For decades, management gurus have preached the benefits of pushing decisions down the line, allowing those doing

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

For decades, management gurus have preached the benefits of pushing decisions down the line, allowing those doing the work to say how resources should be used. This has been given various names - delegation, empowerment, involvement, commitment. And the logic is irrefutable. More can be achieved, people will be motivated, managers are free to think about strategy, and so on. Yet every day I am struck by the number of minor decisions blocked by head-office diktat.

In surveys, 70 per cent of managers rate it one of their weakest skills. And they get worse at delegating once they reach their late forties, say their staff.

Of the 30 per cent who think they are effective delegators, only one in three are thought to be good by their subordinates. The rest are rated as 'dumpers' who believe delegation means clearing their desk by dumping accumulated trivia on to everyone else.

In the past week alone, I encountered three examples of poor delegation. The first was a large European business with annual sales of £56m and 5,000 staff. One 45-year-old divisional head has worked for the company for 25 years. He is totally trustworthy and very experienced but he has no control over the salaries he pays his people.

A global financial services company I visited is little better. In the past financial year, one employee, a 36-year-old woman, generated a fee income of £2m for her employer. Yet she has to seek approval from her boss in New York before hiring an assistant.

And on Monday, I attended the morning meeting of partners in a firm of accountants. The senior partner monopolized the entire meeting, while his supposed 'colleagues' sat in total silence.

I have learnt five things about delegation. First, 'empowerment' is more about rhetoric than sharing power. Second, other centralizing forces, such as information systems, minimize the impact of that movement. Third, work organisations remain the least democratic and centralized power structures in most western societies. Fourth, those who criticize bosses for not delegating are usually guilty of the offence themselves. And fifth, the poor record of delegation often reflects a mutually convenient arrangement between bosses and their direct reports.

When you observe people's career progress, it soon becomes clear why delegation is such a difficult issue. Managers in their twenties know little about delegation. Childhood hardly encourages it: schools are familiar with the practice of a pupil delegating maths homework to a friend. It is called cheating.

However, young managers are eager to control the decisions that affect them. They are usually highly critical of their boss's unwillingness to delegate.

During these early years, managers do learn something: that delegation is much easier in theory than in practice. That is partly because the effect of decisions can be dramatically different from what they anticipated. To commit a serious cock-up is a relatively simple - and frighteningly public - achievement. Because delegation is a political process, understanding its politics is essential.

Armed with these insights, managers move into their thirties and middle management. At that moment, they realize that it becomes clear to a majority that preserving the status quo is more attractive than foisting revolution. Delegation is all very well, but exposes them to uncomfortable scrutiny. Before long, these middle managers tend to look for havens where they can sit on resources and watch for threats.

Do not misunderstand me: many are brilliant managers of the status quo. Routine services are their forte. They centralize control, minimize delegation and insist that others follow their systems. And it works - until the all-powerful central figure leaves or retires.

Among these middle managers are some real delegators. These people get rid of what they are doing now and badger their bosses for more power and excitement. There are notable exceptions, but most are in their thirties or early forties and will not rest. They learnt in their twenties that their future depended on delegating. They are risk takers who delegate courageously and expect others to deliver.

But even among this small number of high-flyers, time will eventually tell. Younger managers leave to create their own excitement. Older managers become less willing to take risks. The head office tightens its grip.

Can people who are poor delegators learn to do better? Surveys by London Business School's Interpersonal Skills Programmes suggest it is not easy. We can reiterate the logic that others develop when tasks are delegated, but most managers know this already.

They ignore the advice, because it suits them and their direct reports. The bosses can continue under the illusion that they are indispensable. Their subordinates are guaranteed an easier life - after all, everyone seeks some stability. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement that kills most attempts to improve delegation.

Delegation is an individual choice that requires effort. You have to want to change the way you manage. If you do want to improve, then begin by asking some basic questions: Why do you end up with all the work? What sort of impression are you giving others about your capability for bigger things?

Learn to say 'No'. Be especially wary of 'dumpers'. After any transaction ask: 'Who ended up with the work?' There is no prize for being everyone's workhorse; it is not an admired role in work organisations.

Source: Professor John W. Hunt, Financial Times, 13 October 2000.

QUESTIONS

1. How easy is it to delegate? John Hunt, the author of the piece you have just read , asks these questions. Can you answer them? And what do the answers tell you about adopting a participative style of leadership?

2. If your experience in delegation has been disappointing, examine how you went about it. Was the task clear? Did you agree to a schedule? Was the person capable or did they need training? Did you delegate or abdicate? Did you regularly monitor the work and coach the person so that they knew exactly what you wanted, by when and in what format? In short, were you, in your own way, one of the 'dumpers'?