Busy?

I’m behind.  Right now my “To Do” pile is substantially bigger than my “Done” pile. It’s not that we’re not getting things done. We’re doing good things, and we’re doing them well. We just happen to find more things to do faster than we can get them all done.

At a former client’s office I had two people use the analogy, “We move fast here – sometimes it’s like trying to change your shoes in the middle of the race.”  Interesting analogy isn’t it.  This company is in a deadline driven manufacturing business with lots of customers that expect timely delivery of quality product.  Clearly there is a need for managers to have a sense of urgency in the way they operate, but do they need to go so fast they don’t have time to change their shoes?

I’ve worked in some time-sensitive businesses.  Most recently it was magazine publishing where the material had to be at press by a set day each month, no questions asked.  Yet, the question was asked – a lot – and many times deadlines were pushed back.  When that happens, the people at the next step in the process have to rush their work, often making errors or simply having to work harder or faster than they should.  Usually little good comes from rushing.

What I observed was that while all magazines had the same monthly deadlines, some were chronically late with panic ensuing on a monthly basis, while others were consistently on time or even a bit early.  While one Editor was frantically trying to get his book put to bed, another was mid-way through the development of next month’s issue.

There were probably lots of reasons for this.  Maybe one Editor was more organized or had a more experienced staff.  Maybe one didn’t plan well or frequently had unforeseen problems.  But one thing I observed was that to varying degrees, those that were chronically scrambling liked it that way.  They were “I perform better under pressure” people.  They like the excitement of the scramble – the challenge of expediting – the thrill of sliding in under the wire.

So back to my client – I posed a question to the CEO asking if the attitude “we move fast here” was a source of organizational pride or frustration.  From his perspective was the “rush” nature of the business really because the company needed to meet many deadlines, or was it a somewhat “manufactured” value?  For an answer I got a contemplative look and “Hmmm, good question.”

I’ll contend that some organizations culturally like the excitement that comes from moving fast.  They like to react and see themselves as flexible and nimble.  While I’m all about a company being nimble and responsive to customer needs, I’m concerned that those who intentionally live in the fast lane might be putting undue stress on the organization.  Aren’t there parts of the business that would perform better if not always rushing?  Might we not get better “rush” performance if we didn’t have to do it all time?  Are we risking burning out good people because they never get to catch their breath?

There’s no right answer here.  Every organization has its unique issues, but it’s worth thinking about.  If your company is starting to get holes in the bottom of your shoes, maybe a little more planning and contemplative time might improve the overall performance.  Remember, it was the tortoise that won the race.

When is a Donation not a Donation?

It’s a balancing act.  Organizations want to be good corporate citizens and so they donate money, time and materials to worthy causes.  I strongly encourage this, and I encourage them to find ways to allow employees to help direct those donations to organizations the employees are involved in or who are close to their hearts and lives.  I’m also a strong believer that individuals should donate and give what they can to organizations they care about.  It is part of our responsibility as citizens to take care of those less fortunate or to support those organizations who are improving the lives and health of all of us. Americans are the most generous population in the world and we should continue and increase that whenever we can.

The challenge comes when you try to do both at the same time.  Many organizations participate in activities that bring “worthy causes” into the work place and give them a chance to directly solicit employees for donations. Now if you’re an HR person and concerned about maintaining a union-free environment, you know what challenges this presents, but often we do it anyway. The difficulty comes when employees feel corporate pressure to financially support the organization’s chosen charity.

Here’s a real story … a third party comes into the work place to make a presentation about their organization to your employees.  This is a well respected community organization who receives substantial corporate gifts annually.  After the presentation the speaker wants to play a “wheel of fortune” game.  Around the wheel are various items the charity needs – each with a value of $20. The “game” is that employees are asked to step up, “donate” $20 and spin the wheel to see how their donation will be spent.

