Nutshell: Why delegation can unlock leadership success

Learning to let go and delegate effectively is a win-win for us and our people, not only freeing up our time but also offering development opportunities for others.

Here’s a question for us leaders. If we unexpectedly had to take a week off work, would our key initiatives and priorities keep moving forward in our absence – or would they grind to a halt?

It’s a question posed by writer and consultant Jesse Sostrin as he ponders one of the most important leadership challenges of all: how to delegate appropriately and well. If, says Sostrin, we answer no or are unsure about that unscheduled time off, then we may need to rethink our approach.

We know, of course, what delegation is. We probably also understand how important it is for leaders. But that doesn’t mean that it’s plain sailing. In fact, it often remains an underused and underdeveloped leadership skill, easy to misunderstand, get wrong or even avoid completely.

That, though, can be a problem. One of the fundamentals of stepping up into management or leadership is the need to get things done through our colleagues.

Doing vs leading

This shift from ‘doing’ to ‘leading’ can be tough; we may know it’s the right thing to do, but, in the heat of the average workplace, having the emotional intelligence to delegate rather than do, trusting our colleagues with tasks we’ve probably learnt to do well or more effectively ourselves, is often a matter of perseverance and practice.

The hard fact is that, when we step up into leadership and broaden the range of our responsibilities, it’s simply not possible – or desirable - for us to do everything ourselves.

That way, many have found to their cost, leads to bottlenecks or even to burnout. Nor is delegation important for just managing our own workload, important though that is.

The true power of delegation goes beyond making our own lives easier and more manageable.

 Done well, it’s an incredibly effective way to develop our teams, to provide opportunities for learning, and to build capability for individuals, teams and our organisations as a whole.

And providing these opportunities for autonomy, for building mastery, is an important route to motivation and engagement. Involving others also mitigates groupthink and bias, leading to better, more balanced decision-making – and even more innovation.

Powerful stuff. But if delegation is so powerful, why do so many of us find it so hard to do?

Learning to let go

As with so much of leadership, delegation requires us to take a long, hard look at ourselves and our biases, to trust in others and to use our judgement about when and how to let go.

We often have more leeway than we realise when we weigh up the amount of control we exert against the level of freedom (that autonomy) we feel we can afford people. 

It’s tempting, especially if we’re fairly new to leadership, to tip the scales in favour of control, to micromanage rather than to trust and let go. We need to guard against that if we are to properly enable and empower.

Delegation may take effort, skill and time: it needs us to communicate, coach and give feedback along the way. But, as we’ve seen, the rewards are many.

To delegate effectively, we need to understand the things that can get in the way and what our own approach or style may be. Working from that base, we can learn to adapt that approach as necessary, and hone our practice for deciding which tasks to delegate, to whom, when and how.

American author John C Maxwell reminded us that “If you want to do a few small things right, do them yourself. If you want to do great things and make a big impact, learn to delegate.” Here’s how.

Barriers to delegation

If we were to ask ourselves, honestly, why we don’t delegate more, we’d probably find that our answers are far from unique. There are some very common barriers and biases that can get in the way.

It’s easier/quicker to do it myself 

This may be more or less true, but it’s not really the point.

Sostrin reminds us that, short term, we may be able to “get up earlier, stay later, and out-work” the demands we face. But the “inverse equation of shrinking resources and increasing demands” will eventually catch up with us.

At that point, whether and how (or not) we involve other people will impact on our effectiveness – and that of our teams. We can either plough on with diminishing returns, or make sensible judgements about involving others.

When we hang on to tasks we don’t need to, we’re confusing “being involved with being essential”.

Our involvement doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to do everything ourselves. If we can learn how to “activate” others around us, then we can become ancillary rather than essential to success, inspiring and enabling others in the process.  

Research by a team led by psychologists Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Cialdini has also identified two important biases that might also cloud our delegation judgement:

• a faith in supervision effect, by which leaders tend to see work performed under supervision as better than work conducted independently.

• self-enhancement bias, a tendency to evaluate work more favourably if we’re involved directly in its creation.

