Chain of Command and Open-Door Policy: How they work together in Corporate Culture

Chain of Command is a term I learned long ago from my Air Force days.  They teach this in the military early on and stress the importance of it, especially of it's use during periods of War.  Essentially, the chain of command is the line of authority and responsibility along which orders are passed within military ranks and between different units.  Orders are passed down the chain of command, from higher ranked military personnel to lower ranked military personnel until those orders are received by those who implement them.  Similarly, requests move up the chain of command until they reach the individual who has the authority to make decisions regarding a particular type of request. This being said, even a chain of command is practiced in Corporate Culture.  As an employee, no matter where I'm employed, I respect and expect those with proper authority to take charge and make decisions with confidence based on the position they hold while simultaneously taking directions and orders that are passed down to me.

Now that we have established a chain of command, lets examine open-door policy.  Many companies I've worked for like to say they have one, and lets be honest, in their minds they think it's a great sell and is popular. But is it all just a sham?  Speaking from experience, I think it's simply lip service, I mean lets be real!  This means that I can speak to the company CEO at any time and my voice will be heard? I can literally speak to my boss about my opinions or suggestions and be heard and be taken seriously?  From my experience, open-door policy is a program implemented but is very limited in practice to mean much of anything.  Some of my managers doors HAVE been open, just so long as I'm respectful, and by respectful I mean "respectful" with an opinion or suggestion that fits in with their OWN policies and rules. 

Lets discuss further, what is a true open-door policy?  What does it really mean to me? Does it mean I can go into the office of my boss and tell him or her your company sucks?  Does it mean I can say absolutely anything without the fear of being reprimanded for what I say? And what if i go to my boss's boss and tell him or her that my boss sucks?  Let's examine further, what about the other way around?  What if my boss's boss comes in and tell me that my boss sucks or the company sucks?  Should him or her even be speaking to me like this?  Shouldn't they be going to their boss directly?

I know what an open-door policy means to me, and when our company began instituting it I had an epiphany. It truly does mean different things to different people, although I'm not quite sure why it has to be so complicated.  But for all intense and purposes lets take a look at the definition. Feel free to google it yourself, but I'll give you the short version right here straight from Wikipedia:

1. An open-door policy is a communication policy in which a president or supervisor leaves their door "open" in order to encourage openness and transparency with the employees of that company. 
2. As the term implies, employees are encouraged to stop by whenever they feel the need to meet and ask questions, discuss suggestions, and address problems or concerns with management. 
3. An open door policy is typically intended to foster an environment of collaboration, high performance, and mutual respect between upper management and employees.
4. An open door policy means, literally, that every manager's door is open to every employee.  The purpose of an open-door policy is to encourage open communication, feedback, and discussion about any matter of importance to an employee. 

Although I do like the definition that Wikipedia gives, it fails to mention one thing....does an open-door policy mean that the boss or CEO could come to his/her employees of the company and also openly address problems or concerns or ask about problems or concerns?  This part isn't mentioned at all, should we assume it isn't part of the definition?  Or is it that the definition assumes no permission is needed by the boss/CEO to ask anyone anything?

Wikipedia has it right, that the purpose of a "true" open-door policy is to encourage open communication, feedback and discussion about any matter of importance to any employee no matter what position they hold within a company. All people who work in a company are considered employees.  The definition does therefore include upper management.  If it didn't, the definition would read, "As the term implies, employees, with the exception of management employee,...".  But they never excluded management employees, so, taking the definition at it's literal meaning, the purpose of the open-door policy would extend to the CEO or any manager being free to speak to anyone in the company.  One would also assume, if you go by strictly what the definition reads, that any communication from any employee in an open-door policy should happen without fear of being reprimanded or retaliated against.

I've discovered since the policy went into effect, that some employees would like to say something to the CEO, but they don't dare upset their direct boss who happens to report directly/indirectly to the CEO. They fear retaliation for doing so.  Much worse, if the CEO calls them or ask them to come to his office, they exhibit being visibly uncomfortable.

An open-door policy is only an open door policy if it is intended to meet the standard of having open lines of communication, feedback and discussion of any matter of importance including matters of disagreement.  Management can easily mis-interpret their employees speaking to their boss's boss as a threat to their authority, and if the manager feels it is a threat, then they don't truly have an open-door policy.  A manager who feels threatened and is upset with an employee speaking to the boss's boss, is a form of reprisal no matter how you look at it, even if it isn't explicit.

It's also not an open-door policy if the boss's boss undermines the authority of his subordinates in any way.  So, lets examine what it means to undermine the authority of a manager with a subordinate employee.