It’s a clever game, and would probably work well before dinner at a fund-raising event, but is it appropriate for an office? How does an employee resist the peer pressure when other employees slap down one or more twenties to publicly show how much they support this charity.  What about when the boss looks at you with a raised eyebrow wondering why you haven’t “played the game” yet?

Here’s another … a normally “business professional” dress organization offers employees a chance to donate $5 per day to wear jeans one week.  In itself not a bad scheme, but then the manager steps up and says I will pay for four days for each employee and I expect you to pay for the fifth day.  Not, “if you choose to donate I’ll match you,” but  I EXPECT you to.  Now it’s not voluntary, it’s extortion.

As I said, I believe in charitable giving and encourage both organizations and individuals to do so as much as they can. I am perfectly okay with organizations encouraging donations and arranging for appropriate charities to educate employees about what that charity does and why they need financial support.  I’m even fine with organizations offering payroll deduction and other ways to facilitate taking money from employees to give to charities.  What I don’t like is any form of pressure or coercion.

I want people to give as much as they can afford to give – not as much as their manager thinks they should give.  I want them to give because they believe in the charity they are giving money to – not because they feel pressure from their peers or their boss to reach a corporate goal.  I never want someone to feel that their support (or lack of) will in any way influence their performance evaluation or career development.

As a leader – remember that charity begins at home. Help your employees to appreciate everything that they have – and everything they receive from the organization, but then let them make their own decisions about what they can afford to give away and who they give it to. 

A donation should be a gift, not a requirement.

Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Rodney King said it best, “People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along?” Mr. King was attempting to calm the Los Angeles riots that followed the acquittal of the police officers accused of using excessive force on Mr. King. Whether you have full-blown riot or just some disagreement between coworkers, those words seem to apply.

Conflict among coworkers in inevitable and, as I recently posted, not always bad. Conflict can help us to challenge the status quo and improve our processes. But sometimes conflict just gets in the way – it just makes us mad. Have you ever heard someone say “Why can’t he just leave me alone and let me do my job?” Or maybe, “Why does she always have to be checking on us?” The answer to these questions is almost always due to a lack of trust.

Trust is a two-way street. As a manager, I have to trust that my employees will do their jobs, to the best of their ability and do what’s best for the organization. At times that is hard to do. Maybe I’m concerned that the employee isn’t fully trained – so some additional oversight might be required to help fill in the gaps. Maybe the employee has made mistakes in the past so I feel I need to take steps to avoid repeating those mistakes. My need to make sure they do things right, while possibly fully justified, means that I don’t really trust them.

As an employee I have to trust that my manager is on my side. Sure, we have to do what’s best for the company, but if I’m concerned that my manager doesn’t “have my back” I can’t trust him not to blame problems on me or ask more of me than he asks of my coworkers – or himself.

Lack of trust between coworkers can even be more difficult – especially when those coworkers are both managers and where the performance of another department directly affects the performance of my department. Imagine this scenario – I manage a customer contact area, the customer is not pleased with the product, they blame my employees but the problem was caused by the other department. So maybe I need to try to “help” them avoid that error by making suggestions about how they could do things differently next time. Maybe I should give some friendly direction to the employees in the other department so they can perform better. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Now the other manger’s nose is bent out of shape because he thinks I should keep my nose out of his business. Our conflict, from his perspective, is all because I’m usurping his authority, questioning his integrity and undermining him to his employees. I think he’s way off base because I was just trying to help with a real complaint from “our” customer. This dance can go on and on – and won’t go away by itself.

One solution is to develop better job descriptions, standard operating procedures and more performance measures. Maybe I’ll also keep a log of every time he makes a mistake. Then, when this happens again I can point specifically to the other manager and say “see it was your fault!” Plus, if I should start poking around in his department he can pull out our job descriptions and prove to me that I’m trying to do his job and I should just stick to doing mine. That sounds like it would work, doesn’t it?

