A recent acquaintance mentioned in passing that she books her own travel because she does not want to "burden" her administrative staff.

My initial reaction to that was grudging respect...(Wow, what a team player)...

...and then a little guilt... (am I "burdening" the folks who I expect to book my travel?)...

...and then counter-argumentation... (hang on - is that a smart choice?)

You may think I'm rationalizing - and I'd love to hear from you if you do (in polite discourse, of course). But I don't think it is a wise choice to book travel oneself because it flies in the face of what I consider a key law of successful business:

Give a task to the lowest paid employee who can successfully complete it.

I entered the workplace on the cusp of the professional DIY revolution. That right whippersnappers, way back in the late 1980's. When I started, there were no laptops or desktop PCs (we had mainframes), no small printers (they took up entire rooms on different floors), no email, not even a floppy disk.

Things really have evolved pretty quickly in only a few decades. Now all but the most celebrated executives can type their own memos (make that emails), print 5 copies rather than having their assistant make copies, etc.

But there is an opportunity cost to some of the DIY tasks at the office. Things that work in the background - like those 5 copies - take no time. But some things detract from the work you should be doing. There is an opportunity cost, and I think it's important to periodically assess the tasks that nibble away at your day, and make sure you:

Give a task to the lowest paid employee who can successfully complete it.
There are several reasons I believe this is a sound strategy:

1. Economics
It's just more profitable to have the higher paid employees doing things only THEY can do. If the CEO takes 5 minutes to go to the copier and make a copy - not only did that copy cost 10-100 times more than it would have if the most junior intern had done it, it ALSO had an opportunity cost for those (expensive) 5 minutes not spent doing things only a CEO can do.

2. Visibility
For things like air travel, sure, we all have the Internet and click-click-click, we know how to book travel. BUT, there is a benefit to have some central control and visibility of the amount of travel being booked. If 100 road warriors are booking their own flights, it can very hard to get a handle on the gestalt of your travel.

3. Support
If you always book your own travel (or make your own copies, etc), there will come a day when you flat-out don't have time. In the middle of that crisis, you turn to a junior employee and say "would you..." You may face some confusion, resistance, martyrdom, or even mutiny. If you have NEVER ask for assistance, they may not know how to do it, they will have questions about your preferences, etc and all of that will come up mid-crisis. On the other hand, if you normally use an admin for travel, you get into a routine where he or she knows what you like and can quickly complete new requests...but you need a flight to Bangkok at 2am, you can book it yourself as the exception rather than the rule.

4. Hierarchy
It's politically correct these days to talk about teams, stakeholders, and collaboration - but let's be honest, we are not an autonomous collective of equally skilled and compensated partners. There is a pecking order, there are differences in skills, talents, and productivity. Doing what a junior person can/should be doing is not being a good team player, it's devaluing the team. And in some cases, it's denying the junior person the chance to try, fail, and learn at the tasks they need to master. You might say "booking travel is just admin work" - but there is a mastery there: learn to interact with different internal clients, balance priorities, keep good records, identify opportunities, etc. Seen in this light, it's a stepping stone to managing larger projects in a career. So why are you doing it?

Agree or Disagree? I'd love to know. 

I am a professional nag. I admit it. I am sure it annoys those around me.

There are more like me. I've seen them, and I've seen those nearby roll their eyes at them. I've also seen that a team with a nag is more likely to deliver results on time and on budget. I certainly don't claim that nagging generates more creative or interesting results! In fact the opposite may be true. But unbound creativity can spin in interesting circles until the budget has exploded and the client has started a new RFP process.

So, how do you find the right balance? How to you bring enough nag to the process that you keep things on track but not so much nag that you kill the spirit and energy of the team?

I have been admonished that my nagging (which includes things like schedules, task plans, reminders, detailed goals) means that I don't trust my team. That if I trusted them I would let them run and be thrilled with the results. Interestingly, I have found that if I pull back and force myself NOT to nag, the output is rarely complete or on time. And when the milestone has passed, the players tend to ask "why didn't you remind me?" or "I didn't know that was my responsibility." 

I think everyone believes they should be allowed to problem-solve in their own way, in their own time. And maybe in a different world, we could all be painters and sculptors who wait for our muses to inspire us to cross into new creative territories. But, folks, if we need a spreadsheet completed by Thursday, do you really need space to finger paint? 

I guess I wish the professional nag was more valued. It is a skillset, and it does serve a purpose. What if, rather than being annoyed, the team could recognize the value AND the potential for pain..then set boundaries.? What if we harnessed the power if the professional nag for good?

