By Ric Keaster, University of Southern Mississippi

About the Author: Ric Keaster, Ph.D, is the Chair of the Department of Educational Leadership and Research in the College of Education and Psychology at The University of Southern Mississippi. He has the managerial and leadership oversight for the Department that contains advanced degree programs in Adult Education, K-12 Administrator Preparation, and Higher Education Administration.

DELEGATING - WHAT IS IT?

In any group setting these days, one will find a leader. These individuals are the leaders either because the group has officially recognized them as such (formally) or they simply allow them to influence their behavior as a result of their knowledge/wisdom, status in the group, or simple charisma (informally). In small groups, or in groups where the purpose or activities for their gathering are not that complex, decisions may be effectively made by the leader alone. In larger, more complex groups (e.g., a business, an organization, or a school), it is often necessary to engage in the process of delegating various decision-making responsibilities. If decisions are not delegated, often the implementation of those decisions should be.

This article is dedicated to exploring and explaining both the science and art of delegation. It will explore exactly what delegating is, reasons why leaders should delegate and why some don’t, and provide readers with a simple application rubric to help them know when and how to delegate. It will also deal briefly with the more subtle aspects of the art of delegating.

The Random House College Dictionary defines delegate as “to commit powers, functions, etc. to another.” This a simple and brief definition of a rather complex skill, one which some leaders never really learn, much to their and their organization’s detriment. Inherent in this definition is the implication that delegating involves three distinct entities: 1) the delegator, or the one with the original power/responsibility; 2) the delegatee, or the one to whom the power or the responsibility is given; 3) that (i.e., the power or function) which is passed from #1 to #2.

TO "D" OR NOT TO "D"

Leadership is difficult. Not only is the leader normally charged with the task of helping the group accomplish a goal, she is also expected to achieve this challenge with relative effectiveness and efficiency. The leader has traditionally been viewed as the person with “the answer” when a problem or challenge arises. This view – that the leader is the sole decision maker and most capable of deciding the course of group action – is rapidly going the way of T-Groups (i.e., transcendental meditation) and other outdated efforts aimed at helping organizations become more effective.

The literature on the transformation of leadership in recent decades is well documented. Gone are the days when an organization of almost any size and complexity can rely on the knowledge, wisdom, intuition, problem solving and decision making of just one person – the boss. Total Quality Management, more than any single organizational trend, was influential in establishing that “two heads are better than one” and that if a company wants to maximize its effectiveness and efficiency, it will engage in a process that has become part and parcel of most effective organizations – shared decision making. W. E. Deming, (Footnote 1) from the early 1950’s on, demonstrated the benefits of using people within the organization, especially those closest to the work itself, to help improve the organization.

True, plenty of autocratic leaders still exist, and they spread across the great variety of organizations. True also, in some settings they experience considerable measures of success; in some settings the autocrat is exactly what is necessary for that group to function as effectively as it can. That said, it still is also true that when employees feel they are a very real and contributing part of the enterprise – and even participate to a degree in its decision-making process – a sense of “ownership” emerges and all sorts of benefits are experienced, for both the individual and the organization.

BENEFITS FOR THE DELEGATEE

Decisions are just one of several tasks that can be delegated. Whether to an individual or to a group, decisions that have traditionally been regarded as the domain and responsibility of leadership can be successfully delegated to others within the organization. If one accomplishes this transfer effectively, numerous transformations take place.

First, it affects the employee’s motivation. Motivational studies and subsequent theory suggest that there are things within the workplace that “turn on” individuals and those that “turn off” individuals. While there may be room for argument that these are not wholly discrete sets of conditions, there are some generalizations that can be made. The turn-offs, or “dis-satisfiers,” are those conditions that a) when present, the worker takes for granted and feels they should be present, and b) when absent, they become a source of irritation and dis-satisfaction. Hertzberg (Footnote 2) and Maslow, (Footnote 3) early motivation theorists whose research endures today, suggest that the list of true motivators involve 1) increased levels of responsibility, and 2) recognition for contribution. These two are the direct result of delegation, and increased motivation makes for a happier and more productive worker – something any organization desires.

