Herzberg’s original study involved people at work. He questioned them about times when they had felt good or bad in their work environment. The two factors were determined as, hygiene or maintenance factors and motivators or growth factors. Hygiene factors are factors that must be maintained in order to prevent de-motivation of a person such as, salary, job security, work conditions and inter-personal relations. For example if a person was on an annual salary of £20,000 if they were suddenly to start receiving a salary that was £15,000 a year they would feel unhappy and dissatisfied with their work. Motivational factors are usually in addition to what you would expect to get from work, for example any personal development attained at work can act as motivation. If all hygiene factors are maintained delegation can act as a motivational factor for an employee. Likewise if an employee’s hygiene factors for whatever reason cannot be properly maintained, delegation can act as a buffer to maintain job satisfaction in some cases.
In order to effectively use delegation as a motivational tool it must be used effectively. Following the aforementioned systematic approach can help establish some norms for good delegation. There are several factors to be considered; what tasks to delegate, who to delegate the tasks to and how to maintain some level of control over the task.
In knowing what tasks to delegate there are some prime candidates, as pointed out by Andrew Forest (12,1989). Routine tasks performed by the manager are a good starting point as these will be tasks that a manager has greatest experience in and will be able to explain well. Such tasks, routine to the manager, may be new to a subordinate and will thus offer some self-development and motivation. Tasks that take up a lot of a managers time are also a good candidate, especially as Forest points out, they either take up a lot of time because the manager is not very good at it, or can think of no new ways to proceed in the task. Tasks such as this when offered up to subordinates can be seen as challenges to better the manager. If members of staff are more concerned with a particular aspect of the organisation these tasks can be delegated. An example of this is the arranging of committee meetings, this will motivate the staff as a whole by promoting a more democratic view to work. When somewhat less interesting tasks that could be seen as mundane come up for delegation, it is often better to delegate the ownership of the task to someone rather than just the task itself. In this way the opportunity to innovate the task arises.
The people to whom different tasks are delegated can also determine how much motivation is gained from performing a task. It is important to bear in mind that some people may not find certain tasks that interesting and may find them more of a burden than a privilege bestowed upon them. Tasks should be given to people who are capable of achieving them. Otherwise the phenomenon known as upward delegation can occur. A manager can be approached with a quite simple question such as “what do you think I should do about this?” and end up doing the subordinates work for them. Such an occurrence can actually de-moralise other subordinates as it can send the message round that it is acceptable for some people not to develop and in addition as Sondak (1991) states
“ Actually, it motivates team members to give the supervisor more work. To them, this is the “care and feeding” of their boss. And keeping the boss busy is a great way to keep him or her off one’s back”
In order to avoid such a situation arising managers should counter a subordinates inquiry with a question into the subordinates thoughts, in this way the subordinate can be coerced into putting forward their ideas while a line is still properly drawn as to who should be doing the work. People like to do things well, when someone finds that they cannot perform a task that has been delegated to them they may not take much pleasure from it unless they were looking for a challenge. This raises the point that it is important for managers to know their staff, if they know their staff they can delegate more effectively.
Depending on the task different levels of control may be exercised in order to maintain results. A careful balance must be found with each task and with each individual and the manager. As Muir states “Vagueness destroys the whole purpose of delegation and leaves staff confused.” Without informing staff of what is required by management people may not want to do a task for fear of recrimination having done something wrong. A level of control that is almost oppressive can undo the motivational benefits of delegation. What tasks to delegate, who to delegate them to and how to maintain control, must all be considered together.
Delegation is by no means a quick solution to permanently fix a lack of motivation within an organisation. If people are continually assigned tasks that they find simple and unchallenging they may begin to find it a burden when given work by the manager. Or if someone is given ownership of a task they may eventually become conditioned to the motivational effect it once had upon them and simply return to their baseline of job satisfaction. If delegation is truly to be used as a motivational tool then the tasks delegated should vary somewhat as well as the people they are delegated to. Tasks that are required on a more infrequent basis such as compiling annual reports can be delegated to maximum effect when needed. One possible way to vary the way that tasks are varied is with the aid of a rotation system. This can avoid uncertainty and help all subordinates to develop. Which will in turn aid the organisation itself and help it to become both horizontally and vertically flexible.
Any task delegated should not be made out as if it is without consequence. If a subordinate perceives his/her task to be insignificant to the organisation it may be completed in a way that is not satisfactory. A task with no determinable consequence can also be seen as a task with little room for personal development.
Bibliography
-
Mullins L, Management and organisational behaviour, 6th edition 2002, Prentice Hall
-
Forest A, Delegation, Notes for managers, 2nd edition 1989, The Industrial Society
- Maddux B R, Delegating for results, 1990, Kogan Page, London
- Sondak A, Upward delegation – it’s alive and well, Supervisory Management, December 1991 v36 n12 p7(1)
- Muir J, Effective Management through delegation, Work Study Volume 44 Number 7 1995 pp 6-7, MCB University Press
- Blair G, The Art of Delegation,
- Dennis M, Only Superman didn’t delegate, Business Credit, Feb 1993 v95 n2 p4(1)
- Nierman L, The art of delegation; make sure employees have something to gain from taking on your work. Food Processing April 1994 v55 n4 p31(1), Putman Publishing company 1994
