A few years ago, I worked with an employee in a municipal government office—we’ll call her Lauren. She had been in her role for several years and was widely respected. Her department hired a new employee, Eric, who initially made a strong impression on their supervisor. He was attentive, deferential, and eager to please. He stayed late. He complimented the boss frequently. He positioned himself as deeply committed to the mission.
But with his peers, it was a different story.
He made comments that were subtly demeaning. He joked about coworkers’ competence. He made inappropriate remarks that carried sexist undertones, often delivered with plausible deniability. When someone objected, he laughed it off. “Just kidding.”
Lauren and others tried lower-risk interventions first. They avoided reinforcing the behavior. They redirected conversations. In one case, a colleague addressed a comment directly and told him it wasn’t appropriate.
The behavior continued.
Lauren found herself in a difficult position. Eric’s behavior was eroding psychological safety in the office. But his strong relationship with their supervisor made informal resolution unlikely to succeed.
She realized that if the situation was going to improve, she might need to escalate it.
Before taking action, she did something essential: she conducted research.
She reviewed the city’s HR policies. She learned what constituted inappropriate workplace conduct. She studied the reporting procedures. She paid particular attention to confidentiality provisions and protections against retaliation.
She also sought guidance from confidential resources.
She contacted the Employee Assistance Program (EAP), which provided a safe, confidential space to think through the situation. The counselor helped her clarify her observations, distinguish facts from interpretations, and understand her options.
She also reached out to the municipal Ombuds office. The Ombuds explained how complaints were handled, what confidentiality could and could not be guaranteed, and what protections existed for employees who raised concerns in good faith.
These conversations helped her move from uncertainty to clarity.
Only after gathering this information did she proceed with a formal report.
The process was not easy. It required courage. There was no guarantee of a comfortable outcome.
But her actions had an impact.
Others who had experienced similar behavior came forward. Patterns became visible that had previously remained fragmented and invisible. Leadership was able to intervene appropriately. The workplace became safer and more respectful.
Escalation is often misunderstood as an act of aggression or disloyalty. In reality, it is often an act of stewardship.
Workplaces depend on formal systems—HR departments, unions, ethics offices, Ombuds programs—to maintain fairness and accountability. These systems cannot function if people are unwilling to use them.
Escalation should generally follow thoughtful preparation. Key steps include:
Documenting specific behaviors and their impact
Reviewing organizational policies and reporting procedures
Understanding what confidentiality can and cannot be guaranteed
Learning what protections exist against retaliation
Consulting confidential resources such as an EAP or Ombuds office
EAPs and Ombuds programs are especially valuable because they allow employees to explore options safely, without triggering formal action prematurely.
Escalation may feel risky. It may create anxiety. It may alter workplace dynamics.
But there are times when escalation is not only appropriate—it is a moral duty.
When harmful behavior persists despite good-faith efforts to address it informally, escalation becomes a way of protecting not only oneself, but others—and the integrity of the workplace itself.
Escalation is not the abandonment of relationship. It is the recognition that healthy relationships require healthy systems.