Goonhub
10-19-2023, 12:10 PM
I feel like the best way to resolve these inconsistencies is to model the fictional chain of command after real-world chain of command structures. Broadly speaking, in such a system a person accepts orders only from their direct superior, and issues orders only to their direct subordinates. This is the "chain" in the chain of command, orders have to cascade down the chain from their source to the person(s) ultimately responsible for executing them.
For example, the engineers are subordinate to the chief engineer, who is subordinate to the captain. If the captain wants engineering to do something, they would give an order to the CE, who would then either carry it out themselves or transmit it to their subordinates. This ensures that anyone has exactly one superior, removing all ambiguity.
Of course, this is only really necessary in the context of formal orders. In most scenarios, it wouldn't really be an issue for an engineer to take orders from the captain, as the implication is that the captain could just order the CE to order them to do whatever, and so skipping the middleman is just efficient.
The strict flow of the chain of command matters most in situations where someone needs to deny an order from their superior (ie it is unethical, illegal, or in violation of the duties of their post). In this situation for example, engineers should listen to the CE over the captain when receiving conflicting orders, because the CE is their direct superior. The captain's recourse is to give direct orders to the CE which the CE should follow if they dont have a legitimate reason to deny orders. If this doesnt resolve the conflict, the captain does have the authority to fire another head of staff, and their responsibilities are transmitted up the chain of command.
This should only really happen if the captain and/or CE are antagonists in this scenario, as otherwise the captain should not be giving orders that a reasonable person would deny and the CE should not be denying reasonable orders.
Basically the same situation applies to the HoS or other department heads, except that the HoS may be required to overthrow the captain's authority if they have VERY sound reason to believe that the captain is an antagonist. At this point, the HoP is the captain's lieutenant and assumes their duties for the remainder of the shift (otherwise the other department heads figure it out, which usually leads to the HoS assuming command or just nobody being in definite command since it rarely actually matters).
For example, the engineers are subordinate to the chief engineer, who is subordinate to the captain. If the captain wants engineering to do something, they would give an order to the CE, who would then either carry it out themselves or transmit it to their subordinates. This ensures that anyone has exactly one superior, removing all ambiguity.
Of course, this is only really necessary in the context of formal orders. In most scenarios, it wouldn't really be an issue for an engineer to take orders from the captain, as the implication is that the captain could just order the CE to order them to do whatever, and so skipping the middleman is just efficient.
The strict flow of the chain of command matters most in situations where someone needs to deny an order from their superior (ie it is unethical, illegal, or in violation of the duties of their post). In this situation for example, engineers should listen to the CE over the captain when receiving conflicting orders, because the CE is their direct superior. The captain's recourse is to give direct orders to the CE which the CE should follow if they dont have a legitimate reason to deny orders. If this doesnt resolve the conflict, the captain does have the authority to fire another head of staff, and their responsibilities are transmitted up the chain of command.
This should only really happen if the captain and/or CE are antagonists in this scenario, as otherwise the captain should not be giving orders that a reasonable person would deny and the CE should not be denying reasonable orders.
Basically the same situation applies to the HoS or other department heads, except that the HoS may be required to overthrow the captain's authority if they have VERY sound reason to believe that the captain is an antagonist. At this point, the HoP is the captain's lieutenant and assumes their duties for the remainder of the shift (otherwise the other department heads figure it out, which usually leads to the HoS assuming command or just nobody being in definite command since it rarely actually matters).