|
Leaders exercise organisational control in determining
when, how, and to whom responsibilities are to be delegated. Dayle
M Smith says that it is not uncommon, however, for some leaders
to resist delegation
 |
Delegate tasks in such a way that they
fit in with the subordinate’s career path |
In the early years of this century, a journalist
named Napoleon Hill was given the assignment of interviewing steel
magnate Andrew Carnegie. Their conversation proved momentous for
Hill. Carnegie not only revealed to Hill the secrets of his own
success, but also convinced Hill to undertake what would turn out
to be a 20-year investigation of successful people. Over the years
he conducted in-depth interviews with Theodore Roosevelt, Henry
Ford, Thomas Edison, George Eastman, John D Rockefeller, Clarence
Darrow, and scores of other notables.
Hill concluded that none of his interviewees
was truly “self-made.” All had relied upon the talents
and goodwill of those they originally worked for and those who later
worked with them and for them. Carnegie’s own tombstone conveyed
the heart of Hill’s research in one succinct sentence: “Here
lies one who knew how to get around him men who were cleverer than
himself.”
Wise leaders learn early in their careers
to maximise their influence on any given project by inviting the
participation of talented subordinates. The art of leadership, in
fact, has been described by some corporate leaders as the process
of turning one’s work over to others.
Delegation
Leaders exercise organisational control
in determining when, how, and to whom responsibilities are to be
delegated. It is not uncommon, of course, for some leaders to resist
delegation. Particularly in start-up companies, the original company
leader may maintain hands-on, micromanagerial control over company
processes and procedures much longer than is good for the company’s
or the leader’s health. In a word, these leaders fear delegation,
and they have forgotten Emerson’s advice to “always do
what you are afraid to do.”
Other leaders hesitate to delegate because
they consider the training, oversight, and performance evaluation
process for subordinates more onerous than simply doing the job
themselves. These are the rugged individualists of industry and
commerce who pride themselves on accomplishing Herculean tasks,
maintaining a mind-numbing work schedule, and foregoing the breaks
and vacations taken by others in their organisation. They seldom
provide for transition planning, when they eventually leave their
positions (often feet first), no one is prepared to step into their
shoes. While this fact may be taken as a tribute to the hard work
of the individual, it is simultaneously the death knell of many
organisations that can’t carry on without their know-all, do-all
leader.
But in most organisations, leaders must
delegate to survive as individuals and for the organisation to thrive.
By delegating, a leader increases the quality and speed with which
decisions are made, particularly in cases where the subordinate
to whom a task is delegated knows more about the matter at hand
than the leader. In rapidly changing business environments, this
distributed form of decision-making can help an organisation respond
successfully to emerging opportunities, in the same way that parallel
processing computing allows greater programming flexibility and
processing power.
The advantages
In addition, appropriate delegation frees
busy leaders to spend their time on more important matters, while
passing on less important tasks to subordinates. Leaders who claim
(often rightly) that they could do given tasks faster and better
than subordinates fail to take into consideration the work they
cannot take on because of the plethora of everyday tasks they face.
Companies don’t want leadership time spent on tasks that could
be accomplished just as well by others.
Delegation also pays dividends to the organisation
by training subordinates to assume more and more important responsibility.
Employees who have matured through such delegation are more ready
to assume leadership responsibilities themselves in the organisation.
Until that time, they are more likely to feel satisfaction with
their jobs because they have been trusted with increasing levels
of responsibility. This increased level of satisfaction often prevents
employees from seeking work elsewhere, saving the company the considerable
expense of recruitment and training.
The most common form of delegation is the
new task/new authority package. For example, a subordinate may be
given the new task of coordinating new product approvals with government
regulators. The new authority that comes with that task is the ability
to make changes (perhaps in product configuration or ingredients)
as required by the regulators. Alternatively, the leader may assign
limited authority to accompany a delegated new task. A negotiator
in the company, for example, may be given an important contract
to negotiate, but his or her authority to bargain may be limited
in several areas. The leader of the organisation may want to reserve
final say on matters such as profit margins, deadlines, and contingencies.
The guidelines
Although delegation often depends on the
personalities and situations in given circumstances, the following
guidelines can help leaders strategise on what to delegate, when,
and to whom:
1. Delegate tasks in such a way that they
fit in with the subordinate’s career path. Delegation, after
all, is a training function as well as an expediency. For example,
an outstanding sales representative could be delegated the task
of reviewing and recommending sales seminars to be taken by others
in the sales force. In this way, the outstanding rep learns new
ideas and skills for future management responsibilities.
2. Mix hard, easy, long, and quick tasks
in delegating to subordinates. In too many companies, employees
associate delegation with drudgery, largely because the boss off-loads
on them only the unpleasant, time-consuming tasks. Although these
tasks will always be part of business realities, leaders should
be mindful—even to the point of keeping notes—of which
employees have gotten the short end of the delegation stick lately.
3. Specify responsibilities, reporting
requirements, and performance measures clearly. In the rush to pass
along urgent tasks to others, leaders sometimes project their own
years of experience (which they have come to call “common sense”)
onto subordinates. For the purposes of effective delegation, it
is almost impossible to be too clear when telling a subordinate
exactly what you wish done, how and when the subordinate is to report
progress or problems, and how you will determine how well the job
is being done.
4. Support the subordinate with the same
or greater resources that you would provide for yourself in accomplishing
the task. Leaders who have grown accustomed to power, influence,
and contacts in an organisation sometimes fail to understand why
a subordinate can’t navigate corporate waters as quickly as
they in accomplishing a task. Leaders must consider what information,
authority contacts, support personnel, equipment, and funding the
subordinate will require in fulfilling the delegated responsibility.
Work descriptions
The leader also exercises control by influencing
the way work is segmented and described. In establishing his renowned
assembly lines, Henry Ford demonstrated his control as a leader
not so much by his interaction with employees as by his initial
architectural activity in setting forth position descriptions. Once
finalised on paper as a “job description,” the conceptual
framework of an employee’s actions (as well as the boundaries
of the employee’s responsibilities) becomes a powerful controlling
force for company hiring, training, performance evaluation, and
promotion. Work descriptions can focus on tasks, relationships,
or both. The following job description (somewhat typical of an entry-level
position) attempts to define specific tasks for which the employee
will be held accountable.
Conflict management
Without putting too much weight on the
metaphor, a leader in an organisation can be said to perform a parental
role of sorts in controlling conflict among organisational members.
Some leaders (often to their disappointment) make an effort to banish
conflict altogether. They communicate to their work force that the
“happy family” tolerates no conflict. Disagree-ments over
policy, procedures, or business strategies are all swept aside in
the name of good fellow feelings.
Excerpt taken from ‘The Eleven Keys to
Leadership’ by Dayle M Smith; Tata McGraw-Hill
|
