Inter Personal Conflict: Yelling Bosses, Over Reaching Subordinates and All About Making Superior Subordinate Relationship Work

 

Skills or Tantrum?

Let us call this young executive ‘Jakes’.

Waiting outside his boss’s cabin, Jakes took another look at the small slip of paper. Handwritten, the boss’s diktat said, "Meet me at 1141 hrs". Jakes looked at his watch. It was 11:39. Two more minutes!

Yesterday, Jakes was right on time, but a minute late by the boss’s watch. Few days before, he was a minute early. On both occasions, though the tasks were complete, Jay was admonished for being unprofessional, incompetent and one who couldn’t even keep time. Today, he waited to step in to the boss’s cabin exactly at 1141 hrs. Jakes took no chances today. The file that the boss asked for was well marked and flagged. Jakes was ready.

The boss often boasted of his ‘time and man’ management skills. Once a week everyone in chain got two slips, written in boss’s own calligraphic hand, one with a date and precise time and the other, a carbon copy of the list of tasks he wanted to be briefed on.

In an organisation, where the climb up is slippery and competitive, such slips matter. The boss knew it and leveraged it. Subordinates knew it and suffered it.

Jakes walked into the office exactly at 11:41 hours. The boss had someone with him.

"Are you blind? Can't you see, I have someone with me?”, the boss shouted. Jakes took a long deep breath and replied." I am sorry Sir. It's my time and he will have to leave."

Jakes kept the file on the table and said, “Sir, you wanted me to brief you on this case”. The boss took the file and flung it to the floor.

There was brief moment of silence.

Jakes looked at the file. Collected himself and told the boss, “Please send that file to my office” and walked out.

Isolated Incident?

Similar incidents, in different forms, are common at workplaces across the world. Dysfunctional traits of individuals apart, these are symptoms of interpersonal conflicts between a superior and a subordinate with in an organisational hierarchy.[1] 

Inevitable!

Not all conflicts evolve purely from disputes and disagreements. Organisational hierarchies, even though well defined in terms of authority, responsibility and accountability, do often suffer from interpersonal conflicts. As long as humans staff hierarchies, there are bound to be differences in aspirations, expectations and how situations are perceived by each individual. Conflicts are inevitable.

Although personality disorders play a significant role in defining nature and intensity of interpersonal conflicts, the underlying factor of work-place conflict is invariably an attempt, perceived or real, to breach an individual’s sense of security. How each individual views the ‘other’ as aggravating this debilitating state dictates the nature of interpersonal relationship.

Conflicts among peers is common and is usually referred to as competition! Superior – subordinate relationship should ideally be free of competition. Yet, such conflicts too, are common. 

Burden of Responsibility

The burden of maintaining functionality in interpersonal professional relationship rests with the superior. Superior – subordinate conflicts in a hierarchy mostly comes from professional or personal insecurity of either or both. Incompetence of the subordinate and impatience of the superior offer poor alibi. 

Both an ambitious subordinate, and an insecure boss can precipitate hierarchical conflicts. Learning how to ‘manage’ the boss may well help subordinates and managing subordinates yield well for bosses. 

Encroachment

Many superiors tend to encroach in to subordinates’ delegated sphere of authority. Some demand their prior approval before subordinates arrive at decisions even where authority is formally delegated. “You should have consulted me” is an oft heard comment from such superiors. 

Self-assured with expertise of the path long travelled and tormented by apprehensions, superiors tend to be omnipresent in the garb of guidance and authority. Actually, it’s a ruse to expand one’s own authority, a weapon to counter fear of dwindling influence and a useless attempt to show brilliance. 

Temptation

It is easier iterating things already done than handling new challenges. Many superiors succumb to this temptation and happily forage on subordinates’ turf. Many organisations unwittingly encourage this practice of ‘upward delegation’ and smart subordinates exploit such situations. 

I Know

Try telling a child how to do something! As soon as we start explaining, the child would say, “Yes, I know it.” The child, not bound by niceties, tells us upfront. Imagine the situation where one grownup is telling the other, “You don’t know, I will tell you!” and the one being told can’t easily say ‘no’!

Resentment is the first product. It creates fertile grounds for conflict. Interventions into subordinates’ arena and the impatience associated is more out of superiors’ sense of insecurity and diffidence. More competent a subordinate, more aggravated is the insecurity for an unsure boss and higher the chances of conflict. Subordinate’s incompetence seldom triggers conflicts.

