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
1
@DynamicDialogue says
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”
hr bartender says
Thanks for letting me know!
Emilio Baradith says
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
hr bartender says
Thanks for the clarification Emilio. Most appreciated!
Katherine Razzi says
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!
Christopher says
My question is, If its a big corporation with different branches. Each branch has their very on HR at their location. Those HR’s at each location has a boss, whom is head of Human Resources.
My question is who is the boss of the one who is Head of Human Resources?
Sharlyn Lauby says
Hi Christopher. Thanks for the comment. When I’ve been in this situation, I had two bosses. From an org chart perspective, I had a solid line to one and a dotted line to another. Once the solid line was to the “head” of human resources. Once the solid line was to the “president” of the location.
Companies might structure it differently based upon their HR philosophy – centralized or decentralized.
Christopher says
Thanks Sharlyn