A popular idea in business over recent decades is that employees should be given “ownership” of the decisions they are charged with carrying out. It is believed that this will better distribute the actual intent of the decision throughout the organization, and enhance the energy and efficiency of its execution.
There certainly is nothing wrong with developing those latter characteristics. But as with so many decent ideas, this one is often undermined by insufficient or improper understanding and implementation. The principle error is incurred by those who get carried away with the idea of “ownership” of the decision.
For example, a popular graph has it that the more important the decision, the larger should be the group that makes it. It contrasts “authoritarian” decision making with consensus-building.
But the negative connotation imputed to the term “authority” confuses the matter. The clarity of its presence provides the friction necessary to enable action that is vital to the functioning of any organization. And for all that, it can be delegated widely, as well.
What can’t be delegated is responsibility. And that is what is at the crux of the matter. Managers are hired to make decisions, and they own the responsibility for them, not employees. There is no escaping this.
There is great value in taking the approach that the more vital a decision is, the more important it is to open discussion of it to as wide an audience as is practical given all the factors inherent in the decision-making situation. Cast a wide net for input, particularly from people who know the ground where the decision will be implemented, understand the real nature of its day-to-day impact, and, yes, who will be called upon to carry it out.
But then you should settle down for the work you were hired to do: make the decision, and execute it. You can attribute much of this to the valuable input of your staff, but never use that as an excuse to shift any responsibility for it or its implementation to them.
The popular decision-maker scoping graphs have it wrong: the more vital the issue, the smaller and more senior the decision-making body should be. You are the manager. You can give your employees authority related to the decision, but you can never evade responsibility for it.
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of intelligent ways to inform decisions, please see Beth Robinson‘s description of how to do product design research.
—
Did you know that as a subscriber to this blog (by either RSS reader or email), you are entitled to a FREE download (.pdf format, 344KB) of the first chapter from Jim’s critically-acclaimed book, Managing Leadership? Download your free chapter now! (Even if you haven’t subscribed, yet – download it anyway! – (and then subscribe!))
Technorati Tags: business, employee, ownership, decision, organization, execution, authoritarian, decision making, authority, responsibility, manager, Beth Robinson
Sphere: Related Content
4 Comments
What can’t be delegated is responsibility. Clearly. And the first responsibility of the leader is to “decide how to decide”. Complexity is just one variable. Time is another. How much commitment or compliance you need is a third. There’s no “best way” to make decisions.
“Because the degree of participation that makes sense will vary from decision to decision.”
- from To Do or Not To Do: How Successful Leaders Make Better Decisions
Hello Eric,
Thanks for stopping in with this. You are right to point out that decision-making isn’t a fixed, lineal process that can be applied to any situation, but one composed of factors that rotate in and out of position and values that inflate or recede in influence according to the circumstances giving rise to and surrounding the decision-making event.
Thanks for emphasizing this – and for your work and writing on the topic as well.
Love your blog, Jim!
I think it is important for employees to make decisions. In fact, I see a lot of employees who want to make the decision. The challenge I see is accountability…
Many people want to make the decision and they want to own the positive outcomes. Many do not want to own the negative outcomes.
There are employees who are “all in” and there are “posers”. Those that are “all in” own the intent, execution, AND the results (good AND bad).
“Posers” just want to see their name in lights…
Unfortunately, there are a lot of “posers” out there muddying the water.
Hello Chris,
Thank you for your visit and your kind words.
You make a perfectly valid point, one that requires elaboration. My concern in this post was not to wall off employees from engagement, or to restrict the reach of delegation, but to argue against the faddish relinquishing of responsibility by managers thoughtlessly following certain types of advice.
Your reference to the cynical way this sometimes plays out in action is also insightful.
I think you’ve given me another post, or two, here – thanks!
2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] 5. Managing Leadership’s blog has a must-understand-the-principle post on the value of responsibility. You can delegate just about anything, but you cannot delegate the overall responsibility. See if you agree with THIS POST. [...]
[...] has just published a new Leadership Development Carnival. I am certainly gratified to find that a recent post from these pages has been featured on it, but am especially pleased to have access to the really valuable resources [...]
Post a Comment