Giving Someone Work Isn't Delegation

Last time, I wrote about resource allocation. One takeaway was that I need to use what I already have more purposefully.

I've been thinking about how to use the capabilities, experiences, relationships, and resources I've accumulated to build a life in which income is less dependent on my continuous personal labour.

That thought requires learning how to accomplish things through other people. It is less about deciding where money and time should go.

And I'm realizing that giving someone work isn't necessarily the same as delegating.

Imagine I hire someone to help turn my recorded reflections into useful educational resources.

I could say: "Take these transcripts and create a workbook."

I've assigned a task. But have I delegated effectively? Like, what kind of workbook? Who will use it? What should someone be able to do after using it? What decisions can the person make independently? What resources are available? When should they ask for help? How will we know whether the workbook works?

Without answers, I've transferred activity without necessarily transferring enough understanding to produce the intended outcome. And I may have created more work for myself. This is something I learn more about in the classroom when I give instructions or directions for an assignment.

Most of my professional experience has involved producing outcomes through my own capabilities.

I design a lesson. I facilitate a conversation. I investigate a problem. I interpret what I find. I make recommendations.

I'm accustomed to holding the relationships between these activities in my own mind.

But that creates a limitation. If the system depends on everything remaining in my head, it depends on me being present.

Someone else cannot easily contribute to work they cannot understand. This is where I see staff leadership becoming an important capability for me to develop.

I need to learn how to translate my intentions into arrangements that allow other people to exercise their own judgment and contribute effectively. Not simply follow my instructions.

I'm beginning to think about delegation through four elements.

1. Outcome — What needs to be accomplished?

Rather than describing only the activity, define what successful work should produce.

For example: "Create a resource that helps newcomer parents recognize three common challenges students face when transitioning into university and identify appropriate ways to support them."

That's more useful than: "Make a parent guide." The outcome gives the work a purpose.

2. Constraints — What boundaries matter?

Every assignment has limits: Time. Budget. Privacy. Quality. Scope. Available information.

In the parent guide example, the person might need to use verified Ontario education resources, avoid making unsupported claims, respect a fixed budget, and produce something accessible to readers unfamiliar with the system.

Constraints don't necessarily restrict creativity. They help define where judgment can be exercised responsibly.

3. Autonomy — What can the person decide?

This may be the most difficult part for someone accustomed to doing the work personally.

If I prescribe every step, approve every sentence, and make every decision, I haven't created much independence. I've simply acquired another person whose work requires my continuous attention.

Effective delegation means determining which decisions I need to retain and which decisions someone else can make. The goal is to make my involvement appropriate to the responsibility I actually hold. Which hopefully will be small :).

The goal isn't to remove my involvement entirely.

4. Check-ins — How will we learn whether the work is progressing?

Delegation doesn't mean disappearing until the deadline. Nor does it mean constantly checking whether someone is working.

A useful check-in examines the relationship between the intended outcome and the work being produced.

The purpose is to support progress and correct problems while there's still time to respond.

I've been thinking about a distinction: 1) Doing the work myself creates an outcome through my capabilities. 2) Delegating effectively creates conditions in which other people's capabilities can contribute to the outcome.

That second ability requires a different kind of judgment.

I need to understand the work well enough to define it, but I also need to recognize that someone else may approach it differently. Their different approach isn't automatically an error.

They may have knowledge, experience, or methods I don't possess.That's one reason delegation is more than transferring tasks. It's also about coordinating different forms of expertise.

And that connects directly to what I've been investigating through Leverage Media. Knowledge has to travel between people in a form that enables effective action.

Think about something you currently do yourself that another person could potentially help accomplish.

Before assigning it, answer four questions:

Outcome: What should exist or be different when the work is finished?

Constraints: What boundaries must be respected?

Autonomy: What decisions can the person make independently?

Check-ins: When and how will you review progress?

Then ask yourself: Have I given this person enough understanding and authority to produce the outcome without depending on me for every decision?

That question is becoming increasingly important to me.

Because if I want to build businesses, services, or systems that don't depend entirely on my personal labour, I have to develop more than the ability to produce good work.

I have to develop the ability to organize work so that other people can produce good outcomes too. And that means learning when to direct, when to support, when to intervene, and when to get out of the way.

Next time, I'll explore what happens after work has been delegated: Feedback Is Part of the Operating System.

— Greg Campbell
Leverage your experience.