As I See It: Chain of Command

by Victor Rozek

Hierarchical organizations have strict reporting structures. God, after all, gave the tablets to Moses, not to the rank and file idolaters. And not just anyone was allowed to climb the mountain and commune directly with the CEO of the spirit. Hierarchical organizations require that everyone know their place and adhere to it. Layers of management and supervision form a conduit through which information flows, and since information, like water, seldom flows uphill, more data flows downward than finds its way up.

Mid-level managers occupy a particularly tricky position in the information chain. They are hired to pass on orders from above and implement policy. To be successful, they need to know what's going on below their pay grade, but don't want to be perceived as being the bearers of bad news. So they act as a funnel. The wide part of the funnel is open to top management, eager to be filled with insider information, relatively little of which is shared with the folks below. "Need to know" is the phrase that delimits what employees are allowed to hear, neatly cutting off the possibility of inquiry. The skinny part of the funnel is what's available to the average employee, and squeezing any meaningful information up through that narrow opening is like pumping blood through a clogged artery.

Every time a new middle manager is introduced to the people working under him, he gives the obligatory glad-to-be-here speech at the end of which he assures a room full of strangers, whom he affectionately calls his "team," that his door is always open.

But what he won't say is that there is a price to pay for stepping through it.

Bypass the chain of command and the first thing you will be asked is: "Have you talked to your manager about this?" If you have, and your manager ignored you, then by going to your manager's boss you have just created an adversarial situation between your boss and your boss' boss--not a move likely to increase your popularity. If you have not spoken to your manager first, you are creating the impression that you are not a team player (which is a form of corporate leprosy punishable by banishment), and that you don't abide by the rules (which is a source of annoyance, fear, and envy, also punishable by banishment). Quite often, if you have not addressed the issue with your own manager, you will be asked to try to solve the problem at that level first, before taking it higher.

Oh, and don't let that open door hit you in the butt on the way out.

No matter how much managers insist their doors are always open, most of them secretly hope no one below the level of those reporting to them ever steps through it. It almost always means there is an impasse that the middle manager will have to resolve. His options, however, are few and unenviable. He must either side with the employee, against the employee's manager, thereby undercutting the manager's authority and damaging his relationship with his direct report; or, side with the manager and have a disgruntled employee potentially spreading discontent throughout the organization.

So there is not a lot of upside in taking advantage of the "open door" policy. Still, there are times when all other options have been exhausted and jumping the chain of command is worth the risk.

Reporting illegal activity is one of them. If your manager is unwilling to address, or is participating in activities such as theft or financial misrepresentation, as an employee you have an implied responsibility to report it. Of course, there is always the risk that those higher on the food chain may already know about--and even approve of--the illegal activity. They may thank you for your information and do nothing, or instruct you to stay out of it. Then it becomes a matter of personal honor. Just ask Sherron Watkins, the Enron whistleblower, who was so frustrated with trying to awaken her own management that she reportedly asked two Anderson auditors when they were going to "grow some balls and stop us."

They didn't, but she did (stop them, that is, not grow balls). In the end, her personal honor was greater than her need to protect her job or the company, and she went public. But such decisions are seldom easy even for people who believe themselves to be moral. Once you drop the rock in the pond, you can't stop the shock waves. There may even be reprisals. Still, speaking up can be easier to live with than living with silent complicity. As H. L. Menken observed: "The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught."

Reporting dangerous conditions or behaviors also requires jumping the chain of command if the responsible manager is not taking action. Safety issues, vandalism, bullying, or bad blood between employees that threatens to erupt into violence are all causes for concern that require management attention. Pushing for safety is truly everyone's job, particularly since many industrial sites routinely sacrifice safety in the name of keeping costs low and productivity high. If nothing else, documenting a threat to employee safety gives leverage to those who may be impacted down the road if warnings are ignored. "We told you, and you did nothing" makes for potent testimony in a court of law.

The appropriateness of bypassing the chain of command to report personal behaviors is a bit more dicey. We have a strong social taboo against tattling, and no one wants to live in a police state where people spy on their neighbors and you can't trust the person in the next cubicle. Behavior is contextual, and while all behaviors work in some context, not all behaviors work in all contexts. Drinking, for example, is not a problem after work, but is a problem on the job--especially if it has a potential to effect others.

That should be the guiding principle: whether a behavior impacts only the individual or has the potential to impact many. The unauthorized use of company equipment is an issue of conscience for the person abusing company policy. Bringing a firearm to work is a dangerous and irresponsible act that could affect many, and therefore warrants reporting. (I know this one from experience. Many years ago a swing shift employee brought a hand gun to work to show his friends. They went into the warehouse and stacked boxes of computer paper against the wall to "test" the weapon. The bullets went through the box and through the wall into a restroom. Had anyone been in the room, they probably would have been killed.)

In the workplace, the difference between tattling and reporting is that tattling pertains to behavioral choices whose impacts are limited only to the doer, and are therefore none of our business; while reporting has to do with behaviors that have the potential for a much wider impact.

Personal issues between employees and managers are also dicey. If you can't get satisfaction from your manager, going over his head may make him look bad. However the issue is resolved, it is likely that your manager will no longer trust you, and depending on the issue, may even be antagonistic. In such cases, Human Resources is a better bet.

HR's job is to keep the company safe from legal action by ensuring all relevant labor laws are obeyed. They may not be able to fix the problem, but if they can't, then they will pass it up the chain for resolution, leaving you off the hook. When HR leapfrogs management levels they often do it privately, so that the lower-level manager is not even aware that the problem has been reported to top management. And HR works especially well when an issue has become emotional, because they are emotionally neutral and care only about what is legal. Having a legal rather than an emotional reaction to words like "harassment," and "discrimination" gets them up and moving in ways that managers often prefer to avoid.

There is a line from the movie, "A Bug's Life," which says that the first rule of leadership is "everything is your fault." Bugs apparently never worked in corporations. There, the first rule of leadership is ensuring that nothing is your fault. That is why jumping the chain of command is sometimes unavoidable, especially if you happen to be working for the weak link.