Managers are often reluctant to delegate because showing someone how do a job can be taxing and troublesome work, argues Alyona Timofeyeva. But, she says, it is well worth it and companies should ensure that responsibilities are spread around as much as possible.

The system of relations between bosses and subordinates in Russian companies and organizations has undergone major changes in recent years.

During the Soviet era, every employee at a state-run institution had a clearly formulated job description specifying his sphere of competence, duties, workload and responsibilities. The introduction of any changes in this system required one to go through a lengthy procedure of discussions with various levels of officialdom and the system itself was quite clumsy and inflexible.

At present, to the contrary, most companies in Russia have adopted flexible and sensitive systems of operation. This is dictated by the market, where a businessman must promptly react to situation changes.

Now, bosses have the opportunity to delegate responsibilities among their employees in an optimal way to ensure the most effective fulfillment of work. Unlike during the Soviet era, employees now have the opportunity to use their knowledge and potential to best advantage and to resolve problems on their own.

But quite often we come across situations where bosses are reluctant to delegate powers to their employees and keep on holding the reins of power in their hands and try to manage everything.

There is a parable that goes like this: Once upon a time, a man saw a woodcutter in the forest. The woodcutter was sweating and his work was going very slowly. The man came up to him and said: "Excuse me, it seems to me that your saw has gotten dull and needs to be sharpened." The woodcutter sadly replied: "I know, but I don’t have the time to put an edge on it, because I have to continue sawing."

It is a simple story, but it captures one of the greatest management challenges of today. How does a company make time to break up the normal order of things so that it can create improvements?

This is especially an obstacle when it comes to delegating responsibilities. Often, a manager will prefer to resolve a problem himself because he feels it is more convenient and because that way he does not have to worry about monitoring its progress.

Interrupting the usual course of business to show an employee how to perform a task can be troublesome. But by spending time on everyday problems, a manager deprives himself of the opportunity to supervise strategic issues and elaborate broader development plans. And in the long run, this is even more inefficient.

People in the world of business management have been talking about the importance of delegating with increasing frequency — and for good reason, too. As business becomes more complex and specialized, handing over responsibilities to others has become an ever-more crucial formula for success.

No one can do everything — this is a common-sense truth. But it is one that becomes all the more unavoidable when problems arise frequently and time is limited, as is increasingly the case in today’s digital world.

The implications for a manager or employer unwilling to divvy out tasks can be far-reaching. Refusing to delegate not only serves as a major source of inefficiency, but also can contribute to low employee moral and motivation.

For instance, I know a manager who used to complain that his employees were sluggish, lacked initiative, constantly needed instruction and were never able to meet deadlines. But he couldn’t understand why, because his recruitment policy was so stringent.

However, after a bit of discussion, it became clear that not a single company task got resolved unless this manager personally got involved. And as a result, his employees constantly had to wait for him as he finished telephone calls or held meetings with suppliers, contractors and other executives.

Then, as the problems heaped up, he was forced to resolve them right on the spot without proper analysis, which inevitably resulted in errors, conflicts, confusion and mess. This, in turn, had a detrimental effect on worker motivation.

His employees did not want to put their best into their work because they recognized they were part of an inefficient team. They had no chance to use their own talents and do the jobs they were hired to do. They had to stand by and watch their boss do jobs they could probably have done even better if only given the chance.

As a business grows, there comes a time when delegating becomes unavoidable. The burdens on a single manager or employer become too heavy and, as a company expands, the distance between decision-making and implementation becomes impractical.

To delegate properly, one should implement a clear set of instructions to a team that possesses the necessary skills, knowledge and experience. Closely monitoring the progress of a given task is also important.

In general, one should delegate as much as possible — there are no limits — and powers should be handed over to as many employees as possible, particularly to those who are at the lowest tiers of the management hierarchy or the ones who are closest to decision implementation.

Usually, it is reasonable to delegate preparatory work (research, primary conclusions, project drafting) — which, although routine by nature, give employees the opportunity to show off their abilities — and work related to specific issues where a specialist is better qualified.

Of course, delegation is initially a burdensome thing for a boss because it requires a lot of time and effort to formulate specific aims, tasks, responsibilities, etc., and to explain them to the employees. But it is worth it. Studies show that employees start working better if they are given a chance to be more independent because they must live up to greater expectations.