Superior- subordinate conflict is as much a subordinate’s folly as that of the superior. 

Over Reaching

Everybody is in a hurry to grow. Why not?

Inability of subordinates to see and understand the bigger picture, comprehend superiors’ point of view and appreciate the pressures and timelines to which the superior is set, can initiate conflicts. Armed with misplaced self confidence and afflicted with poor long-range vision many a subordinate set out to challenge. 

The inadequately informed end up evaluating
issues from  'nut and bolt' perspectives 
 and invariably fail to see the big picture

Often the adversary of the boss may aid the subordinate in mounting the challenge. Subordinates commit hara-kiri bypassing channels, displaying insubordination and belittling the boss in private or public. Belied trust is an incurable affliction.

When ego, esteem and aspirations work at cross purposes, conflict is the surest outcome. Subordinates are well advised to avoid stepping on superiors’ toes!  

 

Give That’s Due

“Every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence"[2] notwithstanding, it is important to understand that the man ahead, has earned his position. There is absolutely nothing wrong in according him, the respect and consideration due, even if the subordinate thinks otherwise. His incompetence and inabilities, if any, will invariably be exposed sooner or later. However hard a superior may attempt to hide the subordinates’ abilities, brilliance finds its way to shine through.

Somebody's Picture

Reputation travels faster than individuals. Unfortunately, most of it is hearsay! Managing superiors or subordinates based on hearsay is detrimental to good interpersonal relationships. Preconceived notions are killers. Unassuming or friendly bosses may also be brilliant. They may be friendly because they are sure of themselves. Taking their goodness for granted can actually be detrimental to one's own good.

On the other hand, it is a grave blunder to consider a forthright suggestion from the subordinate, not to one’s liking, as insubordination. Letting the subordinate free may well do good for both the organisation and the boss.

 

Communication the Key

Seemingly Insignificant
and replaceable yet
without leaves trees
 don't exist  long

Despite all good intentions, there is still a fair chance that misunderstandings occur. Communication is the key. Easier said than done, good communication between the parties involved, is the surest way of both preventing and resolving conflicts. Its meaningful communication that keeps various parts of an organisation together, bound and productive.

Communication is yet another ocean, vast and deep to endlessly explore!

---

[1] The article is being published in  response to the comment on my vlog https://youtu.be/UHnT24D-Q9g asking me to address conflict between individuals in a hierarchical structure.

 [2] The Peter Principle by  Laurence J. Peter,Raymond Hull

Related Articles

1.    1.Take off That Gloves- Its time to escalate to Resolve : https://jacobshorizon.blogspot.com/2020/12/take-off-that-gloves-its-time-to.html   

2.    Are All Superiors Leaders?: https://jacobshorizon.blogspot.com/2019/07/are-all-superiors-leaders.html

3.    3.Hierarchy Upheavals: https://jacobshorizon.blogspot.com/2020/11/hierarchy-upheavals.html

 4.    4.Peter Principle:

 (a)  https://www.thebalancecareers.com/the-peter-principle-2275684 

 (b) https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/careers/jobs/peter-principle

5.The Photo of the house under Renovation has been published after getting verbal permission of its owners

Stories of Birbal - The Untold Part

 Folklore or History

Almost every Indian child, schooled or not, would have listened to stories about Birbal, Akbar’s most trusted courtier. Birbal rose to such a position of importance, relevance and trust that the emperor gave him quarters within the palace. He was considered first amongst the ‘navaratans’. Incidents centered around Birbal, true or not, is folklore. While some of the stories going around may be true, most of them are too good to be true, yet substance for interesting folklore. 

Perception Shift

Birbal’s exploits resonated with my childhood naivety seeking triumphant truth. It was exciting to see how Birbal used wit and intelligence as powerful tools to help the emperor understand follies, arrive at correct decisions and administer justice. Birbal was the hero. Evil and deceit were detected and truth triumphed.

As adolescence kicked in, perceptions changed colours. Birbal’s exploits assumed a different form. How could a powerful emperor be so naïve, foolish and blind to the plots that seemed to be hatched on a daily basis? History showed me a different Akbar. If Akbar was dependent of Birbal for daily business how did he become an emperor? May be, Birbal was just a figment of imagination.

As I grew older, I became conscious of decision-making and recognised how integral it is to personal and professional life. I realised the value of quality and quantity of inputs in decision making. I learned to distinguish faces from masks and words from intent. As I revisited Birbal, I recognized the message integral to a story and realised that there was much more than the obvious.  All stories had a common thread, gem of a thread!

