Forum Discussion
QuickBaseCoachD
7 years agoQrew Captain
A table can be relation to itself. So 1 Manager May have many employees. Except that the managers are actually Employees.
So then the actual relationship is that 1 Employee have many Employees. The field that the system will create called [Related Employee] should be renamed to [Manager] and then it should make sense.
As for Jane seeing Bill, who is two levels down from her, I think that is possible to do.
But having said that, I�m not sure it�s intuative for users when set up that way. There is an arguement for setting it up more traditionally, where each employee has 3 slots called Manager Level 1, Manager Level 2, Manager Level 3.
So then the actual relationship is that 1 Employee have many Employees. The field that the system will create called [Related Employee] should be renamed to [Manager] and then it should make sense.
As for Jane seeing Bill, who is two levels down from her, I think that is possible to do.
But having said that, I�m not sure it�s intuative for users when set up that way. There is an arguement for setting it up more traditionally, where each employee has 3 slots called Manager Level 1, Manager Level 2, Manager Level 3.
DavidDeGraaff
7 years agoQrew Trainee
Thanks for the clue. I'll see how far I can get. Note that the intuitive way you're suggesting doesn't work well with more people. For example, if I move a group to a new manager, it's easy to just update all their managers, but not easy to update everyone all the way up the chain from their new manager. And when a middle manager changes managers, you need to find them all over the place and update their reporting chain. It doesn't scale.