Authority gradients in rail: A cross-jurisdictional systematic review and meta-synthesis

In high-risk transport environments, incidents are often linked with critical issues in team communication and decision-making. One factor receiving growing attention in rail transportation is the phenomena of 'authority gradients'-imbalances in perceived power or status that can inhibit speaking up, suppress dissent, and compromise safety. While authority gradients are widely acknowledged in other industries, their role in rail remains poorly articulated and subsumed under vague terminology. This lack of specificity can hinder accurate diagnosis of risks and limit the effectiveness of safety interventions. The aim of this study was to examine how authority gradients are identified, described, and conceptualised in real-world rail incident investigations. A total of 786 reports published by formal accident investigation agencies in five countries (Australia, UK, Canada, USA, New Zealand) over a 10-year period were acquired. Following screening, selection, and data extraction based on PRISMA, a review and meta-synthesis of 48 incidents was conducted using a typology of authority gradient presentation based on four classes of presentation. In total, 12 specific behaviours synonymous with authority gradients were found, with failure to challenge (n = 19) and conformity/pressure to comply (n = 17) the most prevalent. Despite this, only one report attributed an 'authority gradient,' while 7 made overt references but did not identify it as a causal or contributory factor. Twenty-one reports implicated authority gradients, and 19 were suggestive of power relationships with potential to influence error. This research elucidates how rail jurisdictions consider and attribute authority gradients, and underscores a need for increased focus on the relational aspects of team interaction.