the impact of effective delegation in organizations a …
Post on 20-Apr-2022
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
THE IMPACT OF E F F E C T I V E D E L E G A T I O N IN
ORGANIZATIONS
A CASE STUDY OF K E N Y A R E V E N U E AUTHORITY
Unitea States inieniduoiim universiiy Africa - Library
BY
ANNE N. MPUTHIA
A Research Project Report Submitted to the Chandaria School
of Business in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the
Degree of Executive Masters in Organizational Development
(EMOD)
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
\
SUMMER 2014
U S I U - A
400000017931
STUDENT 'S DECLARATION
I , the undersigned, declare that this is my original work and has not been submitted to any other college, institution or university other than the United States International University in Nairobi for academic credit.
Signed: . ^ ^ - ^ ^ ' g Date: /s/yJ^V/'^ Anne Mputhia (ID No: 637968)
This project has been presented for examination with my approval as the appointed supervisor.
Signed
Dr. George O. K'Aol
: Date: X t i ^ ^
Signed: (S^^E- ^ Date: ^ - 3 iTu^H -̂̂ >
Dean, Chandaria School of Business
11
COPYRIGHT
All rights reserved. No part of this project may be reproduced or distributed in any form
or by any means or stored in a database without prior written permission from the author.
© 2014 by Anne Nkatha Mputhia.
iii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of effective delegation on
Organizations. This study was guided by the following research questions: What are the
criteria for effective delegation in organizations, what are the barriers to effective
delegation in organizations and what are the benefits of effective delegation in
organizations?
A case study research design was used to conduct this research. The target population
consisted of Senior Tax Officers at Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA). Stratified random
sampling was used to select a sample size of 316 Senior Tax Officers. Data was collected
using a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was first piloted to ensure its
relevance and reliability. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics in terms of
frequency distribution and percentages. The results were presented in figures and tables.
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used as a tool for data analysis.
The major findings on the criteria for effective delegation in organization revealed that
majority of the respondents did not follow some of the essential steps in the effective
delegation process including: task suitability, task definition, goal definition, identifying
the right person and proper training. The respondent also indicated that staffs buy-in,
clarification of expectations, organization structure and role definition were key factors in
effective delegation.
On the extent to which officers experienced the barriers while delegating, lack of
confidence, preferring to do work themselves, lack of trust in employees, having
inexperienced staff and neglect in level of authority contributed to a large extent why
delegation was not effective. The other factors provided by the respondents on the
barriers that prevent effective delegation included not having enough time to do the task
and not having enough resources.
The major findings also showed that delegation benefits the organization as well as the
managers and employees by building and developing skills, meeting deadlines, enhancing
job satisfaction and improving productivity of the organization. The respondents also
iv
mentioned other benefits of effective delegation such as sharing of knowledge, improving
communication and facilitating teamwork among the employee and management.
The conclusion drawn from the findings of this study is that Senior Tax Officers did not
effectively delegate responsibilities to their subordinates. The study revealed that the Tax
Officers faced individual and organizational barriers when delegating. The study also
revealed that delegation has many benefits for the managers, employees and the
organization; it builds and develops skills, enhances job satisfaction and improves
productivity.
The study recommends that officers should be trained through various courses and
seminars on delegation in order to be effective in the delegation process. Tax Officers
need to consider employee's input during the planning process of delegation by arranging
for team building to enhance relationships and communication with their subordinates to
alleviate the barriers to delegation. The study recommends that a wider research should
be conducted on Kenya Revenue employees in non management to determine their
perceptions of delegation practices. A comparison could then be made on similarities and
differences between the two studies and an action plan developed to address differences.
The managers should be educated on the benefits of effective delegation.
V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to acknowledge the Almighty God for seeing me through the EMOD Program. I
would also like to acknowledge the contribution of a number of people.
1 would like to acknowledge with appreciation the effort of my supervisor Dr. George
K'Aol for the support, guidance and direction during the preparation for this work,
shaping my mind and helping appreciate research issues.
To my classmates and peers in the university in the many hours we spent together and
shared so much joy and happiness and for contributing so much to the knowledge we
have through the study groups and questions they asked and some of which they
answered.
1 wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to all my lecturers at the United States
International University whose guidance made my pursuit of knowledge both
comfortable and fruitful.
To my parents and other close family members and friends who prayed and endured; my
absence in a lot of important occasions and events.
There are numerous others that I cannot specifically mention, but to all I say thank you
very much; may the Almighty God bless you all and continue to show his mercy as he
has always done.
vi
DEDICATION
I dedicate this paper to my employer and to my family.
vii
T A B L E OF CONTENTS
STUDENT DECLARATION ii
COPYRIGHT iii
ABSTRACT iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT vi
DEDICATION vii
TABLE OF CONTENT viii
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF TABLES xi
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of the Problem 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 3
1.3 Purpose of the Study 4
1.4 Research Questions 4
1.5 Significance of the Study 5
1.6 Scope of the Study 5
1.7 Definition of Terms 6
1.8 Chapter S ummary 7
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 8
2.1 Introduction 8
2.2 Criteria for Effective Delegation 8
2.3 Barriers to Effective Delegation 14
2.4 Benefits of Effective Delegation 24
2.5 Chapter Summary 29
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 30
3.1 Introduction 30
3.2 Research Design 30
viii
3.3 Population and Sampling Design 30
3.4 Data Collection Method 32
3.5 Research Procedure 33
3.6 Data Analysis Method_ 34
3.7 Chapter Summary 34
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS 3̂5
4.1 Introduction 35
4.2 General Characteristics of the Study Group 35
4.3 Criteria for Delegation 38
4.4 Barriers of Delegation 46
4.5 Benefits of Delegation 52
4.6 Chapter Summary 59
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 61
5.1 Introduction 61
5.2 Summary 61
5.3 Discussion 62
5.4 Conclusion 66
5.5 Recommendations 67
REFERENCES 69
APPENDIX I : COVER L E T T E R 74
APPENDIX I I : RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRES 75
APPENDIX I I I : TABLE FOR DETERMINING SAMPLE SIZE 79
ix
L IST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Tannebaum and Schmidt Continuum Delegation Model 11
Figure 2.2 Delegation Process Framework 12
Figure 4.1: Criteria to Improve Delegation 46
Figure 4.2: Barriers to Effective Delegation 52
Figure 4.3 Benefits of Delegation 59
X
L IST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Population Distribution 31
Table 3.2: Sample Size Distribution 32
Table 4.1 Gender 35
Table 4.2 Ages 36
Table 4.3 Current Position 36
Table 4.4 Years in Management 37
Table 4.5 Direct Reports 37
Table 4.6 Education level 38
Table 4.7 Frequency of Assigning Work 38
Table 4.8: Managers input whether Task is Suitable 39
Table 4.9 Define the task 39
Table 4.10 Identify key goals 40
Table 4.11 Plan the Delegation 40
Table 4.12: Identify the Right Person 41
Table 4.13: Anticipate problems 41
Table 4.14: Ensure proper training 42
Table 4.15: Establish Clear Reporting Links 42
Table 4.16 Establish Scope of Authority 43
Table 4.17: Agree on Time-scale 43
Table 4.18 Agree on milestone 44
Table 4.19 Establish Key Performance Indicators 44
Table 4.20: Give specific feedback 45
Table 4.21: Do work yourself 47
Table 4.22: Lack confidence 47
Table 4.23: No time to train 48
Table 4.24: Lack of trust in employees 48
Table 4.25: Negotiate boundaries 49
Table 4.26: Inexperienced staff 49
Table 4.27: Neglect level of authority 50
Table 4.28: Resist Responsibility 50
xi
Table 4.29 Success is my Responsibility 51
Table 4.30: Decision are Made Under Crisis 51
Table 4.31: Build New Skills 53
Table 4.32: Work Deadlines are met 53
Table 4.33: Employees become Committed 54
Table 4.34: Control less Difficult 54
Table 4.35: Growth and Development 55
Table 4.36: Performance can be measured 55
Table 4.37: Staff Satisfaction and Recognition Enhanced 56
Table 4.38: Manage Effectively 56
Table 4.39: More Productivity 57
Table 4.40: less travel and stress 57
Table 4.41: More time to manage 58
xii
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Time is a precious commodity for any leader and should be wisely invested in decision
making activities that are distinctively suited to accomplish (Hughes, 2012). It is not easy to
recognize what it takes to be a manager. In a many organizations, it is not likely or realistic
for any one individual to carry out all essential activities to create, maintain and grow a viable
enterprise (Smith, 2012). Fact is that to become an effective manager, you need to be able to
efficiently and successfully integrate people and activities in order to meet your team's needs
and your organization's goals (Northouse, 2013).
Delegation as a leadership skill is very important for improving the efficiency and motivation
of supervisors and employees as through delegation they actively participate in decision
making (Heller, 1998). Many writers who have addressed delegation have done so in the con
text of participative decision making. Yukl (1981) defined delegation as a subset of
participative decision making; most treatments of delegation have included it on continua of
processes by which subordinates may be involved in decision making. Broadly, delegation is
"the act of authorizing to act as representative or agent for another" (Mish, 2008; Smith,
2012).
Delegation is not only used for freeing up the boss's time but as a management technique it
can be used to build up your people and yourself (Lawson, 2007). A manager must ensure that
delegation happens properly. Just as significantly, as the recipient of delegated tasks you can
suggest improvements to the delegation process and understanding especially i f your boss
could use the help. This will give you the opportunity to 'manage upwards' and consequently
enhance your skills. Managing upwards is a central skill in delegation and this is determined
by the way you receive and agree to do delegated tasks (Finch & Maddux, 2006). To ensure
subordinate performance when letting go one must first, ensure that high standards are
established and understood by the employee. The boss must personally demonstrate these
standards and communicate them to the subordinate and organization at large. Secondly, the
vision and objective must be clearly understood and explicit. When delegating responsibility,
it should be described in detail, defining necessary parameters and establishing performance
standards (Smith, 2012). It is critical for the manager to know that the ultimate responsibility
1
lies with him. Therefore it is necessary to delegate as this helps an organization grow and
become successful.
In order for the manager to focus on more strategic and suitable matters it is best for the
manager to expand objectives and pressures to do more with less by assessing who is best to
carry out specific activities. At Kenya Revenue Authority ( K R A ) due 'to the pace required to
respond to collecting revenue on behalf of the Government of Kenya, the changes of policy
and regulations that require quick implementation, it is common place to find managers at
upper level increasingly in quick reaction mode. They regularly find themselves negofiafing
challenging activities, with overlapping and constricted deadlines. Performance in any
organization depends not only on the response of co-workers and work teams but also on
one's own behavior, (Sharma, 2008). This is why superior delegation and the response from
immediate subordinates must both be considered to measure the overall results on the
organization.
Extensive research categorically proves that the manager himself is the largest barrier to
effective delegations (Hasan, 2007). Other common reason managers at K R A fail to delegate
effectively, or sometimes not delegate at all, is because of psychological barriers, the greatest
being fear. A manager may be afraid that i f subordinates fail to do work properly, the
manager's performance will suffer. Axely (2002) cites fear for the consequences of delegation
makes managers sometimes argue: ' I can do it better myself, 'It takes too much time to
explain what I want done', 'my subordinates are not capable'. This results in managers finding
it difficult to identify a person in their institution who would be properly qualified and able to
replace them effectively i f an opportunity to move up the hierarchy comes along. In order to
get over any fear of failure, impatience or insecurity to delegate certain measures can be
introduced by managers for effective delegation. Not only may such measures make managers
better delegators, it may also help them not to be afraid to try at all (Lawson, 2007).
Ruff (2011) states that good delegation not only a time saver but it develops and motivates
your subordinates and grooms a successor. Poor delegation will cause a manager fhastration,
de-motivates and confuses the subordinates leading to failure to achieve the task or purpose
and in the long run may cause the organization not to meet its goals. So if s a management
skill that's worth improving. Delegation is a very helpful aid for succession planning, personal
development and seeking and encouraging promotion (Smith, 2012). Delegation enables us to
gain experience to take on higher responsibilities; it is how we grow in the job. Delegation is
crucial for effective leadership. Effective delegation is essential for management and
leadership succession. The main task of a manager in a growing and thriving organization is
ultimately to develop a successor and when this fails, the succession and progression becomes
dependent on bringing in new people from outside.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
When it comes to delegation many managers in many instances do not sufficiently or suitably
delegate to subordinates some are even reluctant to delegate any tasks or activities. Delegation
requires managerial skills and intent, which are necessary so that the manager can multiply his
strength through others (Ghumro, Mangi, & Soomro, 2011). It is important that
proper delegation is practiced to reap maximum benefit of the individuals, the organization
and to meet established goals. In fact, developing subordinates is one of the most important
duties that a manager has.
Luecke (2009) notes that when managers do not delegate he finds himself doing many or
most of the same tasks and this will lead to subordinates frequently come to you for
clarification or guidance, direct reports don't feel adequately prepared to execute, employees
become idle less busy than yourself this creates low morale, personnel turnover is rising, you
second guess subordinates decisions and personally redo their assignments, deadlines are
missed. This means productivity is low and managing the organization becomes
overwhelming and the manager is not able to make key decision and may end up performing
poorly.
The vast majority of literature on delegation consists of theoretical papers. To fiirther improve
research on delegation, it is important to do empirical research to test the outcomes of
theoretical models. Various researchers like Ruff (2011), have noted that a lack of knowledge,
skills, and attitudes affect delegation and decision-making skills. This is a result of inadequate
education on the subject during school. Other researchers include Smith (2012) who noted in
her research that the failure to recognize the need and benefits of depending on others in the
workplace which is brought about by some differences in leadership experience. Most
supervisors realize they need to delegate, most think they delegate well, but few actually do
(Urbaniak, 2011). Few empirical researches on delegation have been done. Bloom et al.
(2010b) have presented a survey of the recent empirical studies in the field of organizational
economics, including works on delegation. The most significant empirical study on the
determinants of delegation is that of Colombo and Delmastro (2004). They noted that in order
to reap maximum benefit from individuals and to meet established goals for any organization
it is crucial that proper delegation is practiced. In fact, developing subordinates is one of the
most important duties that a manager has. Skillfiilly apportioning tasks to less skilled workers
is a means to achieve this end (Smith, 2012).
1.3 The Purpose of the Study
This purpose of this study was to determine the impact of effective delegation at Kenya
Revenue Authority.
1.4 Research Questions
This study was guided by three research questions.
1. 1.4.1 What are the criteria for effective delegation in organizations?
2. 1.4.2 What are the barriers to effective delegation in organizations?
3. 1.4.3 What are the benefits of effective delegation in organizations?
1.5 Significance of the Study
1.5.1 Kenya Revenue Authority
This study will benefit the Managers at all levels to recognize the practice and impact of
properly delegating responsibilities. The outcome of this study is to enhance understanding
the process of delegation and the reasons they do not delegate so that modification to
delegation practices can be considered and benefits can be realized. It will provide insight,
information and understanding to Managers in the organizations of a crucial leadership and
management duties. The study will also help leaders do their jobs more effectively and
efficientiy through delegation. It will also increase responsibility in a more effective manner
which will enhance job ownership and improve employee motivation thereby enhancing
productivity. This will also help enhance the performance of the employees as delegation
brings about growth of the employee.
4
1.5.2 Other Organization / Industry
Other organization will also benefit from the findings of this study as it will serve as a guide
on how delegation can improve quality of work by allowing the employees who have direct
knowledge of products and services to make decisions and complete tasks. It will also show
how effective delegation motivates employees as it enriches the worker's job by expanding
the types of tasks that are involved in it. The study will also bring out the needs of employees
in the government sector and how to address these needs.
1.5.3 Researchers
This research will contribute to the package of knowledge and skills on enhancing an
organization through effective delegation. It may provide theoretical researchers with new
insights on the delegation of authority in organizations. Those insights might be useful in the
development of better models of delegation.
1.6 Scope of the Study
The study was mainly targeting the Senior Tax officers that are Divisional and Unit Managers
in Revenue departments at headquarters' office in Times Tower. This was to help understand
the delegation practices and how effective they were. Data was collected between the 13- 19'*̂
of the month of June and analysis done. The study was limited to the responses received. Due
to possibility that employees may have felt uncomfortable revealing their names thereby
distorting the accuracy of the results, the study minimized such possibilities by giving
anonymity to and promising them utmost confidentiality.
1.7 Definition of Terms \
1.7.1 Delegation
According to Lawson (2007), delegation is the process where a manager assigns work to an
individual which he performs, because of his unique organizational placement, can perform
effectively, and so that he can get others to help him with what remains.
1.7.2 Leadership
Leadership is establishing direction and influencing others to follow that direction (Lussier &
Achua, 2013). Northouse (2013), states that leadership is a process whereby an individual
influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.
5
1.7.3 Productivity
Productivity is an overall measure of the ability to produce a good or service (Stevenson,
1999). More specifically, productivity is the measure of how specified resources are managed
to accomplish timely objectives as stated in terms of quantity and quality. He also noted that
productivity may also be defined as an index that measures output (goods and services)
relative to the input (labor, materials, energy, etc., used to produce the output).
1.7.4 Responsibility
Responsibility is the duty of the person to complete the task assigned to him. A person who is
given the responsibility should ensure that he accomplishes the tasks assigned to him (Lussier
& Achua, 2013).
1.7.5 Authority
The power and right of a person to use and allocate the resources efficiently, to take decisions
and to give orders so as to achieve the organizational objectives (Lussier & Achua, 2013).
1.7.6 Accountability
This is the state of being responsible or answerable (Weiss, 2000). Every employee/manager
is accountable for the job assigned to him. He is supposed to complete the job as
per the expectation & inform his superior accordingly. Accountability is the liability created
for the use of authority.
6
1.8 Chapter Summary
The chapter has introduced the research topic which is to establish the impact of effective
delegation at Kenya Revenue Authority. It has described the background of the study, the
statement of the problem and the study objectives. The chapter further outlines the
significance as well as the scope of the study. Chapter two will present relevant literature
review on the stated research questions. Chapter three will describe the research methodology.
Chapter four will describe the data findings results for the study and chapter five will describe
the recommendations by the researcher.
7
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a review of the literature on impact of delegation in organizations. This
chapter also seeks to provide literature on the criteria for successful delegation, the barriers to
delegation process and benefits of effective delegation in organizations.
2.2 Criteria For Effective Delegation
The inability to delegate has led to the downfall off many leaders from presidents to first line
supervisors. Leaders should know the first step to becoming a successfial delegator is to let go
(Lawson, 2007). This chapter will help identify the criteria for effectively delegating by
looking at what is delegation and the delegation process.
2.2.1 Definition of Delegation
Delegation is the assignment of power and culpability from a manager to a subordinate to
carry out specific activities (Stroh, 2002). Mangers should however know that delegation is
not task assignment (Lawson, 2007) task assignment is simply assigning work to an
individual within the duties and responsibility of his/ her position. Delegation is not dumping;
you should take special care to make sure that the employee does not think you are trying to
dump unpleasant assignments on him or her. Lawson also states that delegation is not
abdication. The manager still has the ultimate accountability for the assignment.
Managers should note for this to happen there are three important concepts and practices:
responsibility, authority and accountability. Fleming (2010) states that responsibility is the
duty to perform an assigned task that is delegated from the manager to the subordinate.
Authority flows from the organizational hierarchy and is the granting of the ability to use
appropriate organizational resources in fulfilling a delegated responsibility. The necessary
authority to accompany the delegated responsibility must be granted. He also notes that a
proper balance of responsibility and authority contributes to successful delegation and desired
organizational and individual outcomes; whereas an improper balance undermines effective
delegation and results in undesirable organizational and individual outcomes. The third
element of the delegation process, accountability, brings responsibility and authority into
alignment by holding the subordinate to task for the delegation based on the responsibility and
authority that they have been granted (Hasan, 2007). Once the decision to delegate is made,
8
the management challenge is to ensure freedom and monitoring to optimize employees
productivity, efficiency and effectiveness for the good of the organizational growth. They
need to understand the process of delegation in order to do it effectively.
2.2.2 A Framework for Delegation
According to Andolsen (2008) one of the first objectives a leader must accomplish is
achieving a true balance between individual efforts and teamwork of the staff as a whole.
Delegation is a structured, sequential process and thus delegated tasks must be Specific,
Measurable, Agreed, and Realistic, Time bound. Ethical and Recorded. It's a quick checklist
for proper delegation. Using guidance of these tools the process of delegation is a step by
step process which is dependent on various factors. For a manager to be able to effectively
delegate, he/she must understand how the process of delegation. Different leadership practices
will impact delegation in different ways. Anderson, Rapp, Mueller, McConnell, and Lekan
(May, 2010) in their research identified two primary approaches emerged in relation to the
delegation roles. These approaches included "Follow the Job Description" and "Scope of
Practice." In the Follow the Job Description" approach, the participants felt that job
descriptions and facility-level rules and policies relevant to specific jobs determined
delegation processes. When ascribing to the 'Consider the Scope of Practice' approach, they
deliberately grappled with scope of practice regulations and how to organize care across
licensed and unlicensed nursing staff.
Heller (1998) mentioned several steps to effective delegating that is analysis, appointment,
briefing, control and appraisal. Luecke (2009), also came with five steps that determine what
tasks to delegate these are: how to identify the right person, how to assign the task, monitor
progress and provide feedback and evaluate performance. Various authors have outlined these
steps which come to the same conclusion.
There are tools that help in this process such as the delegation and review form by Alan
Chapman (2002), goal planning tips and template, and the activity management template.
Another tool is the Tannenbaum and Schmidt mode shown Figure 1. Below depicts a
continuum of management delegation relative to subordinate freedom. It shows the
relationship between the level of freedom that a manager chooses to give to a team, and the
level of authority used by the manager. As the team's freedom is increased, so the manager's
9
authority decreases. The model provides extra guidance on delegating freedom to, and
developing a team.
Manager Oriented Subordinate Oriented
Use of Authority by the Manager
Area of Freedom for subordinates
t t ' .Vr r.lgr Takes •Sells-Decision & decision announces
tAgr Presents Decision v ^ h Ideas & Invite Qs
Mgr Mgr Suggests presents Provisional tlie situation d e c i s i o n s gets invites suggestions, d iscussion iheti decides
t f Mgr explains, defnes parameters & asks team to decide
Ulgr al lows team to develop options i decide on ac t ioa wittiin (he mgr's received limits
Figure 2.1. Tannenbaum and Schmidt Continuum Delegation Model.
(Source: Tannenbaum, A., & Schmidt, W. (1958). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review, 36: 95-101).
Bruce Tuckman's model is also another tool that is mainly helpfiil when delegating to teams
and individuals within teams. In this model delegation shifts decision-making authority fi-om
one organizational level to a lower level (Hasan, 2007).
10
2.2,2.1 Delegation Process
According to Smith (2012) for any manager to conduct effective and skillful delegation the
framework shown in Figure 2. should be followed.
1. Determine and sort tasks for delegation
i i
2. Determine the right delegate
3. Define the scope of the responsibility project
i i ~ 4. Support associate and monitor progress
U 5. Review and assess results
Figure 2.2 Delegation Process
(Source: Smith, C. C. (2012, 28 Mar). Recognizing the Need For, Impacts and Benefits of Effective Delegation in the Work Place)
The delegation process is clearly outlined as follows: Firstly, decide and confirm in your own
mind that the task is suitable to be delegated that is whether it meets the criteria for delegating
(Smith, 2012). Plan a structure with delegation that is how much authority and influence will
the delegate have without referring back to the delegator. Subdivision of authority takes place
when a superior divides and shares his authority with the subordinate. It is for this reason;
every subordinate should be given enough independence to carry the task given to him by his
superiors (Lussier & Achua, 2013). You should also define the roles and also understand who
is accountable for what. Accountability arises out of responsibility and responsibility arises
out of authority (Lussier & Achua, 2013). The second step is to select individual or team by
determining what your reasons for delegating to this person or team. Critically evaluating
what are they going to get out of it. By answering these questions you will get a clear picture
and also be able to brief the individual effectively of the task or role required of them.
11
Delegation is deeply rooted in the essential purpose of management, which is to produce
results through people (Luecke, 2009). The manager will find out whether the other person or
team of people capable of doing the task.
Thirdly the manager assigns the task by explaining why the job or responsibility is being
delegated. A manager must clearly communicate to the person selected what is important and
relevant, where the task fit in the overall scheme of things and what the result required
(Ruber, 2006). Clarify understanding by getting feedback fi-om the other person by making
sure they know how you intend to decide that the tasks is being done well. Tammens (2012)
saw that communication in delegation is of utmost important, effective delegation can only
occur if there is a common understanding. At the outset of any discussion of delegation it is
necessary to verify that the parties of the assignment and the assignment itself are understood.
The manager will then support and monitor progress by discussing and agreeing what is
required such as the people, location, premises, equipment, money, materials, other related
activities and services in order to get the work done. They will then after getting your
feedback analyze the difficulties encountered and how to manage them. The manager is also
required to clearly state the deadlines for the task assigned and i f any delay should arise how
this may be handled (Lawson, 2007). And determine the priorities of the task i f it is complex
and or has parts or stages that need close monitoring. It is important at this point for the
manager to also confirm understanding with the other person of the previous points, getting
ideas and interpretation. As well as showing you that the job can be done, this helps to
reinforce commitment. Methods of checking and controlling must be agreed with the other
person (Smith, 2012). Failing to agree this in advance will cause this monitoring to seem like
interference or lack of trust. Think about whom else needs to know what's going on, and
inform them. Involve the other person in considering this so they can see beyond the issue at
hand. Do not leave the person to inform your own peers of their new responsibility. Warn the
person about any awkward matters of politics or protocol. Inform your own boss i f the task is
important, and of sufficient profile.
Lastly it is essential to let the person know how they are doing, and whether they have
achieved their aims by establishing checkpoints (Lawson, 2007). I f not, you must review with
them why things did not go to plan, and deal with the problems. You must absorb the
consequences of failure, and pass on the credit for success (Finch & Maddux, 2006).
12
2.2.2.2 What and to Whom to Delegate
Delegation isn't just a matter of telling someone else what to do. The literature has shown that
leaders and supervisors often think they are effectively delegating but are not (Fimstahl,
2001). There is a wide range of varying freedom that you can confer on the other person. The
more experienced and reliable the other person is, then the more freedom you can give. The
more critical the task then the more cautious you need to be about extending a lot of freedom,
especially if your job or reputation depends on getting a good result. Take care to choose the
most appropriate style for each situation.
For each example the statements are simplified for clarity; in reality you would choose a less
abrupt style of language, depending on the person and the relationship. At the very least, a
"Please" and "Thank-you" would be included in the requests (Alan Chapman, 2002). It's
important also to ask the other person what level of authority they feel comfortable being
given ( Luecke, 2009). When you ask, you can find out for sure and agree this with the other
person. Some people are confident; others less so. It's your responsibility to agree with them
what level is most appropriate, so that the job is done effectively and with minimal
unnecessary involvement from you. Involving the other person in agreeing the level of
delegated freedom for any particular responsibility is an essential part of the 'contract' that you
make with them (Colombo & Delmastro, 2004).
These factors of delegation are not an exhaustive list. There are many more shades of grey
between these black-and-white examples. Take time to discuss and adapt the agreements and
'contracts' that you make with people regarding delegated tasks, responsibility and freedom
according to the situation. Be creative in choosing levels of delegated responsibility, and
always check with the other person that they are comfortable with your chosen level. People
are generally capable of doing far more than you imagine. The rate and extent of
responsibility and freedom delegated to people is a fundamental driver of organizational
growth and effecfiveness, the growth and well-being of your people, and of your own
development and advancement (Bums, 2001).
Remember, to delegate effecfively, you must choose the right task, identify the right person
and take time to hand over the task with the right level of detail and support, (Nelson,
1993).When a manager is uses the tools and processes of delegation it helps him reduce his
work load and allow him to concentrate his energies in critical issues of concern. It helps the
13
manager to attain communication skills, supervision and guidance, effective motivation and
the leadership traits are flourished. Delegation also ensures the flow of authority is from top to
bottom which is a way of achieving results and meaningflil superior-subordinate relationship.
The process of delegation gives enough room and space to the subordinates to flourish their
abilities and skill and this motivation provides appropriate results to a concern. Tripathe and
Reddy (2008) noted that job satisfaction is an important criterion to bring stability and
soundness in the relationship between superior and subordinates. It also helps in breaking the
monotony of the subordinates so that they can be more creative and efficient.
It is therefore important that the manager/ individual like Salinas-Maningo (2005) narrates
that the right task, right circumstances, right person, right direction and communication and
right supervision and evaluation are the components of an effective delegation.
14
2.3 Barriers to Effective Delegation
Tanner (2011) states that effective delegation is a critical skill that can make or break a
manager's career. After all, there is a limit to what any one of us can do and both management
and leadership involve working with and through others to achieve desired outcomes. When
delegation is done well, a manager is praised for his ability to get the best out of his people.