Second, workers increasingly begin to view the organizational culture not as a “we-they” arrangement but a “we’re-all-in-this-together” orientation. Ownership, or the deep feeling of personal investment and involvement in an endeavor, pays dividends far beyond mere job satisfaction or personal motivation. Anyone who has ever owned a business knows he puts his heart and soul into the success of that effort. When an organization has the owner, as well as the workers, striving to make it a success, it will be difficult for it to fail.

The third transformation is a direct result of the first two. Organizational studies assert that successful organizations, regardless of process or product, possess a shared vision or shared sense of purpose. Organizational goals and individual goals become one as both are committed to the success of the enterprise. The “synergy” that develops in contexts like these is dramatic and almost palpable. The combined energy of all, blended and focused on the goal, cannot be underestimated in determining the effectiveness of an organization.

Lastly, but probably not finally, is the notion of personal and professional growth. Humanistic leaders desire to see leadership emerge in their followers. When followers are given opportunities to prove themselves in this regard is not only personally rewarding for them, but also provides them with growth experiences that will make them better at what they do. It also prepares them for formal leadership roles within the organization should positions become vacant. Newly appointed leaders who have already experienced participation in the decision-making and leadership processes will “hit the ground running” and experience a much shorter orientation and induction period – again, the organization benefits.

So much for the delegatee. What about benefits for the delegator?

BENEFITS FOR THE DELEGATOR

As stated earlier, leadership is a rather complex challenge. Hundreds of decisions, both large and small, are made on a daily basis. Issues can be difficult, responsibilities can be numerous, challenges can be daunting. As a result, stress is a very real characteristic of leadership roles. The pressure of being “alone at the top” is not an altogether desirable situation, the leader knowing one major mistake could possibly close the business or seriously damage its success. If uncontrolled, stress can cause a variety of physical, psychological, and social problems.

As suggested above, sharing these responsibilities is a direct outgrowth of delegating. Not only can the leader, in a sense, “unload” some of these burdens, she also can be assured that the decisions she is now making are of a better quality than she would have made by herself. Engaging others in making decisions has made her smarter and her organization more successful. Stress, as a result, is considerably reduced. Additionally, the leader’s time might now be more appropriately spent on the larger, more consequential issues affecting the well-being or even the survival of the organization.

Second, a happier and more motivated work force removes the obligation to closely monitor their work. The leader can focus on being more of a facilitator for the work they do rather than expending energy trying to figure out ways to motivate the employees or to get more productivity from them. Essentially, he can become more humanistic in his leadership and initiate the self-fulfilling prophecy of “high expectations à high performance.” People tend to rise to the level of expectation, especially if they share the reason for the effort.

A commonly encountered phrase in transformational leadership circles is, “Power shared is power multiplied.” Those individuals from the “old school” who view employees as reluctant workers and needing (even wanting) close supervision see power as a fixed-sum entity. For example, a more autocratic leader might conclude, “If I give some of my power to someone else, I will have less. If I have less power, I will have less control over the organizational outcomes and I will be held accountable.”

This view of organizational leadership and management must die a dignified, yet speedy, death. Power is not a fixed-sum entity when viewed as power for the organization. When employees have been “em-powered,” they make the organization stronger and more successful through their contribution to its productivity. It, indeed, becomes what the literature is calling a “learning organization” in charge of its growth and its future. As a result, the reality is that the leader herself becomes more powerful because her organization becomes more effective and successful. In the interest of true progress, sometimes the ego has to be set aside for a while so that it may emerge and be “stroked” later.

As one can see, both the delegatee and the delegator (as well as the organization itself) benefit from engaging in the process of delegation. No single process of delegation is flawless, however, and such benefits do not exist without other common concerns. In the interest of balanced treatment, these concerns must also be addressed.