A friend and colleague whom I respect recently said that he could had never had success in a situation where he delegated an outcome and let the delegatee determine how to achieve it.

Now, of course, "never" in this case is a clear exaggeration since I have done work for this person and, of course, fulfilled all aspects of the assignment with accuracy, vigor, and panache.

Hyperbole notwithstanding....why has he had this dearth of successful delegation? If it was only with one or two people, you could say - well, it must be them. But if legions of workerbees have failed him...is it him? Maybe. Or is it both parties? Maybe.

Stephen Covey has a whole system of delegation, with various steps leading up to stewardship delegation. And he argues that one should not attempt a higher level of delegation than the relationship supports. In other words, if you are dealing with a shoes-and-socks person (that's my term for the type of person who, when told to put their shoes and sock on, ends up with the socks on the outside...because, hey, that's what you said!)....if you're dealing with that kind of person, you can't really assign a nebulous outcome and hope for the best.

But let's assume that the delegatees are quality individuals, creative-minded, and ready to attack a problem. Why are there still so may times when what we get is not what we wanted?

I've assigned my share of tasks and been underwhelmed by the results.

I've also, as a freelancer, submitted a deliverable filled with pride and anticipation (like a kid presenting a stunning macaroni and glitter necklace on Mother's Day), only to be gut-checked by the silent, awkward pause that means "wow, how in God's name did you end up with this?"

This is a classic lose-lose situation. The person who assigned the task is thrown into a tailspin because the critical path has stalled (or even moved backward). The person who did the work feels a melange of emotions from unappreciated to misunderstood to incompetent. And the work, the thing, is still un-done.

I propose there are five things that could avoid or reduce these situations.

1. Clarify
Recognize that you have your own lingo and shorthand and the person you're talking to may not understand it. I've found only about 5% of the population will risk looking stupid to ask you to clarify something you say. Everyone else nods wisely, then goes back to their office or cubicle or whatever and thinks, "what the heck did she mean by "breadcrumbs on the PowerPoint"? Make it OK to ask for clarification -- one great way to do that is for YOU to risk looking stupid to ask the delegatee to explain his or her langauge. Make it safe to ask, and you cut down re-work caused by lack of clarity down the road.

2. Sketch
If you have something in mind, take out a sheet of paper or a napkin and sketch what you see in your head. There's nothing more frustrating than bringing 5 or 6 ideas for review --- kneeling before the delegator like a supplicant with one idea after another --- and getting the "eh, not quite" response. If you know what you want, don't keep it to yourself.

3. Contextualize
Even if you don't have an exact answer in mind, you need to give the delegatee a clue as to how their solution will be used. If you ask a graphic artists to "create a compelling graphic" you've really not given her anything to work with. On the other hand, if you say -- "I don't have a specific solution in mind, but I need a graphic element that we can use all year, that will work on a handout or a billboard, that is consistent with the brand, and that suggests movement through the process" -- you've provided context for the scale, the level of detail, the color scheme, and the style. Let's face it, we often delegate because we want results beyond what we would have thought of ourselves, but there are also parameters that must be met. Don't leave out the context.

4. Echo
You're already nodding...sure, sure, everyone knows this one. But do you do it? Do you take the time to ask your delegatee to explain the assignment back to you in his own language? Or do you practice drive-by-management, flinging assignments over your shoulder (or worse across your Blackberry) as you rush out the door for the airport? Three minutes...that's about the investment to get the double-handshake that means your delegatee understood you....if you don't get the echo... 30 minutes, 300 minutes? How long will it take to re-do?

5. Calibrate
If you work with someone frequently, consider co-creating a scale that defines the type of assignment. For example, sometimes you need someone do to exactly what you want -- not terribly rewarding for the delegatee, but vital to hitting a deadline. So have a code for that: "this is a verbatim assignment." In that case, the delegatee knows to listen careful and execute exactly; this is not the time to spitball alternatives. On the other end of the spectrum, sometimes you have a wild idea that may not even be possible, but you want someone to think about it and spend a little time on it: "this is a percolator assignment, put about 5 hours into it and let's see if it has any legs." (it is important to tell the person how much time to invest on this kind of thing and where it falls against other priorities). Obviously, the type of scale has to make sense for your situation...but think about a way to shorthand the types of tasks.

None of this is easy to do in the rush of an average day --- but it issimple. If you are not happy with an end result, revisit the moment of assignment. The seed of the solution is likely there.