Did I Delegate or Did I Abdicate?

Let the system manage accountability

Most of us who have been in leadership roles for awhile understand the importance of delegating. It’s simply a matter of leverage: The more we delegate, the more gets done. But sometimes we get confused. We think we are delegating, when in fact, we are abdicating. What’s the difference?

Delegate: To entrust a task or responsibility to another person. Abdicate: To fail to do what is required by a duty or responsibility.

For me, one question defines the difference: At what point in the process will I know if my expectations were met? If the answer is, “At the end,” or maybe, “Not until there is a serious problem or a disaster,” I have abdicated, not delegated.

Hm... I guess that means if my intention is to delegate, I must take the following five actions:
1. Clearly outline my expectations.
2. Check in to see if my expectations were understood.
3. Agree how both progress and outcome will be monitored and measured.
4. Agree when and how progress will be reported.
5. Agree when and how progress will be evaluated and adjustments made.

…

Want to continue?

By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.

Create a FREE account

Forgot My Password

Comments

Red Bead Experiment

Although your comment about tieing compensation to performance and publicly posts activity reports was not the cruxt of your article, you may find studying Deming's Red Bed Experiment interesting.

How can a sales person outperform a system? Do metrics of the outcomes of sales really tell you who is "performing"?

Individual "accountability" will eventually lead each sales person to do whatever it takes for each of them to meet their personal goal at the expense of the system.

Thank you, Dirk van Putten

More on Individual Accountability and Outperforming the System

In a timely coincedence, in today's Quality Digest David Schwinn ("Statistical Thinking for Everyone") writes about tying compensation to indivudal performance as a method of "accountability. This can be related to the Red Bead Experiment.

From David Schwinn:

A lack of understanding of Myron Tribus’ Perversity Principle led 44 out of 56 schools in the Atlanta area to change test answers with 11 teachers being convicted of misdoing; and more recently, Wells Fargo’s opening of new accounts for its customers without its customers’ permission or even knowledge. As a reminder, Tribus stated: “If you try to improve the performance of a system of people and machines by setting numerical goals and targets for their performance, the system will defeat you and you will pay a price where you did not expect it.” (Myron Tribus and Yoshikazu Tsuda, “The Quality Imperative in the New Economic Era,” Quality First, National Institute for Engineering Management & Systems, 1992).

Amazon’s rate, rank, and fire strategy resulted in an average employee tenure of one year. General Electric, well known for that strategy years ago, stopped doing it during the last few years after understanding the negative repercussions of the strategy. These practices obviously indicate a lack of knowledge about common cause variation vs. special cause variation.

300,000 veterans supposedly in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs system may have died at least in part because of the common understanding of the Perversity Principle: the principle that rewarding or punishing people for performance that lies beyond the system’s capability to perform will generate negative outcomes. Again, “the system will defeat you and you will pay a price where you did not expect it.”