Delegation (Part 1) the NEED

 

Delegation (Part 1) – the NEED by Toby A. Travis, Ed.D.

Recently I was posed the question, “Is there really a need for delegation of authority in the administration of an independent school?” I believe the answer to that question is a resounding YES – and the answer is the same in the administration of any other organization. The need for delegation is true for the leader delegating and the individual to whom responsibilities are delegated. Leaders of successful organizations understand their own limitations and the need to protect boundaries by not trying to do it all – as well as the need to delegate the work of the school.[1] Successful schools have faculty and staff members who feel ownership, believe they are trusted in their roles, and possess clear expectations and resources to fulfill those expectations when tasks are delegated to them.[2]

Delegation indicates that a school leader trusts his or her team. In fact, trust is a two-way street. Research has shown that the more leaders trust those they supervise, the more employees extend trust to their leadership.[3] Horsager makes the following observation based on research in both the public and private sectors:

Trust can accelerate and mistrust can destroy any business, organization, or relationship. The lower the trust, the more time everything takes, the more everything costs, and the lower the loyalty of everyone involved. By contrast, greater trust brings superior innovation, creativity, freedom, morale, and productivity.[4]

A consistent focus on the development of trust results in leaders who expand their influence and improve morale. Leaders with a high level of trust see greater productivity and commitment from those they supervise.

Delegation of authority and its associated responsibility, demonstrates that school leaders value the expertise of others, and empowers others to take action based on their unique skill-set and knowledge; something that all successful schools NEED!

***

©2016 Toby A. Travis

Delegation (Part 2) – the WHAT

Delegation (Part 3) – the DANGERS

 

[1] Jonathan Bendor, A. Glazer, and T. Hammond, “Theories of Delegation,” Annual Review of Political Science 4, no. 1 (2001): 235.

[2] Einar M. Skaalvik and Sidsel Skaalvik, “Teacher Self-Efficacy and Perceived Autonomy: Relations With Teacher Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and Emotional Exhaustion,” Psychological Reports 114, no. 1 (2014): 68-77.

[3] Joyce Berg, John Dickhaut, and Kevin McCabe, “Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History,” Games and Economic Behavior 10, no. 1 (1995): 122-142.

[4] Horsager, The Trust Edge, 210-213, Kindle.

 

 

 

Advertisements

4 Comments

  1. Through centralize power of authority always we would be engaged in only supervision works in the sense ” there is someone doing wrong” therefore most of the time would be consumed in the organization in search of fault and mistaken. at last we covered a huge loss of physical , mental and societal and financial even.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. How one handles authority (both the exercising of it, as well as relationship with others who are exercising it) demonstrates much about one’s view of self, God, and His world. Those who view authority as something that belongs to them will be stingy with sharing it, and have an inflated view of their roll in exercising it. Those who view authority as always flowing from God, downwards towards all human beings, of which I am one, will have a much healthier view. What you are describing is the healthier view.

    Liked by 1 person

What are your thoughts?

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s