Like many, I started out as a second

Transcription

1 TRIM 4.75 Learning to Delegate By LTG James M. Dubik U.S. Army retired Like many, I started out as a second lieutenant believing that delegation means handing off a task to someone else, then moving on. After a few counseling sessions with my company executive officer, weird looks from my first sergeant and discussions with my company commander, I knew I was wrong. The approach to delegation that I finally settled on emerged over time. Once learned, it held me in good stead for most of my career. Even when I was a general officer, the approach worked, although it required some major modifications. I improved the more I practiced, and, as with every endeavor, my performance was mixed. As a young lieutenant and captain, I was helped along the way by a set of great leaders. I was careful to watch how my leaders and peers delegated and what they did after they assigned a task. Two books also contributed to my learning as a young officer: Battle Leadership by Capt. Adolf Von Schell and Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command by BG S.L.A. Marshall. The first relayed leadership lessons from World War I; the second, from World War II. Each demonstrates the commonality and timelessness of lessons to be learned from leading in combat. Many of the lessons in these books are also found in those written by our current veterans. My approach to delegation has five steps. Identify the task to be delegated and to whom it will be delegated. I had to learn 14 ARMY March 2011

2 that not all tasks can be delegated, but those I had to do myself were few indeed. Many that I thought fell into the do-it-yourself category actually could be done by one of my subordinates, who often did it better than I would have. Giving away tasks opened up time for me to lead and to contribute to the development of my subordinates the central role of a senior leader at any level. I also had to learn that there were different ways to delegate, depending on to whom I assigned a task. Some individuals require more detail than others, some need more encouragement, and some do well with tactical or technical tasks, but not with conceptual or interpersonal ones. I had to take this into account before I could proceed to step two. Assign a task with its purpose and timetable; also include the parameters that have to be met in planning, preparation and execution. I often took the time to write out the elements of this step. Writing, even scratching an outline in my notebook, was a great way to help focus and clarify my own thinking. What, exactly, did I want my subordinate leader to do? Why? What result did I need that leader to achieve? Were there key times that had to be met not just a final deadline, but any en route times? In planning, preparing and executing the task, what were the actions that the subordinate had to take or avoid, regardless of how the task was done? Writing these down helped me to be clear and helped the subordinate leader to ask the right questions before moving out. Check on progress; correct if necessary, and congratulate if warranted. One of the ways GEN George C. Marshall helped prepare Army leaders for World War II was in publishing Infantry In Battle (1934) while he was a colonel at the Infantry School. He wrote, A superficial reading of military textbooks is likely to convey the idea that the duties of a leader consist only of estimating the situation, reaching a decision, and issuing an order. It is evident, however, that unless the orders of the commander are executed, even a perfect plan will fail. Leaders must supervise the execution of their orders. The more untrained the troops, the more detailed this supervision must be. Like many leaders, I often learned this lesson the hard way. As a battalion commander, GEN Wayne Downing once told his company commanders in the 2nd Ranger Battalion that even Rangers need supervision and leadership. His real message was about trust. By seeing that your orders are carried out, you build trust in subordinates and soldiers. When they see that you enforce standards and care enough about them to check, they build trust in you. As part of building that trust, when things go well, say so publicly; when they do not, move on to step four. Ensure that any corrective action is taken by the leader with responsibility for executing the task. As a senior leader, correcting a deficiency yourself is often the easiest and fastest way to get things back on track, but it is not always the best way. Time pressures may sometimes force this approach, but in my experience those times are very rare. Most often the right approach involves a short but pointed March 2011 ARMY 15