The Gem

Look around, the characters in each of the story, are alive and present. While what they say or do may be different, contextual similarities are striking. Plotters, whisperers, greedy, exploited, unreasonable et all, are still around albeit in different forms and shades. One just needs to step back and look through Birbal’s eyes to identify them. The real face of behind the masks and the real intent behind the words become clear. The most important lesson however is something else. Each story is about interpersonal communication and how it can be sustained even in trying circumstances.

Ingredients of Successful Communication

Communication is all about transfer of thoughts. It could be triggered by a deed, word, or sight. It may or may not demand physical action. When we communicate, we have a purpose. Thus, meaningful communication is always agenda driven. That is why great orators can move masses. Interpersonal communication is best possible if carried out in an environment of trust, fearlessness and patience. Each and every Akbar -Birbal story exemplifies successful communication even in heavily loaded inequality.

Akbar had powers over the lives of all his subjects. He was law unto himself. Though Birbal enjoyed unhindered access, he too was at the mercy of Akbar’s whims and fancies. Yet he allowed Birbal to contest his decisions. 

Was it his weakness ?

Was it by design?

Encircling or Enriching?

As one rises in hierarchy and becomes powerful, it is important to have someone beside to truthfully caution one on the right and wrong of deeds and words. Unfortunately, it is human to surround oneself with those who say only what one wants to hear. These are normally self serving entities that mushroom where opportunities exist and slither away when adversity come calling. They invent and attribute virtues and give a sense of invincibility to the boss. while one may feel enriched and exalted in their company, they may actually be isolating the boss from reality. Over time  one becomes captive to their designs. Empires have bitten dust, organisations disappeared and positions rendered irrelevant just because those at the helm chose to encircle themselves with pleasers. 

Longevity of success is better if a leader accepts criticism and shows willingness to change decisions. Ego is human and unavoidable. It feels good when egos are massaged. But  it can be addictive and over time like all addictions lead to doom.

Sweetened Bitter Pill

Interestingly whenever Birbal disagreed with his master he either did it in private or couched it in self-depreciating words and deeds. For Birbal, it could have been a life-saving strategy. 

But it also effectively ensured that decisions are critically evaluated and the long-term impact or the  inherent injustice brought to the notice of the decision maker. 

Birbal showcases how best dissent and disagreements can be expressed and remedies elicited.

With life at stake if the protagonist has puled it off for long, there  can be no better lesson or case study in management communication than Akbar - Birbal Stories.

“Jo Bole, So Kunda Khole” – Reluctant Response Rationale?

 Jo Bole, So Kunda Khole

The chief executive sat at the high table in his office and the heads of different verticals, sat in straight chairs facing him. Compared to the formal ones he chaired in the imposing conference hall with individual mics, plush chairs and crystal bowls of assorted chocolates, boss seemed to like his free-flowing ‘office meetings’. Everything was formal about ‘office meetings’, yet there was a touch of informality.

 In one such meeting though the agenda was done but our cups had not yet run out of tea and we had time to be around, he asked for ideas. The silent serenity that suddenly descended notwithstanding, I came up with one, nowhere connected to my official charter. The boss smiled and said “Jo Bole, So Kunda Khole”. He assigned me the responsibility[1].

Everyone laughed. I tried.

Tough I still have problem with assigning gender to nouns, I am at home in Hindi and due to my association with Sikhs can understand Punjabi. It took me a while to grasp the meaning of the phrase, for I had not heard it ever before. But what the laughter meant, I understood instantaneously.

“Jo Bole So Kunda Khole” is a phrase that is easily understood across most of Northern India. Literally translated, it means “whosoever spoke (acknowledges), opens the bolt”. Picturising it would help us understand the content contextually better.

Similar Situations – Dissimilar Responses

Imagine a cold wintry ‘after dinner’ time in a hostel room shared by a few friends, all tucked-in under their quilts, warm and comfortable.

Suddenly there is a knock at the main door. What would happen?

Yes. Most would pretend to have not heard it. Most likely, knocks will be repeated, a bit louder or harsher. The person who knocks may even call out the name of someone he thinks will respond. That person may or may not respond. Whosoever acknowledges the knock might have to get out of the quilt, leave the warmth and comfort to face the cold uncertainty.

