The qUestion of Ownership vs Task-Mastering
Today I heard a snippet from an interview between Simon Sinek and Trevor Noah, where Simon was discussing his fascination with his realization that in high-level government and military leadership ranks, strategic thinkers usually know they’re not good at tactical ops, so they surround themselves with people who are, but the reverse isn’t true. He found that people who are good at tactical ops usually also believe they’re good at strategy, though the truth is they’re usually dismal at it if they can grasp it at all.
Check out the clip here.
Simon Sinek is one of my key inspirationalists for leadership direction and we tend to align on almost all thought processes. Naturally, I went straight to the comment section to see what The People™ had to say. There were pretty much two camps.
- “He’s correct.”
- “What’s the difference?”
Well for one, if you have to ask, you’re tactical ops my friend. But let’s break it down.
Strategy: a plan, method, or series of maneuvers for obtaining a specific goal or result.
Tactics: the maneuvers themselves.
(i.e. long-term, large-scale “big picture” vision vs. short-term single-mission know-how and results)
(e.g. Strategy: I plan to grow my business by $100k this year; Tactics: I will do this by increasing client outreach by _ amount, forming and executing a repeatable delivery method I can scale, and soliciting all new clients to leave positive reviews on my website.)
In my experience, Sinek IS correct. It is absolutely possible to be good at both, but it’s far more common that tactical people get promoted to their level of incompetence. They get stuck where they struggle to plan at a higher level than their current concern. A better example may even be a symphony composer vs a lone cellist, even if he is First Chair.
The reason this is all so interesting to me is that I was pondering things that successful leaders should NOT ever delegate out in order to be successful. If Strategy and Tactical both said “leave it up to the other guy” where would we be? We commonly hear that the best leaders delegate, and yes, that’s true, in some cases you MUST rely on others in order to move forward; that being said, there are key pieces that are much harder to correct if you decide to outsource. There are certain things we must own, things we must be accountable to. So what should never be delegated?
- Do Not Delegate Vision
People can help build the vision, but they can’t own it for you. Vision answers where you’re going. Workers will rarely follow a vision statement, but they WILL follow a leader who appears convinced. If you’re outsourcing inspiration, employees will be able to sense borrowed conviction.
There’s also the issue of putting too many hands in the pot. If people are guessing about direction then you’re naturally creating organizational drift. It might sound small, but if your course heading is off by just 1° each day, then in 6 months you’re… 180° off course. Teams need clarity. It’s well and good (and necessary) to have goals, but answer this: are you substituting goals as destination?
- Do Not Delegate Culture
As I’ve recently discussed here, culture forms whether leaders actively shape it or not. People typically don’t rise to inconsistent levels of expectation. They fall to the level of what’s tolerated. So no, whatever you announce culture to be isn’t actually the case. Whatever happens repeatedly without consequence is your culture.
As a leader, you have a responsibility to be accountable for what you allow. You have a responsibility to create consistency in your environment so that all contributors find it harmonious. Some leaders just want to be liked. Some have a hard time saying no to pressure. Some have a hard time facing conflict. It’s rougher on the front end for sure, but usually the best operating teams (regardless of how they get along personally) know that they can count on their leader to be fair and objective. Whether they like all the rules or not, they know they apply to everyone. If you can create structure around this, it’s much easier to maintain in the long run because people tend to hold themselves more accountable.
Speaking of accountability…
- Do Not Delegate Hard Conversations
Hard conversations are part of creating a peaceful environment. When leaders avoid accountability conversations, teams learn that standards are negotiable. If you’re constantly outsourcing the difficult dirty work, how long do you think you’ll be respected in your own role? It creates resentment all the way around. Your team knows you back down when things are out of hand. Tension increases in the environment as issues aren’t addressed. You rob yourself of an opportunity to develop the wayward employee, not to mention robbing yourself of better results.
Not all hard conversations are about sub-par performance, though. It can be something as simple as acknowledging something uncomfortable, but that should be acknowledged. Layoffs are hard. Failures of major initiatives are hard. Bad news is hard. Personal lives are hard. If you delegate during these moments, you create emotional distance. More often than not, if you ask someone about a tough or traumatic time, people can’t always remember who did show up, especially if they’re well supported – but they do always know who didn’t.
Leadership is MOST visible when circumstances become uncomfortable. Avoiding the tough stuff damages trust. Letting fear dictate your responses is almost always lose-lose. Sometimes the most overlooked responsibility leaders try to outsource is personal growth.
👀 just saying.
- Do Not Delegate Your Own Development
Leaders sometimes expect experience alone to create growth; nonetheless, you cannot outsource self-awareness. “Experience”, for some, is simply being present without having their hands to the net. What did you learn from it? If you weren’t engaged in decision-making, it ends up just another report back to you instead of an outcome you were essential to.
Reading about what you should do is not the same as taking action in the behavior. People read books about leadership and still never figure out how to DO it. You can be super knowledgeable about the right path and still fail to take it. You can know your biggest weakness and make no moves to upskill it. What feedback do you keep receiving that you haven’t done anything about?
I recently encountered a leader I felt straight-up to be too out of touch. In a position where they were prioritizing decisions around a crisis they’d never experienced first-hand, because they had never taken the time to dig in on a deeper level. They didn’t understand the needs of the team a couple of levels below them in order to give effective direction in a time of need. Perhaps, actually, this is an example where they SHOULD have chosen to delegate and learned by staying close at hand.
Organizations rarely outgrow the self-awareness of the people leading them.
So what SHOULD leaders delegate?
There must be balance. No one can do everything alone.
Things that can be delegated look like:
- Informed execution
- Specialized expertise
- Tactical decisions
- Repeatable systems
Delegation isn’t really necessarily the deeper issue anyway. Before you hand something off, ask yourself: Am I saying someone else can DO this or am I saying someone else can OWN this? Don’t hand off things you’re in charge of owning. If it goes wrong, who will ultimately be responsible? Passing along your accountability is essentially the same as passing along your power, and blaming others isn’t flattering to anyone – but especially not to you.
So in other words, you can delegate work, but you can’t delegate responsibility. Vision still requires your voice, culture still requires your presence, and accountability still requires your courage. If you’re the owner of these things, then by definition, they can’t be delegated.