Escalation Systems

Authors: Jordan Vallejo and the Transformation Management Institute™ Research Group

Status: IFS-6 | January 2026

Scope and boundary

This paper is descriptive and diagnostic rather than prescriptive. It does not provide management advice, leadership guidance, culture change guidance, organizational design recommendations, implementation playbooks, PMO operating models, or consulting prescriptions. It does not provide legal advice, whistleblowing guidance, ethics reporting guidance, or HR policy guidance.

This paper analyzes escalation as an interpretation system: how institutions convert acknowledged issues into enforceable decisions under authority constraints.

This paper does not analyze silence climates, fear of speaking, or reluctance to report issues. It does not analyze credibility disputes about whether an issue is real. It does not model urgent operational response under time critical conditions. It does not treat mediated identity verification as the primary constraint.

This paper begins after an issue is already admitted into shared artifacts and is intelligible within the relevant forums. The target phenomenon is authority loss: the system cannot produce binding closure that remains enforceable across time and interfaces.

The system object is the escalation infrastructure inside a stated organizational boundary, including forums, roles, decision rights, charters, registers, thresholds, and enforcement pathways. Escalation is treated as a closure pathway for interpretation under governance constraint.

Abstract

Escalation is the conversion layer between an interpreted condition and an enforceable coordination outcome. Organizations can raise an issue, document it, circulate it across committees, and still not arrive at an enforceable decision. This paper studies that condition as a distinct class of interpretive failure.

IFS-6 formalizes escalation as a repeatable event structure called the Escalation Meaning Event (EMEv). An EMEv begins when an issue becomes admissible in shared artifacts and enters escalation pathways. It proceeds through translation into a decision candidate, authority routing into a forum that can decide, adjudication under constraint, and either binding closure or recurrence.

The paper maps escalation onto the Meaning System Science variable set (Truth Fidelity, Signal Alignment, Structural Coherence, Drift, Affective Regulation) and specifies observable traces for each variable through common governance artifacts. It defines closure in escalation as a binding decision with an enforceable owner and a record that remains decisive over time.

Escalation Systems isolates a gating constraint between shared interpretation and coordinated action. It shows why acknowledged issues can remain operationally inert when decision rights are unclear or enforcement pathways are non operative. This positions escalation as interpretive infrastructure that must be explicitly governed during coordinated change attempts.

1. Introduction

Escalation is often treated as communication, persistence, or managerial attention. In practice, escalation is a system for converting an acknowledged condition into a decision that changes what the organization does next. The core question is not whether a problem is visible, but whether the system can produce a decision that is binding.

Escalation is therefore an interpretation system. It evaluates an issue against reference conditions such as risk, harm, compliance, service continuity, cost, and delivery feasibility. It then routes that evaluation into governance actions such as delegation, reprioritization, constraint removal, resource assignment, exception handling, and termination.

Many organizations experience a stable failure class where escalation increases visibility but does not produce an enforceable decision. The same issue family returns across weeks or months through logs, committees, and reviews. Decision statements are revisited, re-scoped, deferred, or rewritten without a change in authority or admissibility thresholds. Owners change. Enforcement is ambiguous. This paper names that condition authority loss.

Authority loss is not a psychological trait of leaders or employees. It is a structural property of the escalation system that is observable through artifacts and recurrence. It is observed when decision rights are absent, diffused, contested, non legitimate, or non enforceable, such that escalation cannot create decisive closure.

This paper contributes:

• A bounded system object definition for escalation infrastructure.

• A repeatable event model, EMEv, with five phases and observable operators.

• A closure definition that differentiates agreement from binding decision.

• A variable map for T, P, C, D, A in escalation contexts.

• Measurement candidates using common artifacts.

• Recurrence signatures unique to authority loss.

Escalation Systems specifies why correct interpretation can remain non operative when the system cannot authorize and enforce closure.

