CHAPTER THREE
Getting Things Done through Others
“One ping-pong ball!” the wild-haired street performer cried out to the crowd. He placed the ping-pong ball in his mouth, popped it up in the air, caught it in his mouth, popped it up in the air, and caught it in his mouth again. We clapped politely.
One of my favorite memories of growing up in the Bay Area is visiting San Francisco. Compared to my suburban sameness, the city pulsated with life, especially the stretch of real estate between Pier 39 and Ghirardelli Square.
One summer evening some friends and I joined thousands of other visitors to the wharf, cooling off in the evening breeze of the bay and enjoying various street performers: The Human Jukebox, The Living Statue, marionettes, magicians, and mimes. We stopped at one particular act crowded in a tiny square where a hundred or so people circled around a makeshift stage.
“Two ping-pong balls!” came the next proclamation. And as he had done previously, the performer put two ping-pong balls in his mouth, popped one in the air, and then the other, catching each in turn, popping them up and catching them again in his mouth two or three more times. We clapped enthusiastically.
“Three ping-pong balls!” he shouted to unbelieving ears. In went the orbs and up they went into the evening sky, landing one by one back in the mouth of the performer. Then back in the air, back in his mouth, back in the air, and back in his mouth again.
We clapped and cheered wildly.
“Now I will do the most amazing trick ever,” the man with the hair said. And we believed him too. I don’t think any of us could get three ping-pong balls in our mouth, let alone juggle them by spitting them up in the air.
“I will make you all disappear!”
Out came a big hat and a request for money. Pareto would have been proud that day; only a small percentage of those who enjoyed the show put anything in the hat, and the rest moved on to the next oddity.
A BUSINESS CASE FOR GETTING THINGS DONE THROUGH OTHERS
Yes, it’s fun to be applauded by others for performing amazing acts of leadership. It feels good to be held in high regard for our special talents and abilities. But at the end of the show, where has it gotten us? Nowhere. An overwhelming majority of people walk away to watch the next show. A few throw some money at us. And no one stays to tear down the stage, clean up the square, and learn the skills that make us good at what we do.
Herein lies the irony of leadership. We think we are leading when we’re on the stage in front of others. We think we are leading when we are doing things no one else can do. We think we are leading when the applause is loud and the cheers are louder. But leadership is not about the leader. Leadership is about the followers.
As a leader, it is irrelevant what we can do better than anyone else and the accolades we collect. What is relevant is how we motivate others. How we bring them in from the crowd and mobilize them from being passive observers to being active participants. And then, leadership is what happens when we step away from the stage. Does the show keep going? Does performance stay at the highest levels of excellence?
“Getting things done through others is a fundamental leadership skill. Indeed, if you can’t do it, you’re not leading,” declares Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan in Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done. (Bossidy and Charan, 2002, page 125)
Leaders typically fall into two categories related to this activity, according to Bossidy and Charan. There are those who smother their people, micromanaging them in such a way that all initiative and creativity is stifled. An associate being led in this way spends more time getting her manager off her back than getting to the task at hand. Others abandon their people in the name of delegation. With this sink-or-swim approach to leadership, their associates receive very little instruction or follow-through. As a result, everyone is disappointed when the outcome does not meet expectations. “Both types,” conclude Bossidy and Charan, “reduce the capabilities of their organizations.”
The smothering approach to delegation, or oversupervision, is an attempt to deliver results by driving people. But driving is not leading and produces high turnover, low morale, and poor performance. The reality of these consequences are often masked by an initial increase in output. A driver will frequently get immediate improvement followed by an inexplicable drop in performance as everyone tires of the tone and transfers out of that department. This leader is then moved laterally within the organization—no one knows what to do with him or doesn’t want to cross him—often repeating the same scenario over and over again.
