As I assigned a task to a junior colleague, questions flooded my mind. Should I step back and let them handle it, or should I stay closely involved? This decision turned out to be harder than I expected. After leading various teams for about 10 years, I'd like to share my thoughts on how to choose between delegation and close collaboration.
Delegation Works When You Think Alike
The right time to delegate is when your thinking aligns with the other person's in the big picture. When this alignment exists, you can expect things to run smoothly without much friction.
But can two people really think the same way? I don't think that's possible. We're humans, not machines. We can never think identically—we can only make similar choices and express ourselves in similar ways.
That's why delegation works best when you entrust tasks to someone who makes judgments similar to yours. At least in the organizations I've managed, this has held true. When I delegated to people who shared my perspective, the results fell within expected bounds. When I didn't, both parties ended up struggling.
So how do you find such people?
Love Makes Us Alike
Have you ever heard the saying that people who love each other grow to resemble one another? It actually seems to be true. They become similar not just in personality and speech patterns, but even in appearance. This happens because they spend so much time facing each other, looking at each other, and talking. In fact, our vocal cords respond to the sounds we hear, our facial muscles mirror the expressions we see, and our hearts are moved by the emotions of those beside us.
Why am I bringing this up? Because the person who thinks and expresses themselves similarly to you might not be someone you need to find and recruit—they could become that way through your existing colleagues. Loving your colleagues, inspiring them, and being inspired by them in return. All of these interactions might be the process of cultivating people who share your sensibilities. In a way, this could be the key to helping people grow.
Of course, people's core nature doesn't change easily. But there are certainly aspects that can shift depending on circumstances. Isn't MBTI a good example? How boring would it be to live a 100-year life locked into one of just 16 personality types? There's nothing quite as thrilling as watching people change, grow, and be transformed.
What about the opposite scenario?
When Close Collaboration Is Necessary
With people who are truly different from you, you need more frequent and closer communication. Acknowledging that you and I are different—that's where it starts.
Here's an important point. As a leader, you can't surround yourself only with people similar to you. Rather, you must be able to embrace those who are different. Teams become stronger when people with diverse perspectives and capabilities come together. And embracing different people requires more communication, more attention, and more love. What you can convey to a similar person in one conversation might take ten conversations with someone different. This process might feel tedious, but I believe it's the burden a leader must bear.
If things begin without sufficient groundwork, both parties will struggle tremendously. This is because expectations exist. When baseline standards differ, personal values and perspectives can diverge sharply. Add a lack of communication to that, and expectations start being mistaken for given facts.
"Shouldn't someone at this level just figure it out?" "Shouldn't a team lead at least know what I'm working on?"
Rather than assigning blame, these situations arise because neither party successfully communicated their position to the other.
If a leader hastily delegates in such a relationship, it can lead to uncontrollable outcomes. I've seen cases where it devolved into outright neglect. The line between delegation and neglect is razor-thin. It depends on how much effort you've put into understanding the work.
So what constitutes sufficient effort?
Who Sets the Standard for Effort?
The absolute amount of effort shouldn't be measured by your own standards. The real measure is how much the other person trusts you. Only when your effort reaches and is felt by the other person will they begin to move—and that's when things truly start.
From a leader's perspective, delegating without this process is, in my view, neglect. No matter how well you understand the work, the perspective from the operational level can be entirely different. Even if you think you've communicated enough, if the other person doesn't feel that way, your effort is still insufficient.
This is why leaders who are too skilled at hands-on work can be dangerous in their own way. Because they understand the work so well, they tend to skip explanations, assume too many things are obvious, and that gap can feel frustrating to team members. Understanding the work and conveying that understanding effectively are two separate competencies.
Conversely, the process of effectively communicating what you do is equally important. I'm not saying to create work for work's sake, or to play politics. Instead of dwelling on "Why is my team lead asking me to do this?", try thinking "Why did they come to make this request?" Eventually, the reason will become clear. If it makes sense, do it. If it doesn't, exchange opinions or officially raise the issue. Silence is the worst approach.
In summary, what matters is whether there's an atmosphere where such conversations can happen without silence, and whether there's an environment where issues can be officially raised. Since this too falls under the leader's responsibility, the leader's role is significant throughout the entire process.
In the future, we may see a social culture where people work alone. For hands-on leaders, this could actually be an opportunity. They can fulfill an entire team's role by themselves. Not many people can work this way. Shouldn't companies create cultures and environments where such individuals can operate like special forces?
What, ultimately, is the endpoint of leadership? I believe it's creating a state where you can delegate 100%. People who share your sensibilities, people who are different but whom you've embraced and grown alongside, and people who are better than you. When you can appropriately distribute work among these various individuals and fully entrust it to them, only then can a leader begin to see the bigger picture. There's no right answer in the space between delegation and hands-on involvement. But continuously checking how well you understand the other person, and whether that understanding is being conveyed to them, while moving toward that endpoint—that's the standard I've found for myself.
Top comments (0)