What is delegation the assigning of one or more meaningful tasks or responsibilities (which could be operational or managerial) to a subordinate.

. Delegation is therefore a process. Why delegate? - First, the manager`s time is freed to pursue more important tasks. Second, the subordinates gain feelings of belonging and being needed. These feelings often lead to a genuine commitment on the part of the subordinates. An additional reason to delegate is that it is one of the best methods for de eloping subordinates. To combat tendencies not to delegate authorit!, a manager must" #.Recognize the need for delegation. A manager must ha e confidence that delegation of authorit! will be rewarding, will assist in building an effecti e group effort, will help multipl! his or her efforts, will benefit subordinates, and will enable subordinates to contribute their full measure. $.Devise a means for knowing what is going on. Delegators want to be kept informed, simpl! in order to be knowledgeable of what is taking place and to be in a position to institute correcti e steps, if re%uired. To suppl! information, a built&in audit, prescribed written reports, or periodic conferences can be utili'ed. (.Decide what type of decision making to delegate. A list can be prepared so that identification of those decisions to be delegated is predetermined. This ties in delegation with planning, and makes it a part of the managerial practice followed. ).Select carefully the delegatee. The assignment should be measured to the person. The delegatee should be one whom !ou belie e can succeed. *i e opportunit! to those persons not utili'ing their full potential. +.Help the delegatee. Assist, but do not tell the delegatee e,actl! what to decide and what to do. T!picall!, if the delegatee asks for help, gi e it- but to gi e the answers negates the benefits to delegation. .ather, the delegator remains a ailable, gi es encouragement, and asks pertinent %uestions designed to identif! and e,plore possible solutions to the problem. Reasons why managers might be reluctant in delegating authority to subordinates #. The! don't trust them $. The! don/t want their staff to see how eas! their 0ob is (. The! are covering up a fraud ). The! feel threatened b! letting subordinates into their world +. Simply ignorant 1 the! are not aware of the prime importance of delegation of authorit! to subordinates. The! do not know what ad antages are linked with delegation and, therefore, the! tend to centrali'e most of the authorit! within their positions and sometimes e en within their personalit! 2. Unwillingness to take risks 1 3subordinate employees commit errors. 4. Perfectionist thinking 1 3subordinates are simply unable to achieve such standards .5 6. Fear of isuse of !uthority some do not delegate authorit! for their in&built fear that subordinates would misuse it. 7. Fear of "osing #ompetent Su$ordinates - 8anagers do not delegate authorit! due to their fear that the competent emplo!ees would outshine themsel es and ultimatel! would either lea e the organi'ation,

be picked up b! somebod! else or be promoted to a higher position. 9n either case, the manager feels losing a competent helping hand. #:. %iscouragement from Superiors - 9n man! instances, while managers might be inclined to delegate some of their tasks along with re%uisite authorit! to their subordinates- the! are discouraged b! their senior leaders to do so. ##. &he '(ight )*ample+ syndrome, 8ost managers want to set a good e,ample for their emplo!ees b! doing man! tasks b! themsel es. The problem, howe er, is to decide what a good e,ample is. Some managers think that in order to set a good e,ample, the! must be bus! or at least look bus!&all the time. Such managers hoard work that should be delegated. -., Sheer attraction of power. Another reason that causes managers to sh! awa! from delegating is the human attraction for power. 8ost humans like the feel of power which often accompanies authorit!. There is a certain degree of satisfaction in ha ing the power and authorit! to grant or not grant certain re%uests. RELUCTANCE TO ACCEPT DELEGAT ON ;class participation here< a) Afraid of failure b) =elief that manager is tr!ing to 3set me up5 c) =elief that the manager is 3loading it5 to subordinates so that he can moonlight d) >ot wanting to be seen as the manager?s 3blue e!ed bo!5 e) >ot wanting to be seen as 3supping with the de il5 W/!& 0S 1&02!&013? - is the process b! which a person?s efforts are energi'ed, directed, and sustained towards attaining a goal. Effort is a measure of intensit! or dri e. @igh le els of effort are unlikel! to lead to fa orable 0ob performance unless the effort is channeled in a direction that benefits the organi'ation. #2.$ AA.BC T@AD.9AS DF 8DT9EAT9D> Three earl! theories of moti ation pro ide the best&known e,planations for emplo!ee moti ation, e en though their alidit! has been %uestioned. aslow4s hierarchy of needs theory was de eloped b! ps!chologist Abraham 8aslow. This theor! states that there is a hierarch! of fi e human needs" ph!siological, safet!, social, esteem, and self& actuali'ation.