WHY SOME DON'T

The most common phrase heard when leaders offer reasons why they don’t employ delegation as a leadership tool is the following: “I’d rather do it myself” or “I just have to go back and ‘fix’ it later, so I might as well do it myself the first time.” These statements betray at least one of these two realities: The leader has a total lack of trust in the competence of his employees or he has a total lack of confidence in his abilities to lay down expectations that will allow for appropriate levels of monitoring and feedback.

The former borders on being the proverbial “control freak” and displays some of the more unseemly features of the traditional autocrat mentioned above. The self-fulfilling prophecy of expectations works in the other direction as well: low expectations à low performance. It could be the attitude displayed by the leader in this case that perpetuates, even provokes, the poor performance by the employee(s).

The latter of the two is probably more often the case. Leaders a) have not been taught the fundamentals of delegating, b) have experienced problems when attempting delegation absent this instruction (or basic instincts), and c) have resorted to an “I’ll-do-it-myself” attitude to prevent further problems.

A third consideration might also be a reason that delegation is an anomaly rather than a fixture in organizational procedures. Time is a rare commodity for most organizational leaders. Shared decision making and delegation take more time than carrying out strict, authoritarian edicts issued from the office of the leader. While somewhat efficient, these edicts have a tendency to backfire over time and employees find ways to sabotage decisions they feel are not in their best interest. Efficiency at the cost of effectiveness is a dangerous way to run any organization. This approach also by-passes the many positive results offered above for the process of delegation.

These rationales for not engaging in delegating to employees provide a natural springboard into the process itself. If an individual does not know how to delegate (and the skill does not emerge naturally during leadership exercises), then she must be taught. What follows is an easy method for a) establishing the trust necessary for effective delegation, b) establishing guidelines for delegating (and monitoring) based on the amount of experience with the person (group) and level of trust, and c) moving individuals (groups) up the ladder increasing their levels of responsibility.

EPIC – THE MODEL

It almost goes without saying that a leader cannot just turn over significant amounts responsibility and decision making to others without knowing their level of competence to make those decisions and handle those responsibilities. The levels of delegation are based upon those two fundamental requisites: experience with the individual and the amount of trust based on that experience. Since familiarity with individuals and groups will vary depending on the leader, the circumstances, and the delegatee(s), the EPIC model is based on progressing up the steps of a ladder of trust.

LEVEL ONE – “EXPLORE”

If there is no history between the delegator and the delegatee, then the conditions of Level One are the safest to use when delegating responsibilities (whether decisions or other responsibilities) to employees. If there is no history or prior relationship, it will be difficult to have any real measure of the two criteria on which delegation is based: experience and trust. Where experience with the individual (or group) is minimal, the leader would ask the employee(s) to engage in “fact-finding,” more or less, and report what was found. The ultimate remedy or solution would remain in the hands of the leader.

While the reasons for using Level One might be numerous, the underlying rationale is that, until time proves greater levels of responsibility can be granted, incremental indicators of participation and control should be employed. This strategy protects both participants. The delegatee is freed from the responsibility of any hard-core decision making and should experience relative freedom to pursue the charge, that of collecting information. The delegator is free from the concern that can arise when turning over responsibilities to others, especially on important issues. The delegator is still in control not only of the ultimate decision but also of brainstorming possible solutions. The delegatee is only responsible for “exploring” and reporting back to the delegatee. Those to whom this level of delegation is granted know their task, their limits, and their ultimate charge. All can experience measures of satisfaction in the effort.

LEVEL TWO – “PROPOSE”

Once several episodes of the “Exploring” level have been accomplished, the leader might now move to a higher level or degree of delegation. The next step would be that of allowing the employees not only to collect information and report the findings back to the leader but also to “propose” possible solutions for remedies for the situation. This allows the employees greater measures of control and input and actually taps into their abilities to contribute in this fashion to the success of the organization. A greater sense of esteem and value for the organization will be realized and the ensuing levels of increased motivation should be in evidence.

