Escalation threshold: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{a|gsv|}}Organisational strategy: prohibit escalations below a certain rank (or, if your organisation is foresighted enough to do away with ranks, by a certain role: team lea...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|gsv|}}Organisational strategy: prohibit escalations below a certain rank (or, if your organisation is foresighted enough to | {{a|gsv|}}Organisational strategy: prohibit horizontal escalations ''to'' legal from other business, risk or operational functions below a certain rank (or, if your organisation is foresighted enough to have done away with ranks, below a certain role: say “team leader”.) | ||
*BAU legal | |||
The idea is to condition junior people in other organizational units to escalate ''up'' their formal command chain. The theory is that if it is BAU, a more experienced person in the function should know, and should be responsible for knowing, and should give the guidance, making this a teachable moment within the silo. Only if that team leader doesn’t know, have you met the threshold for a horizontal escalation into legal. | |||
If a continued proliferation of stupid questions from the team leader, you can manage that with performance management. | |||
==Insights== | |||
*Reduce horizontal escalations as they are intrinsically wasteful | |||
*[[BAU legal knowledge lives in the operational function, not in legal]]. | |||
*The responsibility for training staff on the BAU lies with management of the operational function, not with the legal department | *The responsibility for training staff on the BAU lies with management of the operational function, not with the legal department | ||
*Legal is an escalation point for edge cases and emergencies. Just as you don’t consult a solicitor every day in your personal life, nor should you consult legal every day in your professional one. | *[[The legal purpose]] is more limited than you think it is: Legal is an escalation point for edge cases and emergencies. Just as you don’t consult a solicitor every day in your personal life, nor should you consult legal every day in your professional one. | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Horizontal escalation]] | |||
Latest revision as of 14:12, 4 October 2021
|
|
Organisational strategy: prohibit horizontal escalations to legal from other business, risk or operational functions below a certain rank (or, if your organisation is foresighted enough to have done away with ranks, below a certain role: say “team leader”.)
The idea is to condition junior people in other organizational units to escalate up their formal command chain. The theory is that if it is BAU, a more experienced person in the function should know, and should be responsible for knowing, and should give the guidance, making this a teachable moment within the silo. Only if that team leader doesn’t know, have you met the threshold for a horizontal escalation into legal.
If a continued proliferation of stupid questions from the team leader, you can manage that with performance management.
Insights
- Reduce horizontal escalations as they are intrinsically wasteful
- BAU legal knowledge lives in the operational function, not in legal.
- The responsibility for training staff on the BAU lies with management of the operational function, not with the legal department
- The legal purpose is more limited than you think it is: Legal is an escalation point for edge cases and emergencies. Just as you don’t consult a solicitor every day in your personal life, nor should you consult legal every day in your professional one.