A,hibit #2&#" 8aslow?s @ierarch! of >eeds

8aslow argued that each le el in the needs hierarch! must be substantiall! satisfied before the ne,t need becomes dominant. An indi idual mo es up the needs hierarch! from one le el to the ne,t. (See A,hibit #2&#.) #. $. As each need is substantiall! satisfied, the ne,t need becomes dominant. These fi e needs" Physiological needs - a person?s needs for food, drink, shelter, se,ual satisfaction, and other ph!sical needs. Safety needs - a person?s needs for securit! and protection from ph!sical and emotional harm. Social needs - a person?s needs for affection, belongingness, acceptance, and friendship. )steem needs - a person?s needs for internal factors (e.g., self&respect, autonom!, and achie ement) and e,ternal factors (such as status, recognition, and attention). Self-actuali5ation needs - a person?s need to become what he or she is capable of becoming. #. 8aslow separated the needs into lower&le el needs (including the ph!siological and safet! needs) and higher&le el needs (including social, esteem, and self&actuali'ation). c6regor4s &heory 7 and &heory 8 were de eloped b! Douglas 8c*regor and describe two distinct iews of human nature. #. &heory 7 is the assumption that emplo!ees dislike work, are la'!, a oid responsibilit!, and must be coerced to perform. $. &heory 8 is the assumption that emplo!ees are creati e, en0o! work, seek responsibilit!, and can e,ercise self&direction. (. Theor! F assumes that 8aslow?s lower&order needs dominate indi iduals, while Theor! C assumes that higher&order needs are dominant. ). >o empirical e idence e,ists to confirm that either set of assumptions is alid or that altering beha ior based on Theor! C assumptions will increase emplo!ees? moti ation.

otivation-hygiene theory9 de eloped b! Frederick @er'berg, is the moti ation theor! that intrinsic factors are related to 0ob satisfaction and moti ation, whereas e,trinsic factors are associated with 0ob dissatisfaction. (See )*hi$it -:-..) A,hibit #2&$" @er'berg?s Two Factor Theor!

rederick Herzberg!s "wo# actor "heory $also called %otivation#Hygiene "heory& proposes that intrinsic factors are related to 'ob satisfaction( while e)trinsic factors are

associated with 'ob dissatisfaction. Herzberg wanted to know when people felt e)ceptionally good $satisfied& or bad $dissatisfied& about their 'obs. According to @er'berg, simpl! remo ing dissatisf!ing characteristics from a 0ob would not necessaril! make the 0ob satisf!ing. /ygiene factors are factors that eliminate dissatisfaction. The! include factors such as super ision, compan! polic!, salar!, working conditions, and securit!G i.e., e,trinsic factors associated with 0ob conte)t( or those things surrounding a 0ob. (. otivators are factors that increase 0ob satisfaction and moti ation. The! include factors such as achie ement, recognition, responsibilit!, and ad ancementGi.e., intrinsic factors associated with 0ob content( or those things within the 0ob itself. ). @er'berg?s theor! has been critici'ed for the statistical procedures and methodolog! used in his stud!. 9n spite of these criticisms, @er'berg?s theor! has had a strong influence on how we currentl! design 0obs $.