On paper, stop-work authority seems simple enough. A worker sees a hazard or unsafe working condition and calls a stop to work so that the dangerous element can be addressed. But as SafeStart consultant Tim Page-Bottorff discusses in a new and insightful article published in the ASSP’s Professional Safety Journal, stop-work authority is threatened by a difficult-to-pin-down cultural factor: ambiguity.
We depend on fail-safes in our equipment and machinery to mitigate the catastrophic effects of a malfunction. Release valves vent overpressured gas so that tanks and canisters don’t explode. Kill switches shut down vehicles if the operator falls off. Fuses blow if an electrical circuit is overtaxed. When it comes to human systems, like your workforce, stop-work authority is designed to operate the same way. But unlike those machinery fail-safes, stop-work authority can’t be triggered automatically as soon as enough hazardous energy builds up. It depends on people.
In “The Role of Ambiguity in Stop-Work Authority,” Page-Bottorff lays out the research on this slippery workplace danger, illustrating how ambiguity is cultivated in a workplace, how it affects a workforce, and what managers and workers can do to tamp down its sources, which include uncertainty and certain types of toxic leadership. Crucially, he lays out the vicious cycles that perpetuate ambiguity and lead to paralysis.
When workers are unsure of how hazardous a working condition needs to be before halting operations, or when they fear reprisal or ridicule for doing so, the stop-work authority becomes a faulty fail-safe. Imagine if a safety pressure valve hesitated before releasing, convinced it could handle a bit more psi, or if an overclocked circuit peer-pressured its fuse into allowing an electrical fire. These are fantasy scenarios, but they wouldn’t be tolerated in a worksite. Yet this is effectively what happens when ambiguity meets the stop-work authority.
“The primary danger that ambiguity poses is that it can lead to a failure in the stop-work process,” writes Page-Bottorff. “This can either be due to a worker failing to exercise the authority when they might otherwise do so or to the process being followed incorrectly. In both cases, the risk of injury rises significantly as a result.”
Thankfully, there are solutions to the creeping threat of ambiguity, and Page-Bottorff lays them out in no uncertain terms. With guidance for leaders, managers, and workers, he reveals the international standards and best practices—supported by industry research—that can improve workplace communication lines and fine-tune the crucial kill switch that is the stop-work authority.
Of course, like all people-based systems, cultural considerations are at the heart of this issue. Pointing to examples of interpersonal ambiguity that grows out of social dynamics, Page-Bottorff says:
“In these cases, it’s a matter of developing soft skills among supervisors, having more frequent conversations with workers to monitor ambiguity levels, and taking extra time when giving directions to crew members. It’s also worth considering whether additional human factors are amplifying the effects of ambiguity.”
Read the full article in Professional Safety Journal to discover practical advice on how to identify sources of ambiguity in your workplace, and the skills you can cultivate to eliminate dangerous levels of uncertainty and restore your stop-work authority to its full power.