Chains of Command - Unfashionable but Necessary?

Chains are often associated with oppression and stultification; chained to one's desk
or being on a 'chain gang' are immediate analogies. But chains also drive machines,
and provide security through their links.
There are also chains of command which, in the security forces such as the military
and police, allow command to be exercised through a clearly defined rank structure
with defined responsibility, accountability and liability at all levels. Their operations,
which are inevitably crisis driven, ensure that any situation is controlled there is strict
and disciplined 'command and signal'. Failure is not an option.
However, Project Management institutions do not seem to like 'command'. The
Association of Project Managers makes no reference to 'command' while the Project
Management Institute, until recently, only used 'command' in the context of decision
making style. PMBOK 6 (Agile) states that project management styles are moving
away from a 'command and control structure' implying that individuals should not
control projects but a 'collaborative' approach should be adopted.
But at what risk can we cast off the 'chains of command'. Shall we adopt RACI
matrices, bespoke project communication plans and a project organisation structure
based on technical scope of work rather than contract or business liability? And,
when projects go awry and control is required to avoid chaos, confusion, disruption
and delay who provides the commanding decisions?
Outmoded, Old-fashioned and Old School?
Institutionalised project management proponents refer to the chain of command in all
but glowing terms. It is mooted that forcing the project manager to use the chain of
command for project planning (and possibly execution) can result in unproductive
time. These 'chains' are purportedly perceived as insulating executives and
managers from bad news; but then how many executives really like bad news even
though that is there function?
However, the military has been using chains of command for centuries as have many
well established functional organisations. Their chains of command are based on a
hierarchical structure in which authority in the form of legitimate decisions and
instructions flow down the structure in a steady and continuous manner. Similarly,
reactions should then flow back as the results of decisions are reported and also any
difficulties and crises requiring intervention - thereby the chain of command works.
However, in order for the chain to work properly there must be interconnectivity and
interdependence between the links. Each link is critical to the integrity of the chain,
and the owner of each link is accountable for dealing with issues or escalating them.
Project Autonomy and Independence
Contemporary Project Management advocates are seemingly moving away from
'command' and adopting a collaborative approach to 'Monitoring and Control'. The
chain of command is being deemed to be inefficient or ineffective, or frustrating.
Decisions are either slow, or when management is in the dark, uninformed.
So what do we have; we have an autonomous project with decision by committee.
Such a move makes the 'project' rather than individuals accountable and 'optimum'
decisions may, ideally, be generated taking into account risk, cost, quality and time
constraints, and stakeholder concerns...great...no problems!
But who owns the decision and is responsible and accountable should the
decision(s) be wrong? The Project Manager (PM) by virtue of being the 'manager'
should be responsible, unless responsibility is defined in that illusive Project Charter.
But who will be accountable and where and with whom will accountability lie?
Responsibility and Authority
Is your PM delegated appropriate authority to run a project within your organisation's
command structure? Or is he or she required to run the project without authority and
yet be responsible and accountable? Without legitimate authority a manager must
use 'influence', trading 'favours', and possibly (unethically of course) coercion.
"Project Collaboration", albeit 'politically correct' and promoting team effort avoids
placing liability on individuals. PMs, through institutionalisation and babble, are being
led to understand that this is acceptable. Terms such as 'command' and 'discipline'
are now avoided even though they are cornerstones of leadership.
If project managers are not delegated real power then the responsibility for the
performance of a project lies with the organisations involved. Project performance
can be monitored and reported against, but without legitimate authority they cannot
be controlled. If projects require additional resources or change then decisions from
'higher authorities' are inevitably required. In the absence of a direct chain of
command these higher authorities take the faceless guise of steering, technical or
executive committees and, ultimately, 'the board'.
Reality and Accountability
Project Managers are often held accountable for their projects. However, they rarely
have the legitimate authority to command and control their charge. The PM can only
monitor and report and refer issues 'up the chain' for approval. If the PM's authority
is only representative or technical in nature a PM merely monitors the performance
and controls it within the limits of predetermined resources and restricted financial
authority, if any.
If real control is required and the PM has no authority to take command then matters
must be escalated. If this is done properly and timeously the PM cannot be held
responsible for any repercussions.
PMs on struggling projects may be perceived as a 'weak link', or may even see
themselves as failing. They will be blamed and may, wrongly, blame themselves
despite their best efforts. And just as ‘with great power comes great responsibility’
PMs who have no legitimate power cannot be expected to be responsible or
accountable.
If the Project Manager cannot escalate matters to an individual then the project is
dependent on a committee. Such committees probably have limited responsibility or
accountability and, even more probably, a limited sense of ownership. They must,
eventually, make a decision as to what action or inaction will be taken.
The timeliness and usefulness of such corporate decisions may well be questionable.
However organisations need not worry because they can engage another aspiring
PM who (at best) may fix things or (at worst) can be blamed! Problem
solved...again?