In my September newsletter (sign up for it here), I write about the bottlenecks that occur when a manager delegates responsibility for a job without delegating the authority to actually get that job done.
It occurs to me that this kind of mismatch between authority and responsibility creates bigger problems throughout the organization.
Low Responsibility, Low Authority: here’s the classic recipe for apathetic, demotivated workers. Customer service people who don’t have the power to solve problems. Assistants who don’t get one-on-one time with their execs. These are the people with glazed eyes waiting for the five o’clock bell to ring, who have no energy or desire to help improve the company.
High Authority, Low Responsibility: here’s the blueprint for installing a tyrant of minutiae. The person in finance who insists that you fill out your travel expense form in blue ink, not black – or for that matter, that you use their form, instead of your spreadsheet version of it that does the math for you. The person at the DMV counter who sends you to the back of the line because you forgot to put your middle initial on form 2976A/3. These people make life miserable for everyone and will never leave, because they’ve built a comfortable empire.
High Responsibility, Low Authority: this is the grey world of the frustrated strivers. Nurses who can’t make changes to procedures that would allow them to spend more time with patients. Product developers who are told to just make what the sales department demands. You can find these people polishing their resumes as they look for another job.
High Responsibility, High Authority: this is where you want your people to be. They have responsibility for a job, and the authority to accomplish it. These people are able to contribute to growth, improve performance, and move the organization forward.
Here’s the thing: the apathetic, the tyrants, and the frustrated—they could be anyone in the company. The engaged, committed workers are no better than the others. They’re just in jobs that allow them to exercise autonomy, achieve their goals, and strive for greatness.
Or, as David Sirota, Louis A. Mischkind, and Michael Irwin Meltzer wrote back in 2006:
Most companies have it all wrong. They don’t have to motivate their employees. They have to stop demotivating them.
That explains the behavior of a lot of system administrator. A lot of responsibility without authority.
Outstanding post. This makes me think of how Toyota defines RESPECT in their RESPECT FOR PEOPLE pillar:
“We respect each other, make every effort to understand each other, take RESPONSIBILITY and do our best to build mutual trust”
In other words, providing responsibility to the process and outcome (not just accountability if outcome is achieved) is how respect is given. You are also correct that authority is needed so people’s hands aren’t tied to be able to solve the problems they are responsibile for!
Adamo — I wasn’t thinking specifically about sys admins, but now that you mention it, it does seem very relevant to that world. I can’t count how many IT folks I’ve met who are frustrated precisely by this issue.
Brian — I completely agree with you. It seems that there are so many levels — usually ignored — to the whole concept of “respect for people.” This is certainly one of them, because how can we challenge people and expect them to grow if they don’t have the appropriate match between authority and responsibility?
Pingback: So, your System Administrator is “uncooperative”? « Blogs are like opinions. Everybody has one…
I agree that stopping demotivating employees would take most companies way forward.
However, “High Responsibility, Low Authority” leads to frustration in the average companies (most of them). That is not at all the case in a lean & learning organisations, where a top role (e.g. Chief Engineers at Toyota) is given the responsibility to get decisions made… they have no power, just responsibility. For successful Lean leadership responsibility and authority are separated. Believe me, trying to get people to understand this is a mission, and it can be very inconvenient for many.
Here is a references:
http://www.lean.org/common/display/?o=906
Osvaldo,
Thanks for linking to that post by John Shook. I read it back in 2009 when he wrote it, but had forgotten it by the time I starting thinking about this issue.
It seems that one of the fundamental differences between a lean organization and a traditional one is the tacit understanding that responsibility can come without direct authority. Although in Toyota’s case, even though the chief engineer doesn’t have traditional authority, he does have the title of “Chief Engineer,” and (presumably) that helps him garner some amount of persuasiveness.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment.