Escalation: Difference between revisions

Escalation (view source)

Revision as of 15:29, 28 October 2019

30 bytes added , 28 October 2019

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 When a young [[negotiator]] engaged in a contractual workflow encounters a challenge beyond her mandate to approve she [[Escalation|escalates]]. She may escalate ''[[vertical escalation|upwards]]'', to her own [[line manager]], if it is a call within her domain but beyond her pay-grade, or ''[[horizontal escalation|horizontally]]'', to another [[risk controller]], if the risk item is beyond her own department’s mandate, but one of credit, market or trading risk.
-[[Escalation]], of either kind, is a key, and underestimated, feature of the [[negotiation]] process. It is rife with oubliettes, resentment and aggravation. It is redolent of, and apt to, generate the kind of emotions one experiences when one is being driven up the wall.
+[[Escalation]], of either kind, is a key, and underestimated, “feature” of the [[negotiation]] process. It is rife with resentment and [[ennui]] and studded with bottomless oubliettes down which your query can fall, or be stuffed, it always being a safer tactic for an escalat''ee'' to [[ignore]], rather than act on, a request for a decision, if there is any prospect that question might just go away. In the modern organisation, many do.
-At the very least, an escalation will take {{wasteprov|time}}. It will languish in an inbox. It will comprise the un-knitted air of an un-returned phone call or an ignored chat. This process will last for days or weeks. Then, when the awaited answer arrives, it is never quite the one the enquirer seeks. {{sex|She}} may seek further input from another colleague, initiating the launch sequence for an [[escalation circle]]. It may partially answer the question, or ambiguously, or in terms so vague that the enquirer isn't sure what to do next. It may be so obviously couched in the language of slidery that the enquirer is sore afraid to take it at face value: “[[At this stage]] I would be [[inclined]] [[I don't disagree with you|not to disagree]] with this view”
+As for the escalat''or'', the best-case scenario is that an [[escalation]] will only take {{wasteprov|time}}; languishing in an inbox, or buried deep in a to-do list. It will comprise the un-knitted air of an un-returned phone call or an ignored chat. This process will last for days or weeks. Then, when the awaited answer arrives, it is never quite the one the enquirer seeks. {{sex|She}} may seek further input from another colleague. She may initiating the launch sequence for an [[escalation circle]]. She may partially answer the question, or ambiguously, or in terms so vague that the escalator isn't quite sure what to do next. Her answer may be so obviously couched in the language of slidery that the escalator is sore afraid to take it at face value: “[[At this stage]] I would be [[inclined]] [[I don't disagree with you|not to disagree]] with this view”
-{{box|Working theory: The very '''fact''' of an [[escalation]]—the very interposition of an approval step, ''in itself'', in which one part of the [[meatware]] shunts a problem to another part of the [[meatware]]—causes more in aggregate delay, confusion, aggravation and second-order bureaucracy than is ''ever'' solved by the resolution it promises to deliver.}}
+This all leads to the [[JC]]’s [[third law of worker entropy]]: {{third law of worker entropy}}
 ===[[Sales]] escalations===
@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 {{Seealso}}
+*The [[laws of worker entropy]]
 *[[Compliance arbitrage]]
 *[[Circle of escalation]]