Do you abdicate, delegate, micromanage, or do something entirely different?
As a leader, it’s impossible to do every task, assume every responsibility, be everywhere all at once, and work to 100% capacity. It makes my head hurt just writing that sentence and thinking about the poor, exhausted person who tries!
If you want to level up as a leader, recognize that the team extends your capacity and skills. There may be specific tasks you do better, but it makes more sense to assign others. And of course, there are tasks at which others excel. When you take on too much, it interferes with high-level responsibilities like setting strategy, developing your team, and ensuring targets are achieved.
And yet, I see again and again leaders who misunderstand the difference between delegate and abdicate. They either get the mix wrong; or worse; they micromanage the team.
Table of Contents
Let’s start with some definitions.
Delegate
When you delegate, the employee has been given the responsibility to complete the task. However, you remain in the loop and provide support when necessary. And if the direct report lacks the knowledge or skill to successfully complete the task, such as when you assign new or less familiar work to develop skills, you train and guide them.
Typically, after a discussion of what needs to be done, you and the direct report set a cadence of check-ins based on time, such as meeting every two weeks with a status update. Alternatively, or in addition, there may be check-ins based on specific milestones.
Abdicate
When you abdicate, the employee is similarly held accountable. Unfortunately, you remain outside the loop and offer no guidance or support. In fact, you may not even know if the necessary resources, tools, or information exist! In short, you have ghosted the employee until there comes a plea for help or a four-alarm fire is raging.
Team members become demotivated when you regularly abdicate tasks. No matter the experience, people require input and feedback. Is the work progressing as expected? Has any new information become available which might affect the scope?
Imagine completing a task or project, only to discover that you need to redo 50% because it doesn’t meet expectations. Nevermind that the expectations were poorly communicated, or even were nonexistent!
And it’s even worse when the person doesn’t have the required knowledge or skills, but you still expect them to complete the request completely unaided. They struggle, waste time, and become frustrated and demotivated.
Micromanage
When you micromanage, it may seem like delegation. After all, you have handed a task to the team member. You haven’t abandoned them, and you know precisely the progress of the task, as well as any issues.
However, there is a complete absence of trust. The employee has zero freedom in how they work through the task / responsibility. You have defined rigid parameters of how you would complete the task, without any room for initiative or creativity by the employee.
“It’s your way or the highway!” serves as an apt phrase here.
Micromanagement also demotivates, but for different reasons than when you abdicate. In fact, 85% of employees said their motivation suffered in the face of micromanagement.
Without independence or trust, employees don’t have any opportunity to incorporate their knowledge and skills. They also have no chance to learn or grow because you have removed any chance for critical thought.
Let’s close with two additional and serious problems when leaders choose to abdicate or micromanage their teams.
- The employee becomes less likely to ask for help or raise a concern. Because the environment created by abdication or micromanagement doesn’t provide collaborative opportunities, your employees will generally avoid interrupting you with questions. They might not want to appear poorly informed or be negatively judged. They might even fear being reprimanded.
- When you don’t support your team, they lose motivation. They will seek a better environment elsewhere. Even worse, they might quietly quit or become toxic.
How to Delegate
Effective delegation requires a number of steps. And of course, the scope of the request will determine whether each step needs attention, as well as how much attention.
For example, asking someone to gather last quarter’s sales figures should require less discussion and guidance than requesting a deep dive and analysis of existing sales data. And both will require a lot less discussion and guidance than a project involving months of time and collaboration with other teams.
Step 1: Know the team.
It starts with how well you know the team. Consider each person’s unique combination of strengths and weaknesses, as well as their knowledge and experience. You also want to consider their existing workload, as someone may be well-suited but have insufficient time to handle the request.
Step 2: Select the right person.
Based on step one, you will next select the right person. This might mean opting for the person with the greatest skill and/or experience. However, it might also mean selecting a team member with less experience so as to offer new challenges and opportunities in a continuous learning environment.
Step 3️: Clearly define the task.
For the employee to succeed, they need to understand the expected results. Share as much information as possible, thereby guaranteeing a more successful outcome.
Remember: Over-communication and knowledge sharing mean the employee has enough information to make the right decisions, which proves essential if you want to give them trust and freedom to successfully deliver on the request.
Step 4: Agree on milestones and due dates.
Discuss what needs to be completed and when. Also, discuss what to do when problems arise or due dates get pushed back.
Step 5️: Agree on a cadence on check-ins.
Discuss when and how frequently updates should be provided by the employee.
Task Relevant Maturity
You may wonder how to successfully get the right mix of delegation for experienced team members, or if they even require any oversight, versus inexperienced team members. After all, shouldn’t an employee who has years of experience need fewer check-ins and status updates than someone with relatively little experience?
The short answer is “no.”
And this common mistake arises again and again when delegating. The manager assumes that years of experience in a role translates to years of experience with any task, which simply proves untrue.
For example, let’s say a Customer Success Manager has years of experience analyzing data and creating scalable but personalized, digital solutions. However, the person doesn’t have much experience working directly with clients.
Would you ask the CSM to take over an enterprise-level account?
Or how about a top-level Sales Rep who doesn’t have the skills or experience to also develop young, less-experienced team members.
Would you ask the Rep to mentor a new hire?
In both cases, you might. There will always be times when you ask a direct report to take on a new and unfamiliar challenge, providing opportunities for learning and development. But you would also need to provide more precise and detailed instructions. You would need to adjust the cadence of check-ins and 1:1s, talking with the person more frequently to avoid any unknown problems. In short, you would need to be more hands on.
You don’t want to make the excuse that failure creates learning opportunities. Although it does, it’s also abdication when you don’t verify beforehand and follow through. And because the employee doesn’t have experience with the task, common missteps and problems will remain hidden. They won’t have a mental playbook of best practices, and instead will stumble forwards.
By understanding each team member’s experience, knowledge, and skills for a specific task, you can avoid delegation mistakes, loss of confidence, frustration, and results which don’t meet expectations and needs.
Effective leadership requires a balance between being hands on when needed, but also allowing autonomy in areas of competence and expertise.
By taking task relevant maturity into consideration, you ensure:
- better outcomes
- minimized errors
- improved teamwork
- an environment of continuous and supported learning
In turn, all of these points then lead to improved success for the team. So when it comes to delegation, don’t make the mistake of assuming experience equates ability in any area.
Consider the following:
High TRM: Your involvement will be minimal by comparison to medium or low task relevant maturity. Ask questions to understand how the task will be approached and the steps needed for success. As a leader, you generally have more access to the bigger picture, some of which might impact the successful delivery of the task or project.
Medium TRM: You will create a greater cadence for two-way communication because the person is not wholly self-reliant. You will want to provide support and offer guidance, establishing the frequency of check-ins. Challenges will still pop up, and which the direct report needs input or help resolving.
Low TRM: The person has limited skills, knowledge, and/or experience with the specific task. As a result, you or someone will need to provide much more guidance and supervision, discussing what needs to be done, as well as the why and how. You should also expect more missteps.
Conclusion
You cannot be a great leader unless you learn how to effectively delegate. And effective delegation requires so much more than just the assignment of tasks and responsibilities.
When you delegate effectively, you create an environment in which employees feel trusted and empowered. You have given them a task or responsibility, but you don’t control them or abandon them. You also give them opportunities to learn and grow. And you do so while still hitting the required team targets.