Communication errors feature prevalently as causal and contributory factors in accident analysis within rail. While matters of phraseology and protocol in communication have been used to categorise communication error, formal inquiries into major rail accidents point to an underlying "authority gradient" as an influencing factor. The aim of this paper was to understand how the influence of authority gradients on communication error has been explored by communities of research and practice in rail. To achieve a holistic understanding and identification of key research gaps, this paper also reviewed prevalent tools and frameworks applied in rail human factors, as well as other sectors impacted by power disparities between teams. The review found that while evidence from industry reports is suggestive of an authority gradient in rail, no research has been conducted to support or refute this conclusion. Moreover, an absence of authority gradients in applied research draws attention to current methodological capabilities vs research foci. The relationship between the authority/power and status/ value of core rail operational functions is conceptualised, and application of Hofstede's theory of power distance to rail is considered. A number of research gaps are identified which indicate future research opportunities. Relevance statement Industry reports and Inquiries into major rail accidents draw attention to an underlying "authority gradient" as an influencing factor in communication error, resulting in near misses and fatalities. A number of human factors tools, methodologies and frameworks have been applied in the context of communication error in rail, but there is little to indicate that the influence of authority gradients has been uncovered or has been the focus of research activity to date. Consequently, power disparities between team workers are being addressed using individual-level training approaches, which means the nature of communication error is not being accurately represented. The prevailing theory for authority gradients, Hofstede's power distance dimension of cultural relativity theory, has not been applied to rail previously and is considered in relation to research gaps for understanding

The underlying relationship dynamics leading to authority gradients between frontline rail workers are being overlooked despite rail incident investigation reports pointing to the contrary. The aim of this study was to understand how the power disparities across multidisciplinary rail frontline workers can lead to authority gradients from the perspective of network controllers—the group at the apex of the operational hierarchy. A scenario generation technique was used to scaffold interviews with 55 rail network controllers from eight organisations across Australasia and identify how they perceived risky situations with all data thematically analysed. Authority gradient generation was found to be defined through: (1) motivations for network controllers to retain a position of authoritarianism toward train crew and track workers; and (2) behaviours that reinforced a power differential by curtailing their empowerment. Network controllers feared the probability and consequence of error and mistrusted in the capabilities of train crew and track workers, questioning their honesty, levels of competence, and believing they wanted to inherently cut corners. These motivations created a contemptuous regard that bred hostility and disparaging language, and engendered intimidation tactics where network controllers acted punitively and pressured train crew and track workers into compliance. The results from the scenarios point to perceptions of risk as the catalyst for fear and mistrust, with heightened perceptions of risk associated with increased vigilance and hostility across groups. This insight into how authority gradients are generated across operational teams in rail provides a new dimension to understanding teamwork error.

No abstract