Authority and Responsibility
 Subscribe to the Three Star Leadership Blog |
| The Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. |
| Follow me on Twitter |
| For weekly tips and resources pointers, check Wally's Three Star Leadership Letter |
| Find out more about having Wally speak to your company or convention. |
| Find out more about Wally's coaching services. |
 |
A blog reader named Tim sent me the following question: "Have you written about the relationship between responsibility and authority? If one is given responsibility, do they also require authority? What is the outcome when someone is given responsibility with no authority?"
In courses about being a boss they tell you this is a must. You can't hold someone accountable for something if he or she doesn't have the authority to go with the responsibility.
The way the issue is usually framed, it almost assumes that you will use your authority to accomplish the mission. But that's a mixed bag at best.
When you use your authority, you compel people to do your bidding. That may get this job done, but compulsion is far less effective than persuasion over the long term.
And authority isn't the only important thing in accomplishing most missions. You need resources, too. You and the people on your team need things like time and budget and equipment and skills.
Authority is organizational power. It is often most effective when it is used little, if at all.
Boss's Bottom Line
You probably have authority based on your position, but you'll be more effective if you can accomplish the mission by inducing people to perform, rather than compelling performance.
This doesn't let you off the hook for determining your team member's readiness and willingness to perform any task. And you're still responsible for group performance.
Wally's Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. Click here to check it out.
Categories: Management,Leadership,RadioShack
Tags: Supervision Management Leadership
Personally I grew the most as a leader when I had Responsibility but no authority. In the early 1990’s I was a product manager, and although frustrating at the time, I learned to lead through influence and not authority. It was that role that developed my “servant leader” style of today.
Mark Allen Roberts
Reply to this
Thanks for sharing that, Mark. I think you've described a situation that's common for many people.
Reply to this
Wally,
Great points here and I completely agree with your thoughts on the value of having someone want to do something rather than commanding them to. I often refer to it as the difference in commitment and compliance.
With compliance you get to stay where you are, with commitment, you can go where you want.
Thanks,
Randy
Reply to this
Thanks for adding your voice, Randy. I think most of the time that persuasion is preferable to using authority, but there are times when using authority is the only way to get the job done.
In the Working Supervisor's Support Kit and elsewhere, I've suggested to supervisors that they communicate clearly why they are taking an authority route. Usually the reasons people understand most readily are a need to move quickly and a dangerous situation.
Reply to this
Good quick read. Especially liked this insight: "compulsion is far less effective than persuasion over the long term".
Reply to this
Thanks for the kind words, Maria.
Reply to this
Authority v. responsibility is the biggest non-issue in business.
If you can't get your job done without formal power, then frankly, I don't want you to have formal power for fear of how you'll use it!
Reply to this
I can agree with that sentiment, Jason, and I think it's a good general principle. but my experience is that the issues on the ground are not sharply defined enough nor consistent enough over time to make that a practical option.
In most organizations, it's almost impossible to un-promote someone. There are managers out there learning how to do the job and mishandling this issue from time to time.
When I researched the transition from individual contributor to supervisor, I found that most new supervisors go through what I call the "Boss Phase" where they rely heavily on formal authority. It takes twelve to eighteen months to make the whole transition, if it's successful. So some folks are testing the authority idea and discovering why it doesn't work as a default choice.
And there are situational issues. People, including bosses, make errors in judgment.
Reply to this
I agree that one must be given the authority over others when they take on a new responsibility. I just cannot figure out how to do this otherwise. Sometimes you are called on to make a decision and how can you do this if you have to voice everyone's opinion. You are the boss, you need to check with those under you, but you need to make the decision as the one with authority.
Reply to this
Thanks for adding those comment, Brad. One of the boss's jobs is to make decisions and, sometimes, to exercise authority. Part of the art is knowing when that's the right choice.
Reply to this
Thank you for also recognizing that having the proper resources to support a leader's authority and responsibility is key. A leader can only do so much if the organization itself doesn't offer the tools to get the job done.
Reply to this
Thanks, Kim. It works down the line, too. A boss needs to make sure that a team member has the ability and resources to do a job.
