When to solve it yourself and when to take it higher

“There's a problem. What should I do?”

This is the most common escalation and the least useful one. It does not say what happened, what has been done or what decision is needed. It simply moves the problem one level up, together with all the questions the person could have cleared up themselves.

But the opposite is a problem too. The person who never takes anything higher can look very independent, right up to the moment they are holding a problem inside their role that crossed their limit a long time ago.

Between these two extremes sits one of the most important questions for an operation that has to run without the manager close by: when do you solve it yourself, and when do you take it higher?

In Leadership without a title I wrote that initiative and authority are two different things. This essay is an attempt to turn that difference from a personal feeling into a clear rule.

What I have and what I do not

At night in the hotel, when a problem came up, what mattered was telling whether I could solve it within my role, whether it had to go to the responsible department, or whether it needed a decision higher up.

I have had concrete cases where technical problems in rooms had to go to Maintenance, while housekeeping matters had to be taken on by that department and left in the handover for follow-up.

I will not say whether there was a fixed list of people to call at night, a designated Duty Manager, or a written rule about what wakes someone up and what waits until morning. I am not certain of that.

Nor do I have a documented matrix for last mile of how authority was split between the Team Leader, the Area Manager and the levels above for every kind of incident. I know the Team Leader was very close to the daily operation: loading, the dock, drivers, absences, delays and problems happening live. I know there were rules requiring the Team Leader to be informed when an operational problem came up, for example when a bag was missing during loading. I know there were clear standards and checks for damage and the cold chain. But I will not say “this always went to the Area Manager” without having it documented.

And I do not have a documented case where I myself stood between two choices, “solve it myself or take it higher”. I will not invent one.

What I am certain of is the principle I used from training onwards.

I did not improvise

The checklist showed what had to be done. The documents showed how it was done. But if there was a conflict between them, or something fell outside the standard, I did not improvise. I confirmed it or escalated it.

That may look like a lack of initiative. To me it was the opposite. Initiative makes sense within the limit you know. Beyond it, improvising is not courage. It is a risk you take on without having the authority to carry it.

Ambiguity is a system problem

If two people in the same role would make two completely different decisions about the same situation, perhaps the problem is not the people. Perhaps the escalation line has not been drawn well.

That is why escalation should not depend on temperament. One person is more careful and calls about everything. Another is more self-assured and calls about nothing. If the system does not say clearly where the line is, the result depends on who was on shift that night.

And an operation that depends on who was on shift is not yet an operation that runs without you.

The three mistakes

Here I am speaking as an opinion, not as a statistic from my experience.

The first: everything gets escalated. The person never builds ownership. Every deviation becomes the boss's problem, and the boss becomes the point where the whole operation stalls.

The second: nothing gets escalated. This is the most dangerous. The person may keep a problem inside their role even after the situation has crossed the limit of their authority, the risk or their competence. And when it finally surfaces, it is usually bigger and later.

The third: escalation without information. This one seems very common to me. The problem only moves one level up. It does not get solved. The person receiving it has to ask ten questions just to find out the basic facts, and the time lost there is often the time the decision needed.

Ownership does not mean “I always solve it myself”. It means taking the problem to the place where the right decision can be made, with the right information.

What a good escalation looks like

A good escalation should contain five things, quickly:

1. What happened.
2. What impact it has now.
3. What has been done so far.
4. What decision is needed.
5. How urgent it is.

If someone escalates something to me, I want to understand the situation without asking ten questions.

The rule I would use is this:

Escalate the decision, not the ambiguity you could have cleared up yourself.

But that rule has a limit. If you have five minutes to check the facts without increasing the risk, check them. If the risk is immediate, escalate straight away with what you know. A complete escalation that comes late is worse than a short one that comes in time.

Three levels

I would not use the word “never” for small problems. Even a small problem can change depending on the context. But this is how I would divide it:

Solve it yourself. When it is within your role, the standard is clear, the risk is low and the decision can be reversed.

Solve it and inform. When you can solve it within your authority, but the situation matters for the next shift, for a KPI, for the customer, or it may happen again. Here the handover is the natural place to inform.

Do not touch it, escalate it. When it involves safety, security, compliance, sensitive data, payments beyond your authority, serious disciplinary decisions, a large financial risk, or any situation where the decision clearly goes beyond the responsibility of the role.

In last mile, as I see it today, the Team Leader should have room to solve an operational problem within the standard. The moment the problem affects safety, compliance, the customer in a serious way, or needs a decision beyond their authority, it is no longer a question of initiative. It is escalation.

The escalation matrix for the shift

The three levels above are the columns. To decide which column a situation falls into, five check questions:

1. Is it within my authority?
2. Is there a safety or compliance risk?
3. Can the decision be reversed?
4. Does it affect someone outside my shift?
5. What happens if I wait?

How to read them:

• If the answer to question 1 is “no”, or to question 2 is “yes”: do not touch it, escalate it.
• If the decision cannot be reversed, do not take it alone: at least solve it and inform, and if there is risk, escalate it.
• If it affects someone outside your shift but is within your authority: solve it and inform.
• If all the answers are calm: solve it yourself.
• The fifth question sets the speed: if waiting increases the risk, escalate straight away with what you know.

And when you escalate, the five things of a good escalation: what happened, what impact it has, what has been done, what decision is needed, how urgent it is.

The matrix does not replace judgement. But it gives judgement the same questions, whoever is on shift. That makes escalation a system, not a temperament.

A good escalation system does not teach people to ask permission for everything. It teaches them to understand the limit of their own decision.