A leader who reacts to oversupervision by undersupervision, or abandonment, ironically reaps the same results. A lack of communication around expectations breeds frustration as things don’t get done right. Associates feel a distinct lack of leadership while the manager remains in a fog, clinging to the belief that good leaders don’t micromanage their people. When questions and problems are brought to his attention, the leader responds with enthusiastic cheerleading, “I believe in you! You can do it!,” fully committed to a nondirective model of delegation. As the angst due to lack of clarity and accountability grows, so does turnover and disengagement, producing, again, poor performance and low morale.
The drama continues when the leader who undersupervises trades places with the leader who oversupervises, and vice versa. Stung from the effects of abandonment, a previously laissez-faire leader now becomes a tyrant, inserting himself into every detail of planning and dominating every discussion. The micromanager, on the other hand, stung perhaps from the results of a recent 360, tries something new as well and backs off his people entirely, providing no direction or accountability. Back and forth the pendulum swings, destroying both personal and organizational capacity along the way.
This is why when you mention the word “delegation” in a business setting, people snicker under their breath. “Delegation . . . yeah . . . right,” they say to themselves. “I tried that and it didn’t work.” But delegation does work when done right. More important, delegation must work or we are stuck doing, or redoing, everything ourselves; juggling ping-pong balls, so to speak.
PAR: A NEW APPROACH TO DELEGATION
The secret to getting things done through others is having a system that allows for both freedom and accountability. This system must be able to clarify expectations up front and provide opportunity for input from those involved in completing the task. There must also be flexibility in the system to allow for midcourse corrections, reworking the plans if necessary. That is the system we propose here captured in the acronym PAR.
P—Plan
With business happening at the speed of light, most of what passes for delegation is not delegation at all. It is dumping: “Hey Jan, could you do this for me, please? Thanks!” Jan, eager to get ahead and look good in front of her boss, accepts the job, even though she has no idea what the job entails. The more time goes by, the more frustrated and confused Jan gets, but manages to actually get something done. Unfortunately, the work Jan does in no way resembles what Jan’s boss had in mind, and, instead of giving Jan another chance with better instructions, Jan’s boss takes the job away from her, fiercely determined to never delegate anything again, a least not to Jan!
There is a very simple solution to this problem. Effective delegation begins by making a plan that asks and answers four critical questions:
WHO is going to do WHAT by WHEN and HOW (and not how)? Jan’s boss could have easily taken a few minutes to address these questions and co-create a plan with her. It would have saved hours of frustration on Jan’s part and eliminated the need for the boss to redo that work.
By asking WHO, the specific people related to the project are clearly identified. Other people who could help Jan, in addition to her boss, are listed. Perhaps a small team could be formed to work together on the project.
By asking WHAT, the task at hand is defined. So many times what a manager has in mind for a project and what his associate has in mind are two totally different things. This is what happened to Jan. Addressing WHAT allows everyone to clearly understand the things that need to get done in very concrete terms. Ironically, most bosses, when they delegate a project, haven’t thought through in specific terms what that project is all about. They just need for something to get done. Asking WHAT solves this problem.
WHO is going to do WHAT seems so elementary, but endless confusion exists in the workplace around these two simple issues.
“I thought you were doing that!” a surprised employee exclaims.
“No, I was assigned this, you were assigned that,” comes the reply.
“No, Jan was assigned this. You were supposed to do the other thing.”
Have you ever had a conversation like this? A lack of clarity is what caused it.
Added to these first two questions, WHO and WHAT, is a third question, by WHEN? That is, what are the specific dates and deadlines for the project?
“Get it done sometime!” is not good enough because sometime will magically become now in a matter of days. When sometime becomes now we drop everything to do it, leaving other things that are perhaps more important undone. Do you see the vicious cycle that emerges when we don’t ask the WHEN question? Clarity about timing is critical to world-class performance.
WHEN must be asked regarding two things: the ultimate deadline and intermediate deadlines. The ultimate deadline is the date when the project needs to be completed in its entirety. Intermediate deadlines, also known as milestones, are simple checkpoints along the way that ensure a project is kept on track. These dates must be achievable; unrealistic deadlines are as bad as no deadlines at all. But when the realism of the time line is established, the targets must be placed in everyone’s calendar and adhered to rigorously.
