Situation:
Since 2002 DC’s Metro system has accounted for 42% of rail track worker fatalities nationwide. There have been 17 deaths in the last 5 years. Passenger and worker injury and fatalities are higher than in other jurisdictions. The overall level of safety is considered sub par.
Question: Given there is a safety problem, what can be done to make the system safer?
Problem areas: Some of the areas that may have contributed to this issue include: aging equipment, procedural noncompliance to safety rules, lack of corrective action in response to past investigations, budget shortfalls, and poor communication between management and workers and between departments.
Response: DuPont safety program (2007 to 2012) to enhance worker KSA and
participation in strengthening safety. Management, regulators and public
attention has intensified. Various initiatives and safety measures to improve
safety for workers and passengers have been initiated and conducted.
Related Questions:
Are the resources, budget and leadership in place that are needed to transform the culture of Metro and improve the level of safety?
Does the culture really need to change and, as some suggest, shift the focus from building the system towards maintaining it? Others argue that demand is expected to surpass capacity by 2025, justifying the major expansion to connect Metro to Tyson’s Corner and Dullas International Airport. Observers claim the system been starved by lack of funding over the years. During times of economic uncertainty, where will the funding come from to build capacity and maintain the system?
The current Metro GM steps down this spring. Who will take his place?
Important Disclaimer
The constellation process can provide an assessment, explanation and solution for an organizational problem. However, the results are hypothetical and can not be accepted
as the reality of the situation until a valid, organizational development assessment is conducted. Until then, the results of the constellation approach have to be seen as one possible hypothesis among the many offered for explaining Metro’s safety issues.
Process:
The OC Special Interest Group conducted a problem-solving assessment using the constellation process to see what insight and solutions might emerge. The process first identified the most tangible parts of the system as the following:
Passengers
Workers (bus and rail)
Supervisors and Management
Federal Regulators (NTSB, DOT, etc)
Equipment and systems
Metro Board
Other, less tangible, but still relevant, parts of the system included these:
Budget (capital and operation)
Organizational Culture of Safety
Leadership and teamwork
Equipment Vendors
Operational rules and procedures
The initial layout started with setting up representatives for the following parts:
equip
V
sops
> < mgt
^
worker
The first observable dynamic was that management seemed pulled in opposing directions. Dealing with equipment and systems was one issue and dealing with the workforce was another. Responding to a crisis in one was often interrupted by needing to respond to a problem in the other.
The rules and standard operating procedures (SOPs,--known in Metro as “general operating orders”) were added to the system as one of the means to coordinate the interface between equipment and workers. Management moved next to the equipment and faced the workers directly. The workers moved the SOPs away from themselves feeling there should be more space between them.
Management reacted with indignation, “What are you doing kicking the rules away? They need to be right next to you.” The workers felt that the rules were imposed on them without their input or consideration. The more space there was between them and the rules the more comfortable they felt.
There was a clear dichotomy in the system. On one side, there was the management and the rules they imposed on the workers for operating the equipment. On the other stood the workers; adamant about protecting their independence and dignity. The more strident management was about the rules, the more the workers felt distrusted and not respected. The workers felt that management was arbitrarily imposing the rules upon them.
A Shift toward Clarity:
What could move the situation out of the current stalemate? For a short period of time, the constellation seemed at in a standoff. No particular inspiration came. The distant and hierarchial tone of respresentative for management suggested it was coming from senior or upper management. A gap in constellation became clear and a representative for the first and second line supervisors was added. These supervisors had the role of developing and implementing the new SOPs. Management was impatiently looking to the supervisors for a plan. The supervisors were looking to management for a budget. “Show us the plan then we will talk about the budget!” was countered by the argument, “How can we come up with a plan if we don’t know our budget?” Both sides seemed to be looking for leadership from the other. The workers felt frustrated with the lack of leadership and direction. Instead of being supported in their jobs, they believed they were being set up for failure.
The supervisors, however, did express their support for the workers. They felt the workers were being, to some extent, unfairly blamed for the safety failures in the system.
When the workers heard these words of support they relaxed and were less oppositional or resentful. However, they were still not ready to fully embrace the safety program being pushed by senior management; they felt the program was more about PR than about actually protecting the passengers and workers.
What else need to be acknowledged or included? A representative for the accident victims, both workers and passengers, was brought into the system. The representative entered the constellation in a place where there had been a empty space. The constellation shifted into the arrangement illustrated below:
equip mgt
V V
supervisors
> < victims
sops
>
^
workers
The representative for the management was asked how she felt about the victims. She had little to say to them and even seemed resentful towards them as if they were the source of the trouble she had to deal with. The representative for the victims felt everyone had let her down and betrayed the trust she had had in them. She felt angry, frustrated and sad. The worker’s representative thought management was trying to make them bear the burden of responsibility for victims. The tension and resentment he felt towards management increased. He asserted management was trying to pass the buck instead of owning that the buck stops with management.
While the supervisors seemed be more sympathetic towards the workers and victims, nothing would shift as long as the management tried to distance itself from the tragedies and breakdowns that had occurred.
Management was asked to apologize to the victims and take responsibility for its part in what happened. It took several tries, but finally the managers were able to articulate their role in the tragedies without hedging. After they said they were sorry to the victims and took responsibility, the workers relaxed and felt more friendly and respectful towards management. “This is what happens when we don’t work together and follow our SOPs,” management told the workers and supervisors, while pointing towards the victims. The workers felt motivated now to move closer to the SOPs and the supervisors. Although they were not asked to, it is possible even more of a shift would have occurred if the supervisor also said they were sorry and took responsibility for their part in what happened.
The manager and equipment lined up with the workers and supervisors and faced the passenger and worker victims. “We must ensure their safety while we transport them,” the manager told the others while gesturing towards the Metro users. All the parts of the system were then aligned towards this purpose. A felt sense of unity that had been missing previously was shared by the representatives in the constellation.
Summary and Possible Implications
According to the constellation, the failure of Metro management to apologize and hold themselves accountable for the breakdown of the system and the injuries and deaths has kept the system in a destabilized state. As long as the workers feel blamed and disrespected by senior management, they will be averse to embracing anything management initiates no matter how worthy it might be. Perhaps, in some unconscious way, the workers identify with the victims who might also have felt disrespected and marginalized. The emphasis on new equipment, training and SOPs will not have much remedial impact until there is a management “mea culpa” that publicly takes full responsibility for the safety failures. While the new safety measures might be logical and appropriate, the needed sense of shared responsibility and partnership is not possible when the three key groups--managers, supervisors and workers--are locked in defensive positions.
A shift in attitude at Metro’s top towards taking responsibility could bring about a corresponding shift in the attitude of the workers. The workers movement towards developing and implementing new safety procedures with the supervisors could be strengthened by the call to fix the system together. As long as they are seen by management as a problem that needs “fixing,” the workers will resist the imposition of rules and, in turn, will see management as the real problem that needs fixing. This is the classic standoff of different organizational levels seeing each other as the problem. Looking together at the safety problem, instead of pointing fingers at each other, will help break down the silos and increase the flow of timely information and ideas.
Getting this new message across will require extensive outreach to and dialogue with the workers on the part of management. It demands an interactive and dynamic style of leadership that is willing to engage directly with staff to discuss difficut issues.
While the issues of aging equipment, non-compliance with SOPs, expansion of the Metro system, political maneuvering and budget shortfalls all impact the problem-solving process, by themselves they are not source of the Metro’s current challenges. According to the constellation, the critical shift that needs to occur is a movement from management and staff blaming each other to their working toward a more unified organization that will look together at the system’s shortcomings and the opportunities for improvement. The movement towards a solution will come when management is able to find and express a greater sense of humility and personal accountability. Ironically, they first have to hold themselves accountable before they can hold others accountable and clarify their responsibilities.
Again, it must be emphasized that the above assessment is not necessarily valid, accurate or true. The constellation process offers a potential scenario that should be validated phenomenonally by an organizational development initiative before it can be accepted as more than a hypothesis. It does offer, however, the members of the organization a starting place to look in their search for solutions.
Special thanks to Karen Porterfield for her editing of this paper and
facilitating the constellation all rights reserved: © Team Building Associates, 2010 (teambuildingassociates.com)
