Formalize Escalation Procedures to Improve Decision-Making

Disagreements and conflict over issues as varied as strategic direction, investments, and daily priorities pervade every organization.  Conflict occurs between peers, across different functions and business units, and among executive team leaders and board members. Conflict is sometimes overt and often covert. Conflicts are sometimes resolved constructively, but, more often, conflict compromises execution and damages relationships. Managing conflict so that it does not interfere with operations or damage working relationships is essential to organizational effectiveness.

Clearly defined escalation procedures ensure that disagreements are addressed at the right level and resolved collaboratively and efficiently. This is not a trivial challenge; people encounter multiple points of tension when deciding whether to escalate. Unfortunately, relatively few organizations have defined and implemented an effective way to ensure that conflicts are efficiently and effectively resolved at the right level of management.

In the face of conflict, people often escalate unilaterally, too quickly, and in a manner that produces suboptimal decisions and undermines trust among the parties involved. At the same time, conflicts with strategic implications often are not escalated to the right level of management in a timely fashion, compromising strategic agility. Additionally, valuable learning and strategic insights get lost amid this dysfunction.

By implementing the following six guidelines for escalation, organizations can reduce organizational friction, reduce unnecessary escalations, improve decision-making, strengthen working relationships throughout the organization, and enhance strategic agility.  Define clear guidelines for when and where to escalate.  Require people to document their efforts to resolve conflict on their own before escalating it.  Require joint escalation.  Encourage employees to limit the scope of escalations.  Use escalation as an opportunity for coaching.  And use escalation as an opportunity for organizational learning.

The ability to resolve most issues close to the point of conflict is foundational to effective escalation. But too often, people engaged in conflict quickly dig into positions (such as preconceived answers, demands, and bottom lines) and then seek agreement or acquiescence from others. This kind of zero-sum debate is typified by gridlock or a grudging process of making incremental concessions until a “split the difference” solution is reached. In addition to producing poor business outcomes, this process usually strains relationships and eventually damages them in lasting ways.

Conflicts can become personalized, a dynamic that leaders should work to minimize. A systematic approach to escalation, such as the one we have proposed, can itself develop team members’ skills in conflict management and joint problem-solving. But leaders must also continuously communicate — in both words and actions — the importance of respecting different perspectives, goals, and ways of working as part of a larger collective enterprise.

A better approach than arguing positions is one that involves jointly brainstorming multiple possible resolutions before seeking agreement on a final decision. This practice removes the “me versus you” dynamic that often impedes agreement, and it leads to new insights and better solutions. Whenever possible, at the point of conflict, those involved should do the following:

1. Frame disagreement as a shared challenge and a resource that can be harnessed to arrive at a truly optimal solution. To keep conflict from becoming personalized, highlight the fact that the parties share a common goal.
2. Avoid limiting and polarizing arguments about what the “right” approach is. Instead, engage in nuanced exploration of the relative pros and cons of different approaches.
3. Do not assume that the current proposed solutions are the only possible ones. Jointly brainstorm alternatives.
4. Consider creative ways to integrate various elements of different proposed solutions.

The ability to effectively resolve conflict at the source and a formal process for organizational escalation go hand in hand. The former ensures that the latter is not overwhelmed by unnecessary escalations; the latter ensures that there is an effective safety valve for the former. Together, they enable organizations operating in complex and dynamic environments to maximize strategic agility, internal collaboration, and speed of execution.

show less