Wednesday, November 20, 2024

Safety Message: Authority Gradients

ONRSR is constantly working to identify best practice in rail operations and as such an opportunity exists to raise awareness of a specific concept and to help RTOs maintain effective communication protocols.

What is an authority gradient?

The term ‘authority gradient’ is used to describe a situation where a difference in power (control or influence) exists between individuals within a team. As the name suggests, it highlights the balance of power and influence between the team members and can present as either too ‘steep’ or too ‘flat’.

If the authority gradient within a team is too steep, the leader makes all decisions, issues all directives and doesn’t encourage the team to contribute or give feedback. In this situation it can be difficult for team members to express concerns, question decisions or seek clarification. This type of atmosphere can impede collaboration and problem-solving and may pose safety risks if crucial messages and concerns are not voiced or go unaddressed. In other words, team members can be hesitant to challenge a decision or ask for clarification from those they perceive to be more senior – a situation that can lead to increased safety risk.

Conversely, a ‘flat’ authority gradient is where the leader does not show sufficient leadership or direction and is regarded as just one of the team. This may result in indecisiveness, confusion or individuals reaching their own decisions – having not considered all the evidence, data or operational factors. Again, this can result in increased safety risk.

An optimal authority gradient is between the two extremes and ideally can become steeper or flatter depending on the circumstances.

Authority gradients can exist because of someone’s actual position, such as their rank or seniority in the organisation, and/or the powers they have been given. They can also result due to an informal or implicit arrangement, where someone is perceived to have a different level of authority, and other people recognise this, agree with it and accept it.

There are other reasons that people may not ‘speak up’, including:

• Fear of the other person, for example, physically, alienation, exclusion
• Fear of embarrassing themselves or others
• Lack of confidence and fear of being wrong
• Assuming someone more experienced will speak up
• Previous negative experience
• Dominant personality traits in teams
• National cultural/ethical values (that may inhibit some from speaking up to people in authority or an older age group).

How does an authority gradient look in practice?

ONRSR is aware of several incidents in recent years where an authority gradient has influenced the communication resulting in risks to rail safety. Some of these incidents are summarised below.

Kaleentha, NSW (2020)

A freight train experienced a loss of air pressure indicating a likely uncoupling of wagons which led the driver and assistant driver to conduct a visual inspection of the consist. This inspection did not cover the entire length of the train and despite the assistant driver being uneasy and wanting to double check the end of the train he was told by his more senior colleague “not to worry about it”.

The train then continued for another 80 kilometres with the driver apparently unaware the last four wagons of the consist had become separated and had been left behind unprotected on the main line.

Oonoomurra, Queensland (2022)

When a train was stopping in a crossing loop so that an opposing train could pass on a single line, the newly recruited assistant driver did not believe the train was properly clear of the main line. The assistant driver initially challenged the more experienced driver, but they did not escalate the challenge when their warning was not heeded. In this case, a collision occurred.

Melbourne, Victoria (2021)

When a rail safety worker noticed a senior engineer entering a worksite via an unauthorised entry point, the worker did not feel confident to challenge them about being on the worksite or in the danger zone. The engineer suffered a serious injury after coming into contact with machinery in a disturbing example of an irregular visitor to a worksite - who may primarily occupy an office-based role -not paying sufficient attention to safe work management systems.

This incident was the subject of an ONRSR digital incident re-creation which can be viewed on the ONRSR website HERE.

What can RTOs do to manage the risks posed by authority gradients?

Organisations should foster optimal authority gradients within teams by discussing the advantages, disadvantages and risks to safety that can eventuate, depending on the work of the team. Well established teams can determine and practice this well in advance. For teams that change from day to day, this could be determined via a comprehensive pre-task briefing.

RTOs must encourage and empower their people to communicate assertively about safety concerns. Rail safety workers need to understand their responsibility to question advice from another party, and to always ask for clarification or to ask for a direction to be repeated.

By promoting a just culture and having processes in place to support workers when they do speak up about safety concerns, organisations can reduce the risk of poor safety critical communication in their work environment.

The Rail Resource Management (RRM) facilitation material accessible via email (contact@onrsr.com.au) includes several modules relevant to authority gradients and assertive communication. While the RRM material was originally produced in 2007 and is currently under review, the information remains relevant.

Additional information

ONRSR Prosecution: Warning to all in Magistrate’s decision | ONRSR

RISSB Code of Practice Safety Critical Communication and RISSB Guideline Safety Critical Communication. Available via www.rissb.com.au