 No, it doesn’t work. All this accomplishes is to find new ways for us to snip at each other, further eroding trust and creating more conflict. What we probably need instead are some heart-to-heart conversations. First, some direct communication that the customer was not happy with the product. Then, an acknowledgment of the “mistake”, an apology and a pledge to try to avoid that situation in the future. Repeat this process as needed

It’s not easy to build and then maintain trust. It takes lots of communication, honesty and a willingness to work together. It takes empathy and sharing common goals. But in the end, without trust your organization will fail. If you have individuals that cannot trust, or cannot be trusted, they probably need to be encouraged to explore other opportunities.

If you have conflict, rather than try to document, track and log your way out of it, seek first to extend an olive branch and build trust. You can trust me on this.

The Word of the Day – Intentionality

It’s inevitable, isn’t it? The saying used to be that nothing was certain but death and taxes, but what is really certain is change. The rate of change is accelerating and is almost overwhelming. The year I was born, the Soviet’s launched Sputnik. The year I graduated from college Apple launched the personal computer. This year a talking computer stomped two very talented guys at Jeopardy. What’s next?

What’s funny though, is that as the rate of change has accelerated, so has the resistance to change. The saying should be; the more things change the more some people want them to stay the same. People love to hunker down, oblivious to the real world, and keep doing what they’ve always been doing just because they’ve always been doing it! It drives me crazy.

One of my favorite business buzzwords is intentionality. I like to make sure I’m doing things in manner that we’ve intentionally decided to do them. That may be just like we’ve always done them, or it may not. The key is that rather than accepting the status quo, I want to intentionally validate that this is the right process at the right time. As you might have guessed, sometimes other people don’t always like to see me coming. I hear you asking, so, if I’m constantly challenging people and processes, how do I keep from getting shot at on a regular basis? Predominately, because I am also very intentional about the change process.

Long ago I worked for a small insurance company that had a long history and tradition of serving their customers. The challenge was that a large number of employees framed every discussion based on what happened in the past. They continually celebrated their heritage without regard to their future. If you placed these people on a time line, standing on today, they would be always looking backwards at where they’d come from and they were not very interested in where they were going.  The future would take care of itself.

In contrast, that company had hired some new management who were challenged with opening new markets and growing the business. While they recognized the company’s history, they were all about tomorrow.  If you put them on the same time line, they always looked forward and forgot about the history like yesterday’s lunch. Not surprisingly there was some conflict in the organization.

What I realized was if, while standing on that timeline, both groups could take one step backwards, they’d then be looking at each other eye to eye. To be successful –meaning to implement some changes – the group needed to work together. They needed to learn to celebrate the past and to use those traditions to help shape the future. But, they also needed to learn to challenge what they were doing today – not to insult the past but to prepare for the future.

The lesson here is that change, just for the sake of change, is not always good. While we need to closely, and intentionally, evaluate processes and procedures, we don’t automatically need to change them. There may be some really good reasons that we do things the way we’ve always done them. Approaching everything with an open mind is the first step. Bring people from both camps together to forge the new solution. Start with agreeing on the goals surrounding the issue. Back to intentionality, answer the question – what is it we are really trying to accomplish? Once you’ve agreed to that you can tackle the harder part – how are we going to accomplish it? Look first at what you are currently doing. If there are deficiencies, identify ways to plug those gaps and build from there.

Back to the insurance company – we had one new manager who failed spectacularly. He came in like a helicopter gunship. He’d seen the future (someplace else) and what everyone needed to do was exactly what he told them to do and the company would thrive. They almost lynched him.

The secret here, as it is in life, is respect. Change is inevitable and constant. We can’t ignore it or fight it. We can however, make sure we use it, intentionally, to help us get our organizations to where they need to be.

The Pros and Cons of Conflict

I have a client who is experiencing some conflict between members of the management team – probably no big surprise there. To help resolve the issues, I’ve been interviewing each member of the team to get their perspective on both the causes and possible solutions. Again to no surprise, there is lack of consensus.

Some of the mangers would like a “rule” that says we don’t tolerate conflict. Others want a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for everything so that conflict can be resolved by going to the rule book. Finally, others want no rules and open conflict so that people can just figure it out. Who’s right – well, everyone.

