Difference Between Unity of Command vs Chain of Command:
Unity of Command and Chain of Command are often used to refer to military command structures, but they also apply to modern business strategies. Within the corporate environment, these terms refer to the overall business structure, containing either a rigid hierarchy of bosses or a single manager who oversees a company’s business functions. These command structures are different, but each provides its own unique advantages.
Unity of Command:
Unity of command is a managerial technique that is built around a single individual in command, with any number of subordinates under his/her command. This is often the command structure used in small businesses; herein, one owner/manager has full control over every managerial responsibility. Unity of command provides a singular vision with a clear command structure, such as that of the single owner who determines the vision for the company. Unity of command requires consistent micromanagement by the head of the command structure because the head of the organization has no one under her command to whom she delegates leadership responsibilities. There has been a recent quickening of the tempo of the long-standing debate on control and missions of Air Force units employed in support of ground forces. Army officers, many of whom have never been fully satisfied with the theory or practice of existing air support doctrine, are raising the issue once more. And so, largely in Army periodicals, we find unofficial statements of the Army‘s requirements for adequate air support, with the clear implication that if the Air Force can‘t or won‘t do the job, the Army itself will have to provide its own air support—just as the Marine Corps does.
The principle Army commander is now unable to exercise any control over the air elements from which he should receive air support. Many soldiers consider that this is an intolerable situation, that it jeopardizes the successful prosecution of the land battle, and— above all—that it violates the principle of unity of command. It may be heresy, but as an Army man I find it impossible to reconcile this argument with established Army doctrine, or with Army concepts of the principles of war. I believer that there is an inherent inconsistency in reasoning with demands that local ground commanders should have command control of supporting air units on the basis of the ―established and proven principle of unity of command.
Chain of Command:
The chain of command, sometimes called the scaler chain, is the formal line of authority, communication, and responsibility within an organization. The chain of command is usually depicted on an organizational chart, which identifies the superior and subordinate relationships in the organizational structure.
According to classical organization theory the organizational chart allows one to visualize the lines of authority and communication within an organizational structure and ensures clear assignment of duties and responsibilities. By utilizing the chain of command, and its visible authority relationships, the principle of unity of command is maintained. Unity of command means that each subordinate reports to one and only one superior.
The chain of command, sometimes called the scaler chain, is the formal line of authority, communication, and responsibility within an organisation. The chain of command is usually depicted on an organizational chart, which identifies the superior and subordinate relationships in the organizational structure. According to classical organization theory the organizational chart allows one to visualize the lines of authority of communication within an organizational structure and ensures clear assignment of duties and responsibilities. By utilizing the chain of command, and its visible authority relationships, the principle of unity of command is maintained. Unity of command means that each subordinate reports to one and only one superior.
In many organizations, the chin of command principle is still very much alive. The manager‘s status is that of the deliverer of orders, and the employee enacts them under the monitoring of the manager. Both parties share responsibility for achievements. But, as Longnecker suggests in his book Principles of Management and Organizational Behaviour, communication provides the underpinnings of this relationship. The discussions and meetings contact managers and their subordinates have many improve or harm the effectiveness of the direct report relationships in the chain of command.
In many organizations, the chain of command principle is still very much alive. The manager’s status is that of the deliverer of orders, and the employee enacts them under the monitoring of the manager. Both parties share responsibility for achievements. But, as Longnecker suggests in his book Principles of Management and Organizational Behavior, communication provides the underpinnings of this relationship. These types of organizations attempt to place decision-making authority in the organizational structure with those who can most effectively and efficiently respond to environmental imperatives. Thus, these organizations may have flatter hierarchies and communication and decision-making patterns that do not fully adhere to the chain of command or unity of command principles. In the case of matrix organizations, employees frequently have two managers or supervisors, violating the unity of command and chain of command principles. To be effective, individuals working in these organizations learn to share power, use open confrontation to resolve issues and to utilize all directions in the organization to disseminate information.
These more organic structures are not rigidly bound to the chain of command principle, although it is still an important organizing principle in most organizations.