I recently asked an experienced manager, who was attending a management development course, how he delegated to his subordinates.
He replied: “I check that they have the resources and can do the task, then I set a deadline and empower the subordinate to do it. Then I must chase until it is complete.” And, if he doesn’t complete the task?: “Then I have failed as a manager.”
The above interchange includes a fundamental misunderstanding that is so common in both the public and private sectors of Zimbabwe that one is often faced with astonishment and disbelief when one points it out.
Before I do so, let me agree the “buck” does stop with the delegator. If the task is not completed, he cannot (ie should not be able to) blame the subordinate. With that, most managers would agree.
The misunderstanding is the manager’s acceptance of “the burden of chasing”. It does not require vast psychological insight to understand the subordinate who expects to be pushed (or chased) will tend to wait for the “shove”.
Nor is a sophisticated grasp of management theory necessary to understand the manager is under-employed when using time and effort to follow up a subordinate’s job rather than applying the skills of planning, organising and decision-making to higher-order tasks which are beyond the capacities of his/her subordinates.
After agreeing the deadline with the subordinate, the delegator may remain open for consultation, available to help an out-of-depth subordinate, but must not, either openly or implicitly, accept the task of chasing up the job.
How then, can the subordinate be persuaded to “own” the task?
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
I recommend the following sequence:
Delegator explains what is required and checks with subordinate on availability of human and technical resources to do the job.
In consultation, the delegator and subordinate agree on a deadline for the task. (In doing this the delegator should ensure the subordinate’s deadline leaves enough time for remedial action should there be a delay, ie there should be a time gap between subordinate’s and delegator’s private deadlines).
Delegator asks subordinate to agree that, should it for any reason seem the agreed deadline might not be met, the subordinate will immediately advise the delegator of the expected delay.
At this point the delegator would have sufficient time to introduce improvements/changes and/or more resources to get the job done by the subordinate’s deadline or, failing that, by his own deadline.
Then the delegator must wait, leaving the task to the subordinate and only becoming involved if contacted for advice or with notice of a possible delay.
If and when the task has not been completed and the subordinate has not provided notification of delay, there can be no tolerable excuse from the subordinate.
In not notifying, the subordinate has failed to carry out a clearly explained, understood and accepted instruction from the delegator.
The first application of the above procedure usually comes as a shock to the subordinates and his/her peers.
Counter-measures by way of retaliation from the team may include:
Repetition — to test the resolve of the delegator, (He’s been on a course, it won’t last).
Rejection — social rejection of the delegator “we don’t like you any more”.
Excuses — just in case they work.
These and other forms of resistance are normal. The delegator should remain resolute in the face of such pressure.
In the longer-term, the subordinate will begin to enjoy the challenge — wouldn’t you? Email: [email protected] Website: www.hresonline.com Tel: 04-700867, 700643