Do you remember the Biosphere – that experiment in the dessert where a group of people were going to live in a giant glass building for several years, fully self-sufficient? It was a cool idea that it didn’t work for a variety of issues, but, here’s one cool story. They picked a tree for the biosphere specifically because of the way it grew. It was compact and strong and had an effective shape. But in the biosphere it grew erratically. Limbs were thin and long and the tree’s structure became unwieldy and eventually could not support itself. As they studied the problems the scientists concluded the reason the tree failed was that it was because there was no wind in the Biosphere. In the real world, wind gave the tree “exercise”, broke off weak branches and forced the tree to hold its shape. In the absence of wind, branches could grow wherever they wanted and the tree failed.

Conflict in an organization can be like wind in the trees. Conflict can cause us to challenge the status quo and look for improved solutions. Conflict can encourage us to ‘exercise’ our positions and evaluate our processes. Healthy conflict is required for an organization to be healthy. Imagine how boring life would be if everyone agreed on everything. We’d all watch the same movie, read the same book (we’d only need 1 of each) and wear the same clothes.

On the other hand (there’s always another hand, isn’t there?) conflict can be like a violent storm. It can cause healthy limbs to break and even uproot the entire tree. Unchecked conflict can kill an organization. So how does one manage conflict and get the healthy benefits while avoiding the nasty consequences? Here are a few suggestions.

1 – Seek it out. Conflict typically means that people are a) interested in the subject, b) have some passion about the subject, and c) have thought about what is best (from their perspective). Failure to have conflict means that people don’t care, are not prepared, or they all agree. None of these options will garner improvement.

2 – Keep it professional, not personal. Where conflict tends to get ugly is when the conflict devolves from “I don’t like your idea” to “I don’t like you.” When you can keep an open mind and understand the perspective from where another’s opinion comes from, you are more likely to keep the discussion from getting personal. Stephen Covey says “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” This is profound advice.

3- Acknowledge differences but commit to the group. At the end of a healthy discussion, sometimes you simply have to agree to disagree. Someone has to make a decision. At that stage, everyone has to move forward. Regardless of whether you supported the position during the discussion or not, once the decision is made, it’s time to put your opinion away and implement the solution. Being part of team means doing what the team has agreed to do, not harboring resentment that your position lost out.

Conflict is important to your organization’s success. Learn to master it, rather than avoid it, and your organization will grow stronger.

Why is Everyone Afraid of HR?

A few days ago I stopped at a local eatery to pick up lunch for the family.  While I was waiting for my order I happened to overhear parts of the conversation at the next table.  Two professional guys were having lunch and talking business.  What caught my ear was when one said “I need to get better at this HR stuff,” and the other replied, “Yeah, if you don’t you’ll get in real trouble.”

As I inadvertently eaves dropped over the next 10 minutes or so, I concluded that this was a manager and employee and they were in the middle of a performance review.  As a side note, I have to give them both kudos for doing a good job.  The manager was asking good open ended questions.  The employee was responding in what appeared to be an honest and self-aware fashion, pointing our areas he’d like to improve in. The manager was balancing encouragement and discussing areas that needed attention.  All in – one of the better performance review conversations I’ve eaves dropped on.

But again what struck me was that both of these guys seemed to either a) fully appreciate the complexities and importance of HR and were determined to do things right, or b) more likely they knew if they didn’t follow proper procedures there would be hell to pay.  I’ve heard people before talk about their HR departments in a way that suggested a “my way or the highway” approach.  I just don’t get that.

In a well-run company, the real HR managers are the line managers.  They are the ones interacting with employees on a regular basis, hiring, firing and managing performance and compensation.  In those companies the HR staff are “enablers”.  It’s HR’s job to make sure that the manager has the tools, training and support necessary to make good decisions.  HR provides transactional support, keeping the files, running payroll, administering benefits, etc. but the manager is the one making the decisions.

