Random Thoughts on Art of Delegation

We often hear contradictory criticisms: "you are micromanaging" and "you delegate too much". I, too, had my fair share of these comments, especially when you get your 360 deg feedback. So it was a surprise when I received a two-line message from a young colleague asking, "I want to know about the art of delegation. Your thoughts or experience, anything on that". Having two left feet (and a left hand to boot), I am nobody to utter anything on "art", and strangely, despite being grown up on a diet of cricket, the first thought that comes to my mind on delegation is football!?

The best football captains, in my view, are midfield generals. Steven Gerrard, Zinedine Zidane, Lothar Matthaus, Franz Beckenbauer, Johan Cruyff, and Michel Platini are top of my list (you may have a different take on this list, and we can passionately discuss it later). They are not the ones with the maximum number of goals (though they did score many spectacular ones), nor they are the ones who defied gravity while effecting impossible saves below the bar (again, though they regularly saved their teams from embracing defence lapses). What makes them unique is their ability to read the situation from midfield and change their style of play depending on the game's flow. They create opportunities by moving up along the forwards while attacking and falling back to shore up the defence when there is a counterattack.?

Exceptional leaders do the same, switching between micromanaging and delegating depending on the situation. A leader needs to adapt as the situation demands. Incidentally, every leader goes through an agonising challenge of deciding on a leadership style that will give the best in a given situation, as there is no single 'right' way of leading people. (An earlier Random Thoughts on leadership paradoxes might be of some help on this?https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/random-thoughts-leadership-paradoxes-jacob-mathew).?

We might think it is an obvious choice of style when to delegate and when to micromanage. It might be easier in certain situations, like working with fresh graduates or experienced people. However, as with life, most office situations are not so black and white, and a leader will have to do a delicate balance of constantly switching between both styles.

Let's dive in.

A robust review mechanism is the best tool (and, in my view, the only one) for deciding when to delegate or micromanage. And to have a meaningful review, two things need to be taken care of at the very beginning (1) absolute clarity on the expected outcome and (2) the boundary conditions. The entire team need to be on the same page at all times on -?what we are at it (goal), when we need to complete it (schedule), what is our budget (cost) and what is the expected level of outcome (quality). Similarly, the boundary conditions -?what are the GO/NO GO conditions, when to escalate, seek external support, Etc.?

The regular review meetings help us assess the situation and take stock of the things as they develop. We might find that the greenhorns are doing well without much supervision, and the experts are getting into rabbit holes, missing the big picture. The frequency of the reviews is subjective. Unless it is a crisis, reviews happen weekly, biweekly, or monthly in an office. (In a 90minute football match, the review occurs instantaneously.) The moot point is simple - the proper reviews at the right frequency will guide us in deciding which situation and which person needs more hand-holding.?

Delegation is not being indifferent to what one's teammates are doing (like the iconic Hero Honda CD100 advertisement - fill it, shut it & forget it). You don't stop having review meetings because the work is done by an expert or by a trusted team. In such situations, you elevate the review meetings to a level that will reassure that no one has lost sight of the big picture (purpose and the boundary conditions). Instead of getting into the nitty-gritty of how a job is to be done, you ensure that the team is adequately resourced to face potential showstoppers based on your experiences.?

While in the case of micromanaging, one gets into how the job is executed. You are in the trench with the team, hand-holding in each step. You are in the thick of the action, sweating it out with others. You take and also execute operational decisions. In other words, it is not overseeing a flood situation from a helicopter but being in the dinghy wearing a life jacket and rescuing people.?

Many people think that micromanaging is terrible. It is not when it is done need-based. Micromanagement is a problem only when one becomes a habitual offender and gets on people's nerves, assuming they alone have all the answers. Also, the longer one micromanages their teams, the more they undermine the team's confidence. You clip their wings from developing enough strength to fly by themselves.?

Once the unit is out of crisis or the person has picked up the skills, one needs to consciously step out, however tempting it is to stay put. It calls for discipline to move out of action and limelight because people have a misconception that they will be perceived as ineffective unless they are not seen at the front line all the time. But by overdoing micromanagement, one ends up straining the entire system, including themselves, as it will leave you with little time (and energy) to focus and engage in other activities.??

And finally, back to football..! The link (https:youtu.be/3OQToElxke4) is a synopsis of the greatest champions league final and how a midfield general (Steven Gerrard) inspired a miraculous turnaround. Have a ball..!