It was a lazy weekend for me. A couple of interviews (and no - I am not looking for work) and a bit of email clean up, budget work and numbers review but other than that, not much happened. I did run 10K today but not in a race.
Tonight I have been thinking about delegation. I know in order to grow, I need to delegate. I know the theory of "delegate anything that someone else can do significantly easier, faster or less expensively than I can". I know the theory of "include the why, not just the what needs doing".
The thinking I am doing is on what is appropriate for me to delegate? What resources I have to delegate to? I am thinking of approaches to the challenge. I am going to monitor my time use for a week or so to see what things I might be able to delegate appropriately.
Sometimes in delegation, there is a learning time for the delegatee (if that is a word). So I have to consider that in my analysis. One thing that can stop my growth is not accepting that others can often do something better than me (even though it is not neccessarily to same as I would have done it). Or more challenging is sometimes letting go of my standard and accepting something less. Perfectionism can kill growth. They key is finding the balance.
So right now, no answers, just thinking and analysing.
I often hear one of my staff say they have no one to delegate to since no one works for them. They can delegate to peers, to suppliers, to customers or to the person they work for or people in other departments or me. They key is appropriate delegation. Sometimes I can solve a problem with a quick call that might take them hours.
So my time tip tonight is to look at what you might have that you can delegate.
I'm in the military and one of the kickbacks from the ancient times is our classist distinction between "Officers" and the "ranks" or enlisted men.
ReplyDeleteWhile it may seem anquitarian, when an officer has command of an entire unit: the more he delegates, the better he is doing his job. The less actual "work" he does, and the more overseeing/managing/detailing the better... because that's what the officer is for, and work is what the "men" are for.
The leaders at the top have the big picture and direct work... but performing work just detracts from their higher obligations. Its not a universal truth, but it applies in general situations.
I think the military model applies very well to the corporate entitity... while inherintly capitalist in its exterior motives, a company is inwardly a hierarchical "socialist" organisation like a military... at least in modern times.