Among several committees or executives with a genuine claim to decide a question, a sponsor takes the proposal to the one whose remit and members are best placed to judge it favorably.
Borderline: whether this move is justified depends on the situation, and only the person in it can judge.
An example
Editorial had rejected a paywall at a national media company two years earlier, on reach grounds, and now its head of audience products wanted to try a metered one. Two bodies had a real claim to decide: the digital steering group, which approved anything that changed the product, and the editorial board, which governed what readers could see. Reading both charters, the head of audience products found that pricing and access were listed as product questions, with editorial to be consulted on which content was included. She took the proposal to the steering group, invited the editor in chief to present editorial's concerns there, and adjusted the meter to keep breaking news free. The steering group approved a twelve-month test. The editorial board was briefed the next morning and given a seat on the review.
Why it works
Bodies with overlapping remits judge the same proposal differently, because their members weigh different things. Choosing the forum whose remit fits the proposal best makes approval easier without changing the proposal, and the other bodies keep the role their charters give them. Everything rests on the chosen forum having genuine authority over the question, on charters or norms that say so, and on the sponsor bringing in the views of the bodies not chosen. It fails, at real cost, when the forum turns out to lack authority and the bypassed body reopens the decision.
The thinking behind it
Jane E. Dutton Moves That Matter: Issue Selling and Organizational Change (2001), by Dutton and colleagues, counts among the process moves of successful issue sellers the choice of formal or informal channels and the judgment of timing. Choosing which body hears a proposal is a channel choice of that kind. The findings come from retrospective accounts in one hospital, and they leave open the line this tactic must hold: the channel chosen has to have authority over the question.
Henry Mintzberg Mintzberg's Power In and Around Organizations (1983) describes the strategic candidates game, in which a sponsor or champion promotes a proposed strategic change through the system, drawing on alliances, expertise, budgets, and sponsorship. Picking the forum is one move in that game. A candidate's chances depend partly on which part of the system judges it, and the bodies passed over remain players who can reopen the decision if they were not brought in.
When it fits
Forum choice matters in companies with overlapping committees and matrix structures, where a question can legitimately go to more than one place: product or brand, regional or functional, risk or investment. Know the charters and the members, and be sure the proposal truly falls within the remit of the forum chosen.
How to use it well
Map the bodies with a claim to decide and read what each is actually chartered to do. Choose the forum whose authority fits the question best and whose members weigh the factors your proposal is strongest on.
- Confirm the forum's authority with whoever administers governance before you submit.
- Invite the bodies you did not choose to put their views on the record in the forum you did.
- Brief them promptly after the decision and offer them a role in reviewing it.
- Keep the paper trail: the charter clause, the invitation, the briefing.
Say openly why you chose the forum. The move is defensible only as long as you are willing to explain it.
What it costs and where it backfires
The bypassed body may feel outmaneuvered even when it had no right to decide, and it can make your next proposal harder. If the authority question is murky, you invite a challenge that reopens the decision and delays it longer than the original fight would have. Repeated use earns a reputation for gaming the system. The line is authority: steering a decision away from the body that rightfully owns it, or hiding the proposal from that body, is concealment, and the decision will not hold.
When it is used on you
Ask for the basis in writing when a decision you thought was yours is taken elsewhere: which charter gives that forum authority. If the claim is genuine, ask for a seat in that forum and a role in the review. If it is not, take the question to whoever administers governance before the decision is acted on.