It should be understood that the extent of control over the decision is relegated to proposing solutions. Ultimately, the final choice lies in the hands of the delegator as within Level One. The one doing the delegating must make it clear that these proposals are simply offerings of possible ways to address the issue and not that a particular one, or any, of the proposals must be used. The role is brainstorming and simply making suggestions.

LEVEL THREE - "INFORMING”

Level Three delegation should be used by a leader when considerable time has been spent with the employee(s) and numerous interactions have taken place. Also several instances of successful Level One and Level Two delegation should be in evidence. As a result of these experiences, a relatively high level of trust should be developing between the delegator and delegatee. Greater increments of responsibility can be dispensed without the anxiety that might have resulted if granted under less secure conditions where confidence in the delegatee was in doubt. Control of the issue definitely changes hands in this stage.

Aside from the fundamental steps accompanying the first two stages – looking into the problem, collecting data, reporting back, and proposing solutions – the employee now assumes responsibility for the solution. Not only does the delegatee propose, he actually carries out implementation of the solution. As a result, delegatees realize much higher levels of responsibility and commensurate levels of satisfaction, contribution, and sense of worth.

The only stipulation placed upon the employee is that the leader must be kept informed. How detailed this information should be is left up to the delegator. She might want to know that the situation has been handled or desire more detailed information about what was found, what was considered, or why the choice was made. Again, this is something that should be discussed and clarified before the task is even undertaken. The reason for this vestige of control left in the hands of the delegator is the old “the buck stops here” issue. Leaders of groups are ultimately held responsible for the success of the entity. Should questions arise from the environment (internal or external), the leader needs to be able to speak authoritatively about what goes on within the organization. This information flow back to the leader assures that he knows what is going on in the organization or business.

LEVEL FOUR - "CONTROL"

The highest degree of delegation is the Fourth Level in the EPIC Model – Control. When the employee has demonstrated the ability to handle effectively and successfully the former three levels, she is now ready for this final stage. The highest levels of trust and confidence in the individual’s ability, competence, and even leadership must exist for this level to be successfully utilized.

Since these levels are a building process, the other three are employed for the fourth. Data collection, brainstorming for solutions, and selecting/implementing the best solution are all part of Level Four. The only difference is the absence of the last step of the process in Level Three, notifying the delegator. At Level Four, keeping the boss informed is not necessary; the delegatee has total control over all aspects of this problem. The employee becomes a “co-leader” in charge of a task that would have originally fallen to the leader of the organization. In assuming control of all aspects of this issue, the employee also assumes total responsibility.

A logical question might be the following: “If keeping the employer informed was important for Level Three, why not for Level Four?” The answer lies in two possible directions. One is that, in assuming control and responsibility, the delegatee now assumes responsibility for answering questions from the environment. The level of trust the leader has in this individual allows him to place enough confidence in the person to answer for her own actions. Should questions arise, the leader simply defers to the employee for the answer. This further establishes the confidence and trust that exists between the two and more directly confirms the subordinate as a “co-leader,” at least on this issue.

A second reason why it may not be necessary to inform the leader of how the problem was handled is that its level of importance may not have warranted it. Either the problem was not a serious problem and possibly a variety of solutions could have been adopted; or whatever decision was made would have been free from internal or external critique. In either case, what took place did not need the sanction of the leader nor did the leader need to know the details – just that it had been handled. This would have been enough to take it off the leader’s mind, knowing that the delegatee was fully capable of a successful effort. One point of stress has been removed.

Caution should be offered here and in all levels of delegation, however. It is extremely important that a very clear understanding of responsibilities – just exactly who is responsible for what – is possessed by all involved. This alleviates any confusion, misunderstandings, and possibly ill feelings, later on. An effective practice is to have the delegatee repeat to the delegator exactly what was heard and agreed to – “If you will, tell me your understanding of what I have asked you to do. I just want to make sure I presented the task accurately.”