Higher level managers take note of this manager's ability to run a productive unit and this
manager is considered for higher levels of management responsibility.
When delegation is done poorly, however, the manager is criticized for his inability to use his
human resources effectively. Higher level managers take note of this manager's limitations
and the under utilization of his team and they exclude him from further promotional
considerations There are many symptoms of ineffective managerial delegation including
micromanaging, the constantly changing project outcome, lack of communication (Hasan,
2007).
The root cause why a manager does not delegate effectively may be harder to determine
however. The root cause may come from one or more common human barriers to effective
delegation. Getting over these human barriers requires some emotional intelligence and
personal development. These barriers as Finch and Maddux (2006) stated are real or self
imposed by the manager, employee based or situation based.
2.3.1 The Obstacles
2.3.1.1 Self Imposed Obstacles
The first barrier is a lack of leadership experience. Corazzini, Anderson, Rapp, Mueller,
McConnell, and Lekan (2010) documented a paucity of leadership as a barrier to effective
delegation. To delegate effectively, the senior tax manager must be a leader. Delegation can
be a source of frustration unless the manager has the traits and characteristics of a leader.
Some managers insist on maintaining all control and authority due to insecurity and actually
fail to even meet the definition of a leader. A leader is an executive, a man who manages time,
resources, and people. A leader does not do everything himself; rather he marshals all of these
elements on the pathway to success.
The occurrence of poorly developed partnerships between senior tax manager and general
officers is another barrier. Corazzini et al. (2010) identified poor partnerships across staff as a
barrier to effective delegation. Facing poor partnerships, the senior tax managers resist
15
delegating responsibilities and simply do it themselves to avoid eliciting front-line staff
resentment. Superior's experience and personality can also be a barrier; a superior who works
his way through the corporate ladder will be more efficient in delegating authority to
subordinates than autocratic managers.
Many managers prefer to perform operating tasks, not management fiinctions, because they
understand those tasks better and know how to do those (Tanner, 2011). Others do not have
time to train their direct reports due to the job specification most subordinates learn on the
job and this leads to managers not knowing how to delegate and often do not know when to
delegate and to whom to delegate to. They need to learn that i f the limits of authority
delegated should be defined clearly. Generally delegation of authority with supposedly no
limits is not very effective. Ruff (2011) noted that managers do not completely trust their
employees, even their strong performers, they may fear loss of power or just be
uncomfortable with subordinates making decisions they made. He might feel that employees
will not like him i f he expects too much of them. "It is easier and quicker to do things myself
is a common fallacy amongst managers; they feel that they cannot afford to make any
mistakes. A manager may also be concerned about losing control; he might fear that with
delegating he just might do it too much that he might not be able to loose control (Lawson,
2007). Others are just not very interested in the development of any of his current employees.
Managers fail to keep employees informed about plans the supervisor has for the operation.
They note it is therefore important that employees must be fiilly informed to make the best
possible decisions for the organization (Ruff, 2011). Managers also have the tendency of not
requesting and /or utilize progress reports. This is when you do not have a method to check
employee's progress. It is important to set specific times to check progress from the beginning
of delegation through completion. When you do not ask for employee's opinion it shows you
do not value them. Therefore encourage employees to be creative and give their ideas about
ways to complete the task. Dumping projects usually occurs when the supervisor has not
taken time to plan the delegation properly. Without thinking the supervisor assigns the project
to the employee.
16
2.3.1.2 Employee-Imposed Obstacles
Delegation may be difficult because employees lack experience and competence. Due to their
tasks the employees may not be able adequately handle what they have. The team members
may resist responsibility maybe due to lack of motivation (Mohiedini, 2009). Most employees
fear manager's criticism and therefore avoid risk. The employees are not smart enough for
managers to safely delegate anything to them. Also, the lack of interest under hand to accept
the authority in KRA, afraid of interpellation and blame due to wrong decisions, lack of
sufficient motivation to take responsibility for heavier and lack confidence in themselves
(Mohiedini, 2009), can be a barrier to delegation.
Another barrier is attitude. Corazzini et al., (2010) determined attitudinal barriers prevented
effective delegation. A research team lead by Potter, 2010 identified five sources of conflict
as age, work ethic, role confusion, personality, and conflict. Attitudes are cited as a barrier to
delegation throughout much of the literature. Conflicting attitudes among officers can create
resentment within the division, section and unit teams hamper delegation. Attitudes come
from the values of people. The population in Kenya Revenue is diverse; there is a diversity of
values within the team. Diverse values are based on generational, cultural, social, religious,
political, and other factors.
2.3.1.3 Situation-Imposed Obstacles
Certain situations may cause barriers to delegation. These situations are most often lack of
resources, an unclear hierarchy and crisis situations (Atherton, 1999). I f either of these
barriers is present in your situation, make sure you remain flexible and do not blame
teammates for failures out of their control. Money is usually a concern for most organizations.
If this is a problem, try to work around it. Remember to be flexible. I f there is not enough
money to send your class on a refreat to Hawaii, be flexible with your destination. Not getting
your first choice does not make the whole task a failure.
In some organizations, it is difficult to understand the lines of authority and responsibility.
Fimstahl (2001) highlighted that staff and faculty members may share responsibilities, and
ultimate authority may lie with someone that is not always available. Be aware of the situation
and communicate clearly so that you may work to overcome this obstacle. The tasks may be
really important to expect a subordinate to handle it personally. Some employees cannot be
trusted to work on their own; some cadres of employees require constant supervision. The
17
success of work unit is totally the manager's responsibility. Most of manager's decisions are
made under crisis conditions.
2.3.1.4 Organizational Imposed Obstacles
Basu (2004) noted that a lack of well established organizational method and procedures,
coordination and communication coupled with the size and location of the organization may
hinder effectively delegation. The absence of a clear chain of command is a barrier to
delegation. Corazzini, et. al (2010) found managers had to accept uncertainty in their daily
work environment as they had to continuously negotiate the boundaries of the staff, scope of
practice and corporate policies and procedures. They faced Inherent conflict between how
their facilities are organized structured or staffed (chain of Command) and what professional
organizations required. The Managers at the lower levels needs to know for whom they work
and to whom they report this is because reporting structures and job descriptions need to be
reconciled with the managers' role and scope of practice rules. Due to the tall organizational
structure KRA and the sensitivity of various issues, the manager at every level needs to know
essentially who they work and reports to. Research reports delegation works better when there
is a clear reporting structure. Bittner and Gravlin (2009) suggests leaders need to address
issues here. In Kenya Revenue this is clearly seen as due to its size and its spread across the
nation delegation of tasks and responsibility is necessary. Where a clear chain of command
exists, Corazzini et al, (2010) reports managers will effectively delegating despite policy and
procedure conflicts within organization practice acts.
The absence of clear role definitions is a barrier to delegation. Role definitions can
significantiy reduce conflicts during delegation. This is seen in the organization where same
ranking managers tend to overlap their roles in matters that touch their sections. Potter,
Deshields and Kuhrik (2010) discovered respondents described conflict as the central theme
during delegation. A study by Mclnnis and Parsons (2009) revealed organizations should
augment the delegation process.
These barriers are echoed by other authors and researchers like Tripahi and Teddy (2008)
state that many managers are found unwilling to delegate authority and many subordinates are
found unwilling to accept it. To avoid ineffective delegation, barriers to delegation need to be
removed. I f barriers are not removed, even a manager with Dreyfus Model stage-five-expert
proficiency in delegation cannot delegate without putting the work at risk (Dreyfus, 1981).
18
The Dreyfus Model is the obtainment and development of a skill, which the manager
progresses through five stages of proficiency or mastery. The progression of proficiency
include: novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient, and expert. At the expert stage of
proficiency the manager has an intuitive grasp of each situation and a deep understanding of
the total situation. I f the barriers to delegation are not removed the only option for the stage-
five-expert proficient manager is to revert back to using analytic problem solving.
2.3.2 Measures Managers Can Use to Alleviate Barriers of Delegation
Delegation is one of the paradoxes of management (Stroh, 2002). It is often difficult for
managers to execute effectively yet it is considered to be a simple concept. There are
particular measures however, that can be introduced to make it easier and more effective:
2.3.2.1 Develop the Right Attitudes
To be truly effective at delegating, managers must have the positive attitudes about delegation
(Nelson, 1993). These attitudes are reflected by personal security: managers who lack
confidence in their abilities do not delegate or do not delegate satisfactorily because they are
afraid of being exposed or of surrendering control (Brown, 1998). A manager should be
willing to take risks in order to be effective at delegating, like allowing subordinates to make
important decisions. Managers must learn to accept and learn from failure when it occurs
(Undo, 1999). Managers must be willing to trust others to perform tasks for which they will
be held accountable. The manager when delegating should be fully aware of the limitations of
each subordinate. Quallich (2005) subordinates must be allowed to voice their own ideas on
how an assignment should be completed and managers who delegate effectively should be
patient and realize that delegation may not produce immediate results. They should allow time
for inexperienced subordinates to be trained in. They should also learn not micromanage but
allow subordinates to work on their own but make them aware of what is required by setting
out clear objectives and goals. They should be willing to allow subordinates to make full use
of the opportunity as this builds not only the person but also motives employees resulting in
organization growth.
2.3.2.2 Select a Suitable Employee for the Task
When managers are faced with having to delegate, they sometimes do it in a disorganized
fashion (Huber, 2006). They in turn faced by a crisis may throw out challenges to
subordinates in desperation. This can go either way as some subordinates may be able to
19
T handle the situation and others may not, which can have disastrous consequences for the
institution. Effective delegation rather requires managers to look at the subordinate in terms of
strengths and weaknesses and to consider these differences when making the delegation
decisions (McConkey, 1986). Delegation must be matched to the levels of proficiency of the
subordinate handling the task. The person's abilities, the importance of the task must also be
considered. I f the task is one that must be done in a hurry and with little supervision, the
person selected must have demonstrated ability in the past to undertake this type of work. I f
the task gives ample time to offer guidance, it may be advantageous to assign it to a less
skilled person and use this opportunity as a means of training and developing such a person's
I skills.
Weiss (2000) suggests the following guidelines that managers could use to analyze possible
candidates to whom tasks can be delegated: the person should be alert and active and
organized and confident. The person should be cooperative with both superiors and
colleagues, show sufficient self-control, be wiling to accept more responsibility and adjust
easily to change. In applying these guidelines to select a suitable employee for the task,
managers must avoid the trap of delegating to a few select individuals only usually those most
capable of handling a task. They must remember that delegation is an important aid for
assessing potential, training and development (Kreitner & Kinicki 2004). It would be
advisable to spread the tasks around to identify everyone's Capabilities and to train and
develop many of the employees this will create an opportunity to know those who need
training and development therefore needs to be established.
2.3.2.3 Set Objectives and Allow Subordinate Participation
If managers abdicate responsibility on subordinates without clarifying exactly what is to be
done, the expected level of performance and deadlines for completion, they are inviting
trouble and creating crisis. When objectives are not clear and realistic, subordinates tend to do
nothing or waste time on taking needless risks of making errors. Imprecision destroys the
whole purpose of delegation and leaves staff confused (Muir, 1995). Effective delegation
therefore requires sound manage-riel judgment in the setting of objectives.
Y To staff delegation of authority includes being involved in the decision making
(Ravanbakhsh, 2009) that is participation. The most effective delegation does not flow from
the superior to the subordinate only. Weiss, (2002) states that it flows both ways in the sense
that managers who strive to improve their delegating ability by allowing subordinates to
participate in determining which tasks they will perform, how much authority is needed to get
the job done, what are the set objectives and goals. Managers however, should note that
participation can present its own potential problems (Pollock, 2002). Subordinates, for
instance, may strive to expand their authority beyond what they need and what they are
capable of handling and this can undermine the effectiveness of the delegation process.
Most managers are willing to hand out assignments to their subordinates. However, all of
them are not equally willing to transfer their own authority to subordinates (Walker, 2002).
Providing subordinates with sufficient authority becomes a major stumbling block when there
is even the slightest reluctance to delegate. Managers must give subordinates the level of
authority commensurate with the requirements of the assignment; in other words, they must
give them the authority necessary to fulfill the responsibility that they were given (Nelson,
1993). The goal is to enable subordinates to complete the task, to make independent
decisions, to take initiative, and to continue working in the absence of the manager. With little
or no authority, the subordinate will be either unable to handle the assignment effectively or
will be limited to the method the manager prescribed for achieving the objective. By granting
too much authority, the manager might feel uneasy about the subordinate making a mistake
that can be costly in terms of time and money. 'To be effective, there must be an absolute
transfer of power within the agreed-upon parameters. I f the superior withholds even the
smallest degree of authority within the agreed-upon limits, the delegation is going to suffer'
(McConkey, 1986).
When delegating, managers should take into account the workload that subordinates will be
able to cope with (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2004). They should prevent overloading subordinates
with work too much to do in a given period of time or too many different tasks to do as this
may make them feel that doing the job right is next to impossible, which can have a negative
impact on their motivation to do well. Muir (1995) managers should strive to delegate
gradually instead of dumping a wide range of assignments on a subordinate at one time.
Forcing the subordinate to assume too much responsibility at one time can thwart the benefits
of delegation, especially when the subordinate is new in the job or has never received much
delegated responsibilities in the past.
21
Managers should guard against keeping the pleasant, more exciting tasks for themselves while
delegating the boring, trivial or unappealing tasks to their subordinates. Subordinates quickly
realize what the manager is doing and the respect they once had for the person may start to
wane (Lawson, 2007). It is necessary to maintain a balance between highly and less desirable
tasks according to an individual employee's abilities and interests. Managers, however, should
not be afraid to delegate the less appealing work. There are times that less desirable tasks have
to be delegated. Some managers feel guilty about delegating undesirable tasks and instead, do
it themselves, which may not always represent an efficient use of their time. The crux of the
matter that both pleasant and unpleasant tasks should be considered for delegation (Mondy &
Premeaux, 1995).
Managers who are unapproachable, unfriendly and demanding often create fear or resentment
in people (Lofland,J & Lofland, L , 1995). Such managers should not expect to get the
cooperation they really want from their subordinates. Subordinates are more likely to listen to
a manager who is a friend, to accept directions from such a manager and to be motivated
because of the friendship (Grant, 2001). Friendship builds trust and respect. No one likes to
disappoint a friend. I f a manager is a friend of his or her subordinates, those subordinates are
likely to perform well in the execution of their delegated tasks otherwise they may feel they
have let him or her down. Managers can develop a friendship with their subordinates by
treating them as equals on and off the job, by sharing interests with them, by inviting them to
engage in social activities, by showing that they enjoy being with them in both on and off the
job situations, and by helping them with personal problems and concerns. Sullivan and
Decker (2005), noted that managers, however, will undermine trust and respect in the
manager- subordinate relationship i f they make a habit of correcting work that has been
completed by their subordinates, to work on a task themselves although they have assigned it
to a subordinate, or to re-do the entire assignment after the subordinate has completed it.
Once an assignment has been delegated, the manager's role should be primarily one of support
and minimum personal involvement (Baston, 1991). This implies that the subordinate should
be allowed to get on with the task in his or her own way, but within the parameters defined by
the manager, knowing that he or she is available for support. In supporting subordinates,
managers should prevent answering too many questions and solve too many problems when
the subordinate should display the initiative. Effective delegation requires that people answer
their own questions and solve their own problems as far as possible. An important facet in
22
supporting subordinates is to share information with them. Neglecting to share information
with subordinates, for instance, about the importance of delegation, why it is necessary for the
institution and what outcomes can be expected; they probably will see delegation as just
another management play to increase their workload (Mondy & Premeaux, 1995). They will
not trust that delegation will really occur, and i f it does, they will not be sure whether it is for
the right reasons.
2.3.2.4 Monitor and Evaluate the Progress
In order to identify problems and challenges as they happen, managers need to monitor
delegated tasks. This is done by comparing actual results with established standards.
Managers should also appraise the completed task and discuss the evaluation with their
subordinates this way areas of existing and potential problems can be highlighted. Sullivan &
Decker (2005) noted that when evaluating a delegated task, managers need to determine
whether the task was completed as intended in a timely manner in the right way and whether
the subordinate was able to handle the level of authority that was granted.
2.3.2.5 Clear Staff Roles and Hierarchical Structures
Reporting structures and job descriptions need to be reconciled with the different managerial
role and scope of practice rules (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2004). Each manager needs to know
essentially that they report to in the hierarchical structure and the general officers to the
managers. Research reports delegation works better when there is a clear reporting structure.
Bittner et al., (2009) suggests senior leaders need to address issues here. Where a clear chain
of command exists, Corazzini et al., (2010) reports managers will effectively delegate despite
policy and procedure conflicts within practice acts. A study by Mclnnis and Parsons (2009)
revealed organizations should augment the delegation process and safeguard the authority of
the Senior Tax officers by continuously educating the entire staff
In the absence of clear role definitions is a barrier to delegation. Role definitions can
significantly reduce conflicts during delegation. Potter et al., (2010) discovered respondents
described conflict as the central theme during delegation. The major cause of the conflict was
general officers saw their role as being the same as the managers except the managers had the
responsibility to authorize some clearance.
23
2.4 Benefits of Delegation
Managers find that it is often impossible to do everything that needs to be done in their work.
Therefore, it is often usefial to delegate certain tasks to other people. As a result, it is useful to
know the benefits of delegation before delegating any task. Benefits whether financial or non-
financial create motivation and commitment among employees (Ghumro, Mangi, & Soomro,
2011). Delegating of tasks makes an impact on the manager, the employee and the
organization.
2.4.1 Benefits to Organization
Delegation gives subordinates the opportunity to offer new ideas, viewpoints and suggestions
that can improve operations in the institution and diversity of products, operations, and people
can be managed effecfively, making the organization more efficient and achieve its objectives
(Fleming, 2010). An institution is likely to produce a higher level of output i f managers
delegate tasks according to the skills and abilities of subordinates (Lawson, 2007). Perhaps
the most important benefit for the company is a higher quality of work (Malone, 1997).
Delegation can improve quality of work by allowing the employees who have direct
knowledge of products and services to make decisions and complete tasks. Quality can also
improve through enhanced employee motivation. Employees may do a better job because they
feel a personal accountability for the outcome, even though responsibility ultimately rests
with the individual who made the delegation. Motivation should also be enhanced as
delegation enriches the worker's job by expanding the types of tasks that are involved in it
(Lussier & Achua, 2013). Effective communication between the superiors and subordinates is
developed by team spirit when delegation is done. The subordinates are answerable to
superiors and the superiors are responsible for the performance of subordinates.
Delegation help maintains cordial relationships; the superiors trust subordinates and gives
them necessary authority. The subordinates accept their accountability and this develops
cordial superior-subordinate relationships. Coleman and Bush (1994) notes that it leads to
fomiation of units with membership which cut across the various departments and serve as
means of achieving team work, coordinating organizations activities and disseminating
information within the authorities community. Maruca (1999) states that delegation allows
distribution of administrative responsibility among multiple administrative groups, each with
a defined scope of authority and a defined set of responsibilities. In addition, delegation of
administration allows organizations to efficiently manage their infrastructures and enforce
24
their security precautions by enabling organizations to distribute administrative
responsibilities on the basis of least privilege, which ensures that the individual or group of
individuals to whom the task has been delegated can perform only the tasks that are delegated,
and cannot perform tasks that have not been explicitly delegated or authorized (Sraub, 1998).
Reduce administrative costs by facilitating shared administrative responsibility. For example,
administrative responsibility for providing account support to all accounts in the organization
can be easily achieved within a matter of minutes.
Delegation when applied strategically provides a fresh approach to competitive dynamics and
designing effective managerial control systems. It is distinct irom the traditional view in that
it emphasizes how delegation instruments, more generally governance systems, induce or
constrain externally oriented (i.e., competitive) actions whose impacts are contingent on the
response of current or potential rivals (Mclnnis & Parson, 2009). They can influence strategy
implementation (e.g., high-powered incentives can encourage managers to act in the best
interests of shareholders) and/or strategy formulation (e.g., managers who are compensated on
market share may craft strategies that promote growth), but, either way, the focus is on the
focal firm. Even when the external industry characteristics are taken into account, it is a
contingency and hence exogenous to the focal firm's governance choices (Datta, Guthrie, &
Rajagopalan, 2002). Strategic delegation theory complements this perspective by highlighting
that, under strategic interdependence, delegation instruments may arise endogenously to
influence the competitive behavior of rivals and, hence, eventually the focal firm's
performance.
Firms can strategically manipulate their managerial incentives and governance systems to
influence their managers' competitive choices (Tripathi & Reddy, 2008). That, in turn, can
serve as a credible commitment to particular courses of competitive action and alter
competitive interactions with market rivals or potential entrants, and can lead to improved
competitive performance. Therefore, delegation decisions may be both externally oriented to
shape competitive interactions as well as internally oriented to achieve efficient strategy
fonnulation and implementation (Huppe, 1994). When you delegate tasks to your team, move
the tasks around to different members. This will increase the skills of everyone and the
flexibility of your team. This may prove important i f one of your members falls ill and must
be substituted with another.
25
2.4.2 Benefits to Managers
By doing everything themselves managers suffer at least three undesirable results: they
hamper their own productivity; they limit their prospective contribution to their institution;
and any contributions they do make are often accompanied by fiustration and excessive
personal effort (Blair, 2009).
One of the vital criteria for effective managers is how easy, not how difficult, they make a job
(Yoder-Wise, 2007). They should measure themselves by the results achieved rather than by
the amount and difficulty of the effort expended. Managers should know how to utilize their
subordinates as this can help to make their jobs easier and more productive. Subordinates'
time is less costly in comparison to that of their superiors. By delegating, managers will have
more time to address and solve problems that would otherwise have cost the institution more
money. The manager hence creates time for planning, organizing, motivating, and controlling
by effectively delegating.
i
The greater the distance between the operational level and the superior to whom it reports, the
greater the need for delegation to the person on the spot (Lindo, 1999). Even with the
dramatic advances in technology in the speed and content of communication transmission e.g.
emails; there are significant losses that will arise when the manager is not empowered to act
quickly. Effective delegation facilitates faster and more effective decisions. By effectively
delegating an organization is most responsive to changes in the environment, both internal
and external, when employees closest to the problems are making the decisions aimed at
resolving those problems. As employees closest to the problem usually have the most relevant
information upon which to base an intelligent decision, decision-akin responsibility should be
delegated downwards in the institutional hierarchy (Nelson, 1998).
Delegation facilitates management development, delegation acts as a training ground for
management development. It gives opportunity to subordinates to learn, to grow and to
develop new qualities and skills. It builds up a reservoir of executives, which can be used as
and when required. Delegation creates managers and not mere messengers (Smith, 2012).
26
2.4.3 Benefits to Subordinates
Trust and confidence are fostered through successful experiences with delegated tasks. When
a manager demonstrates trust in any of his subordinates, most people reciprocate with actions
that show that the trust was justified. In this way, trust enhances the prospects for delegation,
which in tum enhances the prospects for trust and confidence (Lisoski, 1999). Through
effective delegation, a work environment can therefore be created where trust among the
subordinates who are recipients of delegated tasks can be promoted.
The delegation of tasks and activities which involve decision making and accountability is
essential if managers are to provide opportunities for the development of their subordinates
(Lisoski, 1999).Subordinates will be convinced that they are improving their competence to
perform i f they have opportunities now and then to participate in organization's decisions.
Through delegation, managers provide subordinates with additional challenges, broaden their
experience and assist them in becoming better decision-makers (Bass & Valenzi, 1994).
Managers, who do not delegate, deprive subordinates of opportunities to progress their
knowledge and skills and to assume greater responsibility. A sense of contribution and
achievement are central to job and career satisfaction and productivity in the organization.
Delegation is a channel to this end. Moreover, self-confidence will grow and employees will
be more motivated (Dao, 2004). Ultimately they may feel that they are falling behind their
'competition' in institutions where delegation does take place. This is often enough stimuli to
generate a posture of unwillingness-to-try, or a don't-care attitude. It will result in
subordinates leaving the organization in search of more challenging and supportive
environments and they tend to be employees that are the most talented, precisely those that
the managers can least afford to lose.
Effective delegation gives subordinates the chance to incorporate their values in the work
environment and, in many cases, to undertake activities of special interest to them. By
managers increasing subordinates' involvement through delegation he/she heightens the
employees' passion and initiative for their work (Fleming, 2010). Delegation gives
subordinates an opportunity to invest something of themselves in their work and giving them
a feeling of owning the work as well as its outcomes.
27
I
Delegation therefore enhances subordinates' sense of accomplishment and self-esteem, as it is
much more rewarding to be able to congratulate oneself for a task that is well planned and
executed than for another person's plan, which is merely executed (Axley, 2002). Thus,
ownership of the plan is almost always more satisfying and motivating than stewardship of
someone else's plan.
28
2.5 Chapter Summary
The Hterature review is just a perception of what the authors feel should happen therefore it is
the ideal and not the reality in the work place. The authors viewed the key criteria for
effective delegation as well as the barriers to delegation and the benefits of delegation. The
case study will be carried out to establish the impact of effective delegation in Kenya Revenue
Authority as stipulated by the authors in the literature above.
Chapter three will describe the methods and procedures used to carry out this study.
Specifically the research design, population and sampling design, data collection methods,
research procedures as well as data analysis methods will be addressed.
29
CHAPTER 3
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the research methodology employed in this study. It discusses the
research design especially with respect to the choice of design. It also discusses the population
of the study, sampling technique and sample size, data collection methods as well as data
analysis and data presentation methods used.
32 Research Design
This study adopted a case study research design focusing on Senior Tax Managers at Kenya
Revenue Authority. Cooper and Emory (1995) define a case study as a study focused on an
organization selected from the total population of other organizations in same industry. The
case study was appropriate for this research for many reasons. Firstly, the research design is
good for contemporary events when the relevant behavior cannot be manipulated. Secondly;
the issues in this particular research have been studied by other researchers hence a substantial
body of literature exists. Thirdly, it will give a representative view on the effects of
delegation and to be able to compare between different situations (i.e. section with different
characteristics, different unit leaders).
33 Population and Sampling Design
33.1 Population
According to Cooper and Schindler (2006), a population is the total collection of elements
about which we wish to make inferences. The population in this study comprised of 1,540
Senior Tax Managers from Kenya Revenue Authority mainly from Divisional Managers and
the Unit Managers in the organization (see Table 3.1).
(
30
Table 3.1 Population Distribution
Category Population
Divisional Manage Deputy Commissioner 40
Divisional Manage Senior Assistant Commis,sioner 200
Unit Manager Assistant Commissiona- 300
Unit Manager Principle Revenue Officas 400
Unit Manager
Senior Revenue OflScer 600
Total 1540
332 Sample Design
332.1 Sampling Frame
Sampling frame is an objective list of the population from which the researcher can make a
selection (Denscombe, 1998). O'Leary (2004) fiirther defines sampling as the process by
which researchers select a sample of participants for a study from the population of interest.
The sampling frame was obtained from the human resource department of Kenya Revenue
Authority. The study targeted a representation of staff from Divisional managers who
comprised of Deputy Commissioners (DC) and Senior Assistant Commissioners (SAC) and
Unit managers who are Assistant Commissioners (AC), Principle Revenue Officers (PRO)
and Senior revenue Officer (SRO) were used in capturing data in line with study objectives.
The list was obtained from human resources department.
3322 Sampling Technique
The basic idea of sampling is that by selecting some elements in a population, conclusions
maybe drawn about the entire population. In this study stratified random sampling technique
was used. This is a probability sampling technique where the sample is constrained to include
elements from each of the mutually exclusive segments or strata within a population (Cooper
& Schindler, 2000). Leary (1995) indicates that a stratified random sample will typically
reflect the characteristics of the population as a whole. The strata in this study was
disaggregated by hierarchy to address the fact that there is wide variance in the number of
senior tax managers within each subgroup (Table 3.2) which was departmental, divisional
31
sectional and unit Managers. In this study the population was stratified according to the
master list of employees.
3323 Sample Size
Sample size determination is the act of choosing the number of observations or replicates to
include in a statistical sample. The sample must be carefully selected to be representative of
the population (Descombe, 1998). A sample size of 316 was selected from a total of 1540 to
be representative of each category of staff as shown in Table 3.2. The researcher chose the
sample size based on Krejcie & Morgan (1970) recommendations for determining size of a
stratified random sample (See Appendix I I I ) . They came up with a formula whereby the strata
differed in sizes and allocation of sample sizes to strata was performed proportional to these
stratum sizes.