However, I know there are companies where that is not the case.  HR is involved in everything and no one makes any employee related decision with HR’s permission.  HR is both the keeper and the enforcer of “policy”.  When it comes to employee issues, HR says “jump” and managers say “how high?”  Let me tell you, that is just wrong.

Maybe the company had an incident in the past – possibly a lawsuit or a formal charge – and the executives decided that they are never going to let that happen again and put HR in charge.  Maybe turnover is high or productivity is low and the executives have decided that the fault lies with poor supervision. Rather than train or replace the supervisors they ask HR to play the role of Mommy or Daddy.

For almost every company I know, their employees truly are there most expensive asset and are either their competitive advantage or the cause of their problems.  To get the most out of employees, you don’t need stronger HR policies, you need better supervision.  HR’s role needs to be coach, counselor, trainer, or guide, not enforcer. 

First you need competent and confident HR professionals.  Then, you need to leave them alone to work their magic.  Let them help you transform the organization.  They’ll tell you who the good managers are – listen to them and train or replace the others.  They’ll tell you about problems with culture, benefits and compensation – heed their advice.  Use your HR team as a strategic force, not as disciplinarians.

HR should not be something to be feared.  It should be your right hand “man” in driving the corporate culture and improving overall performance.  If this isn’t how HR works for you, look at them closely, and look in the mirror.  One of you needs to change.

On Being Overqualified

Has anyone ever told you that you were “overqualified”?  Have you used that phrase to eliminate a job applicant?  What does overqualified really mean?

I can see both sides of the “overqualified” debate.  The basic premise is based in the belief that if I have a candidate that has significantly more experience than required by the position that I’m recruiting for, that candidate would not be happy in the job and will leave as soon as he/she finds a job more closely aligned with her/his experience. Then the hiring manager is forced to start the recruiting process all over again.  While I understand that argument, I’m not sure it is really holds water.

First, let’s talk about experience.  When recruiting you should look for talent, organizational fit and experience – in that order.  If you can find a person that has the talent you need and if their personality, style and capabilities fit well with the organization, the experience (too much or too little) will take care of itself.

Now, let’s challenge that hurdle of “they’ll just quit when they find a better job.”  My basic question is, “so what?”  How many people do you hire and really expect them to work in that position for the rest of their careers? How often do you hire someone who is minimally qualified and as soon as they get some real training and experience from you they move on to a bigger job someplace else?  Is the recruiting process really so onerous that you are willing to hire a less qualified candidate just so you won’t’ have to replace them in 6 months?  Is the job market really that strong that anyone you might hire will be able to find a better job in a short period of time?

On one hand I can see that you might not want to hire a former CFO to process your accounts payable transactions – but on the other hand why wouldn’t you?  Maybe when you have someone who understands the underlying principles behind what they are doing they will be more productive.  Maybe they’ll be able to help you improve the process and be more efficient.  Maybe they’ll be able to help you in other areas where a minimally qualified candidate will be consumed learning the basics of the job.

One reason I’ve seen the “overqualified” card played, is when the hiring manager was insecure and was afraid that a  well qualified subordinate might be a threat to his/her job security.  That might be true, but if so it will be the organization that benefits.  Don’t let a weak manager get away with hiring weak candidates just to make themselves look good.

The reality is that people accept new jobs for many different reasons.  Not everyone is trying to work their way up the career ladder or maximize their earnings.  There are very successful big-company executives that are tired of the corporate rat-race and would willingly take a smaller job that offered less stress and more opportunity to do the parts of the job they really love.  There are skilled and talented people who are willing to make less money in order to work for an organization they truly believe in. (This is the case for most not-for-profit managers who can usually take their talents to for-profit businesses for more money.)  I can go on and on, but the bottom line is there are many good and varying reasons that someone who is “overqualified” might want the job you are trying to fill and won’t be looking for a quick exit.

