Ep 19 - Empowering Leadership through Delegated Authority
Impactful Conversations with Dr Glenn Wallis and Nejmi Alexander
Key takeaways
Nejmi argues that delegating authority is how leaders build other leaders: it enables more problems to be solved by more people, loosens the bottleneck of decisions queuing at the top, and frees senior leaders for the higher-leverage, strategic challenges within their remit.
Glenn's view is that the precondition sits with the leader, not the team - a leader must be willing to release control ("control freakery" blocks everything) - and that delegated tasks are the "gateway drug" to delegated authority: a track record of delivered tasks builds the credibility that earns the permission step.
Nejmi offers a why-what-how model for precise delegation: be explicit about why the responsibility matters, define what a good outcome and good behaviour look like, then co-create the how according to the person's readiness - full autonomy for the credible, more guidance for those making a bigger leap.
Both hosts argue that delegated authority is fragile: saying "I trust you" and then course-correcting after the fact, or allowing blame when a risk doesn't pay off, teaches people not to step up next time. Glenn's answer is to make it anti-fragile with milestones, check-ins and a learning cycle rather than avoiding all failure.
On the recipient's side, Nejmi argues you should contract explicitly for the authority you're ready to hold and openly explore any trust blockers, while Glenn adds that if authority isn't coming, build leadership experience outside the organisation - captured in the episode's closing line: "to earn authority, demonstrate it."
Episode summary
Why don't people step up when leaders ask them to? Nejmi and Glenn's answer: delegated authority has to be deliberately created - a leader willing to release control, trust built through delegated tasks, and precision in why, what and how - and it is fragile, eroded fastest by inconsistent signals and blame. Get it right and the escalation bottleneck at the top loosens.
Why bother delegating authority at all?
Nejmi: Hello and welcome to today's Impactful Conversation with myself, Nejmi Alexander, and my wonderful co-host, Dr Glenn Wallis. Glenn, how are you doing?
Glenn: I'm very good, Nejmi, thank you - really good. How are you?
Nejmi: I am good - fresh off a fair amount of travel over the past week or two, feeling fresh and raring to go on today's topic. Today's topic is actually a little bit informed by some of those travels, because the topic of delegated authority - how to encourage people to step up into their leadership within an organisation, within your teams - is something that's come up multiple times in recent days and weeks. So I'm feeling inspired from those travels to bring it into our conversation today: to unpack, firstly, what it means, but also the things that can contribute towards people stepping up, and the things that can erode or get in the way of it. It's also a nice build on our recent conversation about stepping in and stepping out - now we're creating space for people to step up, and how can we do that really effectively?
Glenn: I agree. The previous episode - which I'd highly recommend people go back and listen to if they haven't already - I see these very much as two parts of the same whole, even though we haven't positioned them as a joint episode. We talked about stepping in and stepping out of leadership space last time, and the precursor to that is that people have the permission and the platform to actually do it. So how do you create that expectation, and also the opportunity, for people to do it? It's worth exploring before we dive in: if I were a leader listening to this - or out on a walk listening to this, as I know several people do - why would I bother to create the opportunities to delegate authority? You've coached lots of leaders over the course of a year, as I have. When this emerges as a topic people want coaching on, what are the benefits? What are they looking for, where this becomes the solution?
Nejmi: When this topic comes up in my work, it's usually from an organisational or leadership-team consideration. They're seeing a symptom: they've set an expectation across the leaders and managers within their teams or organisation that they expect to see different leadership behaviours, or higher performance from that leadership community in how they lead - but they're not seeing people step into that space and really embody the expectations of the organisation or the senior leadership.
The reason it's important to nail this as a behaviour or capability is that, when you're able to delegate authority effectively, you're building leaders. You're enabling other leaders within your teams to solve more of the problems that you would typically be stepping into the fold to solve. The benefit for you as a leader, of course, is freeing up more space to focus on the strategic, higher-level challenges - the bigger, bolder challenges within your remit and your responsibility, and within your development too. It gives you space to develop as well. And fundamentally, it enables a wider set of problems to be solved by people other than you - loosening up a bottleneck. That's what's really important about nailing this as a skill.