Again, most managers do not think with clarity regarding the WHEN of the jobs they delegate. For many, it’s not in their natural makeup. “Just do it!” may be okay for Nike, but it’s not okay for business. Taking the time to think about timing issues at the start of a project brings amazing clarity to the table and, in the end, produces a better product and results in more effective leadership.
The final planning question is HOW (and not how). Some tasks have certain steps of action that work best in getting them done. Determine up front what they are by asking HOW. This list does not need to be exhaustive, but a clear set of best practices at the start of any project ensures its success. Conversely, sometimes there are things that should not be done in completing a project. Associates new to a job often don’t know what they are; even seasoned veterans can forget. Asking (and not how) allows people to recognize these potential pitfalls and avoid them.
Please note that these four questions should be asked and answered by all parties involved in the delegation process. Getting things done through others is a co-creative process. Leaders, however well-intentioned, who come up with a plan in their office and hand it to their associates, will fail.
• First, they will fail in engaging their associates. The dialogue and discussion around these four questions allows people to own the project and commit to its completion.
• Second, a fully authored plan says subtly, “I know everything there is to know about this. Don’t give me any input.” There is no leader alive who knows everything there is to know. Asking questions right at the start allows for all perspectives to be heard and will uncover issues that may never have been considered. Initiate delegation by having conversations around the four questions, either one on one or in a group. Enjoy rigorous discussion and debate, iron sharpening iron.
• Then write down the answers in a paragraph or two, no more than one page. What you will have at the end of this process is a co-created delegation plan that everyone owns.
Remember the old Fram® oil filter commercial? In it, a gritty mechanic growls, “You can pay me now or you can pay me later.” The point of that commercial was that you can spend a few dollars on a clean oil filter from Fram® now or thousands of dollars on a new engine later. The same is true for effective delegation. You can spend a few minutes establishing a clear plan for a project up front, or you can spend hours fixing it after it is screwed up. The point of the four questions is not to get bogged down in detailed analysis, but to set some basic parameters at the outset of a project. After all, it is so much easier to prevent fires than to put them out.
A—Act with Authority
With a one-paragraph, or no more than a one-page, project plan, those on the receiving end of delegation can take action. Here too, however, some up-front clarity is critical.
First, a person must know the nature of the authority they have to act with. A person may be asked to gather information, taking no action with it. A joint decision then can be made about the information, or a decision will be made by another group entirely, perhaps senior management. Clearly you don’t want someone acting independently when all they are being asked to do is gather data. This must be communicated up front by identifying this first level of authority: INFORMATION.
This authority level is also good for early stages of training, like having a salesperson work on her phone-calling script and bringing it to you before she begins making calls. The associate is free to act within the parameters of the assignment, work on the script, but not free to begin making phone calls. Working on the script is INFORMATION only. Again, up-front clarity about this serves both the manager and the associate.
There may be times when you want a person to act, but to check in with you first. This is the authority level of COLLABORATION. There is a variety of reasons why this level of authority might be chosen for an assignment. The reason may be that one person is doing one part of a project and another person the other and the only way for it to be completed is by connecting them. Or an associate might be in the intermediate stages of training and you want to stay in touch, like having an associate make 20 calls with her sales script and talking with you briefly afterward about how they went. This is COLLABORATION : taking some action, talking about it, and taking some more action.
The third level of authority is EXECUTION. Unlike the first two levels of authority, this level says to an associate, “Take action and tell me what you did.” This is what most leaders have in mind when they think of delegation, and it is unfortunate. First, the third level of authority should be reserved for those who have the knowledge and experience necessary for independent action. Apart from that foundation, delegation truly feels like dumping, or perhaps a drive-by shooting, where an associate is riddled with a long list of things do while the manager drives away to the next victim.
Conversely, there are those leaders who do not recognize the knowledge and experience of their associates and fail to release projects at this level of authority. These smothering managers need to recognize that responsibility must be given with authority, and, if a person has proven himself, he must be given the freedom to act with the authority that is appropriate to his experience.
