This might sting but it explains why you struggle to delegate!

I started working on a new presentation, which I will be sharing at an upcoming conference (now that those are happening again). I am focusing on a problem that I have observed far too often, one that everyone admits is an issue; however, it is a problem that does not seem to go away. Any guesses?

There are probably a few things that fit that description; however, I am digging into our inability to delegate effectively.?

Why do so many leaders struggle with this? Looking back to my experience working with other executives, I would have to say that many of them are lousy at delegating. Everyone admits they have too much to get done. They all concede that empowering is critical when building a high-performing and agile organization. Everyone recognizes that it is a great way to develop your people, and perhaps more importantly, your culture. But it simply doesn't happen.?

When we see something like this, it's an anomaly; after all, if this were a myriad of other items, this level of impetus would result in the change happening. But not so with delegation; even with the knowledge, buy-in, pressure, and commitment to practice and improve, leaders are terrible at delegating, and they remain awful at it year after year.

I have a level of freedom in discussing this topic because I have always seemed to do well with delegating. I directly managed five Vice Presidents. One piece of feedback that they always provided me, that I was very proud of, was that I always gave them enough runway to take on roles that needed to be addressed; I never micro-managed, and I always tried to give productive counsel. I don't share this to brag, only to add context, because my answers to the question, "why don't leaders delegate more?" is as intrinsically connected to the opposite question of why some do delegate effectively?

Those who can delegate can remove themselves from the task and recognize that whatever the person produces might be different from what they would produce - that is not bad; that is exciting. Those who delegate do not believe in the mantra, "if you want something done right, do it yourself." They are humble enough to recognize that "right" is subjective and, in this case, self-indulgent. Others can and will do things right all the time, and your recognition is not the litmus test. Those who can delegate are not attempting to off-load work they don't like. Those who delegate are OK with others getting credit and sharing or having the spotlight.

Sometimes those who struggle with delegating like to describe themselves as having "high standards" or being "perfectionists" but that is an excuse, they don't, and they are not. Some of the people I have heard use these excuses, couldn't remember the names of people on their teams, showed no personal interest in people, and at times were rude or disrespectful in how they talked to others. They were not perfectionists in these areas; what happened to the high standards? The fact is they say this to justify being overly critical or nitpicky in areas where they feel powerful based on title or experience; sometimes, it just makes them feel better about their other deficiencies. No workplace needs perfectionists - they are usually toxic for any culture.

Perhaps the hardest part of all is seeing the results of something that was delegated, not loving the outcome, and still letting it be without harsh criticism. I am not talking about something vital to the business, of course, but if it can be tolerated, if it is not life-threatening, allow it to pass. You can coach to it on the next assignment; you can fix it through positive feedback, you can help them grow into understanding the missing component. But there is nothing worse than taking something you assigned and then totally re-working or rejecting it. That says far more about you as a leader than it does about the person handling the task. What do you think it says?