Glenn: I agree with that. So, in summary, there are loads of reasons why you would want to create an environment where authority is delegated effectively.
What conditions make delegated authority possible?
Glenn: I think one of the things we need to look at first is: what are the conditions that create the ability to delegate authority effectively? What needs to be in place? I'll kick something off - in preparation for this, I was thinking about some of the topics you and I had spoken about. One of the things delegated authority presupposes is that whoever the leader is, in whatever context we're talking about, is willing to delegate authority. We know a lot of leaders who won't delegate tasks, let alone think about delegating authority. So there's a real challenge for leaders here. In lots of the one-to-one work you and I do, some of the challenge - for new leaders particularly - is the willingness to let some control, as they see it, go. A precondition to being able to delegate authority is that the leader about to do it needs to be willing to do it, comfortable doing it, and have confidence in the team to do it. It starts with whoever's about to delegate. Would you agree with that?
Nejmi: Absolutely, 100%. When I work with teams or organisations and this comes up as a topic, I see it as incumbent on my role as a coach - or anyone supporting them around leadership development - to hold up the mirror and ask: why, as a leadership team, do you believe this is not being reflected back from the leaders within your teams? Because typically the root cause of not seeing delegated authority is control - control not being relinquished, to an extent, by those with the most power or authority within the organisation.
Glenn: I was listening to a podcast yesterday - I just must drop this phrase in, which I heard only yesterday. It was a podcast about politics, and I won't even go there, but they used the phrase "control freakery", which I thought was an interesting idea. Control freakery gets in the way of so much good stuff happening. If you're a leader who falls foul of control freakery, delegated authority is going to be harder for everyone to step into.
Nejmi: Right. So that's your first question to consider, dear listener: what's your quotient of control freakery that might be contributing towards delegated authority showing up, or not? That's absolutely the starting point: how willing and able are you to relinquish control, and when, in order to build more leadership in those around you, within your teams? 100%, that's a function of it.
And I think that's why this topic in particular is so interesting: getting it right is a function of trust. Trust in your people, trust in the outcomes, trust in the way you navigate it - being very precise, or prescriptive, about the expectation, so that others can walk into the space you're creating, in their development or in their delivery of this authority you're delegating. But it also requires you to place importance on permission and parameter setting, so that people are really clear on where the expectation sits. That balancing act around trust doesn't need to be high-stakes: if you can get the right balance around permission setting, you can enable people to be really clear on where the parameters are - where you're expecting them to step up or step in, and what's beyond that. What's the space in which you want them to have the authority, so that they can deliver?
Are delegated tasks the gateway to delegated authority?
Glenn: There are a couple of things you've set my head racing on. One makes me wonder if trust comes, in lots of ways, through the credibility of your track record. In order for me to trust you with that delegated authority, you need to be credible in the sense that you've got a track record of doing what you say you're going to do. So I wonder if delegated tasks are the kind of gateway drug to delegated authority. You give people a range of tasks you think are either within their capability or just beyond it, and you see how they respond. The more confident you are as a leader that people will do what they say they're going to do, and do it successfully, that becomes the permission step: okay, I'm going to give that person permission, because I trust them and they're credible in my eyes. If people are thinking, "How do I go from early days - or not giving away much of this authority - to doing this?", there's a first step: delegate some important stuff and set some parameters around it. That might be more useful for people than diving straight into delegating the authority itself.
Nejmi: Absolutely. It's like breadcrumbing - little by little, creating a bit more space for people to step up into. But also being really active in how you're thinking about that process with your people, so you're consistently challenging yourself to expand the parameters you allow people to operate within, and being really honest with yourself about how you're going about it. Because often the barrier, as we spoke about before, is that we need to relinquish control and step out of spaces in order to enable people to step up into their leadership in the spaces we've just created for them. To be systematic about that, we need to be really intentional in our approach to developing the leaders around us - developing delegated authority as a function of the team.
An important place to start, for any team or individual asking "what's preventing people from stepping up? I've been explicit with the expectation I set, but I'm still not seeing the behaviour" - is to ask yourself, or ask others around you to be honest: what behaviours do they see from you that support the trust that they'll be backed if they step up into a space that's uncomfortable or unfamiliar, that requires a bit of a leap of faith? And are there any behaviours you demonstrate that might erode that faith or trust, and prevent people from stepping into the space you're trying to encourage?
Glenn: I agree with that totally. It leads us into another topic I know we have as a podcast episode further down the line, about followership - how to be a great follower is a really important skill, actually, which lots of people could do with learning. But it does bring in the other side of your argument, which is: just because you want to give ownership to people doesn't mean they're going to take it. The best you can do is create, as you've alluded to, the environment where people can take ownership. You do need to do all the self-reflective things you've just talked about in terms of your behaviours as a leader - but then you might need to put your coaching hat on and ask: how do I help this person step in? How do I help them have the confidence to take on a task they may think is beyond their capability, but I don't, as the leader? So there are at least two parts: the role of the leader and how they're approaching it, but also how the person being given that responsibility and delegated authority is responding to it.
How does the why-what-how model make delegation precise?
Nejmi: Absolutely. On that second part, there's the coaching and the guidance - and there's also the directive approach, which is about being really explicit with the expectation. I often think of this topic as part of a leadership system. To be really effective at encouraging people to step into the fold, precision is a key skill: precision in what you communicate and how you communicate it. The system at play, for me, is why, what and how.
What I mean is: within really precise expectation setting for anyone - whether it's a task or creating space for authority, any delegation - be really clear on the why: the direction of travel, the objective at play, whatever context people need to understand in order to step into the fold. In this case, why it's incumbent on your people to step up into the responsibility you're expecting of them. Be really explicit on the what: what is a good outcome? What behaviour would you expect to see, what outputs would you expect them to be responsible for delivering - and what does good look like on that front? And then contract, or co-create, the how. If it's a big step from where they are to the kinds of challenges you're asking them to solve, they might need more guidance on how to go about it. Or it might be that they're super credible, you trust them immensely, and the how is completely within their gift to craft with autonomy and ownership - they just needed the permission around the why and the what, and they can solve for the how.
As a really simple model: be very explicit and precise about what the delta is between where they are and where you'd like them to be performing. That way you're creating the conditions for that authority to be owned and stepped into, with clear parameters around the difference between where they're at and where you'd like them to be.
Glenn: I have to say, that's probably one of the areas I most frequently get wrong when I'm delegating authority myself - because I'm very high on trust. I wouldn't say I'm laissez-faire as a leader; I like to hear what's going on and want to know what's going on. But I'm very quick to delegate authority, and I don't think I often spend as much time as I could, or should, crystallising the what. I assume that if I'm delegating authority to you, you know how to do it anyway, so I'll let you go. Maybe we should have a coaching conversation live on air and explore that together! But I do honestly believe it's partly because I have very high trust, and I expect the people I'm delegating authority to, to create the vision for themselves - it's like, well, you know your world better than I do, you create it. And sometimes that's caught me out, because I've not spent enough time being precise in the way you've just described. So I think that's a really helpful tool - or at least a lens - for that delegation: are you doing it with enough thoroughness, for the benefit of both parties? It might take you a little longer as a leader, but you're going to have to pick up fewer pieces further down the line if you've done a better job upfront. You're investing a bit more time upfront to save time later.
Nejmi: Absolutely so. It's brilliant to have trust in those around you - often the pitfall is low trust, and therefore people don't step into delegated authority. What you're describing is the shadow of that, the flip side. The explicit and precise conversation around the what, upfront, has the additional benefit of removing ambiguity - which allows that trust to be paid back, because there's less risk of the behaviour driving towards the outcome not being aligned with expectations. It's really useful to align on expectations upfront: yes, to pay it forward so there's less to correct later, but also to avoid the risk of eroding delegated authority later. There's nothing worse than saying "I fully trust you, go ahead and do it", and then, once it's been done, coming back to say "actually, this isn't quite right, that's not quite right" and having to spend the time to course-correct. It runs the risk of eroding that authority - and next time, potentially, you've taken a step back in the likelihood of that person stepping into the fold, because they've learned from last time that that wasn't the best way to approach it.
Glenn: Yeah - and indeed, that trust is eroded through no fault of their own, necessarily. It's just that you, as the leader, didn't set the right context for them to succeed. I'm not saying you set out to do that purposely - you just didn't create it.
What erodes delegated authority?
Glenn: So, we've spent some time looking at what creates delegated authority and what needs to be in place - trust, credibility, permission, setting up with precision. You've mentioned this idea of eroding delegated authority, and some of that might come from a poor set-up, let's call it that. What else, in your experience - you've worked with loads of leaders - do you see eroding delegated authority? Maybe from both sides, but most typically from the leader's perspective?
Nejmi: Partly it's what we just spoke about: if we don't set it up correctly at the outset, and then have to be slightly less consistent with the message we shared before - where the message before was "I trust you, go ahead and deliver this", and later the signal around course correction is "actually, I don't trust you as much as I suggested" - it can be fragile in that respect. At that point they've taken a bit of a risk in stepping into the fold and driving it, and the cost has been: I don't feel as trusted in this environment. The next time they find themselves with the same opportunity, stepping forward might be less appealing. People learn from past experiences, of course. So it can be really fragile - not by intent. Ultimately you've got outcomes that need to be delivered, and it's necessary to give feedback or course-correct or whatever it might be. But in moments where we've asked people to take a risk by stepping into more responsibility, it can be particularly fragile, and it's really important to hold that in good faith - to acknowledge that it matters to get this right, because there's a risk if we get it wrong.
The other thing that can erode it, quite obviously, is the possibility of blame. If they don't quite get it right and then feel there's a backlash, or blame - that they haven't been backed when they took the risk to step into slightly more authority - of course, that's the quickest way to erode the chances of people feeling brave enough to step into more responsibility when they're being encouraged to do it.
How comfortable do leaders need to be with failure?
Glenn: I agree with that. It speaks to the idea that if you're going to delegate authority, while you're not looking for "failure" - and I use that word in air quotes - you've got to be comfortable enough that it might not go as you want it to. And if you're not okay with that, don't delegate that authority, or stay closer to it than you might want to as a leader. You can't just give somebody free rein, have it go wrong once - for whatever reason, whoever's responsibility - and then never give delegated authority again because you can't risk it. You've got to be comfortable with whatever the likelihood of failure is, and mitigate it in whatever way you can: more regular check-ins; a clear set of instructions, as you pointed out at the beginning; getting somebody to play the plan back - I don't mean like a schoolchild, that's really patronising, but "give me a plan based on what we've talked about, with some timelines and deliverables". Have the milestones, so it's never going to go so far off track. Delegated authority isn't "you've got authority, I'll see you in a year's time". When you think about our conversation with Keith Antoine, for example - elite athletes don't meet their coach once every four years. They're meeting them on a weekly basis to make sure they stay on track. So there's something about the level of comfort with - I won't call it failure - things going off track, or not being delivered as they ideally would.
Nejmi: You're bang on. There's risk inherent in all of leadership, fundamentally, because you're responsible for outcomes but you're not the person delivering those outcomes. So all the scaffolding and structures you just described, to mitigate where those risks exist - that's really important, of course: to be aware of it and to manage it. The critical consideration is: are you doing that? Are you evaluating where the risk is inherent in certain tasks, and relinquishing certain controls in order to realise the benefit of people learning new skills and developing leaders around you? Rather than, by default, every task and every situation carrying a high degree of control, because "ultimately it's my name that's responsible for this, my reputation, and so I'm not willing to blink at any of it." We see that often. And it can be a cultural consideration: if there's a high degree of blame in the culture, the natural response of all leaders is to tighten up controls - and therefore there's less room for growth to happen.
Failure is not in itself a bad thing. We tend to associate it with negative connotations - and of course, ideally, success is present everywhere and always - but in failure there is opportunity to learn and grow. So it's really important that we're creating spaces where failure could happen, because ultimately that's a function of development. I'm not going to butcher a phrase because I can't remember it exactly, but ultimately the organisations that grow the fastest - and the individuals that grow the fastest, too - are those that have tried more things. You've gone through more iterations, more cycles of experimentation and failure, and as a result you've landed on what works. That's the quickest route to accelerating growth. The phrase is "fail fast", precisely.
Glenn: Fail fast, right - but get back on the horse really quickly. And look, the most important thing - we'll come back to it again and again - is the learning cycle. Have you got the learning cycle that says: we wanted to do this, we've ended up with this, what have we learned as a result, and how do we get better next time? So you're not making the same mistake twice - but, to your point, you're not trying to avoid all mistakes. You accept that they will happen.
Nejmi: Yeah - and you mitigate for them, in the ways you described, but you allow the room and the space for learning, development and growth - and for growth in authority to show itself.
Glenn: You used a word earlier that really resonated for me: this delegated authority thing being quite fragile. I think it both is, and should be, in some respects. What I mean is that you should be handling it carefully as a leader. I don't think it will break, but you should be thinking: it could backfire if I don't have all the things we've talked about in the last 25-30 minutes in place to make it robust. And how do you make it anti-fragile? You make it anti-fragile by putting in all the mitigants we've just talked about.
How should you respond when authority is delegated to you?
Glenn: We've got a couple of minutes left, and I just want to talk about the person the authority is being delegated to. How do they handle it well? How do they expand into that space comfortably without looking like they're trying to land-grab or empire-build? Maybe a couple of heads-ups for leaders scanning how their team are responding to delegated authority - what are the indicators that somebody's taken on that added responsibility well?
Nejmi: I have the belief that it's really important for everyone to be very active around their own development. Not necessarily jockeying for position, but being very explicit about the directions you want to travel in. If you feel equipped to take on more responsibility in certain contexts, then earn the trust of those around you and above you - but also be explicit about where you feel ready to step into the next level of your career, your leadership, your development. I feel it's a function of really effective contracting: being explicit about where you want opportunity and where you feel ready for it, and of course earning that trust and demonstrating credibility through your day-to-day behaviours. That's the core of it. And if you sense there's a reticence, or a potential trust blocker, be explicit about that too. If I feel I'm not having the authority delegated to me that I'm ready for, have an honest conversation to explore what's getting in the way. What do you need to demonstrate in order to earn the trust, or reduce that blocker? That's where I would focus.
Glenn: Agreed. I've often spoken to people in exactly that position - eager for more responsibility, greater opportunity, but it's not coming. My view is: you can put your energy elsewhere. You don't have to only exercise your capabilities inside the organisation that pays your salary. It would be lovely if you could, but go and lead something in your community, lead a project outside of work. A, you'll get the experience you're not getting inside work. And B - this sounds awful, I really don't like this phrase, but I'm using it for effect - it boosts your CV, so if you then look for opportunities outside that business, you can say: this is what I've done inside the organisation I'm currently with, and by the way, here are all the things I've done outside, and the skills I've developed off my own back. You have to proactively look for those opportunities, both inside and maybe outside, if you're not being given them.
I think that's a really good place to stop, Nejmi. There'll be other episodes focused on the follower side of this equation, so there's plenty more where that came from. I hope listeners will feel we've covered a really useful next part of this idea: both stepping in and stepping out, and creating the opportunities for people to step up through delegated authority - why you'd bother to do it at all, how you set about doing it, some of the watch-outs to ensure you're not eroding it, and how recipients can flex into it.
Nejmi: I love that. And what a thought to close on, from what you just suggested: to earn authority, demonstrate it.
Glenn: Brilliant - I love that. That could be a meme somewhere, on a t-shirt maybe. Until the next time - really enjoyed that, as always. I hope listeners have got a lot from it. We'll put some show notes together and link to both the preceding episode, which I'd strongly recommend people go and listen to, and Keith Antoine's episode as well, because there are some really good points in there if you think about how you can become a high performer and get more delegated authority. The whole of last year, actually, was about high performance, so there are plenty of episodes there for you to go and listen to. Until the next time - thanks, see you soon. Keep well.
Nejmi: Likewise - thanks, bye.
Transcript lightly edited for clarity: filler, false starts and crosstalk removed; punctuation corrected. Content otherwise faithful to the recording.
These conversations sit behind the work we do at Careeryse. If you want to see how leadership is landing across your own business, start with the free Execution Drag Diagnostic