Escalation noun

The deliberate elevating of a matter, risk, or decision to a higher authority when resolution surpasses the scope, authority, or capacity of the current level, particularly the act of formally communicating problems, impacts, and necessary actions to facilitate timely decision-making.

Part I: Delivering Bad News Up the Ladder

In the world of management, situations arise which exceed your authority to act. And when that bad news arrives, you’ll have to deliver it to people who have a whole lot more responsibility, authority and clout than you. While it’s infrequent, it is stressful when it happens. But it’s a necessary leadership skill to demonstrate if you want to grow in your career.

You are brought into a world where the people who control the board pieces live. Regardless of the size of the company and your rapport with the leaders, delivering information which may not be well received needs to be done clearly and on point. The exposure you get can be both beneficial and destructive to your career depending on how you handle the situation.  

And why do you have to explain things up the ladder? Honestly, it’s because you are the one closest to the problem. You are the one who knows what’s really going on. You had the foresight and wisdom to realize the situation is out of your control and decisions need to be made at a higher level. And while the organization can replace you, it can’t undo hidden consequences. 

Understanding Feelings on Escalation

Escalation involves ensuring decisions are made at the appropriate level where consequences can be fully owned when resolution exceeds authority, capacity, or risk tolerance. 

Raising issues can induce anxiety, recognizing a situation is beyond control and needing help. Exposure to controlling superiors raises concerns about consequences like verbal reprimands, termination, or perceived incompetence. Someone more powerful than you gets a window seat into your world. Termination is unlikely unless one directly caused the incident, but serious repercussions increase with concealed wrongdoing.

Overconfidence occurs when individuals underestimate situations, assuming they can easily manage them. They may assume their role is to provide updates or seek support. While self-confidence or team confidence is commendable, crossing into arrogance can lead to unnecessary risks and complications.  Leaders are rarely punished for escalating early. Early information preserves options. They are frequently punished for escalating late, or not at all. The longer you wait, the worse things get and the fewer options that remain. 

The “I’ll figure this out myself” attitude further exacerbates the issue, assuming the problem can be solved independently. While it may demonstrate leadership and problem-solving skills, taking matters into one’s own hands can lead to wasted time and complications. Additionally, involving senior management increases vulnerability. Fearful or overconfident attitudes towards attention-seeking issues can result in delayed and potentially detrimental resolutions.

The Four-Part Structure

Remember, the leaders you’re escalating to don’t have the same level of expertise as you do. When you have their attention, the best thing you can do is to explain things simply and clearly, as if you were explaining to someone without any context or background knowledge. It’s not that they’re incapable of understanding your engineer’s explanation; it’s because they likely don’t have the engineer’s background and may not comprehend the specialized terminology and jargon that engineers use. Deliver the truth, the facts, and don’t sugarcoat them or try to deceive them in any way. Use this structure to escalate.

What is the nature of the problem?

Tell them clearly what is wrong. No back story. No conclusions. No blame. Just the facts as they relate to this issue. Examples of that are:

• “There was an error in the loads analysis resulting in significant undersizing of structure.”
• “Customer has expressed dissatisfaction with our work and they have mentioned they will take their work packages away.”
• “We got into the work statement and discovered the estimates to complete the work were significantly underbid.”

How does this relate to us?

Provide a clear explanation as to why they should care. Without understanding how this relates the company and its impact, leaders won’t be able to prioritize and address it accordingly. It’s conveying why what you characterize is bad is in fact bad for the organization.

• “Structure is likely to fail under  extreme conditions resulting in injury or loss of life.”
• “Losing the work packages eliminates 35% of our total projected revenue for the next two years.”
• “We will neither be able to complete the statement of work at the price we bid nor at the schedule we promised.”

What are the options?

Give them a list of what they can do about it. Never ever deliver a problem to superiors without having some sort of solution in hand. It doesn’t have to be a perfect solution, and the solution may not be the final direction given. But you need to show up with something.

• “We redesign the structure to the correct loads and issue field action to install repairs.”
• “We engage with customer’s executive leadership to understand the issues and rectify the problem.”
• “We first assess the full impact by reestimating the work with the new information, and then negotiate a cost increase and schedule update to align with what we can do.”