Reply to this
I think that, as a manager or leader, you must have at least some authority. While I do not think that an absence of authority completely precludes the ability to lead effectively, it can certainly place obstacles in your path if you wind up dealing with employees who are unwilling to perform as required for their jobs. At that point, you have to have some authority to be able to compel such an employee to do their job or, if necessary, take disciplinary action up to possibly terminating the employee. If you have no authority as a leader, then there is always going to be someone who will take advantage of that, because they know you cannot do anything to them.
As you point out, the key here is to use that authority only when absolutely necessary. Employees know who has authority and who lacks it. They know who they have to listen to and who they can ignore. So, with that in mind, if you have the authority, generally speaking, you should not have to use it. Most employees will be aware of the situation and act accordingly and you will not have to use your authority. It’s only for those rare situations when an employee is insubordinate that you should really need to use your authority to get things done.
Reply to this
I think this is a great reminder that authority should be thought of as a privilege and used only when necessary. Some people don't see it that way and abuse it.
Reply to this
Thanks for adding your thoughts. Thinking of the authority as a privilege would certainly help head off abuse, but not eliminate it.
Reply to this
I found your bottom line comment about including people to reform, rather than compelling performance very insightful. I have worked in places where a boss only tried to use his authority to motivate his employees to get things done. It resulted in employees not having very much respect for his position and unmotivated workers. It is far more effective to set up a work environment where employees want to accomplish things that help the business.
Reply to this
That's a wonderful summary, Jennifer, thanks.
Reply to this
The problem I have a lot in my internship is that I'm responsible to find things that I may not have access to. Can the same case for responsibility and authority be made also for the relationship between responsibility and access?
Reply to this
Thanks for stopping by Zac. I'd class "access" under "authority" but it really doesn't matter what you call it. If not having access means that you can't fulfill assignments, then one of two things has to happen. The access rules are changed or the assignment is changed. Many times, people supervising interns forget that they may not have the same access rights or knowledge that regular employees have. Sometimes that means all you need to do is remind your supervisor of the situation.
Reply to this
Thanks for taking my question(s) Wally! And thanks to all who have commented. I just returned to the office from vacation and was very pleased to see this.
Reply to this
Thanks for the question, Tim. As you can see it sparked some great comments.
Reply to this
I totally agree with you when you say authority is best when not exercised a whole lot. We all have responsibilities within our jobs, and we look to people with authority to tell us what those responsibilities are. We all know who our bosses are, with them using their authority every chance they get. Low-Mach managers are much more effective leaders than high-mach ones.
Reply to this
Thanks for adding to the conversation, Cecelia. I don't think I know what a High-Mach and Low-Mach manager is, so I hope you'll come back and expand on that.
Reply to this
A high-machiavelliant person is one who demands respect and power through the manipulation of others. They are self-centered and typically do not work well in teams. Leaders who are high-mach individuals can be especially toxic to an organization because of these reasons.
Reply to this
Ah, Mach as in Machiavelli. That makes sense. Thanks for sharing that.
Reply to this
I may have a perfect example of how important the point Wally is making really is. I just got out of BASIC and AIT about half a year ago, and one of the biggest things that sticks out about my memory of it is from AIT.
I had the responsibilities of a leader (I was what they call "Platoon Guide"), but with no authority. I had to make sure people were in formations on time, in the proper uniform, etc. If I found someone doing the wrong thing, I had to encourage them not to with persuasion. It was my job to keep the Seargants from having to do their jobs (pushups, military presses, more pushups, etc.), where I didn't have the power to make the young soldiers be punished for their mistakes.
In other words, I had to find ways to incluence the soldiers I was responsible for to do the right thing with no authority what-so-ever. (I could have told the Seargants, but everyone had the same power. I also preferred my own methods over tattling.)
Reply to this
That is an excellent example, Billy. Thank you for sharing it. There are lots of examples like that in private industry, too. People are told to "get some people together and take care of this" and are left with no authority to exercise. Most of them do OK.
Reply to this