The Ethics of Jumping the Chain

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Thomas E. Poulin
April 14, 2025

The more complex an agency becomes, the more likely a formal structure is imposed. This provides a framework for authorities, responsibilities and communications. This can support efficacy and efficiency; it should not be dismissed lightly. However, public sector leaders must consider how this formal structure might hinder performance, reflecting on when it might be acceptable to “jump the chain.”

The term “jumping the chain” refers to the agency’s chain of command, a phrase adopted from military usage. The analogy suggests roles are links connected at each end to only one other link. If a chain becomes tangled, it is difficult to use and might compromise its strength. The integrity of the chain’s design dictates its usage. While this serves the mechanical concept of a chain, should it be so rigid in terms of agency performance?

An organizational chart provides a simplified vision of formal relationships based on roles, responsibilities, specializations and locations. It provides a cognitive map of formal authorities and communications channels within an agency, but it does not represent daily realities. It fails to reflect the complex interdependent nature of modern work.

Organizations are communities, and an individual who works solely on their own, unaffected by others and affecting no one, would be an extreme outlier. Regardless of agency size, employees are networked into a complex web. On occasion, they must speak to or work with others who are not in their immediate formal chain.

If the chain were as rigid as some argue, the majority of discussions would move vertically. Any discussion with someone in another chain would require pushing the information up until encountering an individual who was in both chains, having them push the communication down, then reversing the process for a reply. This would be laborious, time-consuming and unnecessary. Recognizing this, most organizations permit some form of “gangplanking.” These are informal communication channels between individuals to facilitate more effective, efficient communications.

Most concerns with jumping up the chain argue that it is disrespectful, violating the integrity of the chain. There are sound arguments for this, but they should be frangible. If the intent is to bypass someone, marginalizing them, it would be unacceptable. Alternatively, if the intent is to seek guidance or approval for a time-sensitive issue when an intermediate link in the chain is unavailable, it is acceptable, with the understanding that this will be communicated later to the person bypassed. Additionally, if jumping up the chain is to report concerns with illegal, unethical or unprofessional behavior, this too should be considered acceptable.

This last point is considered “whistleblowing” if accomplished by reporting externally. Whistleblowing protections have evolved over the years following instances of agency employees reporting concerns to a governing body such as legislature or a regulatory office. In extreme cases, when an employee believes no viable alternative exists, they might contact the media. As a society, there is a widely shared belief that whistleblowing is somehow disloyal to the organization, even when the issue revolves around illegal, unethical or unprofessional behavior. Consequently, public administrators must be wary when responding to this form of jumping the chain, reflecting on the intent and perspective of the employee. After all, if employees do not believe higher levels of the chain can be trusted to receive and investigate a report professionally, that might say more about the leadership than the employee.

Most concerns with chain jumping focus on lower-level employees jumping up. There seems to be little concern with higher-level employees jumping down. If the argument is that skipping links in the chains is problematic, then the direction of the jump is irrelevant. This can be an ambiguous area. Sometimes higher-level leaders will jump down the chain when practicing “management by walking around.” They might also do so to build or nurture relationships with others in the organization, or to mentor or coach lower-level employees. Again, the intent must be considered in determining appropriateness.

There are times when jumping the chain can be appropriate. However, there must be distinctions made, and higher-level leaders must model appropriate behaviors. If approached by a lower-level employee for something an immediate supervisor should be doing, the employee should be referred to that appropriate link. If a higher-level employee notices a concern, they should work through the chain to address it. If they must bypass it because of the nature of the concern, it is their responsibility to inform the intermediate links in the chain that they have been bypassed.

An organizational structure is imperative to providing effective, efficient, and responsive services, coordinating the activities of all involved. Everyone needs to fulfill their roles and responsibilities within the structures and processes developed. However, if the focus is more tightly on maintaining the formal structures than on achieving the mission of providing high-quality services to the community, perhaps it is time to assess the formal structures or the inflexibility of the agency’s culture.

---

Author: Thomas E. Poulin, PhD, SHRM-CP, PSHRA-CP, is a training and development consultant and part-time public administration faculty at Columbia Southern University. He served in local government and non-profits for more than 30 years and has taught public administration and related topics for over 20. He may be reached at [email protected]. 

(3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...