So, if you are screening applicants and come across someone who has more experience than you think you need, don’t be too quick to eliminate that candidate.  Look hard at what makes them overqualified and how you might be able to use that extra experience in your organization.  I’ve have not seen an organization yet that had too much talent.

Some Thoughts on Unions

The debacle in Wisconsin got me thinking – which side of that mess should I be on? You know the story – the Governor wanted to remove the collective bargaining rights from government workers – the Democrats ran to Illinois to try to stop him – they failed – now the citizens are trying to recall everyone – what a mess! One side will tell you that they are just trying to give “management” the flexibility they need to control spending. The other side will complain that they are walking on workers’ rights and trying to balance the budget on the backs of the common man. Who’s right? As is usually the case in highly publicized arguments, probably both of them.

Labor unions in the United States have done wonderful things for American workers. It is because of unions – and the force they could apply to both business owners and the government – they can take credit for the 40 hour work week (as opposed to working dawn to dusk), minimum wage, better benefits and safer working environments. As they say – a rising tide lifts all boats – and as unions won concessions from management those same advantages spilled into the non-union workforce. However, some will contend that the unions went too far. Unions are “blamed” for protecting poor performers, causing wages and benefits to rise to an unsustainable level and spending more dues on politics than on the members.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics published a study on union membership in January, 2011. Here is a link to their report, and here are some interesting observations:

• Union membership has declined to approximately 14.7 million workers or just under 12% of the workforce.
• Teachers and Protective Service Workers (aka Police and Firefighters) have the highest percentages of union membership (37% and 34% respectively) while sales and agriculture workers are the lowest at fewer than 4%.
• In terms of industries, public sector workers swamp all other contenders at 36%, with local governments hitting almost 46%. On the flip-side Finance and Food Service have only 1% union membership.
• Unions are strongest in New York (26% of workers) and Hawaii (23.5%) and weakest in North Carolina (4.9%) and Georgia (5.0%).
• Here’s what really surprised me – for all industries, jobs, etc. union members average almost 30% higher average weekly wage than non-union workers and for women, that gap jumps to 34%.

So back to Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, 15.1% of all workers are union members – a sizable chunk of the voter base, but not huge. But, if Wisconsin also has almost 50% of government workers in unions you can see where the conflicts might arise. Perhaps there is some merit to the pretense that those workers are being paid above-market compensation. Perhaps not – I don’t have the statistics to that detail – but it could make for an interesting discussion.

Why did unions become successful, because management was greedy, asked too much of workers and did not reward them sufficiently. What have we learned? Treat employees fairly, give them a safe work environment and pay them a competitive wage. If you do that there is no need for a union – and given my druthers, I’d rather be able to talk to my employees face-to-face rather than through a union rep.

Have a happy St. Patrick’s Day!

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine

What Not to Wear – In 44 Pages or Less

It’s all over the news.  Frank Jordans with the Associated Press said it better than I can,

“Good news for Swiss bankers: They may soon be allowed to wear red underwear, black nail polish — and even eat garlic. Swiss banking giant UBS AG said Monday [Jan 17, 2011] it is revising its 44-page dress code telling its Swiss staff how to present themselves, which generated worldwide ridicule for its micromanagement of their dressing and dining habits.  The code instructs employees on everything from their breath — no garlic or onions, please — to their underwear, which should be skin-colored”.

44 pages – who are they kidding?  I understand that employers want to ensure that their employees make an appropriate impression on their clients – but 44 pages?  Apparently this guide goes well past a dress code and becomes a full-fledged code of personal behavior with advice on repairing a run in your stockings and how to apply make-up.  By the way, wearing a watch is apparently the universal sign that you are punctual.

After this document leaked outside of UBS they apparently agreed it was too much and will be trimming it back.  My guess is that we’ll get down to 36 pages, but time will tell.

So, if 44 pages are too much, what should be in a dress code?  Should you alliterate everything your employees should and should not wear? Managers are often concerned that if the policy isn’t complete, employees will be all across the board with their dress.  I’m not convinced of that.

