The paradox of delegation during uncertain times
by Leo Marin, Co-founder of The Leadership Supply Co.
As you well know, we’re once again in the era of fiscal conservatism — some companies call it “belt tightening,” “sharpening our focus”, or “sprinting toward simplicity” — where the call for employees to only work on priorities and cut down on expenses has resurfaced principles of project management and the trusty Eisenhower Matrix for prioritizing work.
The concept is simple in nature — categorize work tasks by their level of importance and urgency to determine what you must do right away, what you should delegate, what should be scheduled, and what should be removed altogether. The idea is that you focus on the important and urgent work and schedule work that is important but has a longer time horizon. But what about delegation?
Leaders and managers continue to struggle with what seem like endless tasks, leaving them in the vortex of consecutive meetings for eight or more hours daily. They’ll receive guidance that tells them to delegate more to lighten their workload, while ensuring that they stay in-the-know of each project. This tension causes even more anxiety as they contend with letting go of tasks they’re either too attached to and want control over, or want to hand over to a teammate but have doubts about their ability to “do it the right way.”
There’s nothing new about this problem per se, however, in the midst of layoffs, role eliminations, and organization re-structures, there lives an unspoken dynamic that makes delegation difficult at some companies. If you’re wary that you may no longer have a role, you might hoard work to prove your contributions. An individual contributor may find it difficult to offload a project they’re not even interested in for fear that they may not receive any projects at all. We’ve spoken with dozens of managers over the last 60 days who have admitted to being overly involved in their reports’ projects for a variety of reasons. Some of these individuals have a layer of managers below them and still choose to be involved in the technical details of the work. Hence, the paradox of delegation in the current work environment.
How you communicate your delegation can significantly decrease confusion and allow things to get done as intended, while allowing the person you delegate to some agency over the work. In practice, the language used in delegation can leave our team members with anxiety over what exactly is needed, especially over email. Ever been copied on an email that included your boss and had doubts on whether you should answer or leave it to them? An eager team member might mistakenly take the assignment and complete it to demonstrate their competence, while another might sit on the email wrongly assuming that it was the manager’s to take. Addressing this communication norm alleviates the pressures felt when there is too much to do. Below are some ideas for how you might delegate your next task. Think about the levels of control, effort, and risk associated with each option as you go through them, and choose the one that is right for you.
“Do this exactly as I say” — this is the ultimate level of control. While you are not executing the task yourself, you still have to do upfront work to explain exactly how you want the assignment completed. If the project is a high visibility and high risk one, you might go here.
“Brief me on what needs to be done and I’ll decide” — allows you a level of control but gives the team member some agency over laying out what needs to be accomplished. Ultimately you are the decision maker before anything gets executed.
“Brief me on what needs to be done, we’ll decide together” — gives your reports some autonomy over the task, and ability to demonstrate their competence, while giving them a view of your own decision-making process, a nice coaching moment.
“Decide & let me know your decision and how you got there, but wait on me to execute” — provides an increased level of authority over the decision but still requires a level of review on your part.
“Let me know what you decided, then execute unless I say not to by x date” — since you may likely have more organizational context that may influence the execution of current projects, this one leaves the onus on you to keep the date you mentioned in mind. This option provides the person a high level of control and autonomy.
“Make the call and execute — update me after” — likely not an option you’d choose in the current climate yet still something you may consider if the task is of low importance and you don’t really need to stay abreast of every detail.
“Make the call and execute without me — you have full ownership” — again, an unlikely option but still worth having in your pocket. Some tasks simply just need to get done and are not risky or important enough for you to know about them.
Many of the teams we work with leave decision-making and delegation to default, allowing for confusion and miscommunication. Ultimately, this hurts productivity and delays progress on work (including more calls on the calendar to clarify). By being explicit about the language they use for delegating, leaders can reduce some of this swirl. There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep updated on the progress of a task just like it’s OK for team members to be granted the autonomy to execute and inform others after the fact. Establishing what your expectations are for any given task and communicating before you delegate will go a long way. It might even grant you a small break in between meetings.
learn with us. learn from us. Follow us!
