growth, on delegating 10 % of workload alone, is almost £300 billion per annum.
So if you were wondering how this book got its title, there you are.
For those who like the greater explanation, here's your bit:
Mastering the art of delegation is so much more than that, more than ‘just’ more money. There is much written on delegation in many media and forms and I'm sure I've only touched the very outside in my own reading. What I've seen, though, doesn't differ from the bits of delegation theory that I read when I studied for my MBA. It's absolutely right in its content but it's less compelling if it isn't clear why you might partake. Let me expand here, because this is the nub of the justification of one whole book dedicated to the single subject of delegation.
In a corporate sense, I often find it's simply a management skill that is expected, sits theoretically in the lower echelons of the managerial skill set and yet is rarely taught or trained in. Less, or even never, is it valued as a benefit to the organization in financial or managerial terms. In my experience, it is usually positioned as a skill which benefits team motivation; trite acronyms accompany an expectation that rank will facilitate necessary delegation. ‘I am more senior, therefore I will pass my workload to you and you will enjoy and feel motivated by the additional responsibility because it says you are trusted and worthy.’ I'm simplifying and exaggerating to make a point here, but the MBA I studied didn't give much more than this, to be honest.
It took some time for me to realize I had been in the business of delegation for well over a decade; sharing my secretary with others to save costs led to a small business that was established in 2001 not just surviving, but still going strong well into its second decade. Every visit to that office reinforces the relief that business owners and department managers must or would feel when they hear those words, ‘Leave it with me, I'll sort it out for you.’ It makes my heart dance. Even more so when the person being delegated to loves the prospect of helping out by doing work they love.
There is a hugely pleasant feeling that accompanies successful delegation but it is most definitely a habit and, for some people, it's a bit like developing the habit of exercise or going to the gym. It takes effort to break the barrier of not delegating and doing it for oneself. Overcome that barrier and the upside worms its way into the psyche, which makes it addictive because the benefits are so evident.
I focus a lot on time being the biggest benefit of delegation, with the proviso that what you do with it is the ergo benefit(s). However, as delegation always works laterally, it is possible to collaborate and redistribute work according to who is good at, or loves, doing certain things, so it can also mean that you get to do more of what you're great at and presumably love doing most.
In addition, it means that you're surrounded by people who are doing the stuff that you're not good at, and we know that that is a winning strategy. Always get someone who is better than you to do stuff for you: it means a better job gets done – if ever there was a no-brainer, how much encouragement do you need?
Either way, delegation means you get to fill more of your time with stuff you want to do, as opposed to being overwhelmed with things you don't like doing so much, which therefore take longer to do and longer to mentally move away from once done, and in doing so cost even more time. That's a mouthful, but it's true.
This book is intended to get the message out there that sharing, or in other words delegating downwards, upwards and sideways, is good for us individually, as a family, as a team, as a small business, as a department, as a big business and thus as an economy. I don't think we do it enough, I don't think we're taught how to do it or that it is a good thing to do and I'm hoping this book, the accompanying online programme and the available workshops help to change that.
Good luck. Delegate and grow.
Part One
INTRODUCING DELEGATION
1
THE DEFINITION OF DELEGATION
Most people walk around with knowledge of many words and probably wouldn't feel a need to look them up in a dictionary. I only looked up the verb ‘delegate’ myself for the sake of clarity at the beginning of a workshop I was about to deliver. I almost didn't recognize the word from its definition. In fact, I realized that the word's meaning had changed and that it was time to revisit the notion of delegation with a fresh pair of eyes, to revisit this often ignored – though always expected – skill of a manager.
The strict definition as written in the Oxford English Dictionary is:
To delegate vb the act of transferring or handing over work to another person usually more junior than oneself.
This was probably highly appropriate and factually correct during the fifties, sixties and maybe even seventies, when a secretary was often the equivalent of an ‘office wife’, the ‘boss’ was more-often called by title and surname and subordinates by their first or surname only. Management status was cherished and the notion of rank still fresh from the post-war era. The eighties perpetuated the notion of delegation as a one-way process, the sometimes-aggressive dumping of often less attractive tasks to a junior.
The characteristic excess and status-led attitude of the yuppie years gave way to a much more sensitive and somewhat politically-correct era which led to a far greater consideration of managerial relationships and the dynamics of emotional intelligence being applied in the workplace.
In addition, during this time, essentially from the nineties onwards, we have seen an explosion in technological advancement. Though the eighties was the beginning of the mobile phone era, the nineties saw the rise of email and electronic communication, and thereafter and through the noughties, we have seen the rise of social networking sites and more latterly the (largely worldwide) addition of smartphones.
Smartphones have to a great extent imprisoned us in a world of infomania, whereby the phone has become a constant companion, less a phone for many and more a device that makes unqualified demands on our time. As a consequence it is a huge distraction, often dragging highly-paid and highly-qualified professionals and business people into a time-wasting mire of deletion and (often over-zealous, ill-considered) speedy responses. Of course, emails, social media and the Internet are hugely valuable too, but their impact on delegation, in the strict sense of the word, has been dramatic.
Think back to the archetypal image of a secretary who, for the sake of stereotypical accuracy, we will say was female. Her role was to take down dictation, type up letters and memos (remember them?), often she would draft replies to letters and memos herself, in her boss's style for him to edit and/or sign. For him, his communication schedule was controlled and limited: the post came in and was prioritized for his attention by his secretary. Communiqués requiring urgent attention were pushed under his nose, with or without suggested replies. He studied them, decided how to act, dictated or directed a responsive action to his secretary (reply, meeting, delegation to another or ignore) and got on with other things until she had something to report. Note then that he was not constantly checking for replies or in fact able to directly communicate quickly or instigate prolonged, often instant, discussion on a matter.
Clearly this scenario rarely exists today, but its historic place in our, actually quite recent view, of delegation remains true. Fast forward even to the nineties and I would argue that secretaries were far more likely to be in charge of the email inbox, responding on behalf of their managers, deleting, prioritizing, replying and taking action where appropriate, precisely as a result of the legacy of a life and role prior to the emergence of electronic communication.
My point here is not to make or even attempt to make a social study on the impact that the digital age has had on our lives