Table 3.2: Sample Size Distribution
Category Total
Population
(%) Sample
Size Actual Sample
Size
Divisional
Manager
Deputy Commissioner 40 40% 16 Divisional
Manager Senior Assistant
Commissioner 200 20% 40
Unit Manager Assistant Commissiona 300 20% 60
Unit Manager Principle Revenue Offices 400 20% 80
Unit Manager
Senior Revenue Officer 600 20% 120
Total 1540 316
3.4 Data Collection Metiiod
Primary data was collected by a structured questionnaire. According to Leary (2004),
questionnaires have advantages which include: they can be administered to a group of people
simultaneously, are less costly and less time consuming than other data collection
instruments. According to Suskie (1996), a perfectly reliable questionnaire elicits consistent
responses. Although it is difficult to develop, it is reasonable to design a questionnaire that
32
approaches a consistent level of response. The questionnaire was designed according to the
research questions in chapter one of this research. The instrument consisted of two major
sections: Section One captured demographic information while Section two focused on the
Research Questions that is Part I addressed criteria for delegation, Part I I addressed barriers to
effective delegation and Part I I I focused on the benefits of effective delegation
3i Research Procedure
The Human resource manager of Kenya Revenue Authority was contacted to obtain the
sampling Irame for the target population for the study. The questionnaire was developed by
the researcher and before actual data collection was done, the questionnaire was pre tested on
5 employees. This was to check the questionnaire reliability in collecting data and in addition
check for clarity with regards to the three objectives of the study. It also provided
recommendation on structure, content, objectivity of the questions, and consistency with
research. The results from the pilot study were reviewed and changes were made on the
questionnaire as necessary.
The questionnaire was distributed by the researcher to each respondent who included the
Deputy Commissioner(DC), Senior Assistant Commissioner(SAC), Assistant
Commissioner(AC), Principle Revenue Officer(PRO) and Senior Revenue Officer(SRO). The
respondents were sent an introductory letter (Appendix I) requesting to complete the
questionnaire by the researcher (Appendix I I ) and were collected by the researcher within
3days. To facilitate filling out forms and data entry in a structured format, the form was
ideally laid out with data fields clearly identifiable and responses pre-coded. It also
contributes to the likelihood of doubling the initial response rate, the researcher is careful to
avoid constructing a complex and lengthy questionnaire.
3.6 Data Analysis
Qualitative and quantitative data analysis will be used to give a clear picture of the research
findings. Data will be analyzed using the content analysis technique. This method is usefijl
and appropriate as it facilitates systematic objectivity and descriptive analysis. Description of
the study is achieved through categorization of material analyzed. Content analysis is also
useful in analyzing material from interesting questions, which are not answered through other
means. Data will be analyzed using SPSS. Descriptive statistics will then be used to describe
33
the data. This will include the computation of mean. The data will be presented inform of
frequency tables, charts and graphs for easier interpretation of data.
3.7 Chapter Summary
This chapter has described the methodology which will be used in conducting the study.
Descriptive design was used in the study. The researcher will use a questionnaire to collect
the data from the Kenya Revenue Authority respondents. This chapter explained the research
design, population, sampling design, sample frame, data collection method and Research
procedure. The next chapter presents the analysis of the findings of the study.
34
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results and findings of the study. The purpose of the study was to
determine the impact of effective delegation in organizations. First, it gives an overview of
some general characteristics of the respondents. Then, the results for each of the delegation
question which is on criteria of delegation, barriers of effective delegation and benefits of
effective delegation are presented using frequency tables and graphs. A total of 316
questionnaires were sent and 310 were received back. This represents a 98.1% response rate.
4.2 General Characteristics of the Study Group
4.2.1 Gender of Respondent
Data was collected in regards to the gender of the respondents. As shown in table 4.1, the
male respondents were 53.2% while the female respondents were 46.8%
Table 4.1 Gender of Respondent
Gender Distribution Gender
Frequency Percent
Male 165 53.2
Female 145 46.8
Total 310 100.0
4.2.2 Age of Respondent
Table 4.2, shows the age distribution of the respondents which was grouped into the following
categories: under 30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-45, 46 and over. From the distribution, majority of the
employees are over the youth category of 18-35 years which represents 80%. This shows that
the managers are in the senior years.
35
Table 4.2 Ages of Respondent
Age Group Distribution Age Group
Frequency Percent
Under 30 14 4.5
30-35 53 17.1
36-40 106 34.2
41-45 86 27.7
46 and above 51 16.5
Total 310 100.0
4.2.3 Current Position
Respondents were asked about their position which they held. 43.2 % of the respondents were
SRO, 25.8% were PRO 12.9% were Assistant Commissioners, 12.9% were Senior Assistants,
and, 5.2% of the respondents were Deputy Commissioners. This is shown in table 4.3
Table 4.3 Current Position
Current Position Distribution Current Position
Frequency Percent
Deputy Commissioner(DC) 16 5.2
Senior Assistant Commissioner(SAC) 40 12.9
Assistant Commissioner(AC) 40 12.9
Principle Revenue Officer(PRO) 80 25.8
Senior Revenue Officer(SRO) 134 43.2
Total 310 100.0
4.2.4 Years in Management
Respondents were asked to indicate the years of management they had. Table 4.4 reveals that,
19% of the respondents had 1-5 years in management. About 27% of the respondents had 6-
10 years in management. Twenty nine percent (29 % ) had 11-15 years, 16.1 % of the
respondents had 16-20 years in management while only 8.4% had over 21 years of
management experience
36
Table 4.4 Years in Management
Years of Management Distribution Years of Management
Frequency
1-5 59 19.0
6-10 84 27.1
11-15 91 29.4
16-20 50 16.1
21 and above 26 8.4
Total 310 100.0
4.2.5 Direct Reports
From Table 4.5, indicates that 14.2% of the Senior management had 1-5 employees directly
report to them ,21.9 % had 6-15 employees under them, 26.3% had 16-30 employees report
to them, 20.3% had 31.45 direct reports while only 16.8% had 46 and above employees report
to them directly.
Table 4.5 Direct Reports
Direct Reports Distribution Direct Reports
Frequency Percent
1-5 44 14.2
6-15 68 21.9
16-30 83 26.8
31 -45 63 20.3
46 and above 52 16.8
Total 310 100.0
4.2.6 Educational Level
When respondents were asked about their education level, from Table 4.6 9% have some
college level of education, 47.7 % have undergraduate degree, and 39% have Masters Degree
while only 4.2% have a Doctorate.
37
Table 4.6 Education level
Education level Distribution Education level
Frequency
Some college 28 9.0
Undergraduate 148 47.7
Master's 121 39.0
Doctorate 13 4.2
Total 310 100.0
4.2.7 Assigning Work
From Table 4.7, the responses for assigning work were 36.1 % rarely assign work to their
subordinates, 40.6% sometimes assign work to their subordinates, 4.9% often assign work to
their subordinates 11 % routinely assign work to their subordinates and 7.4% do not at all
assign work. The results are presented in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7 Assigning Work
Frequency of Assigning Work Distr ibution Frequency of Assigning Work
Frequency Percent
Rarely 15 36.1
Sometimes 34 40.6
Often 112 4.9
Routinely 126 11.0
Not at all 23 7.4
Total 310 100.0
4.3 Criteria for Delegation
Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they apply the process for delegation as a
criteria for delegating. The frequency analysis aimed at revealing the extent to which the
respondents agreed with the statements have been presented in the tables and figures.
38
4.3.1 Managers Input Whether Task is Suitable
Table 4.8, indicates that 41.3% of the respondents disagreed that the task is suitable to be
delegated followed by 36.8% who strongly disagreed that the task was suitable. Only 13.5%
agree with the statement while 8.4% strongly agreed.
Table 4.8: Managers Input Whether Task is Suitable
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly agree 26 8.4
Agree 42 13.5
Disagree 128 41.3
Strongly disagree 114 36.8
Total 310 100.0
4.3.2 Definition of Task
Table 4.9, shows that 43.9% of the respondents disagreed on defining the task to the
subordinates, 33.2% strongly disagreed defining and only 13.9% agreed and 9% strongly
disagreed that they define the task to the subordinates while delegating.
4.9 Define the Task
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency -
Strongly agree 28 9.0
Agree 43 13.9
Disagree 136
Strongly disagree 103 33.2
Total 310 100.0
4.3.3 Identify Key goals
Table 4.10, indicates that 46.8% of the respondents rated disagree followed by 32.9% who
strongly disagreed and 12.3 % of the respondents agreed when asked whether they identify
key goals of the task to their subordinates when delegating.
39
Table 4.10 Identify Key Goals
Radng Distr ibution Radng
Frequency
Strongly agree 25 8.1
Agree 38 - - -
Disagree 145 46.8
Strongly disagree 102 32.9
Total 310
4.3.4 Plan the Delegation
From the study findings, majority of the respondents accounting for 44.2% rated agreed
followed by 30.6% who strongly agreed, 15.8% disagreed and 9.4% strongly disagreed when
asked whether they plan the delegation. The results are presented in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11 Plan the Delegation
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly agree 29 9.4
Agree 49 15.8
Disagree 137 44.2
Strongly disagree 95 30.6
Total 310 100.0
4.3.5 Identify the Right Person
As shown in table 4.12, 43.2% of the respondents disagreed, 34.5% strongly disagreed and
13.5% agreed that they identify the right person to do the task delegated while only 8.7 %
strongly agreed in identifying the right person.
40
Table 4.12: Identify the Right Person
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency
Strongly agree 27 8.7
Agree 42 13.5
Disagree 134 43.2
Strongly disagree 107 34.5
Total 310 100.0
4.3.6 Anticipate Problems
Table 4.13, shows that majority of the respondents accounting for 80% disagreed when asked
whether they anticipate problems before the delegate a task. 12.6% of the respondents agreed
with the statement and only 8.7% of the respondents strongly agreed with the statement.
Table 4.13: Anticipate Problems
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly agree 27 8.7
Agree 39 12.6
Disagree 142 45.8
Strongly disagree 102 32.9
Total 310 100.0
4.3.7 Proper Training
Table 4.14 shows that 44.2% of the respondents disagreed while 33.9% strongly disagreed
that proper training was availed where need. While 13.5% of the respondents agreed and a
further 8.4% strongly agreed with the statement as depicted by the table.
41
_ Africa-Ubrary
Table 4.14: Ensure Proper Training
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency
strongly disagree 26 8.4
disagree 42 13.5
agree 137 44.2
strongly agree 105 33.9
Total 310
4.3.8 Establish Clear Reporting Links
When asked whether there is an established clear reporting links 40% of the respondents
agreed and 40% strongly agreed. Only 14.2% of the respondents disagreed while 8.1%
strongly disagreed with the statement. (See Table 4.15)
Table 4.15: Establish Clear Reporting Links
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly agree 25 8.1
Agree 44 14.2
Disagree 132 42.6
Strongly disagree 109 35.2
Total 310 100.0
4.3.9 Establish Scope of Authority
Table 4.16, shows that 44.2% of the respondents disagreed who agree when asked whether
they establish the scope of authority being delegated 33.2% of the respondents strongly
disagree with the statement and 9% of the respondents strongly agreed.
42
Table 4.16 Establish Scope of Authority
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency
Strongly agree 28 9.0
Agree 42 13.5
Disagree 137 44.2
Strongly disagree 103 33.2
Total 310
4.3.10 Agree on Realistic time-scale
When asked as a manager whether a realistic time-scale is agreed on when delegating task,
table 4.17 reveals that 43.9% disagreed, 33.9% who strongly disagreed and only 12.9% of the
respondents agreed with the statement and 9.4% strongly agreed with the statement..
Table 4.17: Agree on Time-scale
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly agree 29 9.4
Agree 40 12.9
Disagree 136 43.9
Strongly disagree 105 33.9
Total 310 100.0
4.3.11 Agree on Milestone
When asked whether each task is assessed at the agreed milestones. Table 4.18 reveals that
41.9% of respondents disagreed with the statement, 14.8% agreed and also 10.6% of the
respondents strongly agreed with the statement.
43
Table 4.18 Agree on milestone
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency
Strongly agree 33 10.6
Agree 46 14.8
Disagree 130 41.9
Strongly disagree 101 32.6
Total 310 100.0
4.3.12 Establish Key performance indicators
From the study findings, 40% strongly disagreed, 40% also disagreed when asked whether
they establish key performance indicators to all team members delegated. Twenty percent
(20%) of the respondents agreed with the statement. Table 4.19 shows the distribution
Table 4.19 Establish Key Performance Indicators
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly agree 29 9.4
Agree 42 13.5
Disagree 135 43.5
Strongly disagree 104 33.5
Total 310 100.0
4.3.13 Give specific feedback
From Table 4.20, 42.9% of the respondents disagreed that do they gave feedback that covers
positive points and areas of concern followed by 32.6% who strongly disagreed while 15.8%
of the respondents agreed while only 8.7% strongly agreed with the statement shows the
distribution.
44
Table 4.20: Give specific feedback
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly agree 27 8.7
Agree 49 15.8
Disagree 133 42.9
Strongly disagree 101 32.6
Total 310 100.0
4.3.14 Other Criteria used to Improve Delegation
Respondents were asked to recommend what a manager should do to improve on delegation.
Twenty percent (20%) of the respondents felt that one should delegate to people who report to
you. Eighteen percent (18%) of the respondents stated that you need to delegate according to
the size/amount of task. This was followed by fifteen percent (15%) of the respondents who
felt that one need staff buy in to achieve it. Fifteen percent 15% of the respondents felt that a
manager should talk about the consequences of the results of the tasks. Ten percent (10%) of
the respondents also noted that to have efficient delegation it will be good to define roles and
a fiirther Ten percent (10%) stated that one need to delegate results not the process. Others
stated that a manager should also establish checkpoints, ensure Open communication is
important when delegating across functional areas or through different levels of an
organizafion. And a final 2% say you need to clarify your expectation. Figure 4.1 shows
distribution of responses.
45
Organization Structure
Individual V Team g
Staff buy in
Talk about consequences
Define your role
Delegate the results, not the process
10 15 20 25
B Percentage
Figure 4.1: Criteria to Improve Delegation
4.4 Barriers of Delegation
The Respondents were asked to rate whether the obstacles affect how they delegate tasks. The
responses are shown in the tables below.
4.4.1 Work Yourself
Table 4.21 shows that the respondents accounting for 39% agreed that they prefer to do work
themselves, while 32.3% strongly agreed, 17.7% disagreed and 11% strongly agreed that they
prefer to do the work themselves.
