to the ethical use of your answers. All surveys will remain anonymous and
all information gathered will be retained confidentially.

Based on your personal experience conducting a 9 Month deployment onboard HMS DUNCAN please state
whether you agree or disagree with the following statements by circling or crossing through the relevant
number from 1 to 5.

1, Extending HMS Duncan’s operational deployment length from 6 to 9 Months had a negative impact
on my personal morale.

1 2 3 4 5
I Strongly disagree I disagree I neither agree I agree I strongly Agree
nor disagree

2, A 9 Month deployment in an operational environment on board a warship is too long for the ships
company.

1 2 3 4 5
I Strongly disagree I disagree I neither agree I agree I strongly Agree
nor disagree

3, Extending HMS Duncan’s operational deployment length from 6 to 9 Months had a negative impact
on my personal relationships.

1 2 3 4 5
I Strongly disagree I disagree I neither agree I agree I strongly Agree
nor disagree

4, After 6 Months on HMS Duncan’s maiden deployment, I started to lose interest, motivation and
concentration in the workplace.

1 2 3 4 5
I Strongly disagree I disagree I neither agree I agree I strongly Agree
nor disagree

5, If Royal Navy deployments were to revert to 6 Months in duration, I would be more willing to
volunteer to deploy.

1 2 3 4 5
I Strongly disagree I disagree I neither agree I agree I strongly Agree
nor disagree

Rank/Rate of respondent: _________________________________

 I confirm that I consent to the use of the information gathered within this survey for
research purposes.

 I confirm that I undertook this survey voluntarily.

 Appendix B
TASK SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19
Submit project proposal

Prepare introduction, submit to

supervisor
Create aims and objectives, submit
to supervisor
Research literature

Conduct literature review, submit

to supervisor
Prepare methodology chapter,
submit to supervisor
Christmas leave

Construct primary data questions

for research survey
Distribute research surveys

Gather primary research data,

collect completed surveys
Analyse, discuss and evaluate
survey findings, submit to
supervisor
Prepare conclusions chapter
highlighting links to literature,
submit to supervisor
Create a reference list

Easter leave

Write personal reflection statement

Compile executive summary

Prepare poster, front cover,

acknowledgements, declarations
and contents page
Proof read project, ensure
formatting is in accordance with
handbook
Submit completed research project
to supervisor