We recommend a very simple statement about personal appearance.  It needs to be appropriate for the business conditions.  From my simple Midwestern lack of fashion sense, I see business dress falling into 4 basic categories:

• Professional dress – jackets and ties for men, dresses or suits for women – pretty typical big-business dress.  No tuxedos or cocktail dresses but no open collars or sun dresses.
• Business casual – dress slacks, shirts with collars but no ties.  No jeans or flip-flops and still no sun dresses.
• Casual – jeans, tennis shoes, t-shirts (no vulgar printing please), shorts and sun dresses depending on the weather.
• Manufacturing – safety first – no tears or open toes, steel-toes as appropriate, still nothing vulgar.

Does it need to be more specific than that?  I’m sure there is a code for health care professionals – who wears white coats and who wears scrubs – and there are also many places with “uniform” requirements, but for most of us, 44 paragraphs are too much, much less 44 pages.

I can hear some of you grumbling – you want more – but what should take the place of a detailed dress code?  How about 2 things – a well communicated reason that employees should dress in an “appropriate” manner and consistent communication?  If an employee’s appearance is out of line – tell them.  Don’t make a big deal out of it, don’t tease them publicly, and don’t send them home to change (unless it’s truly egregious).  Just have a quiet conversation that restates why it’s important to dress “appropriately” and point out how their current appearance does not meet the company’s expectations.

Keep it simple, keep it personal, and, if I’m King of World, we’ll outlaw flip-flops other than on the beach.  But that’s a whole different story.

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine

Defining Delegation

Delegate is one of those words with a foot in two (or more) very different worlds.  Since most of my readers are business people, the definition that probably comes to mind is the act of assigning a task to another person.  But the root of the word – Delegate – comes first from the noun – meaning “a person designated to act for or represent another or others; deputy; representative, as in a political convention.” (Thank you, dictionary.com.)

When most managers do what they call “delegation” it might better be described as “abdication”.  Now (back to Dictionary.com) to abdicate is “to renounce (a throne, power, responsibility, rights, etc), especially formally”. In current parlance abdicate is like saying “not my job” or better yet, “put the monkey on someone else’s back.”  Am I getting to high-brow here?

Here’s the issue.  Too often managers assign a task to a subordinate and walk away. They think they’ve delegated the task, but in really they’ve simply dumped their problem in someone else’s lap.  They have abdicated any responsibility to ensure that the task is completed properly and on time.

Let’s go back to the definition of delegation.  If you were going to appoint someone to act on your behalf, would you simply toss them a hot-potato and walk away?  No.  You’d first want to make sure they were fully qualified and capable to do the task at hand.  You’d then want to make sure they completely understood the objective – the “why” behind the “what”.  And then you’d want to stay in touch with them to know how they are doing, if they need additional support, and if they are acting in your best interest.

In his famous time-management system Stephen Covey talks about delegation.  If you have an item on your task list and you delegate it to another, you don’t get to strike the item off of your list.  You are instructed to carry it on the list until it’s completed.  Just because you’ve delegated the task, doesn’t mean you’ve also walked away from the responsibility to ensure that the task gets properly completed.

I was working with a leader recently who was expressing frustration and feeling like he was being forced to become a micro-manager.  He was delegating tasks to a subordinate who was not doing things the way the leader wanted them done, so the leader was feeling the need to take the tasks back and do them himself.  (Sounds like abdication doesn’t it?)  We talked about the situation and the leader admitted that he had not spent time with the subordinate, ensuring that they both agreed on the reason for the tasks and the larger objective they were trying to achieve. They found they were defining success in very different ways.  Through a little more conversation and a little less “throw the grenade over the wall” the subordinate became much more successful and the leader could spend more time leading and less time micro-managing.

So, before you “delegate” something, think about asking this person to “represent you to others” and see if that changes your perspective.

Happy Valentine’s Day to my wife, daughter, granddaughter and mother – those women who give meaning to my life.

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine