Transforming Leadership

DEVELOPING PEOPLE
THROUGH DELEGATION

KARL W. KUHNERT
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Because of such influences as downsizing, restructuring, and greater
international competition for products and services, organizational lead-
ers over the past decade have had to rethink radically how to manage
their people and institutions. With fewer employees required to share
greater work loads, many of these leaders have had to stretch the
capacity of their human resources to keep pace with rapid changes in the
market. To address these ongoing changes and to capitalize on an
organization's human assets, leaders must continuously develop their
people to higher levels of potential. This chapter explores the process of
delegation, one of the least appreciated and most misunderstood ways
of developing people. Specifically, the chapter will show how three
different leadership models consistent with the full-range model of
leadership can be used to understand how transformational leaders use
delegation to develop their people. In terms of the full-range model
presented in Chapter 1, much of the discussion in this chapter will focus
on life-span development as it relates to individualized consideration.

Delegation and Development

T he professional development of employees is big business world-

wide. Traditionally, professional development has been conceptu-

10
Transforming Leadership 11

alized as training opportunities provided outside the immediate work

environment. Recent estimates of annual corporate investment in class-
room training in the United States reach approximately $40 billion. This
is a staggering figure given that most of what a manager learns (as much
as 90% to 80%) comes from on-the-job experiences and practices.
Knowing that development and learning are primarily the result of job
experience, it becomes obvious that what one is able to learn directly
results from the opportunities made available on the job. It is not
surprising, then, that individuals who receive greater opportunities and
get more meaningful assignments throughout their careers will be more
likely to develop and grow professionally, eventually becoming leaders
in their own right. I
One common way for organizations to expose potential leaders to
development opportunities is through rotating job assignments. Often
these assignments are in highly visible positions in different depart-
ments across the organization and usually are for a specified period of
ti me. The purpose of such assignments is to test the capabilities of the
leader in an attempt to transform potential, perhaps latent, talent into
actual talent.2 The costs of such programs, however, are considerable.
Relocation expenses, salary increases, losses in efficiency and errors
during the learning process, and the cost of failure in a new assignment
all contribute to the high price of development. 3 Too often, the strategy
underlying the use of job rotation for development is short-term and is
disrupted as the needs of the organization change. That is why we must
look for other strategies to develop personnel.
Delegation is another way to do so. Defined simply, it is the assignment
of responsibility or authority to another; it is a frequently used management
tool in organizations around the world. 4 Delegation has been conceptu-
alized as a time-management tools a decision-making process, 6 or a way
of getting more things done through others, especially under such
conditions as those described at the outset of this chapter. However,
few authors have viewed delegation as a way of developing and trans-
forming employees to higher levels of ability and potential.
Although delegation can ease the job of managing and increase the
effectiveness of the manager, this is a relatively narrow view of dele-
gation. Some of the more forward-looking authorities mention that
delegation can develop individuals' skills and enhance individual in-
volvement. Nonetheless, there is virtually no discussion of what is
getting developed through delegation or how or why some leaders seem
to be able to develop the potential in others while other leaders cannot.
As with other, more traditional concepts, we examine in this chapter
the process of delegation using the full-range perspective.
12 IMPROVING ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