Jo Bole, So Kunda Khole! That’s what smart people understand. That’s why smart people pretend to be asleep.  Sleep? You can be woken up. Pretend to be asleep, you just can’t be woken up.

Now imagine the same situation in the settings of a household.

In many houses though all would have heard the knock, the one who always does, will respond. It is normally the wife, mother or the father. Though everybody would have heard it and anybody could have responded, nobody else bothers. It is taken for granted and over a period of time that person is expected to answer whenever the door calls.

In other houses, though everybody would have heard it and anybody could have responded, the patriarch or matriarch, will delegate someone to answer the door. 

In few houses all those who heard, will respond.

Similar situations but dissimilar responses, though predictable. The difference essentially lies in the extent of ownership and degree of involvement of each individual. The range of responses is indicative of how the house is administered, the interdependence, concern for each other and operative control structures, in short everything about the house, the organisation.

Unknown to us, this scenario, plays out everywhere in real-life especially in professional arena. Successful and competitive organisations with surfeit of smart individuals often suffer from ownership deficiency.

The Number Game

It’s the norm to quantify growth parameters. Measurable quantities become assignable targets and deadlines. It can also be converted into ruthless comparative templates for evaluation of performance and easily applied. Growth of employees can then be made dependent on how well they achieve assigned dead-lined targets. Nothing but dead-lined targets matters in the process of getting ahead. It’s an irony that deadlines dictate survival! Being ‘smart’ helps. Pestered for results, people come up with ingenious ways, even bordering on trickery or outright fudging.

Many organisational issues cannot be converted into numbers. At least, commitment and loyalty cannot be. These are intrinsic. With everyone chipping away to ensure individual success in a competitive environment, un-quantifiable, un-enumerated organisational issues are orphaned. Organisational growth and success, unfortunately is not the arithmetical sum of success of the individuals in the organisation. For many smart individuals the two have no link even.

Competition and Collaboration

Collaboration in modern competitive spaces is often convenience and need driven. Anything contrary could be wasteful investment of resources. Since growth is number driven and evaluation is done on assigned tasks, organisations seldom find people voluntarily tending to it on issues beyond the assigned. The few sincere who do so, may well be stamped naïve and gullible. Organisations that promote ‘smart’ culture effectively denies itself the fruits of sincerity.

Smart Ones

Smart employees, for most of us, are ones who come up with quick responses, easy ways out of situations and readily offer solutions to problems. They articulate and communicate effectively, seemingly have a way with people and even carry themselves well. Few of them are competent and genuine. But for most part, they are experts in short cuts, provide solutions which have potential of being problems themselves later. Rarely in dissonance with superiors, such people may actually not hesitate to bend or break rules and are intelligent enough to cover tracks. Most make themselves visible amidst the most happening of places and manage being rewarded. Engrossed in navigating their way up organisational ladders, they care least about the organisation.

Smart people don’t leave their quilts! Under the arc light and for visibility they certainly will.

Sincere Ones

Willing to give up the comfort of their quilts these are people who take up orphaned work for the organization. Naïve and gullible, they have organisation in their hearts. Though they too would love to be recognised and their contributions acknowledged they normally lose out to smart workers. In the competitive environs of smartness and collaboration of convenience they lose out because they don’t invest in optics but remain engrossed in intricate invisibles.

Luckily every organization has adequate space and growth avenues for such people too because without their invisible presence organisations crumble. These are people on whom organisations bank on in times of crisis. With smarties absorbed in their upward trajectories or the next opportunity to jump ship, sincere ones stick around when the road turns bumpy. It’s not difficult to spot them.

Choice

Having a lot of people flocking around, agreeing with us and admiring whatever we do, does give a heady feel. It can actually make us feel powerful. Boisterous followers lull us to believe in our own invincibility and infallibility. It sure helps create a myth. Unfortunately, it may be far from truth. While we are immersed in the illusions of grandeur, someone telling us that we are wrong can be a damp squib.

Entrusted with the task of staffing? Its wiser to choose the sincere over the smart, unless one is smart oneself!

Epilogue

I had many ‘jo bole, so kunda Khole’ moments in my career. 

But looking back with the wisdom of hindsight, all those moments were also moments of affirmation of faith by my boss in my abilities and commitment to the organisation.

I rose in hierarchy and was heard each time I spoke. I retained the freedom to disagree. Most of my bosses didn’t find it subverting their authority. Many a time my boss did exactly as I recommended and many times he overruled against my wishes. As a superior I always believed in my team’s sincerity. I was amply rewarded. 

