THE OPERATING CODE | 010
COMMUNICATION NEEDS A STRUCTURE
Good operations depend on communication.
People need to be able to talk to each other. Information needs to move quickly. Questions need answers. Problems need to reach the people who can help solve them.
But communication without structure can create as many problems as it solves.
That is the purpose of a chain of command.
It establishes a sequence for how information, responsibility, decisions, and authority move through an operation.
The objective is not to make people go through unnecessary layers.
The objective is to keep everyone working from the same information, toward the same result, with a clear understanding of who is responsible for what.
CHAIN OF COMMAND IS A TEAM PROCESS
Chain of command is sometimes treated as something employees at the bottom of an organization are expected to follow.
It works both ways.
Employees have a responsibility to communicate concerns through the people responsible for their work.
Foremen have a responsibility to communicate with their superintendents.
Superintendents, project managers, and operational leaders have the same responsibility to communicate with each other.
Leadership also has a responsibility not to undermine that structure.
When someone bypasses several levels with an operational concern, the person receiving that information should understand why.
Has the issue already been discussed with the immediate supervisor?
What happened?
Has that level had an opportunity to address it?
Is there a legitimate reason the normal path cannot be followed?
Sometimes there is.
But when leaders routinely participate in conversations that work around the people responsible for the work, they contribute to the breakdown themselves.
A chain of command only works when everyone respects it.
STRUCTURE DOES NOT MEAN RESTRICTED COMMUNICATION
A functioning chain of command should never prevent people from communicating.
In many cases, direct communication is more effective.
If a project manager receives detailed information directly from a customer, it may make perfect sense for that project manager to communicate directly with the foreman who needs to execute it.
Passing the same message through several people can introduce another problem.
Details get shortened.
Instructions get interpreted.
Requirements can change slightly every time the message is repeated.
Direct communication can prevent that.
The important part is closing the communication loop.
If a decision changes the work, the people responsible for that work need to know about it.
That keeps direct communication from becoming hidden communication.
There is an important difference between the two.
ACCESS CAN BE OPEN WHILE AUTHORITY REMAINS STRUCTURED
Senior leaders should be able to visit projects and talk directly with the people doing the work.
Ask questions.
Listen.
Find out what is working.
Find out what isn't.
Understand what people are dealing with.
That is part of staying connected to the work.
It does not require taking control of the work.
Talking with a crew and directing a crew are different things.
When multiple leaders begin giving instructions independently, the structure starts to break down.
One person gives one direction.
Another gives something different.
Someone else changes the priority.
The person responsible for the work may not even know those conversations happened.
Eventually the crew no longer knows whose direction controls.
That is not better communication.
It is confusion created by communication that has lost its structure.
Access can be open while authority remains structured.
RESPONSIBILITY REQUIRES AWARENESS
Accountability only works when responsibility and authority remain connected.
A foreman cannot reasonably be expected to own the performance of a crew while multiple people are independently changing the crew's direction without his knowledge.
The same applies to a superintendent responsible for field execution or a project manager responsible for the overall project.
That doesn't mean every conversation requires permission.
It means decisions that materially affect someone's responsibility need to be communicated to that person.
Otherwise the organization creates a contradiction:
Someone is responsible for the result but does not know about decisions affecting the result.
That's not accountability.
That's a breakdown in communication.
THE STRUCTURE HAS TO ALLOW JUDGMENT
No process should become so rigid that people stop using judgment.
Sometimes a decision cannot wait.
Someone may be unavailable.
Work may be approaching a point where an immediate answer is required.
In those situations, the operation should not stop unnecessarily just because the normal person cannot answer the phone.
Make the reasonable decision.
Try to communicate.
Document what changed when necessary.
Then close the loop as soon as possible.
Safety is even clearer.
Every person performing the work has the authority to stop work when they believe a condition is unsafe.
Chain of command does not remove that authority.
Stop the work first.
Then communicate the concern through the appropriate leadership and safety process so the condition can be evaluated, corrected, and the work can resume when appropriate.
There are also situations where the person normally responsible for receiving a concern may be part of the concern.
A functioning structure has to account for that too.
Chain of command should organize communication.
It should never become a barrier that prevents legitimate concerns from being heard.
MISTAKES STILL BELONG TO THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE THEM
A functioning chain of command also creates room for people to develop.
People in leadership positions will make mistakes.
A mistake does not automatically mean the next level should take over.
A developing leader who recognizes a mistake, communicates it, understands its impact, develops a correction, and follows through is demonstrating responsibility.
Correcting our own mistakes is part of how judgment develops.
If every mistake causes someone higher in the organization to take control, people never fully learn to own their decisions.
The lesson becomes:
When something goes wrong, someone else will take over.
That is not development.
Authority includes making decisions.
Accountability includes owning those decisions when they are wrong.
Development includes learning how to correct them.
SUPPORT WITHOUT TAKING OVER
Good teamwork does not require everyone to stay inside their own box.
A project manager may see a superintendent struggling with a recurring material problem.
An operations leader may recognize a resource problem affecting several projects.
A superintendent may see a foreman working through something that could use additional support.
The first response does not always have to be taking control.
Sometimes the better question is:
Do you need anything from me?
Maybe the person responsible already has it handled.
Let them handle it.
Maybe they have reached a roadblock.
Now another level may be able to provide authority, resources, experience, customer support, or another solution that was not previously available.
The person who owns the problem does not have to lose ownership simply because someone else helps solve it.
That is teamwork.
CHAIN OF COMMAND CREATES THE SEQUENCE
Good operations have sequence.
Who owns the issue?
Who needs to know?
Who has the authority to make the decision?
Who is responsible for carrying it out?
When does another person need to become involved?
Where should the issue go next if the current level cannot resolve it?
Chain of command provides that structure.
It does not need to make communication slow.
It should make communication clear.
Without it, information starts moving around the operation instead of through it.
People receive conflicting instructions.
Leaders get bypassed.
Employees can start looking for the answer they want instead of working through the issue.
Responsibility becomes unclear.
And when something eventually goes wrong, several people may have been involved without anyone being able to clearly say who owned the decision.
Chain of command is not about protecting titles or controlling who is allowed to talk to whom.
It is about keeping communication, authority, responsibility, and accountability connected.
People should communicate.
Leaders should be accessible.
Information should move.
Teams should help each other.
But everyone still needs to understand how the operation fits together and who owns what.
Eventually, some problems will reach the limit of the people currently responsible for them.
They will need additional knowledge.
Additional resources.
Additional authority.
Another perspective.
Or another level of the organization.
That's where escalation has a purpose.