# The n+2 Management Policy

I think this is a decent way to operate in a hierarchy–particularly when it comes to big decisions like hiring/firing/approving new policies.  We first assume the hierarchy is a tree (i.e. each member has only one immediate supervisor) and that there is a maximal element, called an “administrator”.  The setup is that if something happens at level $n$ in the hierarchy (say hiring/firing someone at level $n$ (presuming the action is consistent with other policy)), then the relevant supervisor makes the nomination/recommendation for the action, and his/her supervisor confirms the action.

Hence let $H$ be a tree, $x\in H,$ and $S(x)$ denote the supervisor of $x.$  Typically in trees, minimal elements are considered level $0.$  Here we reverse the ordering and call the maximal element the administrator, denoted by $A,$ and say $\mbox{rank}(A)=M.$  We define a rank $n$ policy as a policy that affects all successors (subordinates) of an element $x\in H$ such that $\mbox{rank}(x)=n.$  Hence we have:

The n+2 Operational Policy.  Let $P$ be a rank $n$ policy and $x_P$ denote the member whose subordinates are affected.  The policy then becomes activated provided $S(x_P)$ proposes it and $S(S(x_P))$ approves it.

Hence the $n+2$ Operational Policy itself is a rank $M$ policy as it affects everything in the hierarchy.  But we arrive at a problem in continuing to execute this policy at levels $M-1$ and $M.$  So we adjoin another set to the hierarchy called the board, denoted $B,$ and redefine our hierarchy as $H=T\sqcup B$ where $T$ denotes the initial tree with unique maximal element $A.$ We then define $S(A)=B$ and $S(B)=B.$

The main positive of this method is the minimizing of micromanagement.  The only big negative that stands out is the possibility of actions diverging from intentions of a level $n$ member as one goes down the ladder.  But I’d argue that this just means more level $n$ policy needs to be implemented in order to prevent that.