How to walk the fine line between delegation and abdication

If leadership is the ability to get things done through people, then my dog’s a natural. When he stands by the back door I open it, and when he barks I let him back in. Pavlov himself could not have trained me better. He’s a pretty smart delegator too, having figured out that a) I’m a competent doorman, and b) I’m motivated to provide him access to the garden so that he waters the hedge instead of the hall.

Delegation is defined as the assignment of limited responsibilities to others. In other words, it’s a way of getting things done through people (do feel free to have a déjà vu moment at this point).

So here’s the point: You can’t be a great leader unless you are a great delegator. Not exactly breaking news admittedly, because it’s common sense of course, but alas, it’s not exactly common practice - and here’s why:

Delegation isn’t just about giving responsibility, it’s about giving care as well. Getting that balance right results in the sweet spot of empowerment. But as we shall see, getting it wrong crosses the line into abdication. The trouble is that it’s hard enough balancing anything on the roller-coaster ride of change that most organisations have to cope with today, but on top of that, individuals have their own opinions about what that balance should look and feel like for them personally.

What makes the art of delegation a minefield is that there is more than one way to get it wrong:

1. Giving lots of care and no responsibility is the hallmark of benelovent dictators. They look after you while they also look after all the decision-making.  Staff feel protected, but nothing grows well in the shade.

2. Conversely, giving lots of responsibility and no care is laissez-faire leadership. These 'leaders' will dump all the responsibility on you, and then exit stage left. And if you’re thinking how liberating that sounds, it is actually one of the most de-motivating of all leadership styles, given that most people need – and indeed relish - constructive feedback and guidance.

3. And then there are the micro-managing control freak dictators who just don’t seem to care that they’re not giving you any responsibility. Enough said.

A small caveat or three is needed here: Being a benevolent dictator is appropriate when for example an individual has suffered a bereavement. Then more TLC and less responsibility makes sense. Dictatorship is needed when a sudden crisis means there is no time for democracy. And laissez-faire leadership is a necessary evil when the leader simply has too many plates to spin and has to abandon some in favour of those already wobbling. But - and it is a big but - these styles are permissible only on a temporary basis. Leaders exhibiting these traits as their default setting are operating in the red zone.

So, what is the Goldilocks guide to giving just the right amount of responsibility with just the right amount of care? The key lies in understanding what care really means here: it’s nothing to do with tea and sympathy, and everything to do with a rational assessment of circumstances.

Here's the key takeaway: Taking care to delegate means first asking 3 simple questions: Does this person have the time, the ability, and the desire? 

If the answer to any of these questions is ‘no’, more due diligence is required. If the person doesn’t have the time, they might be able to re-prioritise. If they don’t have the ability, training might bridge the gap. And if they don’t have the desire, they will need a chat with their boss over a coffee about why that is.

Either way, if responsibility and care are not given in equal measure, abdication – either abdication of duty of care, or abdication of trust in others - will result. And that matters because:

-      people who become overloaded will start failing at stuff they were previously succeeding at

-      people without the ability to do new tasks will fail at them

-      people without desire will quit. Or worse, they’ll stay, and become toxic

-      people not trusted to take on more responsibility will wither on the vine, which for the organisation is a waste of talent, and for the individual is a waste of life

So here’s the bottom line: If you have valuable responsibilities worth delegating, and you can line up 3 yes’s on the one-armed-bandit of care, you will win the ability to share the load. And that will open the door to a whole different way of working.

See richalderton.com to change what you think and feel about change. I look forward to connecting with you soon.