A misunderstanding may occur if a leader delegates a job to an employee and does not specify exactly what responsibilities for both parties are. The employee, under the impression she has been granted control of the issue, returns with recommendations. The recommendations are not used; the employee is hurt or angry that her efforts were rebuffed, or worse, wasted. The leader, who only wanted information but did not make this clear, now has an employee who will possibly be more reluctant to engage in this type of activity again. Consider how much more serious it would be if the employee had actually taken action, assuming that authority was in her control. Thus, clarity in the initial act of delegation is of paramount importance.

ART: THE FINER POINTS

Just about any leader of a group or an organization ought to be able to read the foregoing explanation and learn to practice the science of delegating. Starting small and working upward should pay dividends for both parties as detailed above. Additionally, the group or organization should become more productive in the long run as the great variety of tasks are more appropriately handled by those individuals who rightfully should be handling them. Everyone should begin experiencing higher levels of productivity and job satisfaction – thus, a happier and more effective workplace.

On the other hand, simply engaging in delegation may not be enough. The challenge is often referred to as “the art of delegation.” This suggests that not only are there steps to be followed, as in the EPIC Model, but there are nuances as to exactly how the process – or the delegating conversation/conference – actually takes place. While delegating has numerous potential benefits for both parties and the organization, delegatees (and, as a result, delegators) can become quickly disenchanted with the process if not carried out effectively. Once disengaged, getting re-engaged will be difficult – trust and relationships having been damaged.

The danger lies in the perception of the one receiving the new responsibilities. If delegation is not already a part of the organizational culture, then questions naturally arise: Why is he giving me this job? Why is she not doing it herself? Does he trust me enough to let me handle this? Am I biting off more than I can chew? What if I do it wrong? What’s the payoff for me? In these types of environments, where trust about motivations is a concern, how something is done is at least as important as what is done.

The art of delegating comes down to making the employee feel comfortable with what is being delegated. “Comfortable” means any one, but more likely a combination, of the following:

1. Take personal interest and pride in employee’s achievements;
2. Keep the organization informed about all group efforts;
3. Give credit regularly and publicly (even acknowledge efforts when unsuccessful – look for the “silver lining”); and
4. Stress that the success of the organization is everyone’s responsibility – build a climate of ownership in the ranks.

There are no magic formulas for helping employees arrive at these conclusions. Much of the effectiveness in this regard will rely on the individual and distinct personality of the delegator. Is he an individual others trust generally? Did the leader assume the role under less than ideal circumstances (i.e., division within the ranks, hired to “clean the place up,” etc.)? Or, on the other hand, was the leader the choice of the members of the organization? Does the leader have a “mandate” to change things from those being led? If the led generally trust the leader, attempts at delegation (or anything, really) will be received with much less skepticism than if the opposite is true. Like any skill – or even one’s art – practice does indeed make perfect. The more one participates in delegation, the more one’s skill (and art) improve.

If nothing else, the leader needs to focus on what the delegatee has to offer and how the task is suited to his talent or skills. He should point to the benefits for the organization and how they would be contributing to its effectiveness and use these instances to try to build within the group/organization a “we” orientation when discussing the entity rather than a “they” and “them” type of reference for the leadership or management of the organization. As alluded to earlier, all effective and energized organizations enjoy a “shared sense of purpose,” a synergy that results from participants feeling important, useful, and needed. A sense of ownership promotes pride and satisfaction that the individual is an integral part of the effort.

THE CHOICE

If leaders continue to rely on their individual talents, making solo decisions and ignoring the benefits of sharing the responsibilities that impact their organizations on a daily basis, they are, in effect, condemning themselves and their enterprises to less than maximal performance. They might even be possibly contributing to their demise, as a result.

Sharing decisions through effective delegation is a must for today’s leader. The benefits cannot be ignored; the payoffs for all are numerous. The question then becomes not “Do I delegate?” but “How do I delegate?” The EPIC Model, incorporating the levels of 1) exploring, 2) proposing, 3) informing, and 4) controlling, provides a relatively easy approach for engaging in this important and most effective organizational activity and leadership strategy.

References:

1. Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of crisis. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

2. Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, January/February, pp. 53-62.

3. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.