home Management International Management - Rodchenko VV

International Management - Rodchenko VV

Responsibilities of employees when working with delegation of responsibility

" The model of Harzburg " makes high demands on both ordinary employees and managers of all levels, which is reflected in the detailed job descriptions.

According to the authors of the model, the independence of actions within the framework of tasks assigned to the employee and the powers delegated to him is the highest command of the worker. As a consequence of this - the prohibition of reverse delegation and delegation of responsibility to another person.

Reverse delegation means that the employee partially or completely shifts the tasks assigned to him and the resulting responsibility to his boss.

The reasons for this are:

• lack of confidence in the employee's own abilities. He does not believe in his ability to make the most rational decision, he is afraid to bear responsibility for this, so he thinks it's better to "hide behind the head of the boss";

• The employee believes that the risk associated with making a decision is too large, so he tries to insure his actions from the boss.

With an authoritarian leadership, reverse delegation is legal: if you can not do what does not correspond to the will of the boss, then it goes without saying that the subordinate wants to be reinsured in each individual case. The situation is different with the delegation of responsibility: here, reverse delegation is regarded as a serious violation of the duties of the employee to act independently and make decisions. This is clearly expressed in each description of the workplace, where it is written: "The following special assignments must independently perform this official," which means: he and no one else.

The authors believe that in addition to the above, this is an excellent way to verify the competence of your subordinate: if an employee starts asking too often his boss for help, shifting responsibility for solving problems to him, one can conclude that he does not correspond to his position.

However, according to R. Hen, in the particular case, the reverse delegation is only the insurance of an employee from an unpleasant situation.

Often the head of his own behavior encourages an employee's attempt to reverse the delegation of responsibility. This happens for the following reasons: as a boss, he finds an additional confirmation of his professional superiority over the employee, if the latter appeals to him for help. But even those bosses who realize that it is the employee's responsibility to act independently in the decision-making process are caught on the trick if their subordinates act psychologically very subtly when trying to escape from undesirable responsibility. In this case, the chief's duty is to reject the intention of the reverse delegation of responsibility.

It is widely believed that an official who has been delegated certain tasks with the appropriate authority has the right to transfer part of this assignment or the entire task to the entire other employee. This is a profound error. If the subordinate transfers the assignment to another employee, he thereby intervenes in the authority of the company's management to grant the right to make a decision; He will change the management's decision, which is not permissible. From a legal point of view, it is a matter of guilt for the transfer of authority. If the employee (or the head of the department) decides to transfer the assignment to another person, in his opinion more appropriate, he must first notify the management of the firm and make his suggestions on this matter.

The employee is obliged to advise his boss. This should happen in such cases:

• when the decision relating to the field of activity of the employee exceeds his authority;

• the chief needs to make a decision concerning the scope of the employee's activities;

• the supervisor consults with the employee, who has special knowledge and experience on this issue.

At the same time, counseling extends not only to the specialty sphere, but also to questions concerning organization and management.

As part of the authoritarian leadership, the "iron" law was in effect, according to which the subordinate should not show his professional superiority over the boss, so as not to undermine his authority. Giesela Böhme gives the following example: Goethe, being the minister of the Duke of von Weimar and therefore the highest administrative person, said in this connection with Eckerman: "The commander can still allow him to be helped, but never to surpass." Thus, when delegating responsibilities, the employee acts in relation to his boss, the decision-making entrepreneur, as a consulting entrepreneur. According to R. Hen, an explanation to officials at all levels of the hierarchical ladder of the difference between the provisions of the decision-making entrepreneur and the consultant entrepreneur is a task whose importance is underestimated. This is very important for the self-evaluation of each employee and ultimately can seriously affect the success of the company.

Let's consider the consultation model:

• an employee, by virtue of his knowledge, skills and experience, can make to his superior such a proposal, which is already a solution;

• Counseling is more than just talking to the boss of already existing facts;

• Discussion is only one element in the counseling process.

Counseling includes:

• promotion of alternative proposals;

• weighing the arguments;

• opinion exchange;

• mature proposal with strong arguments for decision making. When advising an employee, the following principles apply:

• the employee should consider advising his boss as if he himself has to make a decision;

• Counseling in due course includes business criticism of actions and representations of the chief;

• the employee is responsible for his advice on the merits;

• the employee has the right to learn from the supervisor the reasons that led him to take a decision.

When consulting a supervisor, the employee admits fundamental mistakes. Consider such situations.

1. The employee makes only one proposal to the manager and does not give alternatives, thereby limiting the manager's ability to make a decision. At the same time, the boss believes that he has found the most optimal way. The employee is obliged to outline other possibilities and to justify why they are not suitable.

2. The employee offers the manager a choice of a number of proposals and allows him to choose the most suitable proposal. The correct approach is that the employee outlines the advantages and disadvantages of each proposal and recommends the boss to choose one, in his opinion, the most optimal.

3. An employee in counseling is inclined to agree with the opinion of the chief. Counseling will only make sense if the employee's opinion does not depend on the opinion of the chief. For the latter, it is very important to find out the unattractive opinion of the employee, to recheck his own convictions and get an impulse for further action.

4. During counseling, the employee retreats, after all, to the secondary positions of the third person participating in the decision. In other words, an employee in counseling can not and should not take an indifferent attitude. According to G. Boehme, this consultation should always be connected with inner conviction.

5. The employee tries to evade execution of the decision of the superior taken in spite of his advice. If the chief made a decision contrary to the employee's advice, the latter must acknowledge the decision of the boss and execute it with the diligence of an executive and conscientious employee.

6. The employee, who is afraid of unpleasant wrangling with the boss, making him his suggestions, presents them as if they were the ideas of his boss, voiced earlier. He considers this method to be psychologically intelligent and expedient, in fact, it is not about advising the boss, but about manipulating him.

It is widely believed that the employee is not responsible for his advice to the chief, since he makes the decision. However, it is impossible to exclude the responsibility of an employee who, in some particular case, could have a significant influence on the decision of the chief, for the consequences of counseling in his own case.

"Model Harzburg" involves the use of collegial cooperation at the enterprise, which should be understood as the interaction of employees related to each other entrusted with their tasks and powers, but without mutual subordination on the basis of mutual revenue and the principles of decency. Workers are in equal conditions with respect to each other. No one should give instructions to another and is not required to follow the instructions of his colleagues.

Important elements of collegial cooperation are horizontal information, mutual information, the opportunity to ask and give advice, as well as self-coordination.

Each employee is obliged, on his own initiative, to inform his colleagues and third parties in the enterprise, related to him on work, about all matters from his field of activity. Such information should be reliable and must be provided in a timely manner. At the same time it does not matter whether these persons are subordinate to one boss or different.

The value of the horizontal information is as follows:

• It allows officials to quickly learn important information, prevents duplication of work and facilitates the necessary coordination in various areas of the enterprise;

• Horizontal information refers only to those processes within the scope of the activities of one official who other officials need to know in order to act properly, but not those cases that other official would like to know about;

• it includes not only the processes taking place in the official sphere of its activities, but also other facts and actions with which this official was acquainted in a roundabout way, for example, at international exhibitions, on business trips, etc. Using a computer facilitates the process of exchanging a horizontal Information, however, in order to increase the promptness of the receipt of this information, as well as its clarification and clarification, personal contacts of employees with each other are necessary.