A second point of clarity in this step is the specific time frame in which a person can act with authority. Here too is where drive-by delegation fails us. Every task that is assigned, even with the authority level of EXECUTION, must have a checkpoint where the actions taken are followed up on. The well-worn adage, inspect what you expect, is so rarely followed. All actions should be assigned with established checkpoints when a leader asks, simply and politely, if what was expected actually got done. You may choose a time frame of one, two, three, or four weeks, or a time frame of one, two, or three months. Always, always, set the expectation that all delegated activities will be followed up on, if nothing more than having that person send you an e-mail when it’s done.
For urgent tasks or inexperienced associates, the time frame may be within a week or two. For long-term projects assigned to more seasoned professionals, the time frame may be in a month or more. But with every delegated task, part of the initial plan must be, “When will we connect about this again?” This accountability will accelerate performance and create a culture of execution in your organization. Human nature being what it is, these checkpoints are the very thing that stimulates action. That’s why April 15 exists, isn’t it? If not for that checkpoint, how many of us would really want to spend any time on our taxes?
R—Review
What do you talk about during these checkpoint meetings? Three things: The past, the present, and the future. First the past, or a person’s progress against the plan. How have the WHO, or the people assigned with tasks in the plan, made progress related to WHAT they were asked to do WHEN they were asked to do it? Again, the point of this exercise is to pose simple, direct questions, not with the intent to embarrass or humiliate, but to reconnect regarding the plan.
There is a toughness to this kind of leadership that is neither arrogant nor offensive. A toughness that comes from simple follow-through, holding people accountable for the commitments they have made. This sends a ripple effect through an organization. People are used to managers moving on to the next flavor of the month and forgetting what they asked others to do. When a leader actually follows up on things that are asked, amazingly they get done.
“Follow-through is the cornerstone of execution, and every leader who’s good at executing follows though religiously,” states Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done. “Following through ensures that people are doing the things they committed to do, according to the agreed timetable. It exposes any lack of discipline and connection between ideas and action, and forces the specificity that is essential to synchronize the moving parts of an organization.” (Bossidy and Charan, 2002, page 127)
Sometimes things happen that prevent a plan from getting done, and that’s okay. It’s why you also discuss the present, or any problems the associate is facing. Planning is a dynamic, not a static, activity that responds to new conditions in the marketplace, deftly making midcourse corrections. This is another reason for checkpoint meetings: to make the changes necessary to the plan to face the demands of reality, which, of course, introduces the third area of discussion for the checkpoint meeting, the future.
How must the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, and HOW of the current plan change to fulfill the objective? Changes in the plan may also affect the level of authority in which a person may act and new checkpoints may be set for the next meeting during which the past, the present, and the future are discussed again.
This is the cycle of effective delegation, how to get things done through others. Plan. Act with authority. Review. The result may initiate new plans with new actions that will need to be reviewed, and so the cycle continues.
The Cycle of Delegation
The PAR Delegation Flow Chart
© 2007 Leadership Link, Inc. Used by permission.
MORE ON GETTING THINGS DONE THROUGH OTHERS
Four additional disciplines allow us to excel at delegation.
Begin with the WHO in Mind
Great delegation begins with identifying the right people for the job. In other words, don’t hand off projects to people in a random fashion; that is what drive-by delegators do. Think about the project and the person: Does it match her gifts and abilities? Is this assignment a good fit? Will it bring greater joy to her work? When talent and task are aligned, there is an effectiveness that goes way beyond mere job completion.
Help Your WHO Become His Best
Many times a person may be the right fit for the job, but he is inexperienced at it. You want to give him more responsibility, but he simply isn’t ready for it. For drive-by delegation, this is irrelevant. But leaders who care about their people and the quality of their work, it is a big concern. The mistake we make, however, is not delegating at all to inexperienced people so they don’t get overwhelmed, doing everything ourselves and stunting organizational capacity.