What are the consequences?

Let them know what happens after they execute those options. This is where you deliver what the picture looks like after the decisions are made and work complete. What happens to the organization.

• “We will have to absorb the costs of the repairs, and potentially disruption costs. This could be in the neighborhood of $3M per unit. We may face increase scrutiny for rest of the design and any future work.”
• “If we can negotiate to keep the work statements, there won’t be any impact. If we can’t keep the work, or find replacement work, we will have to reduce the staff by approximately 30%.”
• “If we can’t renegotiate some relief in the contract, we will lose approximately $20M over the course of the program.”

What Executives Actually Listen For

When executives receive such messages, they pay close attention to specific cues that indicate tradeoffs, irreversible consequences, and time sensitivity. They understand that there will always be challenges, and if you draw them into these issues, it suggests that they are indeed significant.

For the first example, the proposed option of fixing the deficient structure at the company’s expense was identified. This option comes with a tradeoff: doing nothing. Doing nothing would result in irreparable harm to the company’s reputation, the potential for significant lawsuits, and even jail time. However, it also presents an opportunity: being seen as a company that takes responsibility for its mistakes, improving internal processes to prevent similar incidents from happening again. 

In the second scenario, once the customer exits, the funds also depart. This constitutes an irreversible decision on their part, necessitating careful discussions to ascertain its validity and potentially salvage the situation. Otherwise, the company risks losing a substantial portion of its revenue. They recognize that they have a single opportunity to salvage the work.

A great leader knows that the longer they wait to fix a problem, the more it’s going to cost. The third example shows that they understand that the work will be more expensive than thought. They have three options: they could try to talk the company into changing the contract, they could do the work and accept the losses, or they could just end the contract and cut their losses right away. The main thing is that they have to act fast. There’s no way to make money on this project except by talking the customer into changing the contract, and the longer they wait, the more money they’ll lose.

Executives are super busy, so giving them the info they need makes it easier for them to make quick and smart decisions.

Common Escalation Mistakes

People often make mistakes that can exacerbate situations. Sometimes, they lack the knowledge or courage to handle matters effectively. One of the most prevalent mistakes is sending FYI emails. Sending an email to your boss, simply stating, “We discovered a structural deficiency in the load. I thought you should be informed,” doesn’t effectively convey the potential issues. It appears weak, suggesting a reluctance to confront a genuine problem head-on. Consequently, it leaves the recipient apprehensive about the underlying circumstances.

When sharing news, it’s not necessary to create complex PowerPoint presentations with data, pictures, and excessive information. Executives don’t need the entire data set. Executives value the facts, not the details. They need signals, not noise.

Getting emotional doesn’t help. Instead of apologizing or blaming others, try to be honest and straightforward. Acting excited or showing fear can be frustrating and doesn’t make the situation any easier. It usually backfires and can be difficult to handle.

Here’s the final twist: it’s a surprise when it’s not supposed to be. When you deliver bad news unexpectedly, it puts them on edge and makes them suspicious of your motives. To enhance your credibility, give them all the information at once. Holding back information further diminishes your trustworthiness.

Executives value clarity at the beginning, no fluff or emotional baggage allowed!

In Closing

Escalation is not a failure of leadership; it’s a test of it. When a situation exceeds your authority, capacity, or risk tolerance, choosing not to escalate is still a decision, one that quietly transfers consequences to the organization without consent.

Effective escalation is an obligation, not an option. It requires clarity over comfort, speed over pride, and honesty over self-preservation. The longer leaders delay bringing problems forward, the fewer choices remain and the more expensive those choices become. What feels like protection in the moment often becomes negligence in hindsight. 

As an engineering leader, your role is not to shield the organization from bad news. It’s to ensure that decisions are made at the level where consequences can be fully owned and acted upon. Do that well, and escalation becomes a mark of judgement, not weakness.

Part II will focus on identifying the situations that demand escalation and the warning signs that leaders and organizations ignore at their own peril.