“Why Go Straight to the Boss?” — Escalation or Lack of Trust?

After a minor disagreement about a client. Nia assumes she and Marek will calmly work out a shared approach. Marek writes to Zofia immediately.

— I need a decision on Nia’s approach — Marek writes.

When Nia finds out, she asks:

— Why didn’t you speak to me first?
— Zofia owns the decision. I’d rather make it clear.

Marek sees orderly escalation. Nia sees being bypassed and a small disagreement being taken to the boss.

What really happened

Marek and Nia have a relatively small difference of opinion about the client. Marek wants a clear decision quickly, so he goes to Zofia, who formally owns the direction. For him, this is transparent and safe: he does not want the disagreement to drag on or to act outside his mandate. Nia sees something different. Marek skipped the direct conversation with her and immediately brought in someone higher in the hierarchy. What feels like neutral escalation to him feels like reduced trust and raised stakes to her. The same move can mean “let’s clarify accountability” to one person and “you went over my head instead of talking to me” to another.

What the research says

Hierarchy changes the meaning of a conversation. Once someone with greater formal power enters a dispute, the parties are no longer discussing only the solution; questions of evaluation, status, and who “won” may enter as well. Research on employee voice shows that the relative position of speaker and recipient affects how risky speaking up feels and how it is interpreted — part of what has been described as a hierarchy of voice (Pfrombeck et al., 2022). Conflict management also benefits from distinguishing problems the parties can resolve directly from decisions that genuinely require formal authority. Research does not provide one universal escalation sequence, but it does show that bringing hierarchy into the conversation changes its relational cost.

How to handle it

Agree on a simple escalation ladder in advance: first direct conversation, then a joint attempt to solve the issue, then the manager when there is client risk, a deadlock, or a decision outside both people’s mandate. If the issue genuinely needs the boss immediately, Marek can say: “I don’t want to go around you, but this decision is outside our authority. Let’s take it to Zofia together.” Formally, the issue is still escalated, but the relational signal is completely different. The general rule is: escalation is a necessary tool, but it needs a visible threshold or it can easily become a signal of distrust.

How Empatyzer and Em can help

Empatyzer can help Marek and Nia see that escalation to a manager is not a socially neutral move for everyone. Marek may experience it as orderly accountability and quick access to the person with decision authority; Nia sees the bypassed conversation first and reads it as a signal of low trust. Comparing profiles, roles, and preferences around hierarchy allows Em to anticipate the clash. Before a similar situation, Em can give Marek one sentence that changes the relationship signal: “This is outside our mandate — let’s take it to Zofia together.” Escalation still happens, but Nia is no longer positioned as the problem being escalated. At team level, Empatyzer can help establish a simple escalation ladder. Micro-lessons reinforce the principle: escalate the problem when necessary, but do not escalate the relationship more than the problem requires.