The solution to this is two-fold. First, think ahead. Know the projects that need to be done over the course of the next year and prepare your people to do them. Stop leading by crisis and start leading by design. If you slowed down enough to think about it, you could come up with a pretty accurate list of things that need to get done and the people who could be developed to do them. Do that right now.
Second, engage in a process that truly trains the people who work for you. Not sitting them in a classroom for hours on end, but giving them real-world, hands-on training. This kind of training starts with your associate watching you do the job and telling you what she saw. Then you do the job together, each taking a key part of it. Then the associate does the job and you watch, providing evaluation along the way. Then, after following the process completely, your associate does the job on her own. That’s getting things done through others.
Track the Things You Delegate
A common delegation mistake is to check off an item on our things-to-do list when we give it to someone else. But let me ask you, when something is delegated, is it done? No, not yet. If you check it off your list, you may never think about it again. That is until 2:00 A.M. the day it’s due and you wake up in a cold sweat wondering whether it ever got done. Delegated is not done, so don’t check it off. A delegated item stays on my things-to-do list with the person’s name I delegated it to in capital letters. I then move the task to the day the person committed to have it completed. Maybe we have a meeting scheduled for that day, or he promised to send me an e-mail about it. Either way, then and only then will that item get cleared: when I know for a fact the other person got it done. Again, I can’t tell you how much credibility this will give you as a leader and accountability within your organization.
Another way of doing this is creating a file that has your delegated tasks in them. This is easy to do electronically, by designating a delegation category to a specific task. You must review this file daily or follow-though will fall through the cracks. That’s why I prefer leaving things on my task list, but others find the file method to work better. Dumpers and drive-by delegators never check on the tasks they assign. A discipline of delegation means effectively tracking the jobs given to others to do and keeping on top of them.
Make Your Checkpoint Meetings Short
It’s amazing to me that when we think of having a business meeting that we always think of something that goes on for an hour (or more!). Perhaps that’s what you were thinking as you read this chapter and imagined with dread a life of endless meetings. Who wants to delegate anything if it makes us go to more meetings? Here’s a tip. When following through on delegated items, go to your associate’s office, not your own. Don’t sit down. Sitting down will immediately double the length of the meeting. Briefly check on a few items. Thank them for their time and leave. If you began your day with these quick little check-ins, you would be completely up to date in less than a half an hour.
Some managers begin their day with a five-minute team check-in meeting. This is not a sit-down meeting. Everyone stands and quickly touches base on the tasks of the day—who, what, when, and how—and gets to work. It’s quick and efficient. Time for socializing is done at lunch or after work over beer, but not at prime working time, the beginning of the day. Either way, in a group or one on one, following through can be professional, to the point, and, most importantly, brief.
BUSINESS IMPACT STORY: HOW DELEGATION DOUBLED YEAR-END GIVING AT A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION
Cindy, Paul, Susan, and Jon were recently put in charge of the year-end fundraising drive of a small nonprofit organization. Year-end giving for the organization had eroded significantly, so these four were asked to stop the bleeding. In a group session the campaign was organized and a PLAN was created. A goal for the campaign was set and jobs assigned. Paul and Cindy would write the appeal letter, Susan would work on radio ads, and Jon would take things to the printer and handle the bulk mailing. Each person’s assignment had specific dates and deadlines associated with it along with guidelines the organization had established for raising funds—things that should be done and things that should not be done.
Susan’s authority level, INFORMATION, consisted of her determining the cost of radio advertising so the committee could decide whether it made sense for the campaign. Paul and Cindy’s authority level, COLLABORATION, involved them in working on the format and wording of the appeal letter. Jon’s authority level, EXECUTION, allowed him to take the completed letter to the printer and have it bulk-mailed. Everyone reported back to the committee in four weeks.
When the group met again, they related their PROGRESS. Each person’s job was completed on time, but a PROBLEM emerged. The printer stuffed the envelopes before the ink was dry on the letterhead. Copies that some of the committee members received were smeared and unreadable. So a new PLAN was initiated.
