A interface organizacional entre o centro de controle e operação ferroviária e um pátio de manobras de trens

Abstract

In order to develop its Health and Safety System, a rail freight company opens its doors for this study. Based on this generic demand, an analysis of the work of the complex maneuvering yard’s controllers and its interface with the Operations Control Center (OCC) was the core of the investigation. The perception of a strong enmity among the workers of these sectors, found in the first field visits, indicates the way to be taken to meet the initial demand of the railway. The view that the OCC would be the enemy of the maneuver yard would demonstrate a difficulty of cooperation between those areas, culminating in interpersonal conflicts. This research aimed, then, to analyze the determinants of the enmity instituted among the workers, starting from the observation of the negotiations between them, until finding the opinions present in the "systems of activity" in which they are inserted. For this, a qualitative research, based on Grounded Theory (GT) and Ergonomic Work Analysis (EWA), was carried out, showing the reality experienced by the operators at the center of the debate. The deepening of the analysis, guided by the theories of the Activity and Action Course, was responsible for the encounter with the contradictions present in the organizational context. Conflict between sectors was depersonalized as tensions in the elements of the company's operation emerged in the work itself. The first category of tensions found, Structure and Process, is about the structure of railroad sites and the work process, which are conditioning factors of the negotiations. Strong tensions in the company's management model are responsible for the perception of enemies and represent a second category: Management and Control Tools. The conflicting goals are at the center of enmity among workers, demonstrating a form of organization based on “management for conflict”. In addition, the control instruments imposed by the company become more difficult when they undermine the identity construction of recognition, represented by the third category: Individual and Work. Although workers consider that the emergence of conflict has a moral origin, it also arises because decisions of attributing responsibility “from the other” generate a rupture in the image of a well-done job, leading to a break in personal appropriation of the recognition of one's work quality. Finally, after highlighting the systemic contradictions of the maneuvering yard, transforming the antagonistic organizational space into an “agonistic” environment is a way of transforming enemies into legitimate adversaries, offering a space of “conflicting consensus” that allows us to move forward to “conflict management”, through cooperation between different parties. “Agonism” is the relationship between adversaries in real confrontation, which evaluates the consensual perspective as incapable of guaranteeing cooperation, since the disregard of the dissent produced by the organizational context refuses the critical analysis of the conflict itself. Although several contradictions can be distended from changes in the management model, the work context is still conflicting and needs its tensions to be debated. Only then will individuals in the negotiations be regarded as "legitimate opponents" rather than enemies.