46
Table 4.21: Do Work yourself
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 34 11.0
Disagree 55 17.7
Agree 121 39.0
Strongly agree 100 32.3
Total 310 100.0
4.4.2 Lack Confidence
About forty four percent (44.2%) of the respondents agreed that they lack confidence in their
staff to complete tasks and 33.2 % strongly agreed while 13.5% disagreed with the statement
and 9% strongly disagree. Table 4.22 shows the distribution.
Table 4.22: Lack Confidence
Rating Distri bution Rating
Frequency
Strongly disagree 28 9.0
Disagree 42 13.5
Agree 137 44.2
Strongly agree 103 33.2
Total 310 100.0
4.4.3 No time to Train
Table 4.23 shows that 46.8% agreed that there was no time to train their direct reports
followed by 31.3% who strongly agreed. A Further 13.2% of the respondents disagreed with
the statement and 8.7% of the respondents strongly disagreed with the statement.
47
Table 4.23: No Time to Train
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency
Strongly disagree 27 8.7
Disagree 41 13.2
Agree 145 46.8
Strongly agree 97 31.3
Total 310 100.0
4.4.4 No trust in employees
From Table 4.24, 46.5% of the respondents agreed they did not trust their employees even
their strong performers while only 31.6 % of the respondents strongly agreed with the
statement while 13.5 disagrees with the statement. Only 8.4% strongly disagreed.
Table 4.24: No Trust in Employees
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 26 8.4
Disagree 42 13.5
Agree 144 46.5
Strongly agree 98 31.6
Total 310 100.0
4.4.5 Negotiate Boundaries
As shown in table 4.25, majority of the respondents accounting for 44.8% agreed followed by
32.9% who strongly agreed when asked whether the continuously negotiate the boundaries of
the staff, scope of practice and corporate policies and procedures . 14.2 % disagreed with the
statement and 8.1 % of the respondents strongly disagree with the statement.
48
Table 4.25: Negotiate Boundaries
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency
Strongly disagree 25 8.1
Disagree 44 14.2
Agree 139 44.8
Strongly agree 102 32.9
Total 310 100.0
4.4.6 Inexperienced Staff
As shown in table 4.26, 45.5% & 31.9% agreed and strongly agreed respectively when asked
whether they do not delegate because their staff lack experience and competence. Only 14.2%
of the respondents disagreed with the statement and 8.4%) strongly disagreed.
Table 4.26: Inexperienced staff
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 26 8.4
Disagree 44 14.2
Agree 141 45.5
Strongly agree 99 31.9
Total 310 100.0
4.4.7 Neglect Level of Authority
Table 4.27, indicate that, 43.5% agreed that they neglect to tell staff and other people their
level of authority, 36.1% strongly agreed with the statement. While 8.4%) strongly disagreed
and 11.9% disagreed with the statement.
49
Table 4.27: Neglect level of authority
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency
Strongly disagree 26 8.4
Disagree 37 11.9
Agree 135 43.5
Strongly agree 112 36.1
Total 310 100.0
4.4.8 Resist Responsibility
Table 4.28 shows that 46.5% of the respondents agreed that the team members resist
responsibility. A fiirther 30.6% of the respondents strongly agreed with the statement and
only 14.6% of the respondents disagreed with the statement while only 8.4% strongly
disagreed with the statement
Table 4.28: Resist Responsibility
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 26 8.4
Disagree 45 14.5
Agree 144 46.5
Strongly agree 95 30.6
Total 310 100.0
4.4.9 Success is my Responsibility
From the study findings, 52.5 % of the respondents agreed that success of their work is totally
their responsibility, while 27.9% who strongly agreed. Only 11.6% of the respondents
disagreed with the statement. Table 4.29 shows the distribufion.
50
Table 4.29 Success is my Responsibility
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 28 9.0
Disagree 36 11.6
Agree 156 52.5
Strongly agree 90 27.9
Total 310 100.0
4.4.10 Decision are Made under Crisis
When respondents were asked whether most of their decisions were made under crisis 47.4%
of the respondents agreed; while 31% of the respondents strongly agreed with the statement,
11.9% disagreed while only 9.7% strongly disagreed with the statement. The results are
shown in Table 4.30.
Table 4.30: Decision are Made under Crisis
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 30 9.7
Disagree 37 11.9
Agree 147 47.4
Strongly agree 96 31.0
Total 310 100.0
4.4.11 Other Barriers to Effective Delegation
Respondents were asked to state what other key barriers they face when they decide to
delegate. Thirty percent (30%) of the respondents stated that they lose out on getting the
credit for the work. This was followed by twenty five percent (25%) of the respondents not
having enough resources barred them fi-om delegating. Fifteen percent (15%) of the
respondents felt that their subordinates did not have enough time to take on other tasks.
Twelve percent (12%) of the respondents found it hard to delegate these tasks and a further
ten percent (10%) say that their subordinate fear being a scapegoat. And a final 8% say they
might delegate themselves out of a job. Figure 4.3 above shows distribufion of responses
51
Barr ie rs to Effective Delegation
Figure 4.2: Barriers to Effective Delegation
4.5 Benefits of Delegation
The Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which delegation is a benefit to the manager,
organization and the employees. The responses are shown in the tables below.
4.5.1 Build New Skills
Table 4.31 shows that the majority of the respondents accounting for 45.8% strongly agreed
that delegation builds new employee skills and strengthen existing ones.31.6% strongly
agreed when asked whether delegation builds new employee skills and strengthen existing
ones. About twelve (12.9%) of the respondents disagreed with the statement and 9.7% of the
respondents strongly disagreed.
52
Table 4.31: Build New Skills
Rating Distribut ion Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 30 9.7
Disagree 40 12.9
Agree 98 31.6
Strongly agree 142 45.8
Total 310 100.0
4.5.2 Work Deadlines are met
Table 4.32 indicates that, 46.1% of the respondents agreed that through delegation more work
is accomplished and deadlines can be met more easily, 31% strongly agreed with this
statement, 13.2% disagreed with the statement and a fiarther 9.7% of the respondents strongly
disagreed with the statement.
Table 4.32: Work Deadlines are met
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 30 9.7
Disagree 41 13.2
Agree 143 46.1
Strongly agree 96 31.0
Total 310 100.0
4.5.3 Employees become Committed
Table 4.33 shows that the majority of the respondents accounting for 49.7% agreed that
delegation helps employees become involved and committed, 31.9% who strongly agreed
with the statement, 10% of the respondent disagreed and a fiirther 8.4% strongly disagreed
with the statement.
53
Table 4.33: Employees become Committed
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency
Strongly disagree 26 8.4
Disagree 31 10.0
Agree 154 49.7
Strongly agree 99 31.9
Total 310 100.0
4.5.4 Control is less difficult
Table 4.34; indicates that, 46.5% of the respondents strongly agreed that the assignment of
specific responsibility and authority makes control less difficult, 33.5% agreed. Only 9% of
the respondents strongly disagreed with the statement while 11% disagreed with the
statement.
Table 4.34: Control less Difficult
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 28 9.0
Disagree 34 11.0
Agree 104 33.5.
Strongly agree 144 46.5
Total 310 100.0
4.5.5 Growth and Development
Table 4.35 indicates that 47.4% of the respondents agreed when asked whether delegation
helps employees grow and develop, 29.4% strongly agreed with the statement and 12.6% of
the respondents disagreed and 10.6 strongly disagreed with the statement.
54
Table 4.35: Growth and Development
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency
Strongly disagree 33 10.6
Disagree 39 12.6
Agree 147 47.4
Strongly agree 91 90 A
Total 310 100.0
4.5.6 Performance can be measured
Table 4.36 shows that the majority of the respondents accounting for 46.1% rated agreed that
individual performance can be measured more accurately. Thirty one (31%) of the
respondents strongly agreed with the statement. And 9.4% strongly disagreed with the
statement.
Table 4.36: Performance can be measured
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 29 9.4
Disagree 42 13.5
Agree 143 46.1
Strongly agree 96 31.0
Total 310 100.0
4.5.7 Staff Satisfaction and Recognition Enhanced
Table 4.37 shows that, 43.5% agreed that delegation enhance employee satisfaction and
recognition. Only 29.4% of the respondents strongly agreed with the statement. About Nine
percent (8.7%) of the respondents disagreed with the statement while 18.4% strongly
disagreed.
55
Table 4.37: Staff Satisfaction and Recognition Enhanced
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 57 18.4
Disagree 27 8.7
Agree 135 43.5
Strongly agree 91 29.4
Total 310 100.0
4.5.8 Manage Effectively
When asked whether a diversity of products, operation and people can be managed more
effectively, 44.5% of the respondents disagreed, 32.3% of the respondents strongly disagreed
with the statement while 13.9% agreed with the statement. The distribution is shown in table
4.38
Table 4.38: Manage Effectively
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 100
Disagree 138 44.5
Agree 43
Strongly agree 29 9.3
Total 310
4.5.9 More Productivity
Table 4.39 shows that the majority of the respondents accounting for 45.5% agreed and 30.3
strongly agreed that staffs are more fully and productivity improves and 15.2% disagreed with
the statement and 9% strongly disagreed with the statement.
56
Table 4.39: More Productivity
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 28 9.0
Disagree 47 15.2
Agree 141 45.5
Strongly agree 94 30.3
Total 310 100.0
4.5.10 Less Travel and Stress
Table 4.40 shows that 45.5% of the respondents agreed and 30.3%) strongly agreed that
delegation helped distance operations are managed with less stress and travel while 13.2 % of
the respondents disagreed and 11% strongly disagreed with the statement.
Table 4.40: less travel and stress
Rating Distri jution Rating
Frequency
Strongly disagree 28 11.0
Disagree 47 13.2
Agree 141 45.5
Strongly agree 94 in T.
Total 310 100.0
4.5.11 More Time to Manage
Table 4.41 indicates that the majority of the respondents accounting for 45.2% agreed that
delegation allows a manager more time to plan organize, motivate and control the
organization. Thirty two percent (32.9%) strongly agreed with the statement and 13.9% of the
respondents disagreed with the statement.
57
Table 4.41: More time to manage
Rating Distribution Rating
Frequency
Strongly disagree 25 8.1
Disagree 43 13.9
Agree 140 45.2
Strongly agree 102 32.9
Total 310 100.0
4.5.12: Benefits of Effective Delegation
Respondents were asked to state other benefit that arises from effective delegation. Twenty
percent (20%) of the respondents felt that delegation helps the organization as knowledge is
shared. Another Twenty percent (20%) saw that delegation increases management experience.
Eighteen percent (18%) of the respondents stated that by delegation communication amongst
managers and subordinates is improved. This was followed by Fifteen percent (15%) of the
respondents who felt that delegation facilitates teamwork. Twelve percent (12%) of the
respondents felt it also incorporates fresh perspectives and creative way as it allows staff
engagement. Ten percent (10%) of the respondents also noted it also gives appropriate
recognition to those participating in the tasks delegated. And a final five percent (5%) say that
delegation gives a sense of achievement. Figure 4.3 shows distribution of responses
58
Bene f i t s of E f fec t i ve De lega t ion
sharing knowledge 20
increases your management experience
improves communication 18
fecilitates teamwork 15
incorporates fresh perspectives and creati\
ways ] 1 2
appropriate recognition 10
0 5 10 15 • % I
20 2 5
Figure 4.3 Benefits of Delegation
4.6 Chapter Summary
In this chapter the findings were obtained from questionnaires administered to senior
employees at Kenya Revenue Authority, the findings of the study were based on the research
questions. The findings were presented in frequency tables and figures.
The study revealed managers did follow the process of delegation. They did not choose
suitable tasks to be delegated, nor define the task, they also did not identify goals for the
subordinates to achieve nor identify the right person for the task and they also did not
properly train their subordinates.
From the findings managers experienced the following obstacles individually and also noticed
barriers presented by those they delegate to as: lack of confidence, managers prefer to do the
work themselves, having no time to train, lack of trust in employees, having inexperienced
staff and neglect in level of authority were some of the barriers to effective delegation. The
other factors that were provided by the respondents on the barriers that prevent effective
delegation include: not having enough resources and not getting credit.
59
The managers are also aware of the benefits of effective delegation even though they do not
follow the process of effective delegation these include: building and developing skills,
meeting deadlines, enhancing satisfaction and commitment, managing effectively, improved
productivity which many of the respondents revealed.
60
CHAPTER F I V E
5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the summary, discussions, conclusions and recommendations. The first
section of this chapter will give the summary of the methodology of the study of the major
findings. The second section discusses the findings based on the research question. The
subsequent section will discuss the conclusions drawn from the findings and discussions. The
chapter concludes by giving recommendations for improvement and further studies.
5.2 Summary
The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of effective delegation at Kenya
Revenue Authority. The study was guided by the following research questions: What are the
criteria used for effective delegation in organizations? What are the barriers to effective
delegation in organizations? What are the benefits of Delegafing in organizations?
The research design used in this study was a case study design focusing on Kenya Revenue
Authority a Government Parastatal with the mandate of collecting taxes on behalf of the
Government of Kenya. The target population was 1540 in total from Senior Tax Managers.
Stratified random technique was used to select a sample size of 316 respondents. The data
was collected using questionnaires. The collected data was analyzed using descriptive
statistics in terms of frequencies and percentages and presented in tables and figures.
Statistical Package for Social Scientist (SPSS) was used as a tool for data analysis.
The findings on the criteria for effective delegation revealed that respondents felt that
managers should delegate to those who report to them in the organization. The majority of the
respondents agreed that using teamwork for complex tasks and an individual for easier tasks
help delegation become effective. The respondents also talked about having staff buy in the
tasks would go a long way to successfully delegating. The manager should also have
checkpoints and clearly communicate on the job and finally establish expectation of the task
delegated.
Regarding the extent to which the barriers affect delegation process at K R A , the respondents
mentioned some barriers as: they would not get credit i f they delegated, some stated that by
61
delegating they lost tasks they enjoyed performing. Others were afraid they would delegate
out of their Job. They also observed that some of their staff did not have enough time to take
on other duties and some of their employees feared that managers would use them as
scapegoats. There was also the issue of not having enough resources to which an employee
would use to handle the tasks delegated.
Regarding the benefits of effective delegations most of the managers stated that delegation
augmented management experience by learning how to effectively assign, coordinate, and
administrate tasks. It also helped incorporate fresh perspectives and creative ways to fialfill
responsibilities. Other respondents say it allows appropriate recognition of member
contributions, and others say that delegation brings a sense of achievement. It allows sharing
knowledge, you and your organization will achieve more by working with well-trained,
motivated members. It also improves communication and facilitates teamwork.
