data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3ca12/3ca12261fe96404d4a2761dcd484542ff62aa4d9" alt="The standard conception of delegation The standard conception of delegation"
The standard conception of delegation. The concept is that whatever work was allocated to someone at the Manager level can be re-allocated "downward" to the level subordinate to the Manager, without transforming the work in any way. The reality is rather different. When delegating occurs, the jobs of both Manager and Subordinate are thereby transformed, as is the task that was delegated. The transformation occurs because of the way responsibility, authority, and accountability are interlocked.
It's often said that although you can delegate a responsibility of your own, you cannot delegate your own accountability. This warning about delegation raises several reasonable questions about delegation. If I'm accountable for Task X, and I delegate Task X to my Subordinate A, am I still accountable for Task X even though I have delegated it to Subordinate A? Can I hold Subordinate A accountable for Task X? If I'm still accountable for Task X after delegating it to Subordinate A, are we both therefore accountable for Task X? How can two people be accountable for the same task?
In this Part I of an exploration of delegation, I'll consider the sources of confusions about what can be delegated, and what cannot. In Part II, I offer guidelines for delegating in ways that are clear about what happens to accountability.
Sources of confusion: context, culture, and delegation
Three concepts It's often said that although you can delegate
a responsibility of your own, you cannot
delegate your own accountabilitythat together define the ethics, limits, and obligations of our roles at work are responsibility, authority, and accountability. Although they are critically important, the precise meanings of these three terms — responsibility, authority, and accountability — depend on the context in which we use them. For example, Responsibility has one set of meanings in the context of criminal law, and another set in the context of organizational governance. Because this dependence on context makes for difficulties for any discussion of their applicability, I'll consider only private (corporate) organizations.
Even with that limitation, asking people to define these three terms exposes some confusion among their definitions. That isn't surprising, because many dictionaries define these concepts in terms of each other. For example, Dictionary.com offers accountable as one of the definitions of responsible, and responsible as one of the definitions of accountable. The problem is widespread enough to have drawn the attention of researchers. [McGrath 2018.1]
Adding complexity are two other factors: cultural idiosyncrasies and the complications that arise when we delegate responsibilities. Cultural idiosyncrasies create difficulties arising from small but important differences in the way people understand responsibility, for example. And delegating creates problems because the act of delegating can lead to changes in the distribution of responsibility, authority, and accountability across the people of the organization.
Three definitions
To illustrate these difficulties, consider formulating definitions of responsibility, authority, and accountability.
- Responsibility
- According to Dictionary.com, to be responsible is to be "answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management." Thus, one's responsibilities include all items for which one is accountable; everything that is "within one's power, control, or management."
- Authority
- According to Dictionary.com, "Authority is the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes." Authority is usually conferred within a defined domain, such as a business unit or a field of specialty. Authority thus has a jurisdiction within which it confers the right to control, command, or determine a resolution of issues. The jurisdiction can be limited geographically or in some other way. But in organizations, jurisdiction also has limits in the nature of the issues it can address.
- Accountability
- According to Dictionary.com, accountability is "the state of being accountable, liable, or answerable." And to be accountable is to be "…subject to the obligation to report, explain, or justify something; responsible; answerable."
Next steps
With these definitions in hand, the next step is to overhaul the approach to delegation. Instead of just designating some individual as henceforth "responsible" for Task X, take explicit steps to redistribute authority, responsibility, and accountability for Task X. And those steps are the topic for next time. Next issue in this series
Top
Next Issue
Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!
Footnotes
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and
found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
Related articles
More articles on Conflict Management:
Political Framing: Communications
- In organizational politics, one class of toxic tactics is framing — accusing a group or individual
by offering interpretations of their actions to knowingly and falsely make them seem responsible for
reprehensible or negligent acts. Here are some communications tactics framers use.
Virtual Brainstorming: II
- When virtual teams must brainstorm, they try to do so virtually. But brainstorming isn't just another
meeting. There's a real risk that virtual brainstorms might produce inadequate results. Here's Part
II of some suggestions for reducing the risk.
Linear Thinking Bias
- When assessing the validity of problem solutions, we regard them as more valid if their discovery stories
are logical, than we would if they're other than logical. This can lead to erroneous assessments, because
the discovery story is not the solution.
Monday Morning Minute Message Madness
- As a leader of a large organization, if you publish a "Monday Minute Message" to help employees
identify with the organization as a whole, there are some practices that might limit the effectiveness
of the program. Six suggestions can be helpful.
Significance Messages
- Communications about important matters must provide both the facts of a situation and the significance
of those facts. The facts often receive adequate attention, but at times the significance of the facts
is worthy of more attention than the facts.
See also Conflict Management and Conflict Management for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions
- When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.
And on March 5: On Begging the Question
- Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
Follow Rick
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/49497/49497941845052f8709b0965d9e04da11813a3a4" alt="Send email or subscribe to one of my newsletters"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/89401/894012b9c16658103d01b80b4a277783035e5c24" alt="Follow me at LinkedIn"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ecffa/ecffaa8e903ffa92d74690699d0000814aed1ab9" alt="Follow me at X, or share a post"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/60708/60708536f1ed3370f62121a05730014ddf78d4f5" alt="Subscribe to RSS feeds"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1e4fd/1e4fd355766fcd8402cbaa93999bd4f5e3e7c321" alt="Subscribe to RSS feeds"
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a5289/a52899b5116d2119eb6e7d74b167591589030e8c" alt="Technical Debt for Policymakers Blog"