Delegating to Meet High Standards

Out of the Box Coaching and
Breakthroughs with the Enneagram, Mary R. Bast, Ph.D.

Delegating to Meet High Standards

There are two common problems with delegation:

Some managers mistakenly assume assignment is synonymous with delegation. An assignment means telling someone what to do, when and how to do it. It's not a growth experience and carries no real responsibility. It's a way of getting someone else to do something for you. It's not necessarily wrong to assign something. You may need help from someone who's happy to take over a task for you. But that's not delegation.

Some managers go too far in the other direction and assume delegation means handing something over without the need for any direction or support. This can work beautifully if the person you've delegated to is experienced in the task area, fully motivated to accomplish the goals, and has such clear communication with you that no misunderstandings will occur. All too often, though, handing something over without any discussion or clarifying parameters sets up subordinates to fail, because there are many hidden criteria that only come up when a lot of work has been done. This can be discouraging to the subordinate, who's thinking, "Well, why didn't you tell me that in the first place?" It can also be license to the manager to find fault with what's been done, and say, "I knew s/he couldn't handle that. I should have done it myself!"

Many leaders fail to consider delegation as a developmental process. Those who do adjust the degree to which they provide direction and/or support based on the developmental level of the person to whom they're delegating.

It helps to think of delegation as a contract, taking the same care to define the terms of that contract as you would to have a house built, while at the same time considering the other's personality style and development level for that task. If there are any givens, state them clearly -- there may be time and/or budget constraints, for example, that aren't negotiable.

In Delegating for Results Robert B. Maddux outlines some practical steps to delegation:

Fully and specifically describe the desired results.

Agree on measurement criteria and timetables. (NOTE: "Agree on" means you discuss it and decide together.)

Define all parameters you know about, including resources and constraints.

Clarify the level of authority you're delegating and how this will be communicated to others beyond you and the person to whom you're delegating.

Most important (because so many people leave this out of the contract) agree on how progress will be communicated -- what form it will take and how often. Do you want half a paragraph in an e-mail once a week? Do you want only a phone call and only if there are problems or the person needs resources? If you reach this level of clarity you will find the process flowing exactly the way you wish, regardless of the stage of delegation.

I have one small bone to pick with Maddux's summary: When he writes about the levels of authority, he refers to situations where the supervisor has such complete confidence, "no further contact is necessary," including no reporting back of results. I've never seen such a situation, in part because organizations are so stretched and stressed that only significant work is being done; if nothing else, the leader's boss is likely to inquire how it's going, and it's usually not smart for the leader to be left totally out of the loop.

Home Page

powered by FreeFind