All too often employees lack clarity on who their actual supervisors are. Some organizations have a beautifully detailed organizational chart that clearly identifies who reports to whom. As Steinbeck once said, “The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray,” and the fact of the matter is that in spite of the organizational chart multiple supervisors can be confusing for most employees, front-line or not. Seemingly helpful, organizational charts can become part of the problem when populated with multiple management layers, e.g. divisional leaders, section heads, working supervisors, project managers, special project managers, etc. resulting in the front-line employee reporting to multiple people.
In this brief blog I hope to present you with a few solid tips to minimize confusion about lines of authority. Remove the confusion by defining lines of authority for employee clarity. Undertake solid planning to mitigate misunderstandings of who supervises who and what by (1) fostering open lines of communication, (2) through training, and finally (3) by reassessing the current and future lines of authority frequently.
We would all like to think that we do a great job at communicating. If that were the case, why is it that everyone that has ever ordered fast food at a drive-thru has at least one miscommunication story?! Let us use the following as an operational definition of communication. It includes clearly presenting an idea/concept, ensuring the issue communicated has been received as intended, and confirming the sender and receiver have an acceptable level of understanding.
Communication is the key ingredient for general understanding with both personal or professional endeavors. Having evaluated the human relations climate in hundreds of organizations I can attest that when organizations improve communication they have fewer grievances/complaints and reap the benefits of greater employee engagement. Organizational charts are an excellent visual tool to demonstrate lines of authority to employees. However, it is equally as important to communicate and explain the employees individual reporting path within the organizational chart. Successful supervisors do just that!
We all know the quagmires that some organizations create regarding supervisory chains of command can be overwhelming. Training employees to perform tasks is commonplace in well run organizations. Along with tasks or skills training, employers would be equally wise to train employees which supervisors to contact during a given situation. The obvious advantage of discussing supervisory lines of authority are: (1) the employee is clear who to bring their concern(s) to, (2) appropriate supervisors are made aware of issues that are impacting their team, and (3) it reduces the risk of several supervisors impacting a high-performing employee by allowing them to focus on their assigned responsibilities. While training always comes at a financial cost, failure to train can be even more costly. As my wife is fond of saying, “pay me now or pay me later.” By ‘paying now’ and periodically training employees who have multiple supervisors with simple scenarios, you can avoid the cost of ‘paying later’ when the issues and confusion arise.
Reassessing covers two separate but related areas. Continual evaluation (reassessment) of employees’ previous actions when issues arose can direct and reinforce the desired methods to contact the appropriate supervisor as needed. Undertaking a reassessment of the organizational chart may also serve to uncover further blurred lines and minor changes in responsibilities can clear up confusion.
As always, if you enjoyed this blog, hit the like button. Also, please share on social media, with friends, etc. because we have to get the word out. Let all of the good people (wherever you are across America) communicate with one another and come back together
![](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/422545_5880b1bfe49f4a15bb70b9b5075e5cef~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_640,h_480,al_c,q_80,enc_auto/422545_5880b1bfe49f4a15bb70b9b5075e5cef~mv2.jpg)
コメント