The many ‘jo bole, so kunda Khole’ moments, I gave myself defines what I am.

While competitors and adversaries may laugh at your ‘jo bole, so kunda Khole’ moments, remember it may be the window for the boss to see real you. After all everything can’t be reduced to numbers, targets and deadlines.

Lesson for Life 

Looking back, after one or two ‘jo bole, so kunda Khole’ moments with my bosses as I rose in hierarchy, I realised no one ever assigned me a task. They always entrusted me with responsibilities.

 

---

[1] The responsibility assigned to me was executed exceptionally well by my team. Two of my team members were appropriately rewarded. Anyone entering or leaving that geographical area admires the job and gets motivated. I came up for special mention in a widely attended emotional speech by my boss. Some rewards are for the heart and heart alone and I carry it still.

SUCCESSION : TAIL GATING VERSUS TRAIL BLAZING

Succession, ideally should be one of the key issues a CEO must deliberate on, if he is an organisation’s man.  Each ‘growth-thirsty’ organisation in its life-cycle will have to grapple with the question of succession many times over.

After me, who?

Options

Succession dilemma may not bother governmental organisations since someone would invariably move up on seniority or be picked up on considerations that might have nothing to do with organisational health and growth. Business entities that crave longevity and profitability can ill afford such complacence. Growth oriented organisations often have well charted systems and practices for succession. Deciding who in the hierarchy moves forward to critical positions is not limited to the CEO’s chair alone. It applies to every key organisational position. In all these conditions, choice between ‘Tailgating’ and ‘Trailblazing’ assume importance.

Tailgating

Tailgating is a practice where an individual high in the hierarchy consciously or otherwise allows creation or creates a chain that owes allegiance to him or her. Members of this informal, extra constitutional entity are conspicuous by the official and personal freedom they enjoy with each other. Cared for by those ahead and supported by those below, members in the chain rise in ranks and often succeed the one ahead in chain. These individuals normally wag  and tag along with the boss in their journey up the hierarchy besides being insulators. These closed-circuit, symbiotic interpersonal and group relationships are demi-professional arrangements built up over a period of time. Convenience and not competence is the bond keeping them together. Being part of the clique, growth of individuals within the organisation is catalysed and assured. While bonhomie and convergence in opinion characterise such arrangements, considerations other than organisational interest take precedence, eventually turning detrimental to organisational interests

Breeding Grounds

Fortunately, such chains mostly breed and thrive in bureaucratic organisations where numbers don't necessarily have to speak. These extra constitutional entities overwhelm formal channels and effectively snuff out meritocracy. Incompetence and inefficiency can be compensated with subservience, performance and accountability overlooked by favouritism. Many proprietary entities tend to nurture this culture eventually paying the price.  Corporate houses that accept and promote tailgating also end up being penalised by the market.  When crisis hits such organisations, the chain with the tail intact, aware of the fact well in advance, manages to jump the ship lock, stock and barrel, only to infect another organisation.  

Trailblazers

There are always a few in every organisation who stand out with their individuality and performance. These people are characterised by originality of thoughts and sincerity of purpose.  Innovative, firm and fearless, they are generally outspoken and are mistakenly considered, rash and difficult. The ideology driving them is openly known and they rarely deviate from what is professed. Characterised by their skills and expertise they become backbones of their organisations. Though they may not be quick to accept failures and mistakes, they are usually open to reason and ready to mend ways. They can effectively spearhead change, explore new avenues and venture into the unknown with equal zeal. They blaze the trail as they move and in whatever they do, leave their characteristic stamp of quality.

Difficult Choice?

On the face of it, the choice between the two is not difficult to make.  But in practice it is not so. Many placed high in the hierarchy normally tend to pack their work space with people who conform to their thought process. This helps them enlarge their comfort zone and provide a false sense of security. They do not realise  that they by encouraging a coterie are effectively insulating themselves from environmental dynamics. Trailblazers normally do not belong there. It takes a high degree of organisational tolerance and belief in oneself to accept trailblazers in one’s company. 

Outcome 

Fortunately, there are many bold organisations and individuals who take that risk. The result? Products and services galore that one never ever imagined.

The choice is not difficult.

But  questions remain ! 

Are you willing to groom a trailblazer to hold the reins?

Is your organisation trailblazer compliant?

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.