2. Research Foundations

This section is not an exhaustive literature review. It identifies structural foundations used to ground a domain-native model of escalation under authority loss.

Research on issue movement and issue selling clarifies how issues move into higher decision arenas and how framing affects what receives decision attention. This paper uses that work only to define the boundary between ordinary issue handling and escalation: the point at which an issue is no longer being worked locally and is being routed toward a forum or role expected to decide.

Institutional and organizational scholarship on legitimacy clarifies why a directive can be issued and still remain non-decisive in practice. Escalation depends on more than formal authority. It depends on whether participants treat a forum, a role, and a recorded decision as binding enough to change what happens next. Discourse theory frames legitimacy as receivable justification under contestation, which makes escalation quality a closure property rather than a hierarchy outcome.

Decision-rights and governance doctrine provide an operational vocabulary for how authority is distributed, how veto power is created, and how responsibility for enforcement is assigned. When decision rights are diffused, contested, or mismatched to enforcement pathways, escalation can become a repeatable process that produces visibility without closure.

Finally, standards-based approaches to exception handling, tolerances, delegated authority, and escalation thresholds clarify how systems attempt to trigger escalation when local handling is insufficient. These mechanics provide observable traces for authority routing and for the conditions under which escalation is expected to convert an interpreted condition into a binding outcome.

3. Domain declaration: escalation systems

3.1 System object

An escalation system is a bounded interpretive environment in which acknowledged issues are evaluated against declared reference promises and routed into binding decisions. The system object is the escalation infrastructure inside a stated organizational boundary, including forums, mandates, decision rights, thresholds, registers, records, and enforcement pathways. The defining property is not the presence of a committee. The defining property is a structured attempt to convert an interpreted condition into a decision that constrains what the organization does next.

3.2 Membership condition

A participant is inside the escalation system when they contribute to, depend on, or are constrained by the system’s account of an escalated issue.

A participant is acting in an escalation function when they translate an admissible issue into a decision candidate, route it into an authorized forum, or execute or enforce the resulting decision.

3.3 Interfaces treated

This paper treats the following interfaces as common sites where authority loss becomes observable:

• issue and risk registers

• governance forums and steering reviews

• intake triage and escalation channels

• decision records and approval chains

• exception handling and tolerance breaches

• enforcement pathways such as priority ownership, budget authority, and delegated decision limits

3.4 Artifact ecology

Escalation is stabilized through artifacts. Common artifacts include:

• issue and risk registers

• RAID logs

• decision logs

• governance charters and terms of reference

• delegated authority matrices

• RACI or decision rights matrices

• exception reports and tolerance breach notices

• steering committee minutes and action records

• intake forms and escalation memos

These artifacts are treated as interpretive traces, not as administrative paperwork.

4. Truth promise and evidence thresholds in escalation

4.1 What counts as true for escalation

Escalation truth is action relevance under a declared reference promise. A reference promise is the organization’s stated commitment about what its decisions will remain faithful to when consequences are present. It determines what the system treats as decisive enough to authorize binding action.

A declared reference promise can be explicit in policy, charters, standards, regulatory obligations, operating principles, or governance mandates. It can also be implicit but stable, visible in what the organization repeatedly protects when tradeoffs are forced. In escalation, the reference promise is the constraint the system claims its decisions will follow.

Because escalation exists to authorize constraint-handling, the question is not whether a claim is persuasive, but whether it is sufficiently faithful to the reference promise to justify a binding decision. In escalation contexts, reference promises commonly include service continuity, harm prevention, compliance and auditability, customer impact, financial integrity, delivery feasibility, and operational capacity.

Truth Fidelity in this paper is not metaphysical certainty. It is fidelity to the declared reference promise: whether the decision basis, the recorded rationale, and the resulting coordination remain constrained by what the organization claims to uphold. A claim can be accepted as true enough to discuss while still treated as non-decisive. Escalation becomes an interpretation system when the reference promise functions as a decision constraint rather than as rhetorical justification.

