Speaker 0:00

Life Acumen at Work Podcast. Captain David Marquette was selected to command the USS Olympia, an American nuclear submarine. He studied it for over a year in advance, understanding on a deep level every detail of how that submarine operated. Unexpectedly, Captain Marquette was diverted to take command of the USS Santa Fe when its captain quit. Santa Fe was a different type of submarine that he knew little about. One month into his command, the Santa Fe was running a simple drill to simulate a fault with the reactor. In this scenario, propulsion is shifted from the main engines to a smaller electric propulsion motor. The captain ordered a head two-thirds. The officer on deck repeated the order. Ahead two-thirds. Nothing happened. Captain Market noticed that the helmsman who was to execute the order looked unsettled. When asked what the problem was, the helmsman pointed out that there was no ahead two-thirds setting in the electric mode on this submarine. When he probed the deck officer, he said he repeated the command knowing it was wrong. What disturbed Captain Marquette was not simply that he had given an incorrect order. The deck officer who had repeated the command already knew it was wrong. Think about that for a moment. A sophisticated submarine, a highly trained deck officer assigned with huge responsibility. Yet, at the critical moment, knowledge had surrendered to hierarchy. Welcome to Life Acumen at Work. Today I want to explore a question that sounds simple but becomes increasingly uncomfortable the more senior we become. Are we really delegating or are we simply distributing work while keeping control of the thinking? Because there is a difference between allowing people to execute a decision and allowing them to make one. And that difference may determine whether our organizations develop independent leaders or become increasingly dependent on us. What interests me is that the invisible trap of control does not necessarily begin with arrogance, insecurity, or a desire to dominate. Very often, it begins with competence. A leader has built a career by spotting problems, making difficult decisions, and knowing things others haven't yet learned. That judgment earned trust, promotions, and responsibility. Then the role becomes larger. The leader now has to achieve results through other people's judgment. But the very instincts that made him successful can make that transition difficult. He may continue reviewing everything, correcting everything, and being available for every difficult decision. Customers appreciate his involvement. The board feels reassured. So where exactly is the problem? Perhaps it only becomes visible when their leader is unavailable, when decisions slow down, when experienced colleagues hesitate, when people who are supposedly accountable for outcomes still ask for permission on matters well within their expertise. The organization appears well managed. But has it become well led? Let's return to Captain Market. What makes his story especially interesting is that he had tried giving people greater freedom earlier in his naval career. According to his own account, that attempt went badly. His team made mistakes and he returned to a more traditional command approach. But about the Santa Fe, he was confronted with the opposite risk. What happens when people are so accustomed to following instructions that they stop exercising their own judgment? He began changing the way authority worked on USS Santa Fe. Instead of routinely waiting for commands, officers were encouraged to making their decisions and reasoning visible. This was not an invitation for everyone to act independently without regard for safety or procedure. Competence, clarity, and technical discipline remained essential. The deck officers under him were no longer simply expected to obey intelligently. They were expected to think and take responsibility. Captain Marquette later described this journey in his book Turn the Ship Around. According to his account, USS Santa Fe went on to achieve dramatically stronger operational and retention results. Of course, one submarine's transformation cannot prove that the same approach will work everywhere. But there is something worth examining in the shift. Captain Marquette did not remove accountability. He tried to move judgment closer to the people who possess the information. And that leads to a question about our own organizations. When we delegate, where does the authority to make the next important decisions actually reside? Consider a familiar business situation. A boss asks a capable business head to develop a new market. The business head researches the opportunity, builds a plan, assembles the team, and presents a recommendation. The boss then changes the customer segment, modifies the commercial assumptions, rewrites the proposal, and insists on approving every significant customer commitment. The business head still has an impressive title. The initiative is still described as his responsibility. But what has actually been delegated? Perhaps the workload, perhaps the preparation, perhaps even the blame if things go wrong, but not the judgment. And over time, the business head learns something. The safest route to success is not necessarily to make the best decision on your own, rather, it is to anticipate the boss's preferred decision. And it is not only a problem for the person receiving the assignment, it gradually changes the leader as well. The more decisions return to the boss, the more indispensable the boss feels. The more indispensable the boss feels, the harder it becomes to release control. Eventually, both sides can become trapped in a relationship neither intended to create. As leaders become more powerful, they gain greater authority to make decisions. Their experience, achievements, and responsibilities often strengthen their confidence in their own judgment. Yet, the very confidence that helps them make decisions can also make them less willing to consider advice from others. The researchers found something particularly interesting. People who felt powerful were less likely to accept advice even when it came from someone with greater expertise. The issue was not necessarily that they believed the advice was wrong. Rather, receiving advice could unconsciously become a question of whose judgment was superior. This creates a leadership paradox. The more authority leaders gain to make important decisions, the greater the risk that they stop benefiting from the knowledge of those around them. These were controlled experiments, not a verdict on every senior leadership team. But they raise an uncomfortable distinction. A leader may sincerely invite alternative views. He may listen patiently, he may even thank people for challenging him. Yet the real test comes afterwards. Did that alternative reasoning actually influence the leader's decision? Or was participation encouraged while authority remained intellectually untouched? This is one reason delegation cannot be measured merely by how much work a leader passes down. We also have to examine how much independent judgment the team under him is permitted to exercise. And that brings me to an Indian corporate story. In the mid-2000s, HCL Technologies was operating in a fiercely competitive global IT services industry. Vineet Nayar, who took charge of the company's transformation in 2005, later became its CEO, began questioning an assumption about management. Who actually creates the value that customers pay for? Was it the senior leadership team making presentations and reviewing strategy? Or was much of the value created by employees working directly with clients, solving technical problems and delivering services? Nayar turned conventional management wisdom upside down. He called it employees first, customers second. The idea was not that customers no longer mattered. It was that employees working with customers needed an organization designed to support their judgment and effectiveness. Rather than treating management functions purely authorities that employees reported to, HCL introduced practices intended to make those functions answerable to employees. Employees gained greater opportunities to question management. Support functions were expected to be accountable to the people they served internally. And the responsibility for initiating a change was deliberately pushed beyond the CEO's office. This was not simply a CEO asking managers to delegate more. It was questioning why a legitimate authority should always flow in one direction. It's a deeper change than redistributing assignments. It changes who has the right to challenge whom. HCL subsequently experienced substantial business growth during the period of transformation. But it would be too simple to attribute that growth entirely to one management philosophy. Market conditions, strategy, execution, and other organizational decisions also matter. Now, data participation does not automatically eliminate hierarchy or guarantee good decisions. Nevertheless, Nayar's experiment reveals something important. Sometimes the obstacles to delegation is not an individual leader's reluctance, it is the organization's design. We tell people to take initiatives, but approvals remain concentrated at the top. We ask them to solve customer problems, but important information is restricted. We speak about accountability, but punish mistakes more visibly than we reward sound independent judgment. Under those conditions, dependence on management is not irrational. It may be the most sensible way for employees to protect themselves. Now, think about a decision-making meeting you attended recently. When someone disagreed with the senior most person, what happened next? Was the disagreement explored? Was the decision changed? Or did everyone eventually learn which direction the conversation was expected to take? This brings us to the part of this conversation that is often neglected. Delegation is not the opposite of involvement, it's a different kind of involvement. Andy Grove, the formal Intel leader, explored this in his book High Output Management. Grove argued the amount of direction a person needs depends on their experience with the particular task, not simply their seniority or general competence. He called this task-relevant maturity. Consider an accomplished downstream manufacturing leader taking charge of an upstream manufacturing operation for the first time. His seniority is high, his judgment may be excellent, but his experience with the upstream plant operations may be limited. Giving him full independence without sufficient support could be careless. Equally, closely supervising a seasoned operations head on decisions he has made successfully for years may undermine his effectiveness. The choice is not between controlling everything and walking away completely. A leader can agree on the outcome, clarify risks, establish where consultation is essential, and remain available without taking over every decision. Perhaps that distinction is especially difficult for founders. In the early years of a business, the founder's personal judgment often holds the organization together. A founder who reviews every significant decision may be doing exactly what survival requires. But as the organization grows, yesterday's strength can become tomorrow's constraint. It is whether the organization has changed faster than the founder's relationship with control, or the fear that if the team no longer needs me for every important answer, what exactly is my contribution? That is not a trivial question. For many accomplished leaders, expertise has become part of their professional identity. Delegation asks them to find value in something less immediately visible. The development of judgment in other people. And unlike a successful personal intervention, that contribution is not always easy to recognize or measure. But even if we accept all of this, one serious concern remains. Who carries responsibility when a delegated decision fails? A story from India's space program offers a different way of thinking about that question. In August 1979, the Indian Space Research Organization attempted to launch its SLV-3 satellite launch vehicle. APJ Abdul Kalam was the project and mission director. A malfunction in the second stage control system meant the mission did not achieve its objective and it failed. In an address delivered in 2003, Kalam recalled that Dhawan took him to the press conference following the unsuccessful mission. Dhawan publicly accepted responsibility for the failed mission. Then on 18th July, when the next SLV-3 launch successfully placed the Rohini satellite into orbit, Dhawan asked Kalam to lead the interaction with the press and share the success. When the mission failed, the senior leader did not leave the project director alone to defend the outcome. When it succeeded, he did not occupy the center of the celebration. There is something quietly powerful about that behavior. Dhawan had assigned a major mission to Kalam and his team. But assigning the work did not mean distancing himself from the consequences. Dhaman's response shows an important difference between ownership and control. He could retain ultimate accountability without needing to claim every achievement as his own. Allowing someone to make a consequential decision means accepting that they may choose differently from us. Sometimes the outcome will be disappointing even though the decision was reasonable when it was made. If every imperfect outcome results in the executive reclaiming authority, the team will eventually learn to avoid independent decisions. This connects with research by Amy Edmondson at Harvard. In a 1999 study of 51 work teams in a manufacturing company, she examined what she called psychological safety, the shared belief that people can take interpersonal risks without fear of punishment or humiliation. She found that psychological safety was associated with greater learning behavior within teams. This points to an underlying question which matters enormously for delegation. When a decision goes wrong, can the person responsible explain what happened openly? Can he point to boss's error before it became expensive? Or does everyone understand that the safest response is to protect themselves? Because delegation without the freedom to surface bad news may simply push risk out of sight. And delegation without accountability can be equally dangerous. In those situations, close involvement may be not only reasonable but necessary. The distinction is whether that involvement strengthens other people's judgment or steadily replaces it. So, over the next day or two, notice one decision that comes to you for approval. Before responding, consider whether the person bringing it to you has the knowledge, the information, and the authority to make it. If they do, perhaps the most revealing question is not what they want you to decide. It is what they would decide if the choice genuinely belonged to them. And when they answer, notice your own reaction. Are you evaluating their reasoning or are you immediately comparing their answer with your preferred solution? You might also revisit one recent decision where you intervened. Not necessarily a failed decision, perhaps one that worked out well. Did your intervention prevent a material risk? Did it add information that was otherwise missing? Or did it mainly make the outcome more consistent with your personal style? There may be no comfortable answer. And that is precisely why the question is useful. Because the real cost of executive control is not always visible in the decisions that go wrong. It is hidden in the promising manager who stops offering an alternative opinion. In the business head, who becomes excellent at anticipating the CEO's preferences but less confident in their own judgment. In the organization that runs smoothly when its leader is present, but hesitates when that person steps away. Let's return finally to the USS Santa Fe. The most revealing detail in that early incident was not the incorrect command. A captain can make a mistake. It was that a knowledgeable officer repeated an instruction he knew that could not be carried out. So, here is a question I want to leave you with. If you stepped away from your organization for 30 days, would your people make thoughtful decisions without you? Or would you discover that you had delegated the work but kept the authority to think? And if you know another leader who might find this question meaningful, do share the episode. Thank you for joining me on Life Acumen at Work. Until next time, keep reflecting not only on the results you deliver, but on the capability your leadership leaves behind.