5.3 Discussion
5.3.1 The Criteria for Effective Delegation
The findings revealed that there is a need to establish task suitability when delegating. This
was confirmed by the findings of (Smith, 2012) which revealed that a manager needs to know
which tasks can be delegated and those that should not be delegated. The findings also
showed that there was a need that the task should be clearly defined. This is also in line with
the study of Lawson (2007) which revealed that manager should plan on how to present the
assignment as this will go along way to minimize miscommunication.
Most of the respondents stated that they did not categorize the key goals of the task to the
subordinate creating a need for identifying goals. This was confirmed by (Ruff, 2011) who
stated that providing requirements of the tasks allows a subordinate to focus on what needs to
be done. The findings revealed that majority of the respondents disagreed that delegation
needs to be planned. In his study (Lawson, 2007) concluded that one should take time to plan
the parameters, requirements, authority level, checkpoints and expectations. In his study
(Roebuck, 1998) noted that you need to choose the right person, by assessing their skills and
experience as objectively as possible, choose a person you can depend on. Most respondents
like Roebuck agreed that it is important to assign the right person. Majority of the respondents
also agreed that they expect problems to arise but as it was highlighted by Luecke (2009), let
the employee understand who he/she can tum to for help as well as other available resources.
62
Most of the respondents also agreed that proper training of employees should be done before
assignment of tasks. Majority of the respondents felt that there was no need to establish scope
of authority. (Lawson, 2007) however in his study highlighted that it was important to train a
subordinate on the tasks delegated this she explained by placing an internal focus on that
helps employees grow and further their own professional development and that also outlining
authority and responsibility helps minimize miscommunication and also insubordination or a
clash. Most of the respondents did not make clear associations between themselves and the
delegate but as per Roebuck (1998) views; it necessary while delegating that clear links
should be established.
According to the study, most of the respondents did not give a timescale of the task to the
delegatee. This according to (Lindo, 1999), is necessary as establishing deadlines allowed a
manager to effectively monitor the progress of the assignment being done. Most of the
managers while delegating did not agree on milestones but in her study (Lawson, 2007) states
that agreeing on checkpoints with the employees ensures there is mutual agreement this way it
becomes a collaborative process and there is staff buy in. The other most important factor on
the criteria for effective delegation is to establish performance indicators echoed in the
literature review by Colombo and Delmastro (2004) to ensure you achieve the result as
required. Majority of the respondents however did not establish key performance indicators
with their delegatees. The study revealed that most of the respondents did not give specified
feedback. Huppe (1994) in his study explained that giving feedback helped the manager
determine i f employees does indeed understand what is expected of him/her.
5.3.2 The Barriers to Effective Delegation
The study revealed that majority of the managers prefer to do the work themselves .This is
confirmed by (Longnecker, 2004) where it was observed that doing the work alone as a
manager is a common barrier to delegating. This is because some managers insist in
maintaining all control and authority due to insecurity. The study also revealed that managers
lack confidence in their staff This is in line with (Smith, 2012) who revealed that managers
have little or no faith in subordinates who may be contributed by a prior bad experience or
unrealistic standards and timelines dictated by the superior which is created by poorly
developed partnerships with subordinates. Most of the respondents stated that have they did
not have the time to train their employees, this is brought about by the nature of the work
63
whereby most employees go through a two year course training before being deployed and
therefore managers feel they require no fiirther training.
The study also revealed that majority of the respondent take time with the staff to agree and
negotiate boundaries. In his study (Northouse, 2007) states that many managers should agree
and negotiate boundaries to avoid miscommunication. Many respondents in this study did not
delegate tasks due to inexperience of staff that they supervised thereby having difficulty in
choosing the right person for the task. Roebuck (1998) stated that in order to choose the right
person, you need to assess their skills and experience as objectively as possible, choose a
person you can depend on. The majority of respondents agreed that many of their employees
resisted responsibility. Smith (2012) noted that people fear supervisory reprisal which might
put professional and personal reputation on the line and Mohiedini (2009) also noted that i f an
employee lacks motivation then they will resist responsibility.
When asked what other barriers they faced while delegating the desire for personal credit was
stated. Lawson (2007) reveals that where supervisors seek self fiilfillment therefore tend to do
important tasks themselves so personal credit is attributed to them therefore not delegating.
Most respondents agreed that success is their responsibility therefore they decided not to
delegate. Luecke (2009) confirmed this but stated that a manager should know that he is
responsible for the task assigned as delegation is not abdication hence delegate the job. Most
of the respondents unfortunately delegate even under crisis. Lawson (2007) has stated that one
should not delegate during an emergency or a short-term tasks where there is no time to
explain or train. In conclusion many managers face many of the barriers which is confirmed
by many of the authors. Conflicting attitudes such as age, work ethics, role confiision and
personality can create resentment within the division and hamper delegation. Clear role
definition can significantiy help reduce conflict by clarifying job task and scope of authority
and augmenting the delegation process then these barriers can be alleviated.
5.3.3 The Benefits of Effective Delegation
When asked whether delegation helps build new skills many of the respondents agreed. This
confirms that proper delegation is important factors in boosting employee skills. This is
confirmed by Lawson (2007) where she states that a benefit of delegation is developing
employee's skills and the organization as a whole is likely to produce a higher level of out
put. It was revealed in the study where majority agreed that deadlines are met with the help of
64
delegation. According to Ward and Wilcox, (1996) delegation ensures that work deadlines are
met by having checkpoints and agreeing on key goals and milestones deadline are met. In this
study most of the employees agreed that the delegation makes employees become more
committed. This was confirmed in a study by Ruff (2011) which stated that effective
delegation ensured that employees are given opportunity to be involved with decision making
which lead to commitment and increased morale This also encourages also allows for and
maintains cordial relationships further developing team spirit leading to effective
communication.
When asked whether delegation makes control less difficult majority of the respondents,
agreed while just a few of the respondents disagreed. Nelson (1999) agrees with this, where
his study revealed that delegation creates an environment where there is buy in from
employees enhancing teamwork thereby making control less difficult. In this study majority
of the respondents felt delegation supports growth and development. According to Lawson's
(2012) study delegation provides professional growth opportunities to subordinates. Most of
the employee's further performance can be measured through delegation. According to Ruff
(2011) delegations gives employees' personal satisfaction and a sense of achievement through
involving them in decision making, this was revealed in this study where majority of the
respondents agreed that the satisfaction and recognition is enhanced. Most of the employees
felt that delegation helps them manage effectively. Lawson (2007) brings it out when she
revealed that through having a plan whereby requirement are set, milestones are agreed on
and performance indicators set then management becomes more effective.
In this study the respondents agreed that it also helps improve on productivity. Smith (2012)
notes that productivity and efficiency is increased as delegation motivate employees who in
tum work with more commitment. Majority of the respondents indicate that there is less travel
and stress therefore leading to more time to manage. Delegation when applied strategically it
brings about competitive dynamics and designing of effective managerial control systems
which give the organization a competitive edge against rival both potential and current
(Mclnnis & Parson, 2009). Most employees suggest that delegation has many benefits for the
organization, the manager and the employees.
65
5.4 Conclusions
5.4.1 Criteria for Effective Delegation
From the study findings, the key criteria for delegation are to know what delegation is and the
process of delegating. Senior Tax officers revealed that they do know what delegation is but
do not delegate and those who do, do it albeit with varying fi-equency. The majority of the
respondents failed to carry out the various steps which make delegation an effective process
which include identifying the key goals, choosing the right person, training their employees
and outiining authority and responsibility. From the findings, we can conclude that the crucial
matter is not just the act of delegation, but doing so in an effective and skillfiil maimer.
5.4.2 Barriers to Effective Delegation.
From the findings it has been revealed that managers do not delegate mainly due to:
inexperience staff who are fi-esh graduates with no experience, lack of trust in employees they
supervise, and having no time to train, lack of confidence in their delegates, inability to
negotiate boundaries and the supervisors thinking they are better suited for the job. Managers
being better suited for the job and inexperienced staffs are two of the most firequent reasons
for not delegating according to various researchers. This could be due to fear of losing control
and wanting to ensure visibility i.e. getting credit. What is clear is that senior leaders are often
reluctant to appropriately tum over therein to their subordinates. K R A leaders must be
conscience of this finding to be more purposeftil about pushing down responsibility and
authority. Failure to do this can have ill effects. One repercussion is employees will not be
responsible nor will their capabilities broaden. Another is that associates will look outside the
current department for professional fulfillment and challenge, leaving the exited organization
with the task of backfilling personnel.
5.4.3 Benefit of Effective Delegation
Majority of the respondents agree that delegation has its benefits to the manager, employees
and the organization. As highlighted by the findings, delegation increases your management
experience by leaming how to effectively assign, coordinate, and administrate tasks. It also
incorporates fresh perspectives and creative ways to fulfill responsibilities. It allows
appropriate recognition of member contributions, a sense of achievement. Sharing knowledge
improves communication and facilitates teamwork. It brings about productivity and saves on
money. It is therefore noted that delegation does much more good to every element in the
organization than not delegating.
66
5.5 Recommendations
5.5.1 Recommendations for Improvement
The following recommendations are made based on the findings and conclusion of the study.
5.5.1.1 Criteria to Achieve Effective Delegation
There is a need to emphasis to senior leaders at Kenya Revenue Authority that delegation is
an important distinction of leadership. Caution should be exercised in interpreting the high
reporting of delegation as an indication that all is well with this important leadership function.
K R A would greatly benefit i f superiors emphasized that delegation should be exercised
thoughtfially and methodically. Training courses or seminars that focus on the importance of
delegation and its effectiveness are widely available and could be pursued to enhance and
sharpen skills in the delegation process.
5.5.1.2 Barriers to Effective Delegation.
KRA needs to create a culture of trust by instituting policies that ensure they consider the
contributions and ideas of employees when delegating. KRA can through engagement ensure the
organization structure fosters teamwork and improves communication network by reducing the
hierarchical level. Leaders are therefore encouraged to develop better attitudes about their
staff and allow participation. They are also advised to monitor and give feed back on progress
to achieve the goal they desire. They should also choose the right people for the tasks. For
effective delegation, however, the element of trust is important for both parties, just as
authority must be commensurate with responsibility. K R A can organize for team building
activities to foster relationships.
5.5.1.3 Benefit of Effective Delegation
Managers need to know the benefits of delegation through highlighting the benefits to the
organization and themselves. Through seminars and Team building activities they learn the art
of delegating through engaging in team activities which in reality will appreciate delegation.
The managers should be made aware through sensitization activities that there is much to be
gained by both the individual and the organizafion not simply to disperse and apportion
responsibility, but to delegate effecfively.
67
5.5.2 Recommendations for Further Studies
Additional investigation that a research pursuit also could focus the study on Kenya Revenue
employees in non management to determine their perceptions of delegation practices.
Delegation is a two way process between a supervisor and subordinate and efforts to quantify
their assessments and reconcile with these findings would provide a more comprehensive look
at the issue of delegation in Kenya Revenue Authority. A comparison could then be made on
similarities and differences between the two studies and an action plan developed to address
differences. The inclusion of interviews for expanded understanding of past experiences and
barriers to delegafion is also recommended.
68
R E F E R E N C E S
American Nurses Association, (2007), Position statement of Registered Nurse Utilization of UAP, (online) available: http://ww.nursingworld.org..
Andolsen, A. A. (2008). The Ingredients of a Good Leader. The Information Management Journal, pg. 42. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com.
Atherton, T. (1999). How to be better at: delegation and coaching. London: Kogan Page Limited.
Axley, S. R. (2002). Delegate: Why we should and how we can. Industrial Management Retrievedfromhttp:// uir. unisa. ac.za/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10500/2913/stroh2.pdf.
Bass, B . M., & Valenzi, E . (1994). Contingent aspects of effective management styles. In J.G.Runt & L . L . Larson (Eds.).
Baston, R. (1991). Dele,gation skills: Tutor's guide. London: Kogan Press.
Basu, C. (June, 2013) What Can Be Delegated in a Business? (online) available http://smallbusiness.chron.coni/ can-delegated-business- 22197 .html
Blair, G. M. (2009) Starting to Manage: the essential skills: Chartwell-Bratt (UK) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (USA).
Bittner, N. P., & Gravlin, G. (2009). Critical thinking, delegation, and missed care in nursingpractice. Journal of Nursing Administration, 39(3), 142-146.
Bloom, N., R. Sadun, R &Van Reenen, J . (2010b). Recent Advances in the Empirics of Organizational Economics. Annual Review of Economics.
Brown, M. R. (1998). Don't be a micro manager: share the responsibility. Black Enterprise.
Chapman, A. (2012). Delegating Authority Skills, Tasks and the Process of Effective Delegation. From< http://www.businessbaIIs.com/delegation.htm> (Retrieved on 8 May, 2013).
Coleman, M. & Bush. T. (1994). Managing with teams. In T. Bush & 1. West - Bumham (Eds.), The principles of educational management. Essex: Longman.
Colombo, M.G., & Delmastro, M. (2004). Delegation of Authority in Business organizations: an Empirical Test. Journal of Industrial Economics, pg 53-80.
Corazzini, K. , Anderson, R.A., Rapp, c , Mueller, C , McConnell, E . , & Lekan, D., (2010). "Delegation in Long-Term Care: Scope of Practice or Job Description?": The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing Vol. 15, No.2, Manuscript 4.
69
Cooper, D R. & C. Emory, W. (1995) Business Research Methods, 5th ed, Mc-Graw Hill International Edition.
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2006). Business Research Methods (6th Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Datta, D., Guthrie, J . P., & Rajagopalan, N. (2002). Different industries, different CEOs? An empirical study of CEO career specialization. Human Resource Planning, 25: pg 14-25.
Denscombe, M. (1998). The Good Research Guidefor Small scale Social Research Project. New Delhi: Viva books private limited.
Dreyfus, S. E . (1981) Four models v human situational understanding: inherent limitations on the modelling of business expertise USAF Office of Scientific Research, refF49620-79-C-0063.
Fleming, R. S. (2010). The Role of Effective Delegation in Professional and Organizational Success, Rowan University.
Fimstahl, T.W. (2001). Letting go. Harvard Business Review, 64(5), pgl4-18.
Finch, L . & Maddux, R. B . (2006). Delegation Skills for Leaders an Action Plan for Success Third Edition,
Gazda, S. (2002, January). The Art of Delegating. HR Magazine, pp. 16-1%.