4.2 Evidence thresholds and admissibility

Escalation systems define admissibility thresholds, explicit or implicit. These thresholds do not exist to “prove” an issue in the abstract, they exist to decide whether the issue qualifies to consume scarce decision authority under the reference promise.

Admissibility answers: what must be true, and in what form, for this issue to become escalation-eligible. Thresholds commonly track impact magnitude, uncertainty range, time sensitivity, scope of affected units, reversibility, remediation cost, and regulatory exposure. Thresholds function as gates: they determine whether the system treats the issue as a decision object rather than local variance.

Two sufficiency conditions matter:

• Evidentiary sufficiency: the claim is constrained enough by the reference promise to justify escalation attention.

• Authority sufficiency: a forum or role exists that can issue a decision that remains binding and enforceable.

An issue can satisfy evidentiary thresholds and still remain non-decisive if authority is diffused, contested, or non-enforceable. In authority loss environments, added evidence can accumulate without changing outcomes because the gating constraint is authority, not information.

4.3 Error types

This paper distinguishes three escalation error types.

1. False escalation: the system treats a condition as escalation-eligible when it does not meet declared thresholds relative to the reference promise. Binding attention is authorized without a constrained decision basis.

2. Missed escalation: the system fails to trigger escalation when thresholds are met. The issue remains local, informal, or unlogged despite consequence exposure that the reference promise would treat as decision-relevant.

3. Non-binding escalation: the system triggers escalation and admits the issue into forums, but does not produce enforceable closure. The issue becomes a stable agenda object rather than a decision object. Evidence can be sufficient and still not change outcomes because authority sufficiency is absent.

IFS-6 focuses on non-binding escalation as the signature of authority loss.

5. The Escalation Meaning Event (EMEv)

An Escalation Meaning Event (EMEv) is a complete interpretive event in which an issue enters escalation pathways, is translated into a decision candidate, is routed through authority, is adjudicated, and either achieves binding closure or enters recurrence.

EMEv is modeled in five phases. Phases are not a workflow prescription, they are a diagnostic structure that can be observed through artifacts.

Phase 1. Admission

• Definition: The issue becomes admissible within shared artifacts and enters escalation reality.

• Entry condition: The issue is logged, formally raised, or entered into an issue or risk register with a traceable identifier.

• Operators include: intake classification, ownership assignment, initial framing and scope statement, and threshold tagging.

• Primary traces include: register entry, intake form, ticket creation, and the initial risk statement.

• Failure operators include: admission delay, ambiguous ownership assignment, and early reframing that reduces admissibility force.

Phase 2. Translation

• Definition: The issue is converted into a decision candidate that a forum can evaluate.

• Operators include: problem statement stabilization, option set formation, impact model creation, risk framing, and dependency mapping.

• Primary traces include: decision brief, options memo, impact summary, and risk assessment addendum.

• Failure operators include: translation drift (the decision question changes across documents), scope compression that removes decision relevance, and option collapse into a single preselected path.

Phase 3. Authority routing

• Definition: The decision candidate is routed to a role or forum that is authorized to decide.

• Operators include: escalation trigger invocation, tolerance or threshold evaluation, forum selection, decision-rights mapping, and delegation attempt.

• Primary traces include: escalation note, tolerance breach report, agenda placement, and governance routing record.

• Failure operators include: authority diffusion (no single decider), veto sprawl (blocking without outcome ownership), and forum mismatch (receiving forum lacks mandate).

Phase 4. Adjudication

• Definition: A decision is attempted under constraint.

• Operators:

• deliberation and tradeoff articulation

• consent or vote mechanisms

• accountability assignment

• exception authorization

• deferral or termination decisions

• Primary traces: meeting minutes, decision record, sign off artifact, approval chain output.

• Failure operators:

• decision revisitation loop, where the same decision is repeatedly reopened

• conditional closure without enforceability

• deferral without re routing or authority change

Phase 5. Binding closure or recurrence

• Definition: The event resolves into a closure state that is either binding or recurrent.

