Work & Theory · Field note
When Decisions Keep Escalating, Clarify Decision Rights
Repeated escalation can point to a gap between the work, the decision owner, and the authority to act. Map the decision before changing the organization or judging the person.
When the same kind of decision keeps landing on a founder’s or executive’s desk, the escalation may reveal something about the work design. The decision owner may be unclear, accountability may be separated from authority, or the boundaries for acting may never have been agreed.
For founders, CEOs, COOs, and People leaders in 25–500-person organizations, a repeated escalation is a prompt to inspect the role, interface, and decision boundaries—not proof that a particular person is the bottleneck.
Escalation alone does not show that someone is avoiding responsibility. It can be prudent when a decision crosses a risk, policy, legal, financial, or safety boundary, or when new information changes the choice. Start with a recurring decision and trace how it moves from trigger to resolution before deciding what needs to change.
Three patterns to examine
Accountability without authority
A role is expected to deliver an outcome but cannot make the decisions needed to move the work. Check which approvals are required in practice and whether those approvals are part of an intentional control.
Approval by habit
A senior leader may become the default approver when limits, tradeoffs, or exception rules are not explicit. Check whether the leader is resolving a genuine exception or supplying a missing boundary.
A decision crosses an interface
Several functions contribute, yet the path may not identify who makes the call after the necessary input arrives. Check where information, ownership, or a disagreement gets stuck between teams.
Map one decision before changing authority
Use a recent, recurring decision. A useful map names roles and conditions, not just a list of people or a new approval meeting.
Name the decision
Describe the choice that must be made and the work it enables. Keep it specific enough that two people would recognize the same decision when it occurs.
Name the decision owner
Identify one role accountable for making the call within agreed boundaries. Separate that role from people who provide necessary advice, carry out the decision, or need to know the result.
Set the boundaries and escalation trigger
State the limits, tradeoffs, or conditions within which the owner can act. Define the specific conditions that require escalation, such as a policy exception, a material risk, or a decision that affects another accountable area.
Close the path to action
Record what information is needed, who supplies it, when a response is due, and who communicates and carries out the decision. If the decision is escalated, name who resolves it and what happens next.
Test a bounded change with real decisions
Before changing reporting lines or adding a broad approval rule, try clarifying one decision path. Keep required controls intact and review what happens in the work:
- Choose a recurring, bounded decision and write the current path from request to resolution.
- Compare the written path with a few recent examples. Note where ownership changed, approval was added, information arrived late, or a risk properly triggered escalation.
- Clarify one boundary or handoff with the affected roles. Keep existing legal, financial, safety, privacy, and policy controls in place.
- Review the next set of decisions for time to resolution, rerouting, reversals, missing input, and whether the expected work moved forward. Use those observations to keep, adjust, or undo the change.
Useful evidence may include how long a decision waits, how often it is rerouted or reversed, whether required input was available, and whether the intended work moved forward. These signals help guide review; they do not establish a cause on their own.
Use the five lenses to locate the design question
The WORK & THEORY model moves through Direction → Design → Talent → Performance → Culture. Start with the priorities and work, then check whether the other parts support the decision.
- Direction
- Which organizational priorities and tradeoffs should guide this decision?
- Design
- Where does the work sit, who owns the decision, and how do authority and interfaces work?
- Talent
- Do the people involved have the capability, capacity, commitment, and context to make or support the decision?
- Performance
- What result and standard will show whether the decision was carried out as intended?
- Culture
- Do leaders reinforce clear ownership, useful challenge, and timely escalation when boundaries are reached?
Keep escalation available for exceptions
The aim is not to eliminate escalation. It is to make routine decisions at the level designed to handle them and send exceptions to the right person with the right information. A map is a working hypothesis: compare it with real decisions, listen to the roles doing the work, and revise it when the evidence calls for a different design.
Read the WORK & THEORY methodology.