As with other biases, we might be unaware that we’re falling foul of them.

But they’re likely to be part of the picture, so acknowledging and counteracting them can be an important precursor to accepting that we can’t do everything ourselves. Instead, we need to work on feeling more confident and comfortable with giving others the opportunity to step up and show what they can do.

I don’t have time to delegate

Another common barrier to delegation is that it can take longer to teach someone else how to do a task than to do it ourselves.

That may be true the first time we delegate something, or when the person we’re delegating to is less experienced (of which more below). But, over time, this initial investment will pay dividends in two ways.

First, as the person completing the delegated task becomes more experienced, our involvement will decrease, freeing us up to focus on other crucial leadership tasks.

In fact, delegation is one of the four options identified by one of the most famous time management models of all time, the Eisenhower Matrix, that asks us to plot how we use our time against task urgency and importance.

If tasks are urgent, but not important, the model exhorts us to delegate to free up the time we need for things that really require our attention.

In addition, delegation will mean that the person carrying out the task has developed confidence and learnt new skills that are likely to be valuable elsewhere.

Delegation certainly takes time if done well, but we need to practise if we’re to make the most of it. Making the time for it is simply part of the deal.

But I really enjoy doing this…

One of the reasons we progress at work is because we enjoy doing what we’re doing, which helps us to keep improving and growing.

When we take on new responsibilities, especially at leadership level, we may face the need to delegate tasks that we love doing, but can be equally well done by someone else.

We have to keep asking ourselves: how and where can I add most value? If that means ditching lower-value tasks for the greater good, even if we enjoy filling in that spreadsheet or going to those catch-up meetings, we have to bite the bullet and let go. 

I can’t give my people anything more – they’re flat out already

For some, delegating tasks can feel a bit like exploitation or weakness, passing work down the line rather than rolling up our sleeves and doing it ourselves.

But we need to reframe our thinking to see that delegation is a sign of strength, not weakness.

If we have serious resource issues in our teams, that’s different; they’ll need to be addressed if we’re to have any hope of motivating our people. But we need to interrogate carefully our own thinking as well as any pushback from team members who are reluctant to take on more.

Avoiding delegation is rarely a long-term solution. Reframing delegation as a development opportunity can help both parties to get on board. 

Remember, too, that delegation is still a shared task; it’s not about ‘passing the buck’. We will still be involved, just not exclusively. And whatever level of control we retain (or not), we’re still, as leaders, accountable for outcomes.

What’s my delegation style?

Another reason why delegation can be so tricky is because it often means making fine judgements about when and what to delegate and to whom.

Just like leadership more generally, whether or not we delegate, and the amount of involvement or control we retain, will depend on the situation we find ourselves in and the people involved – and that means being aware of which style we might adopt and when.

It’s a conundrum encapsulated in a leadership model first explored in a classic Harvard Business Review article by Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt.

The Tannenbaum-Schmidt leadership behaviour continuum

The Tannenbaum-Schmidt continuum of leadership behaviour speaks to the fact that we may feel torn between exercising “strong” (more directive or autocratic) leadership, and something that’s more “permissive” (or democratic).

We may flip-flop between knowing that we should involve others and the feeling that our experience makes us best placed to decide and act on our own.

These two extremes are not, though, mutually exclusive. As we delegate more, we adopt a more democratic leadership style and give team members more freedom to act autonomously.

Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s styles exist on a continuum running from more directive to less, with staging points along the way.

As with other leadership styles models, there are times when each of the styles will be more or less effective. The continuum gives us a framework to consider which approach might work best depending on three key factors:

1. The experience and competence of team members

Do they have the knowledge, skills and experience to make decisions and act more autonomously?

2. The situation we’re facing

Is there enough time to be more permissive? What are the risks involved?

3. Our own attitudes

Are we willing to be accountable for our team’s decision or actions? Are we able to delegate tasks and decisions effectively?

These three factors are interrelated and also depend on wider cultures within our organisations and beyond. A consistently autocratic approach, for example, might well clash with wider cultures of respect and learning, and may even threaten client or customer relationships.