• Binding closure conditions:

• a recorded decision statement

• a named accountable owner

• an enforcement pathway that is authorized to act

• an auditable record that remains decisive across time

• Recurrence states:

• circulation without decision

• decision without enforcement

• reopening as default

• reclassification into a different register without resolution

• abandonment through exhaustion

• Primary traces: closure notation in log, decision log entry, delegated authority record, follow up enforcement trace.

6. Variable mapping (T, P, C, D, A)

This section maps EMEv to the Meaning System Science variable set and specifies observables that can be extracted from common artifacts.

T. Truth Fidelity

In escalation: Truth Fidelity is the degree to which escalation claims remain constrained by the reference promises used to justify a binding decision, such as harm prevention, compliance, service continuity, financial integrity, and delivery feasibility.

Observables:

• explicit reference conditions in decision briefs

• evidence attachments and impact models

• explicit threshold rationale for escalation

• statements of what would count as closure

Common T failures:

• impact claims detached from reference promises

• evidence that is present but not admissible in the forum

• closure criteria that are stated but not used in adjudication

P. Signal Alignment

In escalation: Signal Alignment is whether participants and artifacts converge on the same decision object: what is being decided, under what reference promise, and by which authority.

Observables:

• stability of issue definition across register entry, agenda, and decision statement

• consistency of scope language across documents

• divergence between what is discussed and what is recorded

Common P failures:

• issue family split into competing labels

• decision question changes without explicit re admission

• parallel narratives across workstreams that never converge into one decision object

C. Structural Coherence

In escalation: Structural Coherence is whether authority, mandates, forums, and enforcement pathways form a coherent closure architecture: the system can identify a decider, produce a decision record, and route that record into authorized execution.

Observables:

• decision rights matrix clarity

• forum mandate specificity

• delegated authority boundaries

• enforcement ownership alignment with authority

Common C failures:

• decider absent or distributed across multiple roles

• forum has discussion authority but not decision authority

• enforcement assigned to roles without control surface

• approval chains that function as veto pathways rather than decision pathways

D. Drift

In escalation: Drift is the rate at which an issue reappears, mutates, expands, or is re categorized without achieving binding closure.

Observables:

• reopen frequency in issue logs

• time in register with stable identifiers

• recurrence interval distribution for the same issue family

• scope growth rate across successive escalations

Common D failures:

• recurring agenda items with minor rephrasing

• serial deferrals without authority changes

• repeated re translation that never reaches enforceable decision

A. Affective Regulation

In escalation: Affective Regulation is treated narrowly as an operational participation constraint: the system’s capacity to sustain deliberation and decision in high-consequence escalation without avoidance behaviors that change routing and closure outcomes.

Observables:

• meeting volatility indicators in minutes and attendance

• avoidance patterns such as repeated deferral without rationale

• escalation fatigue signals such as declining engagement on recurring items

Common A failures:

• avoidance of definitive decision language

• escalation fatigue that shifts items into circulation states

This paper does not treat A as culture diagnosis. A is used only where participation constraints alter Phase 3 routing, Phase 4 adjudication, or Phase 5 closure recording.

7. Closure, recurrence, and termination states

7.1 Closure definition

In escalation, closure is not agreement. Closure is a binding decision that remains enforceable across time, roles, interfaces, and downstream execution, with a record that stays decisive unless new admissibility thresholds are met. A decision is binding when it is treated as decisive and is routed into an authorized enforcement pathway.

7.2 Recurrence signatures unique to authority loss

These recurrence signatures indicate authority loss rather than lack of awareness, lack of evidence, or reception failure.

1. Circulation without decision

   • The issue appears across forums, but no decision statement is produced.

2. Decision without enforcement

   • A decision is recorded, but no authorized owner can execute or compel compliance.

3. Reopening as default

   • Past decisions are routinely treated as provisional and are reopened without new evidence thresholds.