Delegation and the Development Leader

To understand the process of delegation, we must first examine in

greater detail the orientation or perspective of the delegating manager
or leader. As noted in Chapter 1, Burns and Bass's 8,9 comprehensive
views of leadership identified two types of leadership: nontransactio-
nal-transactional and transformational. Transactional leadership occurs
when one person takes the initiative in making contact with others for
the purposes of an exchange of something valued; that is, leaders
approach followers with an eye toward negotiation. Focus of the leader
can be either to correct a problem or to establish an agreement to increase
the probability of achieving positive results-for example, a constructive
transaction. Transformational leadership, on the other hand, is based on
more than the compliance of followers or the establishment of agree-
ments: It involves shifts in followers' beliefs, values, needs, and capa-
bilities. Thus from the standpoint of theory building, these two orien-
tations toward leadership offer striking contrasts in philosophy toward
development and delegation.
More recently, Kuhnert and Lewis to have expanded on Burns and
Bass's work by incorporating a developmental framework that identi-
fies three distinct leadership models within the transactional and trans-
formational paradigm. According to their framework, each successive
model has its own frame of reference and represents unique ways of
understanding leader behavior and, in turn, the impact of the leader's
behavior on followers and colleagues. It is through each of these models
that we can explore a leader's central preoccupations, focal tasks, and
expectations. This information can be extremely helpful in clarifying a
developmental view of delegation.
The purpose of presenting these views of delegation through the three
models is to help you understand your own personal beliefs about
delegation. Ultimately, you can see how this fits with your leadership
orientation, whether it occurs in an individual or team context. Leader-
ship and delegation are viewed here through three lenses at different
levels of development.
It is important to confront the philosophy and behavior that each
model advocates and contrast them with the leader's beliefs and ways
of delegating duties, responsibilities, and learning experiences. In ap-
plying these models, you may ask: Do I agree with one model more than
another? Which model describes the way I think about delegation?
Which model offers the surest path toward the development of people
who work with me?
Transforming Leadership 13

Applying Three Leadership Models to Delegation

Model I: The Transactional Operator

The first leader type can be called the transactional operator. As

Table 2.1 shows, a transactional operator is an individuals who has a
personal agenda that is pursued without true concern for the welfare of
others. These others are seen as instrumental or detrimental to the
accomplishment of the operator's own goals. The operator is, funda-
mentally, a purely transactional person: He or she enters into agree-
ments to satisfy his or her own personal agenda. This is not to say that all
transactional leaders are self-serving and interested only in their own
personal initiatives and goals. Rather, at the lowest level of development
they would concern themselves only with their own personal needs.
Unfortunately, people do not often trust operators: They believe that
operators will go beyond permissible bounds to satisfy their own needs.
Common wisdom is that an operator is secretly "looking out for number
one" despite occasional appearances to the contrary. However, this
rather negative view of operators is perhaps too narrow. Successful
Model I individuals usually are very good at planning, organizing,
directing, and controlling. In fact, Model I individuals may be highly
task-oriented, as well as self-interested, and thus can be reasonably
effective leaders. They can be positive and productive by expecting and
demanding results. Whether they stay within the boundaries of accept-
able behavior depends on their values and motives. Also, followers may
feel that they have been fairly treated as long as there are enough
rewards to go around.
What distinguishes these leaders is not that they have self-serving
personal agendas, but that they can pursue tasks and goals only in a way
that reflects a characteristically one-sided, narrow view of the world. Their
critical shortcoming is an idiosyncratic perspective of the world. They
find it impossible to subordinate their goals and agendas to the good of
other individuals, the group, or the organization. The limitation of the
operator is an inability to internalize another person's view of him or
her, and, in the extreme, a lack of concern for such views. This lack of
empathic ability makes it impossible for such operators to participate
fully in those collective processes that are so essential to the higher
order forms of leadership along the full range that we have labeled as
transformational leadership, or leadership that is characterized by mu-
tual trust and team spirit. As a consequence, operators are limited in
their ability to develop others through delegation. They use delegation
14 I MPROVING ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

TABLE 2.1 Model I: The Transactional Operator

Major Attributes
Operates out of own needs and agenda.
"Manipulates" others and situations. P
Seeks concrete evidence of success.
View of Others
Others seen as facilitators or obstacles to meeting own goals.
Others seek own payoffs and can be manipulated with that knowledge.
Leadership Philosophy
Play by my rules and I will get you what you want.
Follower Philosophy
Let me know what you want and I will get it for you (if you take care of
my needs).
Major Blind Spots in Delegation
Cannot suspend agenda or coordinate agenda with others.
Cannot think of others as thinking about him; lack of trust.
Does not understand that some people will forego immediate payoffs to
maintain a relationship of mutual trust or respect.

to serve their own purposes, not to develop followers to higher levels

of potential.
For operators, delegation is a purely transactional process in that they
are likely to delegate responsibility to others in exchange for fulfilling
an actual or perceived agreement that emphasizes control, accountabil-
ity, and clear lines of authority. Although the agreement may be in both
parties' best interests, it is not certain how long a transactional leader
can continue to strike such a bargain. If, after a time, the operator can
no longer reward the individual for entering into agreements, the indi-
vidual will likely begin to resent the delegation. One reason that dele-
gation is often seen as a "dumping process" is that operators give to
their associates those tasks that leaders find undesirable while keeping
for themselves tasks that afford the most personal enjoyment, visibility,
or payoff, whether it be short- or long-term. When followers and
colleagues see delegation in this light, they view it as merely a transfer
of tasks, often undesirable ones, rather than as a tool for developing
their individual skills, even when such tasks could be viewed in that
manner. This can result in a loss of respect for the operator and resent-
ment for what others see as the operator's failure to recognize their
potential. There also is a loss because of the failure on the operator's
Transforming Leadership 15

part to apply the full potential of followers to the challenges confronting

the organization. This lack of internal perspective and concern for
others can have very damaging effects on employees at very early stages
in their careers.
Because of the operator's inability to trust others, delegation may be
perceived as a risk. Delegation for the transactional operator may
trigger feelings of loss of power, authority, meaning, personal expres-
sion, and personal achievement. The delegation process is thus seen as
a subtraction from one's assets. In other words, what is delegated is seen
as removed from the operator's power rather than as something gained:
the bringing together of leaders and employees to define tasks, increase
productivity, and meet organizational goals. The operator's perspective
ignores the role of the leader as "coach" and makes it impossible for
the operator to provide associates with the support and guidance neces-
sary to see a task through to completion; the operator thus wholly lacks
the facility of development. Remember, the operator is the way he or
she is because of a lack of capability, which has not been developed.

Examples of Operator (Model I) Leader Delegation

Andres could not let go of much of what he had to do although he

was overloaded with assignments. He was afraid that if he delegated
too many of his duties to others, then his boss would believe he was
shirking his responsibilities. Furthermore, he usually felt he could get
the work done better and in less time if he did it himself, so he delegated
tasks only when absolutely compelled to do so.
Beatrice was likewise overloaded, but gave tasks to her followers
only if two conditions prevailed: If she felt it would not take too much
of her time to explain to them what had to be done and if she judged
they would complete the tasks without complaining that they were
underpaid because of the additional work.
Charles dumped work on followers whenever possible to lighten his
own work load and checked carefully to see that others completed
delegated assignments as directed, promising them recognition for
success, and reproof for failure. All of these leaders demonstrated a
view of others that was dominated by external contingencies, which
characterizes the transactional operator.

Model II: The Team Player

The second type of leader is the team player. Table 2.2 outlines the
strengths and limitations of being a team playerand shows that the team
16 I MPROVING ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

player's stock-in-trade is connection and relationships with others.

Team players define themselves by how others view them, are moti-
vated to maintain good interpersonal relations among members of the
work team or with individual colleagues, and are highly sensitive to
how others feel. For the team player, task outcomes or consequences
are important for what they reveal about working relationships and for
what they contribute to the group's sentiments and feelings of camara-
derie. Critical for the team player is how people simultaneously feel
about one another on the team. Do they work toward a common goal?
Is there a special feeling of satisfaction in working with other team
members? Do they perform out of a feeling of mutual respect? Is there
a satisfactory degree of team loyalty? The team player is transactional
to the extent that his or her efforts are stimulated mainly by his or her
need for affection from others; he or she can be seen as transformational
to the degree that team outcomes take center stage. Yet what others
think of the team player dominates this leader's actions, so he or she is
driven by external contingencies like the operator.
With the ability to establish positive interpersonal roles and connec-
tions, team players are able to motivate associates through trust, re-
spect, and consideration. For team players, effective delegation is a
two-way process that encourages an open exchange of ideas and prob-
lem perspectives. In contrast with operators, they are less likely to be
directive in style. They understand that people will sometimes delegate
responsibility as a means of pursuing group goals, sharing knowledge,
and fostering achievements that will engender shared trust and loyalty.
For the team player, delegation may also be a way to communicate trust
in other team members and respect for their level of skills. The very act
of- delegating tasks to employees shows that these leaders trust their
associates, respect their skills, and have confidence in their abilities and
potential for contributing to the organization. Thus delegation for the
team player is a way of building and maintaining interpersonal relation-
ships. In turn, team players do not view the delegation of tasks by the
manager or leader as an "off-loading" of undesirable responsibilities.
They can receive both good and poor task assignments, which may or
may not have high payoffs. This view stems from the level of trust
established in the team's relationships.
Although team players can delegate through transactional agree-
ments, they also can capitalize on mutual feelings of trust, respect, or
affection in the exercise of leadership. Leaders who are team players
(Model II) have a broader perspective of delegation than do their
operator (Model I) counterparts. Whereas operators are constrained to
view the world as a place in which delegation is done to gain personal
Transforming Leadership 17

TABLE 2.2 Model II: The Team Player

Major Attributes
Very sensitive to how he or she is viewed or experienced internally by
others.
Self-definition derives in part from how he or she is experienced by others.
Lives in a world of interpersonal roles and connections.
View of Others
Thinks others define themselves by how he or she experiences them, so
feels responsible for others' self-esteem.
Leadership Philosophy
Show associates consideration and respect and they will follow you any-
where. t
The "unit" and team morale are paramount.
Follower Philosophy
I will do what it takes to earn your respect, but in return you must let me
know how you feel about me.
Major Blind Spots in Delegation
Unable to define self independent of others' view or independent of role
expectations.
Unable to make difficult decisions that entail a loss of respect.

advantage, team players see delegation as a way of strengthening

relationships, as well as improving follower contributions and satisfac-
tion. This does not suggest that personal gain would not be desirable,
but that it is not predominant in the leader's thinking.
Despite the broader and added influence possessed by team players
in comparison with operators, team players also have a critical flaw.
Their perspectives are unduly influenced by concerns for their relation-
ships, connections, and loyalties. In other words, team players are
disproportionately controlled by others' views of them. Because fol-
lower acceptance and support are paramount for team players, they are
unlikely to delegate problems that may entail a loss of respect. It is
unlikely that team players would delegate authority that might under-
mine the work teams' cohesiveness, even where a temporary loss of
cohesiveness may be necessary to achieve a particular critical task. Team
players can and do delegate for the development of followers, but the
delegated activities are concentrated on the enhancement of the interper-
sonal commitments among the work group members and not to foster
autonomy, individuality, and growth. Teams may be strengthened, but the
18 IMPROVING ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

leadership does not transform its individual members. To sacrifice team

goals for the good of specific individuals is a difficult, if not impossible,
assignment for Model lI leaders.

Examples of Team Player (Model 11) Leader Delegation

Dan kept his team informed about any new assignments that his boss
asked him whether he could handle. He would turn to his team to ask if
he should accept the new responsibilities and if the team would be
ready, willing, and able to help him. Delegation of assignment was
accomplished through negotiation with his goal of avoiding dissatisfac-
tion for any of his associates.
Emilia complained to her team members about being overloaded and
asked them if it was all right to off-load some of these tasks to them.
Emilia would complete the tasks if she sensed any resistance from her
followers.
Frank met weekly with his team to discuss new assignments that were
allocated on the basis of consensual discussions. Frank was determined
that all members were always satisfied with their assignments. Main-
taining group harmony was quite important to him.
In the context of the full-range model, our team leader is demonstrating
an integration of contingent reward and individual consideration. Yet such
leaders have not established a stronger inner sense of direction or belief
that characterizes the higher end of the full-range model of leadership.

Model III: The Transformational "Self-Defining" Leader

The third model of leadership is not simply an alternative to the

others, it transcends them. As summarized in Table 2.3, Model III
describes the characteristics and outlook of "self-defining" leaders.
Such leaders tend to be self-defining by having strong internalized
values and ideals. They are able and willing to forgo personal payoffs
and, when necessary, to risk loss of respect and affection to pursue
actions that they are convinced are right. These leaders have a sense of
self-worth that is self-determined: not in a self-serving way, but in a
manner that allows them to make tough, unpopular decisions. They
exhibit a strong sense of inner purpose and direction, which often is
viewed by others as the great strength of their leadership.
Such transformational, self-defining, leaders are able to energize
followers to take actions that support higher purposes rather than their
own self-interest, and they are able to create an environment in which
people are encouraged to address problems and opportunities with
Transforming Leadership 19

TABLE 2.3 Model III: The Transformational "Self-Defining" Leader

Major Attributes
Concerned about values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals.
Self-contained and self-defining.
View of Others
Able to grant others autonomy and individuality.
Concerned about others without feeling responsible for their self-esteem.
Leadership Philosophy
Articulates clear long-term standards and goals.
Bases decisions on broad view of the situation, not just immediate factors.
Follower Philosophy
Give me autonomy to pursue broad organizational goals.
Do not ask me to compromise my own values or standards of self-respect,
unless it is for the good of the group or organization.
Major Blind Spots in Delegation
Can be too self-contained and reluctant to delegate.
May become isolated in leadership role.

creativity and personal commitment. Because self-defining leaders are

guided by their internal values and standards rather than their needs,
relationships, or purely external standards, they are able and quite likely
to base their delegation decisions in a much broader context. They can
consider the long-term goals and interests of the organization, as well
as of the individual, rather than being shackled by immediate or short-
range goals. Thus the self-defining leader is the first leader who com-
fortably can delegate autonomy and individuality to others and develop
them in ways that can enhance learning and build a high-performance
team and work environment. Unlike operators, who delegate to accom-
plish certain goals to enhance their own worth, or team players, who
delegate to feel appreciated by their colleagues and to maintain their
own self-esteem, self-defining leaders are transformational in the con-
fidence with which they delegate to accomplish higher-order objec-
tives. In the process, they help to move associates closer to becoming
self-defining, transformational leaders themselves.
Note that delegation in exchange for personal gain or for work team
cohesion is not discarded as one moves from transactional to transfor-
mational leadership. Obviously, we all are transactional in pursuit of
personal goals at one time or another. Many of us cultivate team play.
Through self-definition, however, the transformational leader is able to
20 I MPROVING ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

construct a broader understanding and perspective of, development.

This leader has the ability to see the organization's larger mission, as
well as followers' needs and demands. Specifically, the transforma-
tional, self-defining leader can separate the needs of individual follow-
ers from the needs of the leader and the team and, at critical times, align
many of those needs to maximize both performance and development.

Examples of Self-Defining (Model 111) Leader Delegation

Gloria discussed with each of her department members their career

plans in the organization and whenever possible assigned them tasks
that fit their career plans as well as contributed to the organization's
needs to get the work done expeditiously. Emphasis in these discussions
was on continuously striving to improve performance potential.
Henry focused the attention of each of his team members on the
i mportance of taking on challenging assignments that met not only their
own needs, but also those of team members and ultimately those of the
organization.
Ignacio was willing to put in the extra time to coach those of his
colleagues who otherwise might not be able to do the job as well as he
could do it if he did not delegate the work to them. He also was willing
to risk early mistakes to develop associates who could do the work
better in the future. He worked with others to establish a long-term
perspective on what they could achieve in their careers individually and
collectively by enhancing one another's perspectives and potential.

Models Parallel Moral Development

The three models of leadership discussed above parallel three stages

of moral development. Model I operators are arrested in their develop-
ment at the level of judging what is right and wrong in terms of whether
what is done is a gain or loss, a reward or punishment for themselves.
They are purely transactional in their approach. It is the least mature
stage of development. Model II team players judge on the basis of what
others will think of their actions as leaders; in the extreme, they are
constrained by such judgments. Model III self-defining leaders are most
mature in their moral and cognitive development. They are most trans-
formational. They are more prepared to take full responsibility for their
actions, judging what is right or wrong in terms of balance and integra-
tion of conflicting individual, team, organizational, and societal inter-
ests. Their basis for evaluation and decision making is likely to be
internal standards that are considered right or morally correct. They will
Transforming Leadership 21

more likely choose courses of action not because they necessarily serve
their own best interests or' the current interests of the followers, but
because the choice is the right thing to do.
Note that Model III leaders have the capacity to view the world at a
higher level of morality. Yet for many reasons they may choose to
operate at a lower level. Thus given the available evidence on the moral
development of leaders, we can say that Model III leaders have the
capacity to base their decisions on the interests of the group rather than
on their own interests. However, under pressure or for reasons beyond
their control, they may choose to operate as Model I or II leaders. The
lack of maturity and capability of Model I leaders significantly reduces
the probability that they will make decisions for the good of the group.

Effective Delegation for Development

One purpose of presenting these three models is to help managers

classify others and thus determine their stage of development. The next
question is, Now do these models of leadership help managers become
better delegators? The three models presented above represent succes-
sive stages in the potential development of every person. In other words,
how you delegate says a good deal about your own level of development
as a leader. Thus each model has important implications for the devel-
opment of others and, more generally, for the development of leader
effectiveness.
In applying this developmental framework, managers must realize
that no model of leadership or of delegation is necessarily sufficient.
The appropriate leadership and delegation style is a function of the
leader, the associate's needs and abilities, and the leader's objectives.
This view thus may help to explain why any one approach to delegation
may be inappropriate for a given situation or inadequate for the devel-
opment of all associates.
For example, in an environment that calls for highly structured
planning and careful control, the operator's style of leadership and
delegation may be most appropriate in the short term. But if the envi-
ronment is one that values and requires a cohesive team spirit and
significant cooperation, then the team player's style of leadership and
delegation may be most appropriate. In an organization that highly
values individuals who work interdependently toward common goals,
then the transformational leader is the one who fits most readily. What
is important is not that there is one correct style, but the ability of the
leader to distinguish the appropriate style for the environment and to
22 IMPROVING ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

make choices about the leadership and delegation approach that is most
likely to fit the context. Ultimately, a leader needs to be able to operate
at the level of Model III, even though the leader might sometimes
consider Models I and II appropriate. Only the self-defining leader can
operate at all three levels.
In addition to the environment, leaders must understand that the
developmental level of followers also affects the appropriate leadership
and delegation style. An approach may not work because followers have
not reached a phase in their own development where they understand
and are motivated by higher-level considerations. This is not the fault
of the leader or the environment. For example, individuals who are
operators may not be in a position to benefit from delegated activities
that focus primarily on cooperation and group goals. To motivate these
people, the leader may initially have to appeal to their basic and
lower-level transactional nature by emphasizing the advantage of such
activities in terms of their personal interests, rather than appealing to
their status on a mutually supportive team. Ultimately, however, devel-
opment of those individuals to a level on the full range must come from
delegation of those activities that drive them to confront the limitations
of their own self-interests and to see how there may be greater gains
through a broader perspective.
Although both the environment and the individual will influence the
appropriate leadership and delegation styles, what should also be clear
is that the leader's capacity to make choices among the appropriate
styles also is paramount. Unfortunately, in the paradigm presented,
Model I leaders are not able to make such a choice because they have
not developed to a level that allows for an understanding of the perspec-
tive of Model II or Model III leaders. Similarly, Model II leaders are
unable to fully understand Model III leadership, although they remain
able to reflect on and appreciate Model I perspectives. Thus, only the
Model III leader has the capacity to understand and make choices
among the three models.
The Model I and Model II leaders' inabilities to reflect on all three
models of leadership ultimately limits their capacity to delegate effec-
tively as a means of developing employees. For example, leaders who
are operators will not recognize the opportunities for followers' profes-
sional development that may result from delegation. Because the per-
spective of such leaders is their own personal agenda, they will be
unable to recognize the overall value of delegation to individuals or to
the organization as a whole. The value in delegation can accrue only
from personal payoff to the leader.
' Transforming Leadership 23