The seven styles are often shown with the following shorthands to describe each of the behaviours:  

1. Tells. Leaders make decisions and expect their teams to follow; teams have very little input. This can work when a team is inexperienced and needs more support, or in a crisis situation. But, used consistently, it can lead to frustration and lack of trust.

2. Sells. Leaders make the decisions, but explain why to look for team buy-in. The decision won’t change, but the team is allowed to makes its opinions and feelings known.

3. Suggests. Leaders make the decision, explain why and then ask for questions. Although the decision is already made, this style helps the team understand why.

Tannenbaum and Schmidt believe that giving team members the opportunity to discuss what’s happening make them feel more engaged with it and more likely to feel positive about it. It also helps us to test group capabilities.

4. Consults. Leaders propose a course of action and invite input and discussion to test that proposal. The team can influence and change the final outcome.

It’s a way for leaders to acknowledge and trust that team members have valuable insights, and to involve them actively in what’s going on. It’s a style that supports team-building and motivation.

5. Joins. Leaders present a problem or task and ask the team for suggestions and options. They may make the final decision, but the process to arrive at it is collaborative. The style works well with teams that have specific knowledge or expertise.

6. Delegates. Leaders outline the problem or task, provide the appropriate parameters and allow the team to find solutions and make a final decision.

They are still accountable for outcomes and control any risks involved by setting clear expectations and criteria. Delegation requires high levels of trust and the right levels of support and resources to help the team to deliver.

7. Abdicates. Leaders ask the team to define the problem or task, develop options and make a decision. The team is free to do what’s necessary provided that it works within agreed team and organisational parameters.

While this may be the highest level of freedom a leader can give a team on the continuum, the leader is still accountable, so we will need to be sure that the team has the capability to deliver.

In essence, the continuum’s styles broadly correspond to a team’s level of development: as trust and competency (including our own) develop, team members are likely to want to operate more autonomously, and we need to feel more comfortable about letting them do so.

It also reinforces the key point that delegation is not about ‘passing the buck’; the accountability stays with us.

The continuum can help us make those judgements about control vs autonomy, but, as well as assessing the abilities of our people and the situation we’re facing, we also need to be aware of our own attitudes and how they might affect our inclination to delegate – and to reset our thinking as needed.

Getting delegation right

Our own personal barriers to delegation are not the only things that can get in the way. Even when we decide to delegate, there are also a whole host of process problems that can derail us.

• We may fail to explain properly what we want or to set clear expectations

• We might set unrealistic deadlines

• We might allocate a task to the wrong person – and then take the task back at the first sign of less than perfect performance

• We might fail to acknowledge a delegated task well done or to review how it’s gone.

The permutations are manifold, and the result inevitably the same: frustration on our part and demoralisation and disengagement on the part of the other.

That’s why we need to know how to delegate, focusing on the why (purpose), when (timing), what (task), who and how. The eagle-eyed reader will have spotted just how far along the Tannenbaum-Schmidt continuum the delegation style sits. 

It can help to see delegation as a process with a series of steps we can use like a checklist to help develop our practice. That’s why Future Talent Learning has developed a six-step process that we can follow to help us become more comfortable with letting go – and support us as we practice this fundamental leadership skill.

Looking ahead to the 21st-century, Bill Gates anticipated that the most successful leaders will be “those who empower others”.

Mastering the art of delegation can help us achieve that aim in two ways.

First, it gives us the time we need to lead rather than just do. And it also offers opportunities for us to coach, teach and otherwise develop the people for whom we’re responsible.

If we can learn to let go and understand when and how to delegate, then we’re well on the way to making that empowerment a reality.

Test your understanding

• Describe one psychological bias that might get in the way of our inclination to delegate.

• The Tannenbaum-Schmidt leadership behaviour continuum encourages us to flex our style based on three factors. The experience of our people and the situation we find ourselves in are two. Identify the third.

What does it mean for you?

• Reflect on the work you currently do and whether more tasks should be delegated to others. You could use our identifying low-value tasks assessment to help you make your assessment.