THE DELEGATION DILEMMA

Dumb Terminals?

The stand-up comedian’s program was well subscribed. Each one sitting there was from the corporate world and had paid a tidy sum for the laughter riot. Jokes galore followed, few intelligent, some sane, many insanely hilarious and few outright vulgar. But the joke that elicited laughter and claps the most was about the corporate team leader who merely forwarded reports upward and distributed tasks downward to manage the numbers required. The narrative laced in humour painted management hierarchies as endless maze of meaninglessly inter connected, remotely controlled, ‘dumb-terminals’ which receive and send whatever came its way. 

It looked as if every one sitting there was familiar with the picture painted and knew some dumb-terminals. Whether they laughed at someone else or at themselves, only they would know, but each one, someone high or low in a vertical in some MNC, laughed at being called a dumb-terminal.

The Theory

‘Delegation’ is amongst the first few lessons in management. It defines ‘authority’, ‘responsibility’ and ‘accountability’ and delves on the relationship amongst the inseparable trio.  Students learn that, only ‘inherent authority’ can be delegated and the one who wields authority is burdened with commensurate responsibility. Delegation, it is taught, frees superiors to pursue higher goals, prepares subordinates for higher roles and promotes organisational growth.

The Catch

Competence, confidence, reluctance to shed authority and perception decides how much of the professed delegation is real. Although superiors can revoke the authority they delegate, they are often oblivious to the fact that delegation is not sharing authority, but shedding it in favour of subordinates. Therein lies the catch and limitations. Possession of authority is equated with position in the hierarchy and extent of relevance. Shedding authority therefore is considered akin to lower position and lesser relevance. This discourages superiors from delegating authority and instead promote the culture of ‘tasking’.

While delegation is an opportunity for growth and empowerment, ‘tasking’ merely exposes subordinates to ‘doing something as told’. With no element of decision making or resource allocation built into the process, most subordinates naturally consider ‘tasking’, masquerading as ‘delegation’, a burden offloaded by the superior. 

Sustaining and Debilitating Cycles

True delegation normally finds great response. But it calls for great will of  superiors to initiate the process, as delegation is driven top-down. While some superiors view delegation as a tool to empower the chain below for organisational growth, many consider it as erosion of power. Tasking in the name of delegation often finds tepid response from subordinates.  In the long run subordinate's lack of enthusiasm becomes reluctance and then resistance.

Delegation leads to growth which in turn begets more delegation. Thus, ‘Delegation - Grow – Delegation’ becomes the reinforcing cycle, that sustains both growth and delegation. Tasking on the other hand, considered offloaded responsibility, is unwelcome and begets below par results. This further reduces scope of delegation. Thus, ‘Task – Resist –Task’ becomes a debilitating cycle. The scope of integral competence building depends upon which one of the two enjoys predominance in the prevailing organisational climate.

Where Superiors Err

Delegation stipulates transfer of authority along with requisite organisational wherewithal. Either driven by fear of incompetency down the chain or overcome by a sense of insecurity, superiors, often refuse to part with ‘authority content’ of delegation and end up merely tasking subordinates. They even compel subordinates to take decisions only in consultation with them although authority is said to have been delegated. Most tend to enjoy micro-managing issues which should have been best left for subordinates to handle. In effect, such superiors, get hopelessly embroiled in aggregating subordinate decisions rather than focusing on higher realms of management.

In an environment where numbers dictate outcomes, urge to intervene and intensity of interference is directly proportional to the gap between the current and targeted numbers. It is common to see superiors overreaching into subordinates’ domains assuming that subordinate chains will not deliver without intervention. Thus, in real terms, delegation essentially remains merely ‘task-assignment’. One hears more about ‘delegated tasks’ and seldom about ‘delegated authority’. This is where superiors err.

Subordinate’s Resistance

The practice of assigning tasks without the requisite reach and authority, presented as delegation lead subordinates to believe that they are doing somebody else's work.  Besides the inherent lack of ownership, ‘assignment’ allows subordinates, ease of disowning failures and opportunity to claim stakes in success.

On assuming the authority delegated, subordinates are confronted with the reality of being held responsible and accountable for what ensues. Fear of the unknown, formidability of challenges ahead, doubts about one’s own competence and the belief that someone else above is really accountable also could fuel subordinates’ reluctance to accept delegated authority and prevent them from stepping out of comfort zones.

Many subordinates, once delegated with authority, tend to fall back to the 'delegator' at every step bringing forth a new culture of ‘upward delegation’. Thus, even with the best intentions of the superior, subordinates have been known to thwart attempts to delegate.

Way Forward

Growth is guaranteed in hierarchies afflicted with high rates of attrition. The industry is swelling in ranks with incompetency, with superiors playing safe avoiding delegation and subordinates with nothing at stake, reluctant to break free of comfort zones. Delegation is the surest way to identify, test and confirm competence. It also helps in preparing succession chains. 

Superiors confident of their own competence must practise delegating authority.  Risks are inherent to delegation but resultant adversities can be forecast and calibrated responses prepared.  Superiors must encourage subordinates to accept wider range of responsibilities and empower them with requisite wherewithal including authority and appropriate recognition.

Subordinates must step out of comfort zones and even egg superiors to delegate authority.  It may be wise for subordinates to desist from ‘upward delegation’ and ensure activities carried out under the delegated authority do not infringe on the trust reposed.