3 discussion (best conducted out of earshot or sight of other subordinates) with the leader to whom you have delegated the task. Discuss what is not going right and why as well as what has to be done to reorient the leader or the unit. Then let the leader fix things. Not only does this approach keep responsibility where it belongs, it also does not steal a learning and leader-development opportunity from a subordinate. Repeat as needed. Depending on the duration of the task or the geographic spread of my organization, one check was sometimes enough. Many times, repeated checks even if only to reinforce what I knew was going well proved beneficial not only to task accomplishment, but in contributing to building trust and a positive leadership climate. Without much modification, this is the approach that I used for the rest of my career that is, until I became a general officer. Because the scope of my responsibilities and the nature of my subordinates had changed significantly, I had to take a hard look at how I delegated. Generals do not wear branch insignia. They often find themselves with responsibilities beyond their personal experiences. The tasks they are assigned are very broad and usually take so long that they will not come to fruition for years. Subordinates are commonly more knowledgeable than the general officer about the technical details of parts of the broad task. In every job that I had as a general, I had no choice but to delegate, but I had to learn how to adapt my approach to fit my new circumstances. As was the case in my early career, the example of my seniors and peers played an integral part in my own development. I was lucky to have been in positions to watch many generals up close and to share leadership of critical tasks with many other generals (too many to mention here). Again, some books were also helpful: Leadership Without Easy Answers by Ronald Heifetz; The Power of Full Engagement: Managing Energy, Not Time, Is the Key to High Performance and Personal Renewal by Jim Loehr and Tony Schwartz; The Speed of Trust: The One Thing That Changes Everything by Stephen M.R. Covey with Rebecca Merrill; The Power of Alignment: How Great Companies Stay Centered and Accomplish Extraordinary Things by George Labovitz and Victor Rosansky; and Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership by Howard Gardner with Emma Laskin. The sum of my experience, what I read and what I observed in other generals resulted in rededicating myself to two constants with respect to proper delegation and making two modifications to my approach to delegation. The first rededication was to the long-term purposes of delegation. Generals, I concluded, delegate not just as a way to get more done but, more importantly, as a way to build trust among subordinates and within whatever organization they lead, to provide subordinates adequate space to use their initiative and to grow as leaders, and to create a positive command climate. Like all leaders, generals are re- 16 ARMY March 2011

4 sponsible for developing the talent that will replace them. The second was a rededication to the necessity of paying visits to subordinate leaders and units. No leader can be a prisoner of the office, the conference room or the computer screen. Sharing difficulty, danger and miserable conditions checking on soldiers and leaders in their natural habitat remains a leadership duty, regardless of rank. The first modification I had to make concerned a clear and disciplined approach to my battle rhythm. Such an approach would ensure that I had time to circulate among as many of my subordinates as possible and to provide them with adequate opportunities to receive the guidance they needed to stay within the overall intent. With the help of my subordinates, therefore, I identified and lived a fairly disciplined routine: activities that I would schedule daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, semiannually and annually. Of course, the routine was flexible enough to handle the unavoidable changes inherent in any general s calendar. The important point, however, was this: We as a set of senior leaders decided who needed what guidance and at what frequency. We established a regimen for ourselves. Every major subordinate was certain that he or she would receive guidance at a proper interval. Between intervals, they were free to use their initiative and creativity, confident that they were within the overall intent. If necessary, of course, they could always get immediate feedback in special circumstances, but the instances of immediacy reduced over time. Because we had this routine, I had time to think about the direction of the entire organization, accomplish things that only the commanding general could do and conduct sufficient battlefield circulation. This approach was never perfect but always helpful. The second modification concerned developing a discursive leadership capability. Leadership is often accurately described as direct or indirect. As a general, I found myself almost exclusively in the indirect leadership mode. Whereas before I could think my way toward the clarity of task, purpose and parameters mostly by myself, I now had to talk my way toward such clarity with a set of subordinates who often had as much, if not more, experience and knowledge than I did. Few were the tasks that could be easily understood, let alone with easily identified solutions. Most often we needed each other s brains and experience to understand what we were trying to do and how we were trying to do it. We also needed each other to create a common effect all of us had to align our portions of a complex task to achieve a common outcome and we had to do this over time, knowing that conditions were constantly changing, sometimes very quickly. Timely and proper adaptation emerged not only from information gained during battlefield circulation but also from the discussions during battle rhythm meetings and briefings. The meetings we had together became forums in which we used each other. One subordinate s AUSA Annual Meeting & Winter Symposium Future Dates Annual Meeting Future Dates All dates are subject to change October October October October October October October October October October October October October October October 2025 Winter Symposium Future Dates All dates are subject to change February February February February February February February February February 2020 March 2011 ARMY 17

5 problems often had consequences in another subordinate s area, and the solution came as often from a third subordinate as it did from me. Discursive leadership benefitted each of us and the organization as a whole. It became an important component of my approach to delegation. No one could have convinced me when I was a second lieutenant in the Parachute Infantry Battalion that learning to delegate tasks to my platoon sergeant and squad leaders would lead to complex battle rhythm and discursive leadership. Many of you are standing at the beginning of a career that seems as uncertain as mine did, if not more so. Each of you will have to develop your own approach to delegation. I commend my experience as a starting point. Good luck, and have fun. LTG James M. Dubik, USA Ret., is a former commander of Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq and a senior fellow of AUSA s Institute of Land Warfare. 18 ARMY March 2011