“We have a chain of command that you need to follow.”*
*(a similar/related statement is “Why are you involved in this issue?”)
If this, or any statement like this is uttered in an organization, warning bells should be ringing. This statement indicates several things about the person who is making the statement:
- He/she feels threatened
- He/she has an “Us versus Them” mentality, ‘Us’ being the all powerful, and ‘them’ being you, the speck of dust
- He/she wants to silence alternate ideas and creative thought by “Them”
- He/she is or feels they are in a position of power and authority over everyone else
- He/she is creating conflict, not resolving conflict
None of the above are good for the organization, and yet few people in the business world can deny that they have said or had someone say something similar to them.
A ‘Chain of Command’ is a military strategy that assumes people will be sacrificed for the greater good. A chain of command is designed to isolate power in the hands of a very few people who may have to order others to take action that they may not want to take in order to preserve a way of life for their country. Despite the chain of command structure in the military the fact is that in any given battle at least half the General’s plans will fail, and often the plans of the General’s on both sides will fail and the winner of the battle is the army that screwed up least. Time after time it is often the person who was not privy to the chain of command, who ignored the incompetent and/or uninformed orders of those in power, and saved the day despite the chain of command.
Organizations, whether they be for profit or not for profit, must be based on the concept that everyone is important and everyone’s ideas should be considered. The idea that some will be sacrificed (ignored, shown disrespect, demoralized, etc.) for the greater good creates a flaw in the organization that will at best constantly hold the organization back, and at worst be the wound that causes the organization to hemorrhage to death. The reality is that most organizations instinctively
“…most organizations instinctively know this and routinely bypass the chain of command.”
know this and routinely bypass the chain of command. It is only when a weak manager or executive feels threatened that they assert their power and invoke the organizational chart.
Organization charts are great….on paper, but rarely do they adequately function in the real world. The idea that any problem or opportunity needs to flow through a predetermined chain of command assumes that communication within the organization has been directed to the correct people AND that the correct people have retained and assimilated all the required information to make informed decisions. In practice this is rarely true and the result is costly errors in judgement or failure of action by the chain of command. The result is frustration and dissatisfaction that ripple across the organization.
The fatal flaw of the concept of a chain of command is the futility of ‘control’ of an employee. For decades many business schools have preached the need for management to establish controls that set expectations, measured, motivated, and evaluated employees. The problem is that any method of control inherently creates a degree of dependence on management, and somewhat ironically, often reduces confidence in management. A ‘well-managed’ employee is often (knowingly or unknowingly) discouraged by the controlling manager of exercising creative thought. That causes obstruction to an organization’s ability to react and respond in its environment, which ultimately can be fatal. In addition, efforts to control an employee is demeaning and demoralizing, which ultimately leads to disloyalty, dissatisfaction, and turnover. Management through control is subject to what I call the Uncertainty Principle of Management.
The Kiser Uncertainty Principle of Management states:
The more a manager applies controls to, or attempts to manage an employee the less loyalty** that employee will have to the manager and/or organization.
**(Definition of Loyalty: anonymous dedication and support to a manager, an organization, and goals of both.)
The idea that loyalty is, 1) a dependent factor on management control, and 2) has a negative relationship to management control would seem to be a leap in logic, but in over 30 years of observing, studying, and practicing management I have never seen an exception to this principle. Disloyalty may manifest itself in turnover or even employee theft, OR may be as simple as not considering the best interest of the company while performing his or her job functions. Hidden camera videos of bad employee behavior are often in companies with the tightest management controls.
So is the solution an organization based in anarchy that operates in chaos? Almost.
The first step is to Re-Imagine the role of the manager or executive as a consultant, not a boss. A consultant advises her or his clients, but knows that it will be up to the client to follow or reject the advice. For a controlling-type manager who believes they are responsible for the success or failure of those in her or his charge, that may be interpreted as surrendering all authority over the employee, but the reality is that by empowering the employee and assuming a consulting role, the manager is giving the best possible opportunity for the employee to succeed. In addition, it frees the manager to evaluate the employee, not on how well they follow orders, but rather on achieved results.
The second step is to design an organization to be responsive. This doesn’t mean the organizational chart should be abolished, but that its role is significantly different. The organizational chart should be a guideline to help people access and channel information and improve decision-making, but never should it be restrictive. The idea of a chain of command is based in power and authority and it serves a few people in positions of authority, but is disrespectful and demoralizing to everyone else in the organization.
Why is this rated low? It simply re-iterates the known fact that there are leaders and there are managers. A leader inspires followers to achieve goals, goals the followers *believe* in and will use their individual ingenuity and skills (strengths) to achieve, in a way that is most optimal for them respectively. A manager otoh. is someone who has read a rule book and believes the world, people and social dynamics function according to those rules. Or put more bluntly. A leader lives in and reacts to events and dynamics in real world, while a manager tries to wave a magic wand and believes the world will reshape itself to the theory that person has been imparted by some interest.
James:
Thanks for reading and commenting.
The low rating might come from the type of audience who first read it. I wrote this article when I was still in Rotary and discussing issues related to Rotary. While I meant to include all types of management/leadership, Rotary has been heavily steeped in a hierarchical structure. (e.g.; Rotary International policies are only reviewed once every three years and only Past District Governors are allowed to participate in the discussion/voting.) Many people in the senior leadership in my District opposed moving away from a power-based management style. One in particular used to always ask ‘Why is Paul Kiser involved in this?” That is why I also included that comment in the article. That question itself really is meant to devalue other opinions that conflict with the ideas of those in power.
I don’t know this for certain, but I suspect those ratings came from people who feel more comfortable with power-based management, and by giving it a low rating without offering any rationale is one way to try and protect a weak leadership style. Some may have been Rotarians, or maybe they were just managers in companies where they were allowed to ‘be the boss’ rather than a leader.
Interesting that you commented on this topic now. I am currently working on a blog post on a high profile CEO who demonstrates some of the worst in leadership. I should publish it by the end of the week.
Thanks again.
Paul
I strongly agree with your structure in this area, I myself am going thru something of a issue with a “supervisor” of mine and he seems to be only segregating me from everyone and would like more intel on how to overcome this minor step back. He is also a chain of command navy vet but not in touch with the real world. Please respond A.S.A.P. THANK YOU
It’s hard to comment on a situation for which I don’t know the details, but let me discuss it in hypothetical terms. If a supervisor is feeling threatened by an employee their first move might be to isolate that employee to keep them from involving others in questioning his/her authority. This is not a conscious act, but rather something that is instinctual. In this type of situation a person should not be personally offended by the supervisor, because they literally do not know what they are doing.
Again, in this type of hypothetical situation the employee cannot take any action that will remedy the situation other than taking the drastic action of quitting. However, if a boss is feeling threatened, they are likely to continue to bully the employee, so one should be looking at other options.
The employee can and should document the actions of the supervisor because one tactic by a bad supervisor is to behave like the brother or sister that provokes the employee, but then claim the employee’s reaction was do to his/her bad behavior; therefore, giving the boss all the more reason to discipline the employee.
If a boss is isolating the employee it will likely have ramifications down the line. A lack of communication among employees will force a problem to surface too late for quick action and when the boss attempts to blame the employee they’ve isolated for the lack of communication, being reminded that they were the one who caused the communication breakdown might make the boss realize that his/her tactic is going to haunt them. That may help ease the situation, or it might make the boss feel more threatened and more angry. The point is that if an employee documents the actions of his/her boss and how it affects his/her job effectiveness, at some point that may become important in helping to expose where the real problem lies.
Most organizations know who their problem supervisors are because of indicators like turnover and the supervisor having unusually high disciplinary actions on his/her employees. I have been in situations where the boss was eventually identified as the problem and action taken. Unfortunately, an organization’s leadership tends to deny supervisory problems until it is overwhelmed by evidence of incompetence.
I can’t instruct you on what to do, but I can empathize with your situation. It constantly amazes me how so many organizations attempt to ‘control’ their employees thinking that is the most efficient means of producing their product or service. The reality is that great leaders don’t manage their employees, rather they act as consultants to their employees by helping them to get their job done with as few roadblocks as possible. Supervisors who enforce a Chain of Command in the workplace are more likely to fail than succeed in the long run and they are more likely to trigger that mentally unbalanced employee to come back one day and commit a violent act.
The employee/supervisor relationship should be a team, not competitors and the supervisor is the only one who can determine what style of leader they will be for their employees.
Thank you for the comment and good luck!
Paul