4. Veto sprawl

   • Many roles can block progress while no single role owns the outcome.

5. Conditional closure without conditions control

   • Closure is conditioned on prerequisites owned by parties without authority to meet them.

6. Forum mismatch loop

   • The issue is repeatedly routed to forums that lack mandate, producing serial deferrals.

7.3 Termination states

• True closure: binding decision plus enforceable execution pathway.

• Forced termination: external events end the issue without internal closure.

• Exhaustion termination: the issue is abandoned through fatigue.

• Reclassification termination: the issue is renamed and moved, creating an apparent reset without resolution.

8. Measurement candidates and artifact based diagnosis

This section lists measurement candidates that can be extracted from ordinary governance artifacts. These are not performance metrics. They are diagnostic observables.

8.1 Artifact first measures

• Reopen rate for escalated items

• Time to first forum discussion vs time to recorded decision

• Decision to enforcement lag

• Authority diffusion index (count of roles with effective veto power relative to a single decider)

• Recurrence interval distribution for the same issue family

• Deferral count before authority re routing

8.2 Minimal measurement set

A minimal set for diagnosis in most organizations:

1. Reopen rate

2. Time to recorded decision

3. Decision to enforcement lag

4. Recurrence interval distribution

8.3 Measurement limits

• Documentation can be incomplete.

• Some decisions occur informally and are later post recorded.

• Measures can be gamed if treated as score targets.

The aim is observability of closure behavior, not optimization against a dashboard.

9. Generalization beyond escalation

Escalation systems appear wherever a system must translate interpretation into binding coordination under constraint. They are present in projects, programs, operations, risk governance, compliance response, product governance, and institutional crisis handling.

Escalation is a canonical closure pathway in institutions. It is the mechanism by which local interpretation seeks authority capable of binding the collective. Where escalation cannot produce binding closure, the system relies on informal power, exhaustion termination, or repeated revisitation.

Escalation Systems clarifies a gating condition for shared reality in institutions: the capacity to authorize and enforce closure.

Institute Signature

Escalation is a definitive case for Meaning System Science because shared awareness is not the same as shared authority. A system can acknowledge a condition, document it, and still treat it as non-decisive when no forum or role is able to produce a binding outcome that others must honor.

The EMEv model clarifies why escalation can become durable without becoming decisive. Admission and discussion can be repeatable. Translation can be sophisticated. But binding closure requires a coherent authority map: a decider, a mandate, and an enforcement pathway that participants recognize as legitimate enough to constrain behavior across time and interfaces. When that structure is missing or unstable, escalation converts into circulation. The issue remains present in artifacts, yet the organization’s next actions remain underdetermined.

The most damaging authority loss is the kind that produces repeated review in place of decision.

In coordinated transformation attempts, escalation is how reality corrects the plan. When escalation circulates instead of closing, the attempt consumes effort while preserving the constraint that triggered escalation in the first place. This boundary is where diagnostic field studies hand off to professional governance. When coordinated change depends on escalation for correction and constraint removal, the required layer is interpretable closure infrastructure: decision authority, legitimacy conditions, and closure protocols that keep outcomes binding across interfaces. Transformation Management names that professional jurisdiction without changing the diagnostic claims of the field studies.

Citation

Vallejo, J. (2026). Escalation Systems (IFS-6). Transformation Management Institute.

References

• Bain & Company. (2006). Who Has the D? How Clear Decision Roles Enhance Organizational Performance (RAPID decision model).

• Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18(3), 397–428.

• Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., & Lawrence, K. A. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue selling and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 716–736.

• French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). University of Michigan.

• Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725.

• Project Management Institute. (2017). The Standard for Program Management (4th ed.). PMI.

• Project Management Institute. (2021). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (7th ed.). PMI.

• Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

• Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Yale University Press.

• AXELOS. (2017). Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2 (6th ed.). TSO.

• Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. MIT Press.