Ghumro, H.J, Mangi, R.A & Soormo, A.R. (2011). A Journal on Leadership behavioral Taxonomies in Unversities
Grant, P. C. (2001). The effort-net return model of employee motivation. New York: D K Publishing, Inc
Hasan. (2007, June 23). How to Delegate Effectively. Retrieved June 11, 2013, from http://dirjoumal.com/guides/how -to-delegate-effectively
Heller, R. (1998). How to Delegate. New York: DK Publishing, Inc.
Huppe, F . (1994). Successful delegation. Hawthorne, NJ: Career Press.
Huber, D. (2006). Leadership and Nursing Care Management.
Hughes, G. C. (2012). Leadership enhancing the lessons of experience. New York: McGraw-Hill/ Irwin.
Kreitner, R. & Kinicki, A. (2004). Organizational Behavior 6th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Krejcie, R. V. &, Morgan, D. W. (1970), "Determining Sample Size for Research Activities", Educational and Psychological Measurement.
70
Lawson, K. (2007) How to delegate effectively. Lawson Consulting Group. Inc.
Lindo, D. (1999). Will you ever get it right? Supervision 60(12): pg 6-8.
Lisoski, E . (1999). Five key success factors of outstanding recognition programs. Supervision pg7.
Lofland, J . & Lofland, L . (1995). Analyzing social settings. 3rd edition. Wadsworth, Belmont.
Longenecker, C. O. (2004). The delegation dilemma. Supervision pg 3-5.
Luecke, R. A. (2009). The Busy Manager's Guide to Delegation. New York, NY: American Management Association McConkey, D. D.
Lussier, R. N. & Achua, C. (2013) Effective Leadership. International Edition-5th Edition. United Kingdom: South-Western Cengage Leaming.
Malone, T. W. (1997), Is Empowerment Just a Fad? Control Decision, Decision Making and IT. Sloan Management Review. Pg 23-35.
Mamca, R. F. (1999). Fighting the urge tofightfires. Harvard Business Review, 77(6), pg 30-32.
McConkey, D. D. (1986). No-nonsense delegation. New York: Amacom. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc
Mclnnis, L . A., & Parson, L . C. (2009). Thoughtful nursing practice: Reflections on nurse delegation decision-making. Nursing Clinics of North America, 44, pg 461-470.
Mind Tools (January 10, \999).How to delegate work to other people. (Online) available http://www.mindtools.comltmdelegt.html."
Mohiedini, P. (2009), Management and Delegation of Authority, Journal of Science -Educational, Managers broadcasting organization. Islamic Republic oflran. No 101, p-p:
120
Mondy, R. W. & Premeaux, S. R. (1995). Management: Concepts, practices and skills. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Muir, J . (1995). Effective management through delegation. Work study 44(7):pg 6&7.
Nelson, R. B. (1993) Empowering Employees through Delegation 2nd edition
Northouse, P. (2007) Leadership Theory ScPractice pg 3
O'Leary, Z. (2004) The Essential Guide to Doing Research. London: Sage
71
Pollock, T. (2002). 8 rules for getting things done throughpeople. Automotive Design and Production, 114(2), 10-13.
Potter, P., & Deshields, T., & Kuhrik, M. (2010). Delegation practices between registered Nurses and nursing assistive personnel. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 157-165.
Quallich, S. A. (2005). A bond of trust: Delegation. Urologic Nursing, 25(2), 120-123.
Ravanbakhsh. J , (2009), The Importance of In-service Iraining in Organizations, Publications the Organization Industry, Trade and Mines of Khorasan Razavi Province, P-P: 148
Roebuck, C. (1998). Effective Delegation. New York: American Management Association,
Ruff, V .A. (2011), "Delegation Skills: Essential to the Contemporary Nurse" Master of Arts in Nursing Theses. Paper 21.
Salinas-Maningo, M. J . (2005). Leadership. Atlanta: Prentice-Hall.
Sharma, M. K . (2008). Employee Empowerment: A Conceptual Analysis. The Journal of Global Business Issues, Volume 2, Issue 2, 7-12.
Smith, C. C. (2012, 28 Mar). Recognizing the Need For, Impacts and Benefits of Effective Delegation in the Work Place. Published by Defense Acquisition University
Stevenson, W. J . (1999) Production and Operations Management. Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Straub, J . T. (1998). The Agile Manager's Guide to Delegating Work. Bristol, VT : Velocity Business Publishing.
Stroh, E . (2002^. Don't be Afraid to Delegate. Department of Public Administration and Development Studies, University of South Africa Poletia Vol 21 No 2 pg 66
Sullivan, E. & Decker, P. (2005). Effective Leadership & Management in Nursing.
Suskie, L. A. (1996, Paperback) Questionnaire Survey Research: What Works
Tanner, R. (2011) Five Common Human Barriers to Effective Delegation. (Online) available http://managementisajoumey.coni/five-common- human-barriers- to-effective delegation! .html
Tammens, E. (July, 2012). Delegation of authority. An empirical study in supermarkets Erasmus University Rotterdam. Master Thesis Economics of Markets, Organisations and Policy
Tannenbaum, A., & Schmidt, W. (1958). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review, 36: 95-101.
Tripathi, P. C. & Reddy, P. N. (2008). Principles of Management 4* ed. McGraw-Hill,
72
Wackerly, D.D., Mendenhall, W. & Scheaffer, R. L . (2008) Mathematical Statistics with Applications (5th edition)
Walker, C.A. (2002). Saving your rookie managers from themselves. Harvard Business Review, 80(4),pg91-\03.
Ward, M.E. & Wilcox, B.M. (1999). Delegation and empowerment. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Weiss, W. H. (2000). The art and skill of delegating. Supervision 61(9):pg3-5.
Williams, J . C, Du-Brin, A. J , & Sisk, H. L , (1985). Management & organization. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Weston Publishing Co.
Yoder-Wise, P. (2007). Leading and Managing in Nursing (4th Ed.).
73
APPENDIX I : C O V E R L E T T E R
ANNE NKATHA
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY-AFRICA
P.O.BOXl 4634-00800
NAIROBI
Dear Respondent,
R E : R E S E A R C H QUESTIONNAIRE ON D E L E G A T I O N
I am carrying out research on the impact of delegation in organizations. This is a partial
fulfillment of the requirement of the Execufive Master of Science in Organizafional
Development (EMOD) degree program at the United States International University.
The study focuses Kenya Revenue Authority as a case study and therefore you have been
selected as a respondent. The result of this study will provide the management of K R A and
other organizations information on the importance of effective delegafion and how the
delegation process can be improved in organizations.
It is an academic research and confidentiality will be strictly adhered to. Your need not put
your name and personal informafion anywhere in the report. Kindly spare some time to
complete the questionnaire attached. It shall take you only ten minutes.
Thank you in advance
Yours sincerely,
Anne Nkatha Mputhia
EMOD Student
74
APPENDIX I I : R E S E A R C H QUESTIONNAIRE
S E C T I O N ONE: D E M O G R A P H I C S Tick the answer which is most representative 1. What is your gender? • Male
• Female 2. What is your current position? • Deputy Commissioner
• Senior Assistant Commissioner
• Assistant Commissioner • Principle Revenue Officer • Senior Revenue Officer
3. What is your age group? • under 34 • 35-40 • 41-45 • 46-50 • 51 and over
4. How many years of management do you have?
• 1-4 • 5-10 • 11-15 • 16-20 • 21-25 • 26-30 • more than 30
5. How many direct reports do you have currently?
• 0 • 1-15 • 16-30 • 31-45 • over 45
6. What is your educational level? • Some college • Undergraduate degree • Master's • Doctorate
7. With what frequency do you typically assign work or delegate tasks to immediate subordinates (direct reports)?
• rarely • sometimes • often • routinely • not at a all
75
SECTION 2: PART I : C R I T E R I A FOR DELEGATION
Taking statements in tum, tick the number which is most representative of your attitude and behavior in each of the statements below using the following scale: 4=strongly agree, 3 = agree, 2= disagree = strongly disagree
Strongly agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree
1.1 always consider whether a task is suitable to be delegated 4 3 2 1
2.1 define the task so that 1 understand exactly what is
required 4 3 2 1
3.1 identify the key goals that need to be accomplished. 4 3 2 1
4. I plan the delegation to set realisfic and measurable
timescale 4 3 2 1
5. 1 identify the right person by considering their skills,
knowledge and attitude to perform well 4 3 2 1
6.1 anticipate potential problems before delegating the task. 4 3 2 1
7.1 ensure that proper training is available where needed. 4 3 2 1
8. 1 establish clear reporting links. 4 3 2 1
9. 1 establish the scope of authority being delegated. 4 3 2 1
10.1 agree upon realisfic time-scales with the person when I
delegate a task to them. 4 3 2 1
11.1 ensure that each task is assessed at the agreed
milestones. 4 3 2 1
12. 1 establish key performance indicators. 4 3 2 1
13.1 give specific feedback that covers posifive points and
areas of concem. 4 3 2 1
14. Based on your position and level of responsibility. List at least four other criteria can be
used to delegate effectively?
a. )
b. )
c. )
d. )
*
76
SECTION I I : PART I I : BARRIERS TO DELEGATION
Taking statements in tum, tick the number which is most representative of your attitude and behavior. Assess whether the obstacles affect how you delegate tasks to your team.
Strongly Agree
agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
1.1 Prefer to do the work yourself 4 3 2
2.1 Lack confidence in staff to complete tasks. 4 3 2
3. I do not have time to train my direct reports 4 3 2
4.1 do not completely trust my employees, even my strong performers.
4 3 2 >
5. I continuously negotiate the boundaries of the staff, scope of practice and corporate policies and procedures
4 3 2 •
6.1 cannot delegate because my employees lack experience and competence
4 3 2
7.1 Neglect to tell staff and other people their level of authority.
4 3 2
8. My team members resist responsibility 4 3 2
9. The success of my work unit is totally my responsibility.
4 3 2
10. Most of my decisions are made under crisis conditions.
4 3 2 1
12. Based on your experience of delegation how can we overcome or alleviate the barriers of
delegating?
a. )
b. )
c. )
d. )
77
SECTION I I : PART I I : BARRIERS TO DELEGATION
Taking statements in tum, tick the number which is most representative of your attitude and behavior. Assess whether the obstacles affect how you delegate tasks to your team.
Strongly Agree
agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
1.1 Prefer to do the work yourself 4 3 2
2. I Lack confidence in staff to complete tasks. 4 3 2
3.1 do not have time to train my direct reports 4 3 2
4.1 do not completely tmst my employees, even my strong performers.
4 3 2
5.1 continuously negotiate the boundaries of the staff, scope of practice and corporate policies and procedures
4 3 2 >
6.1 cannot delegate because my employees lack experience and competence
4 3 2
7.1 Neglect to tell staff and other people their level of authority.
4 3 2
8. My team members resist responsibility 4 3 2
9. The success of my work unit is totally my responsibility.
4 3 2 >
10. Most of my decisions are made under crisis conditions.
4 3 2 1
12. Based on your experience of delegation how can we overcome or alleviate the barriers of
delegating?
a. )
b. )
c. )
d. )
77
SECTION I I : PART I I I : BENEFITS OF DELEGATION
Taking statements in tum, tick the number which is most representative of how delegation benefits your team or organization.
Strongly Strongly Agree agree Disagree Disagree
1.1 use delegation to build new employee skills and strengthen existing ones.
4 3 2 1
2. More work is accomplished and deadlines can be met more easily
4 3 2 1
3. Delegation helps employees become involved and committed
4 3 2 1
4 The assignment of specific responsibility and authority makes control less difficult
4 3 2 1
5. Employees grow and develop 4 3 2 1
6. Individual performance can be measured more accurately
4 3 2 1
7. Employee satisfaction and recognition are enhanced 4 3 2 1
8. A diversity of products, operations, and people can be managed effectively 4 3 2 1
9.Human resources are used more fully and productivity improves
4 3 2 1
10.Distant operations can be managed with less travel and stress
4 3 2 1
11. The manager has time for plarming, organizing, motivating, and controlling
4 3 2 1
9. What are other benefits of delegafing?
a. )
b. )
c. )
d. )
78
APPENDIX I I I : T A B L E FOR DETERMINING SAMPLE SIZE FROM A GIVEN
POPULATION
N S N S N S N S N s \
10 10 100 80 280 162 800 260 2800 338 \
15 14 110 86 290 165 850 265 3000 341
20 19 120 92 300 169 900 269 3500 246
25 24 130 97 320 175 950 274 4000 351
30 28 140 103 340 181 1000 278 4500 351
35 32 150 108 360 186 1100 285 5000 357
40 36 160 113 380 181 1200 291 6000 361
45 40 180 118 400 196 1300 297 7000 364
50 44 190 123 420 201 1400 302 8000 367
55 48 200 127 440 205 1500 316 9000 368
60 52 210 132 460 210 1600 310 10000 373
65 56 220 136 480 214 1700 313 15000 375
70 59 230 140 500 217 1800 317 20000 377
75 63 240 144 550 225 1900 320 30000 379
80 66 250 148 600 234 2000 322 40000 380
85 70 260 152 650 242 2200 327 50000 381
90 73 270 155 700 248 2400 331 75000 382
95 76 270 159 750 256 1 2600 335 100000 384
Note: "N" is population size
" S " is sample size.
United States intemBtionai University
Africa - Library
79
APPENDIX I I I : T A B L E FOR DETERMINING SAMPLE SIZE FROM A GIVEN POPULATION
N S N S 1 N S 1 N S II N 1 S
10 10 100 80 1 280 162 1 800 260 1 2800 1 338
\ \ WO \ &6 I 290 \ \65 \0 \ 265 \0 \ 3A\
20 ^ 19 1 120 92 1 300 169 1 900 1 269 1 3500 246 25 24 130 97 320 175 950 274 4000 351 30 28 140 103 340 181 1000 278 4500 351 35 32 150 108 360 186 1100 285 5000 357 40 36 160 113 380 181 1200 291 6000 361 45 40 180 118 400 196 1300 297 7000 364 50 44 190 123 420 201 1400 302 8000 367 55 48 200 127 440 205 1500 316 9000 368 60 52 210 132 460 210 1600 310 10000 373 65 56 220 136 480 214 1700 313 15000 375 70 59 230 140 500 217 1800 317 20000 377 75 63 240 144 550 225 1900 320 30000 379 80 66 250 148 600 234 2000 322 40000 380 85 70 260 152 650 242 2200 327 50000 381 90 73 270 155 700 248 2400 331 75000 382 95 76 270 159 1 750 256 2600 335 100000 384
Note: " N " is population size " S " is sample size.
United states intemanonai University Africa - Library
79
top related