Leading more than 100 people through more than 10 manager direct reports makes one question particularly important: which decisions still need to reach me?
An escalation can be sensible. A pattern of escalating the same decision usually deserves a closer look.
Does the manager have the customer context? Is the budget boundary clear? Can they make an architecture trade-off without discovering afterward that someone else had an unstated veto?
Make the decision boundary explicit
I think leadership teams should make three things explicit:
- Decisions the manager owns.
- Decisions that require consultation.
- Conditions that require escalation.
A delivery commitment crossing team boundaries may need consultation. A reversible implementation choice may belong entirely with the team. A material change in risk may need escalation.
The distinction matters because accountability becomes difficult when authority is ambiguous.
For me, developing managers includes developing their judgment and giving that judgment room to operate. The executive’s role then becomes clearer too: provide context, resolve conflicting priorities and step in where the consequences exceed the delegated boundary.
Which recurring decision in your organization still travels one level higher than it should?