Does it undermine authority if the boss's boss acknowledges he/she is not a fan of something their boss is doing, or that the boss's boss is not in agreement with a policy or action of their boss? Some would argue that it indeed undermines someone if the big boss has an opinion conflicting with the opinion to whom the employee reports too. Would you agree this creates some sort of a dilemma?  My answer would be no, there should be no dilemma. You can't have any person's decisions, opinions, or thoughts limited by the position they hold within a company, and at the same time, honestly maintain that your company has an open-door policy. The undermining of authority does not occur when the boss's boss has an open and free exchange that expresses his/her thoughts which don't agree with the boss of the subordinate.  Undermining authority, in my opinion, can only begin when he allows his/her authority to be higher or greater than the authority of the person the employee reports to. An opinion is just that, an opinion and not an action!  An opinion is also not a direct order or a command to follow.  It is just an opinion to be shared rightfully in a free and open exchange of ideas. After all, open and free exchange of ideas is what an open-door policy is all about. If everyone who is part of a conversation can't speak freely, then you really have a one sided and disingenuous conversation.  That is in turn, not a true open-door policy.

To have a true open-door policy, the corporate culture has to be healthy enough to foster the healthy environment where people can agreeably disagree.  A company that thrives to have an open-door policy does not seek to quite dissent or disagreement. Doing so would put them at risk for increased intolerance towards others ideas resulting in less productivity and a non conducive work environment. For it to actually work, the corporate culture must be a culture where the company demands employees have respect for opinions that aren't in line with their own. Respect means that anyone is free to have a different opinion, and free to voice that opinion, regardless of the position they have in the company and to whom they share the opinion or opposing views with.  A true open-door policy can also only work if the chain of command is strictly enforced by management.  If an employee does not report directly to the manager, then the views, opinions, agreements or lack of agreement should not be interpreted as a directive. If by chance any employee tries to surpass the chain of command by using the open-door policy, it is incumbent on all parties to immediately call it out and make the correction.

In summary, having an open-door policy is an amazing thing but only if it's a true open-door policy.  Think of the Supreme Court of the United States. The nine justices are made up of people who have totally different opinions and view points, they are constantly agreeing to disagree as part of their everyday activities. However, this healthy environment is essential for them to operate and find common ground to work together towards solutions for the greater good. As a company, having an open-door policy demonstrates your accessibility, encourages open lines of communication and ideas, allows fast access to important or just happening situations and creates an overall closer working relationship with it's employees. My door is always open, how about yours? :)


Written by: Laura Skrobanek

Trump's four-point in China- US Trade War

Below is only my personal viewpoint.  Basically Trump has 4 key points throughout his talks

1. The United States believes that a bilateral trade surplus is a good thing and bilateral trade deficit is a bad thing
2. The long term imbalance between US-China trade is caused by subsidies from the Chinese government or other unfair trade polices.
3. The solution to the trade imbalance is to impose high tariff on products exports from China.
4. China should remain in the low-end of global trade value chain, and the United States should stay in the mid to high level of the global trade value chain

OK, so is it true?

1st, according to the statistics from China Custom Board of Protection, trade deficit with China is 275.8 billion. It is a lot. And it is increasing year after year since China joined WTO!  BUT IT IS A GOOD THING TO US ACTUALLY!  Trade deficit was caused by lots of goods exported from China. As exchange, China receives payment in US dollar for the goods sold to the US and US Dollars will be inevitably invested abroad. China takes most of its foreign exchange reserves to buy US treasure bonds. From this perspective, China is lending money to US and US is using Chinese funds to develop its own economy. Therefore, US has achieved economic growth while enjoying cheap products from China.

2nd, Trump think government subsidies is unfair. Question, if you let one healthy man compete with a disabled man in marathon running, is that fair? In terms of trade policy, China imposes 25% tariff on cars originating from US while US imposes 2.5% tariff on Chinese cars. In fact, this tariff policy is announced before China joined WTO in 2001 and it is approved by US. Not like what Trump is claiming, this tariff policy is executed after China joined WTO and manipulated WTO. According to the regulations, developing countries can set higher tar tariffs in a reasonable act to protect themselves. Just like what I emphasize on fair or unfair justice, how can you set up exactly the same rules to two different levels of individuals? If you ask another third world country to impose free duty to US goods, maybe it will very soon become US colony in an economy aspect. In addition, car is just a particular extreme example that all media is taking advantages of. On average, the difference in tariff between two country is about 6% . Gradually, when China transforms itself from export- orientated country to import- orientated country, it will lower the duty rate little by little but it indeed takes some time.

3rd, Trump think it is necessary to increase the high tariff on Chinese goods. This is very stupid idea. No one will win eventually as long as the war continues. We as consumers, the bottom of the bottom, will eat up all the cost of this stupid trade war. And nobody will come to increase our salary.

4th, and this is most controversial point of view. It reflects not only Trump , but many western economists viewpoint. 100 years ago, US was at the low -end of value chain compared to European country and then slowly climbed to the high-end trough technology revolution and political structural change. Today, history is repeating itself. China is trying to do same thing, of course, survival of the fittest.  If China becomes second largest market in the world with huge importing needs, why would everyone worry about it but instead feel happy? The expansion of market will reduce the fixed cost of each export product, so the manufactures have the incentive to produce more, thus achieving the economic scales, namely 1+1> 2. It is going to benefit everyone. China and US can both benefit from economies of scale brought by market expansion. Let's hope trade war ends soon and two countries develop together peacefully.

Written by: Coco Yang, LCH, CCS