I was speaking to a colleague recently who was feeling very anxious. They were trying to lead a major organisational process - something well within both their job description and individual capability - but they were feeling awful about the whole thing because of a strong sense they were not doing the right thing. We dug into this, and as far as I could see, the problem came from feeling a general expectation they own this problem, while they were also trying to meet their delivery goals in specific ways. So wide responsibility with diminished agency.
When in a position of authority and / or leadership, we need to be constantly alive to the effect of our actions on those around us. When delegating, that means trying to cleanly delegate either a problem OR a series of tasks. Both approaches have their place, but going somewhere in between creates all manner of anxiety.
Delegating a series of tasks means telling someone exactly what you want. You retain the ownership of the problem and tell other(s) what you need in order for you to solve this problem. Importantly, that means you're are retaining responsibility for the end product and various aspects of quality control along the way. No matter how clear your definition of the task (an entirely separate post...), delegates will need to check in to find out if they are doing the right thing. Certainly, you can expect the individual to use their initiative within those tasks - essentially you've delegating a series of micro-problems - but you are retaining responsibility for bringing it all together and need to make sure the person receiving the tasks doesn't feel that responsibility.
This approach is best used for your own direct deliverables, or in short-term scenarios such as "we need to achieve X by next week, so I'm taking direct control of this process". The trade-off here is that you're keeping direct control at the cost of putting more of your own effort into the process. You get to have ongoing input on how something is achieved and retaining the definition of done, at the cost of having to spend your time doing this - something which can be very difficult dependent on your own availability. It withholds agency from those receiving the tasks so the more senior you are, the less you should use this approach as you've presumably appointed clever, able people around you and want to make use of their talents.
The other option is to delegate the problem. In this case, you set out the direction and the parameters for success and let the individual work through it and solve the problem themselves. This approach empowers the individual, giving them an opportunity to stretch themselves and learn. It also frees up your own headspace, because someone else is now handling this problem and you only need to check in with them from time to time to ensure they have the support they need. However, the trade-off here is that you're empowering another at the expense of your own direct control. You don't get to dictate every step of the process, which means you need to accept that they might do things a bit differently to how you'd have done it. Likely, this doesn't matter but it can certainly be difficult to let go. The emphasis on you is to create an environment where the person can flourish and feel confident that (assuming a decent level of communication to keep aligned) you will support them.
I'm labouring this point because it's all too easy to end up taking the middle ground. Trying to put someone in charge of delivering something, expecting them to make the decisions and for it to happen - but expecting it to happen the way you want it, and them to make the specific decisions in your head. Obviously this is impossible - and just as obviously, nobody does this deliberately - but it happens all the time and for the person on the receiving end it creates an environment where it's impossible to perform. If they are any good they want to do a good job, but in this case the definition of "doing a good job" is being hidden. The point here is stunningly obvious, but can cause severe anxiety.
However, this is not just something for the leader to consider. The individual receiving the work should also be aware of their situation and force some clarity. What are the expectations here? If it seems I'm being given tasks can we please talk clear definitions of success, and about regular check-ins? Or can I own this problem, and solve it my own way? In which case, back off please leader and let me do my thing. Especially if this problem is something that my department / job title should own.
When this is decided, both parties needs to work to the chosen paradigm. If it's a task, the leader needs to get the information required to move things forward, but shouldn't expect the delegate to take the lead of the wider problem. If it's a problem, the delegate needs to take proper ownership and not ask so many questions of the leader they are making them do all the thinking. However, the leader needs to support the delegate. Whichever, both parties need to keep sufficient communication to ensure things are progressing the right way, and all parties can work with confidence.
By this point, we're leaning into the territory of our personal relationships with our colleagues and that is a very different post. I've certainly worked with people I can trust to work very much at arms length, and others I've needed to spend more time directly supporting. The same is true of my relationships with The Boss, at different times in my career. Like so many things, confidence (and better mental health!) comes with clarity more than anything else.
