Managers: Even When You Delegate, You're Still In It Together

One of the joys experienced by a new manager is having an array of people to call on to "get it done."

One of the challenges experienced by a new manager is having an array of people to call on to "get it done."

I can't think of a role that's more challenging than managing, at any level. One of the traps, though, is a mistaken sense of what delegation is all about.

It's the successful manager's job to:

1.Help people perform.

That means you have to spend time focusing on the people who do the task, not just the task.

Who needs help? How much? How much is too much? How often do you need to follow up to see how things are going? When you follow up, what do you really need to do to be helpful? (It may be to get out of the way, explain how to do something in detail, or something in between).

Check out the post and comments on How Does Assertiveness Influence Leader Effectiveness.

2. Invest in people, not use them.

We agonize over how to invest our earnings so that we reap personal financial growth.

When we delegate are we asking, "How can I invest in this person during this task in order to benefit all of us over the long run?"

Or is the question "What can this person do for me?"

Each question leads to very different outcomes. One is personal and organizational growth. The other is a sense of using and being used.

3. Be alongside, in front of, or close behind--but never absent.

No one--no one--is successful alone. However, it's really easy and unbelievably common to fail by thinking we can do it alone.

So the best managers I know live out a model that clearly shares responsibility. They provide direction and support; their people ask questions easily as a result of the "we're in this together" atmosphere.

What would you add from your own experience?

Click on your preferred subscription area at the top of the sidebar on the left. You'll always get the newest post!

Comments

[Jim Stroup]

Hi Steve,

Bingo. On all three points. I especially appreciate the point about being where you have to be for your employees and the task at hand, especially that you can never be absent.

As you allude to in your first few lines, there is a blessing and a curse in having staff. You have to invest in them, not just give them tasks and then forget about both.

You have to develop them, and support them. And there's a danger there too: they may want so much support from you that they essentially hand the task back to you. We fall into that trap because we want to be needed. So "being there" has to be thought over carefully: "alongside, in front of, or close behind."

You want to develop capability, not dependence.

Excellent post, right on the money - thanks!

[Steve Roesler]

Hello, Jim,

Thanks for highlighting the danger of "needing to be needed." Hadn't thought of that one but it is oh, so true. Maybe one of us should do a post on it :-)

I especially like the "developing capability, not dependence" line, too. What a good title for a book, article, or post.

Thanks as always, Jim.

[Dennis]

I interviewed an entrepreneur this week, and his take on 'delegation' blew me away: He raised the idea that when you (owner/manager) delegate a task, you are giving away a problem, but the person to whom you are delegating receives trust and respect and stature. WOW! T

[Steve Roesler]

Wow is right, Dennis,

That's a new one!

Do you think the intention was good but the overall sense of delegation misguided?

As Dr. Phil might ask, "So how's that working for you?"

[Wally Bock]

Delegation is NOT dumping. It's one of four ways to assign work, based on the ability and willingness of a team member to complete the assignment successfully.

And you never give away the problem. It's still your problem as the boss, even if someone else is working on solving it.

[Scott M]

I think a big reason that delegating is so difficult, is that a manager needs to invest so much effort in analysing the PERSON to whom you are delegating the task.

I'll beat this dead horse again, but this is why managers MUST have good people skills. Managers must be able to 'size-up' their people. They must understand their people's personalities, skills, talents, etc. They must be intimately involved in their people's work, yet not a micro manager.

It's tough stuff!

So maybe the reason new managers have a tough time delegating, is that they were promoted into a management position without really being trained for it. An individual contributor does not need as many people skills as a manager, yet many managers are promoted entirely because of their individual contributor accomplishments.

Or perhaps all I have is a hammer so every problem looks like a nail!

What do you think?

[Steve Roesler]

Wally,

Well, if it weren't for abidicators, our practices might be a little less busy:-)

[Steve Roesler]

Scott, you speak the truth.

Wally has been trying every which way to let people know that it's all about needing to analyze capablity and respond with the appropriate amount of direction.

The analyis, as you point out, requires all of those skills that you laid out for the readers. And it does take time and effort.

My take: the manager who doesn't spend time becomig a good diagnostician through observation, follow up, and relationship-building will never really be effective.

Thanks, Scott.

I wonder what others have to say about this?