I always enjoy debates about the chain of command concept. I’ve found most people are completely fine with chain of command as long as things are good (for them). The minute situations turn sour, then employees question why chain of command exists.
Obviously, there are two directions in the chain of command. Up and down. Most of the time, people think first of the upward direction. You know, “when you have an issue…take it to your boss.” There are some exceptions to this, usually surrounding issues of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment, where it’s been documented that you can bypass your immediate supervisor for another representative of management.
I’m sure some people think it’s a pain in the ass when they’re asked told to 
follow the chain of command and address the issue with their boss. But if you think about it…there’s a reason for that. You’d like to think your boss knows the most about you, your job, your work situation, etc. Asking someone else to make a decision might not be fair – to you or them. Not to mention your boss who looks bad because you didn’t give them a chance.
Now you might be saying…my boss doesn’t give a damn about me. That’s a separate issue. Regardless, your boss should be the person you go to about everyday stuff.
The other way chain of command works is downstream. For example, if your boss’ boss (get that?) has something to discuss about you…they should take it to your immediate supervisor. For the same reason mentioned above…your immediate supervisor should be the person who knows the most about you. There are some examples when a member of management might address a matter with you directly and then follow-up with your boss (like a safety issue). But again, your immediate supervisor should not be left out of the loop. Or they might choose to talk with you and your immediate supervisor together about something – for example, a future promotional opportunity.
While chain of command might seem unfair, unrealistic, and unreasonable some days…it does serve an important purpose. It also emphasizes the value of having an open, honest relationship with your manager.
Image courtesy of jurek d
Hi! I'm Sharlyn Lauby, an HR pro turned consultant. I created the HR Bartender blog so people would have a friendly place to discuss workplace issues. And since, over the years, I've developed an appreciation for the culinary arts (translation: I'm a Foodie) you'll see some of that here too. So, pull up a stool and order your favorite drink . . . the bar is always open.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Thanks for your great articles!
Since you questioned “boss’ boss”…it is written as follows:
- singular: “boss’s boss” – yes, three Ss
- plural: “bosses’ boss”
Thanks for letting me know!
With all due respect, in lieu of the possesive form of the “boss’s boss and the boss’ boss”
In Modern English form the Saxon genitive is as follows:
Singular > “boss’ boss”
Plural > “bosses’ boss”
There is a big difference between Syntax, Lexis, and Grammar! this is not an issue of spelling.
Respectfully,
Emilio R. Baradith
English Professor
Thanks for the clarification Emilio. Most appreciated!
Hi Sharlyn,
Nice to know your emails are watched over carefully by the best in the English department!
As for the chain of command, I’ve always believed in it and I think it’s always going to be around from small businesses to large corporations. As you mention, there is a certain, understood protocol on who in the chain you go to first and for what. I think if there is any doubt, an employee should be able to go to HR freely to ask questions. Wouldn’t you agree?
If you are working for a small, Ma and Pa shop, I guess you are at their mercy…that is, Ma and Pa are the chain of command. I think if employees have issues, they should be able to “seek refuge” and fairness from a good HR pro. I think you would agree being one yourself!
Katherine Razzi recently posted..Common Courtesy Cubicle Manners