Chain of Command vs Open Door
We have a company with 155 employees, 13 are supervisory and work in the office. The others work in homes of intellectually and/or physically disabled folks. At the top, there is the owner/CEO, and equally below there is the Director Operations and me (HR). The Dir of Ops is very strict on the chain of command and gets frustrated quickly if employees come to me with anything before they go to their supervisors or her. I feel while the chain of command is important, I want to be an open door. This causes conflict between the CEO and Dir. of Ops and me.
Is this an issue in other companies? How do I do the best for our people and bridge the gap if I'm not allowed to speak with anyone? Any suggestions on handling the situation going forward or suggesting change?
This has been a frustration of mine for a while. I'm so thankful to have this forum in hopes of receiving input from others.
1 reply
-
Totally understand your frustration, and I've been there. This is actually a pretty common challenge in HR -- especially in service-based environments with strong ops structures.
Yes, chain of command matters. But so does trust, safety, and knowing HR is a resource. The key isn’t choosing one over the other, it’s building alignment around when and how HR should be involved.
I’d suggest a conversation with the CEO and Director of Ops to define clear boundaries: What needs to go through supervisors first, and what can come straight to HR (things like accommodations, policy questions, or sensitive issues). That way, you’re not stepping on toes, you’re reinforcing your role in supporting both people and operations.
Also, framing HR visibility as a proactive tool, not a bypass, can help. When employees feel heard early, it reduces escalation later. That’s not breaking process, that’s protecting the business and the culture.