More on bypassing the chain of command

In response to a recent Advice Line posting (“Bypassing the chain of command, or not,” 9/3/2006), one commenter was quite harsh in his assessment of whether a DNA lab technician – who had doubts about a man’s guilt but wasn’t able to persuade higher-ranking authorities – should have taken further action on behalf of the accused such as contacting the defense attorneys or the press. His comment:

Get real: “you could make the case” (?!) that the analyst should have contacted the innocent guy’s attorney.  Let’s be plain here: Holding onto a job does not justify imprisoning an innocent man for 11 years.  Got it? Since an innocent man sat in jail for eleven years as a result, the point is well worth debating. Advice Line isn’t generally about matters with such serious consequences. The general question of when and how to bypass the chain of command is an important one, though, and the severity of the consequences is an important consideration. Here’s my response, for whatever it’s worth: If the employee who performed the analysis considered himself/herself to be more expert and authoritative than the investigator in charge, or suspected corruption or malfeasance, then my critic is, I think, right, although the personal consequences of doing so aren’t trivial, do matter, and should be weighed against the outcome. Take my critic’s thought process to its end-point, though: Any time anyone working on any case disagrees with the conclusion reached by the lead investigator, that individual bypasses not just the chain of command but the entire organization and its decision-processes. I’m not sure that’s a great answer either. – Bob