The Authority Ladder: A Tool for Team Clarity

During normal times, teams can have conflict and confusion. Add crisis to it, and all the hidden quirks, gaps and dysfunctions seem to rise to the surface. Today we’ll look at a tool to help your team function more effectively even in the midst of crisis.

As of this writing, I am three weeks into our office closing its building and decentralizing to have everyone work from home. The COVID-19 pandemic is still alive and well and its effects are being felt around the world.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/world/coronavirus-maps.html

The effects of this crisis cannot be counted. On a team level, the stress this brings to people’s lives and work creates an environment where a team that is already not fully functional can experience even greater lack of cohesion.

There are many reasons for this, as teams are complex mechanisms. But one of the causes for conflict and misunderstanding is a lack of clarity on the team about people’s roles and authority.

One person thinks that she can make the decision. The person next to her thinks he can make the decision. Meanwhile, the real decision maker shakes her head, wondering why everyone is being so bossy because she already made the decision ages ago. And the rest of the people feel awkward and uncomfortable and look like they are ready to bolt out of the room.

The Authority Ladder is a helpful tool for organizations, teams, and individuals to understand the level of authority, influence and voice they have when they are involved in a project or discussion.

At the top of the ladder is the party or parties who make the Decision. Whoever is up on this top rung gets to make the final call. There may be one person or multiple people. They are the ones with the highest amount of authority and therefore are at the top of the ladder.

The next rung down is Influence. The people who are on this rung sit at the table and influence the decision. They can give feedback, debate ideas, make suggestions, and the final outcome is shaped by their involvement.

The next level down is Input. This is one-way feedback. People on this level can submit information for consideration but are not really part of a robust discussion process to make the decision. Their input may be submitted through reports, surveys, or a supervisor.

The bottom rung is not part of the decision making process. People on this level receive information from the decision makers about the final outcome. The information comes their way so they know what the decision was and sometimes what their role is as a result of that decision. Information is strictly going downstream.

The top three rungs are upward-directed. The feedback, ideas, and discussion gets directed towards the decision makers.

The bottom rung is downward directed. The people on this rung do not influence upward. They are the receivers of information. The information only flows one way.

Every rung of the ladder assumes you also have the authority to engage in the activities below your rung.

For example, if you’re on the influence rung, you can’t make the decision, but you can also submit input if needed, and you are informed of decisions.

Who can participate on the levels and how long it takes depends on your culture. A highly democratic type of culture spends a lot of time on the influence and input levels. The middle two rungs give their feedback to the leader(s), who makes the decision. The balance of effort may look like this.

However, once a crisis hits, there usually is not the time to engage in a robust democratic process. As a result, leadership tends to skew towards becoming less democratic and more decisive. The speed is needed as continual fires pop up. If decision-making bogs down because everyone needs to influence or give input, these fires become raging firestorms.

As a result, during times of crisis, the organization benefits when the leader(s) can make decisions quickly. The leader may have a small circle of advisers. The results of the decision are also downstreamed as information to a large group of people, and the middle rungs tend to diminish.

Now it’s time to see who belongs on the rungs of the ladder. Are there certain leaders, staff, volunteers, or constituents or other people who belong on the differing rungs? Who stands on which rung will differ depending on the decision being made. Here’s an example of what it would look like if you’re the leader.

You can even make this tool into a grid. For example, if your organization is going through a project planning process, it is helpful to outline who belongs on each rung. Your list will vary according to your structure or your polity.

This clarifies for people how they engage in the process. Having clarity of everyone’s responsibilities reduces misunderstanding because it eliminates assumptions and lowers expectations. Teams that discuss each individual's role help their members understand the levels of influence and how they contribute to the overall process.