This time, Susan was given the authority level of EXECUTION for placing radio advertising as soon as possible. It not only was affordable but now it was necessary to the success of the campaign with there being only three weeks left in the year. Cindy and Paul again acted in COLLABORATION, designing a reminder postcard to be sent to the mailing list and making a second appeal for support. Jon now was asked to gather INFORMATION related to the printer’s concessions for a new mailer, given the problems of the previous one. He was to bring that information back to the committee. They met the next week and sent out a second mailer.
In two weeks, the end-of-year campaign was over. Giving exceeded the goal and doubled receipts of the previous year. It was concluded that the tipping point for the fundraising effort was the reminder cards and the radio flight, originally done because of a mistake. It was also noted that four people working together on a specific PLAN free to ACT with AUTHORITY and meeting together for regular REVIEW allowed the group to get more done, especially in a last-minute crisis, than one person acting on her own. This is delegation at its very best.
TOP 10 WAYS TO USE THIS TOOL
1. Debrief a delegation gone bad. This may seem an odd way to begin, but most people have at least one story of total delegation disaster. Talk about it from start to finish and determine exactly what went wrong based on the PAR model. Have a good laugh and move on!
2. Most leaders, as much as they dread their long list of things to do, are very attached to it and have a hard time letting go. As crazy as it sounds, we tend to fall in love with our busyness. Start the delegation discussion by honestly, and objectively, talking through each item on your client’s list and target those things that must be done though others and begin to delegate them.
3. Take the projects that your client needs to delegate and talk them through the PAR cycle completely. Model the follow-through that makes delegation work by following through on the details of your work together (PAR also works as an effective coaching model). Make midcourse corrections along the way as you interact on the execution of the plan.
4. In your delegation discussion, help your clients pay special attention to the WHO of their plan. Speak openly and candidly about the match, both in talent and experience, of the person they are planning to delegate to. This is the most important aspect of delegation and yet one that is not well thought through at the start. In the rush of getting stuff off their things-to-do list, make sure your client gives the right stuff to the right people, or delegation will fail.
5. Most leaders know how to conduct only one kind of meeting, an hour-long (or more!) meeting. One secret to getting things done though others is having brief, crisp checkpoints that don’t feel like meetings at all. Role-play these kinds of meetings, practice them, and make sure they are an inseparable part of your clients’ leadership repertoire.
6. Help your clients land on a delegation tracking system, either electronic or paper. Even something as simple as keeping a daily journal works in this regard. Hold them accountable for using this system for at least 30 days. A delegation tracking system is critical because you can’t follow through on the details of delegation if you can’t remember what they are. For more information on this topic, check out David Allen’s book Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity.
7. If training is needed for a person to be on the receiving end of delegation, brainstorm exactly what the process of doing and watching, doing together, watching and doing, and finally doing alone as described earlier will look like for your clients as they work with their associates.
8. If you need a more detailed development of the delegation plan beyond who, what, when, and how, consider using the SMART Goal worksheet presented in this book. Teach your clients or employees how to fill out the worksheet with their associates and how to go over it in their follow-through meetings. If you’re really brave and need even more detail, check out Microsoft Project, an in-depth project planning program.
9. Work on getting regular one-on-one meetings scheduled between your clients and their associates. This is the one thing that will improve performance dramatically. In others words, instead of waiting for a project to delegate and only meeting with people then, help your clients get into a rhythm of meeting with their people one on one at least once a month. The three steps of progress (the past), problems (the present), and plans (the future) is a perfect way to conduct those meetings. Regular one-on-one meetings is what makes coaching work so well, so too with leading people.
10. For further study explore the principles of Situational Leadership II from the Ken Blanchard Companies (www.kenblanchard.com). In this material, four development levels are outlined based on the mix of one’s competence and commitment around a specific goal or task. Strategies for diagnosing a person’s development level and leading them to the point of full and complete delegation are fully explained. This is one of the most practical and comprehensive models for working with people.
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.