At the next level, leaders who are team players will recognize the
advantages to followers of delegation, but only if such delegation can
be viewed as fair and does not risk violating team cohesion. Values of
team players are shared values, or those that are derived from their
connection to the group. Team players will embrace organizational
values if their team adopts those values as standard. If team players
perceive a growing divergence between the interests of their own unit
and those of the organization at large, then organizational values are
likely to be sacrificed.
The same risk does not exist with Model III transformational leaders.
For these leaders, delegation becomes a question of defining and pro-
viding followers with opportunities to engage in activities that explore
the compatibility between organizational and personal standards and
strongly held values. In other words, transformational leaders are able
to delegate activities and tasks that may be contrary to their individual
agendas or that may be perceived as inequitable to other team members,
if such delegation ultimately will increase the individual's professional
development while enhancing organizational functioning. Often, what
may be perceived by followers as inequitable is not when considered
through the leader's long-term vision of developing followers to their
highest potential.
The only way to help a follower develop is to understand how he or
she views the world and then help him or her in confronting experiences
that illustrate the limitations of that view. Thus, the ability to fully use
delegation as a developmental tool requires that leaders understand that
delegation of specific types of activities is necessary if followers are to
advance to the next level of development. Delegation by abdication of
responsibility will not develop others.
From the viewpoint of organizational growth and maturity, the devel-
opment of employees who are able to become self-defining or transfor-
mational leaders is fundamental to long-range survival. In other words,
leaders must aspire to more than just getting others to follow: They must
see the development of their associates as their personal responsibility
if the organization is to grow and maximize its potential. It is not enough
to motivate operators to be good managers; they also must learn how to
be a part of the shared commitment and mutual trust of a work team.
Similarly, team players must transcend their loyalty to the work team by
embracing and articulating organizational values. According to Chester
Barnard, the ultimate moral act of the executive is to delegate responsibly
because "organizations can only endure in accordance with the breadth
of morality by which they are governed." 11
24 IMPROVING ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

This chapter has explored delegation as a method of professionally

developing employees within the context of the full-range model of
leadership. Three different leadership models have been proposed by
which to understand delegation. Each model starts with different attri-
butes of leaders based on their perspective-taking abilities and leader-
ship philosophies. Differences in these models lead to very different
orientations toward delegation.
The transactional operators of Model I, for example, are motivated
by self-interest and see others as similarly motivated; delegation is thus
a means of influence, control, and personal gain. Although not rejecting
this perspective, the team players of Model II are able to define them-
selves through the eyes of others and use delegation as a way to gain
trust, commitment, and loyalty among group members. The transforma-
tional, self-defining leaders of Model III take the team players' views
a step farther, believing that the needs of their teams are best served
through the attainment of individual needs that serve worthwhile pur-
poses. Such leaders thus can see delegation as a means of individual as
well as organizational development because they know that exceptional
organizational performance rests on the entire organization's creativity
and dedication to its mission. In sum, transformational, self-defining
leaders realize their responsibility for the development of future leaders.
In the final analysis, how one leads says much about how one
delegates, how one delegates says much about the quality of the people
being led, and the quality of followers says much about a leader. A
leader thus must know him- or herself before the development of others
through delegation can be understood. It is through the process of
delegation that one is revealed as a leader. Ultimately, delegation is not
only a tool to be used in the professional development of followers, but
also a way to develop oneself as a leader.
We next examine how the full range of leadership can be direct or
indirect.

Notes

1. Tritt, F (1978). Delegation-the essence of management. Personnel Journal, pp.

528-530. This article outlines reasons for delegation.
2. Jennings, G. (1971). The mobile manager. New York: Free Press. This is one of
the first books to comment on the importance of assigning managers to challenging tasks
that benefit the organization.
3. McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison. M. (1988). The lessons of
experience: How successful executives develop on the job. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
7ransforming Leadership 25

4. Nelson, R. B. (1988). Delegation: The power of letting go. Glenview, IL: Scott,
Foresman. The author of this book presents the essential steps of delegation and explains
how to avoid crucial mistakes in order to achieve desired results.
5. Jenks, J. M., & Kelly, J. M. (1985). Don I do. Delegate! Toronto, CA: Franklin
Watts.
6. Carrie, R. L. (1986). Predictors and consequences of delegation. Academy of
Management Journal, 29, 754774. This work found that supervisors' perceptions of
subordinates, the volume of supervisors' workloads, and the importance of decisions were
significant predictors of delegation.
7. LeBoeuf, M. (1979). Working smart: How to accomplish more in half the time.
New York: Warner. The author explores various strategies for improving managerial
skills.
8. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. This book sketches
the leadership styles of many political leaders.
9. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:
Free Press. The author explores transformational leadership and its impact on followers.
10. Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P L. (1987). Transactional and transformational lead-
ership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12,
648-657.
11. Wolf, W. B. (1973). Conversations with Chester 1. Barnard. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press. The author interviews Barnard.

01