It’s like déjà vu; I often feel as though I’ve lived many lives.
One of my passions in my current life is climbing. Given that all climbing courses are run by trained professionals and that nothing is left to chance, I happened to attend the presentation of a course where, whilst the theory was thoroughly covered, the practical aspects were taught through observation. The instructor demonstrates whilst the student watches, unable to do anything.
In another life, I used to fly. Before my first take-off, during the pre-flight briefing with the instructor, we studied the lift equation, working out theoretically when the wing stops flying. After the briefing, we boarded the aircraft and took off. The instructor performed the first clean stall (this is the name given to a simple stall in which the wing loses lift and the aircraft falls almost as if gliding). During the stall, he asked me to observe the wing carefully, then asked me to repeat the stall and recovery manoeuvre.
This instructor was able to explain the theory to me, let me try the practical side, and take me to experience the physics of flight and my own limits, in complete safety. Throughout the course, he allowed me to make mistakes, always ensuring there was ample room for recovery and safety.
In a previous life, I served in a mobile unit of the Carabinieri. Responsibilities were clear and inherent in the hierarchy. The rules of engagement were communicated and reiterated daily and before every shift. Particular emphasis was placed on the need to manage incidents with a focus on de-escalation. The risks and consequences were clear to everyone, right down to the very limits of the lawful use of weapons and self-defence.
In this context, the limits within which we could act independently were clearly communicated, and we knew how to proceed should we approach those limits. The risks and responsibilities were known to all.
I have been to the beaches of Normandy twice. The second time, I realised that what you see there is not just military history.
On 6 June 1944, in the early hours of the morning, Allied forces landed on the beaches of Normandy. The German commanders on the ground realised almost immediately that this was no diversion: it was the real invasion.
They needed the Panzer Divisions. They were needed immediately.
But the reserve armoured divisions were under Hitler’s direct control, and Hitler was asleep. No one dared wake him. No one had the authority to do so, and no one had the authority to move the tanks without his explicit order. Rommel was absent, convinced that the bad weather would prevent a landing on those very days. Von Rundstedt requested the transfer of the armoured reserves: the request was rejected by the General Staff because they did not wish to disturb the Führer.
Hitler woke up in the afternoon. The Panzers arrived too late, by which time the Allies had already consolidated their beachheads.
Those lost hours were never made up.
It was not merely a tactical error. It was the result of a system in which every decision converged on a single point, and that point was unreachable. The field commanders had the eyes, they had the information, they had the means. They lacked the authority to act.
Absolute centralisation, at that moment, was tantamount to a tactical defeat.
‘Delegation’ is a word derived from Latin meaning ‘to entrust a task to someone on one’s behalf’.
- Before delegating, it is necessary to
train the person to whom you wish to delegate, covering both theory and practice. Going beyond the theoretical aspects is essential.
- When practical training takes place, the person must be
allowed to make mistakes without causing serious or irreparable damage. Briefings and debriefings become a fundamental method, even in the day-to-day work that follows.
- Before you start delegating, you need to
define the rules of engagement, i.e. the limits within which people can operate independently.
- Before you start delegating, you need to communicate the rules of engagement, ensure they are understood, and check that everyone knows what to do when they approach a limit.
But how exactly do you define the rules of engagement?
Defining them means establishing boundaries that delineate a sort of area within which people can act independently. Indeed, people are expected to act independently.
The scope must be ‘appropriate’.
If it is too narrow, people will feel they lack the necessary authority; if it is too broad, the individual will proceed without any constraints. If the definition is too detailed and lengthy, or conversely, if it is too vague and unsuited to the context, the same problems will arise.
In a manufacturing company in the North-East that I worked with, we collaborated to define the Project Manager’s scope of autonomy. The result was simple and took up half a page: financial variations up to €5,000, delivery delays of up to three days, and technical changes with no impact on regulations or performance levels promised to the client. Everything else: immediate escalation. Within six months, the number of decisions escalated to senior management had fallen by more than half. The Project Manager was working more effectively. So was senior management.
That half-page was worth more than years of meetings on trust and responsibility.
When defining this scope, the context – that is, the type of work and business – becomes fundamental. The main areas to focus on are:
- Scopes: in which scopes can decisions be made independently, and viceversa? For example, scopes relating to regulatory compliance, prices, costs, timescales, quality, performance, etc.
- Consequences: to what extent can a decision impact other bodies, internal and external functions, and stakeholders in general? What are the acceptable risks of such consequences?
- Costs: up to what value can decisions with financial implications be made independently?
- Timelines: when a decision affects the time variable, what is the acceptable limit? For example, regarding project execution times, invoicing, deliveries, etc.
- Quality: within what limits can decisions be made that affect the performance of the product or system?
- Accountability: who bears and manages the consequences of the decisions that are made?
And what happens when we approach the limits of this area?
One rule of engagement would be to inform the relevant contact person and request their intervention. In short… we escalate the matter whenever necessary, without fail.
For example, let’s imagine the PMO (Project Management Office) of a company that manufactures machine tools for export worldwide.
Let’s imagine that the client requests a change to the project whilst it is in progress. It is a minor change with a small financial impact and no impact on the schedule. It is a technical improvement to the machine. In this context, the client is angry because the company is a month behind on delivery.
The Project Manager who is clear about the constraints within which to operate decides independently to implement this change, seizing the opportunity to justify part of the delay and build a positive relationship with the client.
The Project Manager who is unclear about these constraints risks escalating the issue, further slowing down the process. They also risk deciding not to accommodate the client because they believe they lack decision-making authority. In this case, the risk is that the relationship with the client will deteriorate further.
Let us imagine what might happen in cases where, in the absence of constraints, decisions are made that have a significant impact on finances, costs, performance, regulatory compliance or other factors.
If tomorrow morning you would be unavailable for the entire day, would your organisation know what to do? And how far could it go without you?
You can find further insights on this topic in Laura Rumi’s article: Quando la delega funziona davvero e quando no.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/quando-la-delega-funziona-davvero-e-laura-rumi-s6e3e/
