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.
