THE OPERATING CODE  |  010

COMMUNICATION NEEDS A STRUCTURE

I've always believed that good communication is one of the most important parts of running a successful operation. People need to be able to talk to each other, ask questions, share information, and get problems in front of somebody who can help resolve them. But I've also seen what happens when communication isn't organized. People start receiving different instructions, decisions get made without the right people knowing about them, and eventually nobody is quite sure who's responsible for what.

That's why I believe a chain of command is important. Not because people should have to go through several layers of management just to ask a question, but because there needs to be a clear understanding of responsibility, authority, and how information moves through the organization.

Chain of Command Works Both Ways

One thing I've noticed is that chain of command is sometimes treated like something only the people at the bottom of the organization are expected to follow. I don't agree with that. If we expect a crew member to communicate through the foreman, then the people above that foreman need to respect his position and responsibilities too.

The same applies to superintendents, project managers, and operations leaders. If somebody brings me a concern that would normally be handled by their immediate supervisor, I want to understand whether they've already discussed it with that person. Maybe they have and nothing was resolved. Maybe there's a legitimate reason they don't feel comfortable going through that supervisor. Or maybe they're simply looking for a different answer.

Those situations require judgment, but routinely allowing people to work around their supervisors creates problems. It undermines the person responsible for the work and makes it harder for that person to lead effectively. And when senior leadership participates in those conversations without keeping the appropriate people informed, they're contributing to the problem themselves.

Keep Communication Open

Respecting the chain of command doesn't mean every conversation has to pass through several people before reaching the person who needs the information. Sometimes direct communication is the best approach.

For example, if a project manager receives detailed instructions from a customer, it may make more sense for that project manager to speak directly with the foreman rather than having the information repeated through several people. Every time a message gets passed along, there's an opportunity for something to be misunderstood, shortened, or left out.

But if that conversation changes the work, the superintendent responsible for the crew needs to know what changed. That's what I mean by closing the communication loop. People should be able to talk directly when it makes sense, but decisions that affect somebody else's responsibilities shouldn't happen without their knowledge.

There's a difference between direct communication and hidden communication.

Respect the Person Running the Work

I believe senior leaders should be able to visit jobsites, talk with employees, ask questions, and understand what's happening without creating confusion about who's in charge.

I've been on jobs where I was there simply to help, and when the foreman asked what I thought we should do, I told him, "This is your show. I'm here to help you. Tell me where you want me."

I meant that. If we've given somebody responsibility for managing a crew, we need to allow them to manage it. That doesn't mean we ignore problems or refuse to offer guidance. It means we shouldn't walk onto somebody else's job and start changing priorities or giving instructions without involving the person responsible.

You can't reasonably hold a foreman accountable for his crew's performance while allowing several other people to independently direct that crew. The same applies to superintendents and project managers. If they're responsible for the result, they need to know about decisions that affect their ability to deliver it.

Know When to Make an Exception

There are times when following the normal communication process isn't practical. Somebody may be unavailable, a customer may need an immediate answer, or a situation may develop that can't wait for several people to return phone calls.

That's where people need to understand the authority they have and use good judgment. If a decision is within their authority and needs to be made, they should be able to make it. Then they need to communicate what happened and make sure everybody affected understands the decision.

Safety is different because nobody should have to wait for permission to stop work they believe is unsafe. Every person on the job needs to understand that they can stop the work, raise the concern, and have the condition evaluated before proceeding. And if the concern involves their immediate supervisor, there must be another appropriate way to report it.

The same principle applies to other serious concerns that can't reasonably be handled through the normal reporting relationship. A chain of command should help people get problems resolved, not prevent legitimate concerns from being heard.

Give People Room to Learn

Another reason I believe in maintaining a clear chain of command is that it gives people the opportunity to develop their own judgment.

People are going to make mistakes. I've made them, and anybody who has spent enough time managing people or projects has probably made a few themselves. What matters is recognizing the mistake, understanding what happened, and taking responsibility for correcting it.

If a foreman makes a decision that doesn't work out, I don't believe the superintendent should automatically take over. Depending on the seriousness of the situation, the foreman may be perfectly capable of identifying the problem, developing a correction, and getting things back on track. Sometimes they'll need help, and sometimes leadership will need to intervene. But when it's appropriate, people should have the opportunity to correct their own mistakes.

That's part of how experience and judgment develop. If somebody higher in the organization takes control every time something goes wrong, we're teaching people to depend on that intervention instead of developing the confidence and ability to handle problems themselves.

Support Without Taking Over

I've always believed that helping somebody doesn't necessarily mean taking over their responsibilities. Sometimes a foreman, superintendent, or project manager has already identified the problem and knows what needs to happen. They simply need something they don't have the authority or resources to provide themselves.

Maybe it's additional manpower, a customer decision, equipment, or help resolving an issue between departments. In those situations, I think one of the best questions a leader can ask is, "Do you need anything from me?"

If they have the situation under control, let them handle it. If they've reached a point where they need help, find out what's missing and determine how you can support them. The person responsible for the problem doesn't have to lose ownership of it just because somebody else becomes involved.

That's how I believe teamwork should function across an organization. People should be willing to help each other, but they also need to respect the responsibilities and authority that come with each position.

The Principle

Good communication shouldn't be difficult, and a chain of command shouldn't make it that way. I want people to be able to ask questions, share information, raise concerns, and talk directly with the people who can help them. At the same time, I want everybody to understand who's responsible for the work, who has the authority to make decisions, and who needs to be informed when something changes.

The purpose isn't to protect somebody's title or make people follow unnecessary procedures. It's to keep communication, responsibility, and authority connected so that people aren't working around each other or making decisions without understanding how those decisions affect the rest of the operation.

There will always be situations where somebody reaches the limit of their experience, resources, or authority. When that happens, they need to know where to go for help, and the next level of leadership needs to understand how to provide that help without automatically taking control.

That's where escalation has a purpose.