Tag Archives: management

Allocating Work versus Delegating Responsibility

A Crucial Distinction in Organisational Leadership

In everyday organisational language, the terms allocating work and delegating responsibility are often used interchangeably, causing confusion. This casual usage obscures an important difference in both authority and accountability. While allocating work may include asking staff to investigate options or make recommendations, it stops short of transferring decision-making power. Delegating responsibility, by contrast, involves entrusting staff not merely with tasks but with authority to decide and act. Understanding this distinction is essential for effective leadership, sound governance, and staff development.

Allocating Work: Direction without Authority

Allocating work occurs when a manager assigns tasks to staff while retaining ultimate control over decisions and outcomes. The staff member is responsible for carrying out specified activities—researching information, drafting reports, analysing options, or proposing recommendations—but not for deciding what will ultimately be done.

A common example is when a manager asks a staff member to “look into” an issue and recommend a course of action. The intellectual effort and preparatory work may be substantial, but the authority to choose between options remains firmly with the manager. The staff member’s role is advisory rather than executive.

This approach has several advantages. It allows leaders to draw on staff expertise while maintaining oversight, consistency, and accountability. It is particularly appropriate where decisions carry significant risk, financial exposure, legal implications, or reputational consequences. It is also suitable when staff are still developing experience or when the organisation requires tight control over outcomes.

However, allocating work without delegation can limit staff autonomy. If overused, it may lead to frustration, slow decision-making, and a sense that responsibility flows upward while initiative is constrained. The manager bears the cognitive and moral burden of decision-making, while staff may feel reduced to implementers rather than owners of outcomes.

Delegating Responsibility: Authority with Accountability

Delegating responsibility goes beyond assigning tasks; it involves transferring decision-making authority within defined boundaries. When responsibility is delegated, the staff member is empowered to decide, act, and be accountable for the outcome, subject to agreed constraints such as budget limits, policy frameworks, or reporting requirements.

True delegation requires clarity. The delegator must specify not only the objective but also the scope of authority: what decisions the staff member may make independently, what must be escalated, and what success looks like. Without this clarity, delegation risks becoming either illusory (authority retained in practice) or reckless (authority granted without adequate support or safeguards).

The benefits of delegation are substantial. It fosters initiative, accelerates decision-making, and develops leadership capacity within the organisation. Staff who are entrusted with real responsibility are more likely to feel engaged and accountable, and organisations benefit from distributing judgment rather than centralising it.

Delegation also changes the role of the manager. Instead of being the primary decision-maker, the manager becomes a designer of systems, a coach, and a reviewer of outcomes. Accountability does not disappear; rather, it shifts. The manager remains accountable for having delegated appropriately, while the staff member is accountable for the decisions made within the delegated authority.

Asking for Recommendations Is Not Delegation

A critical point of confusion arises when managers ask staff to make recommendations and believe they have thereby delegated responsibility. In fact, requesting recommendations is still a form of work allocation, not delegation. The key test is simple: who makes the final decision? Part of the problem here is that some staff, and even some managers, do not understand the difference between recommendations and decisions.

If the manager retains the right to accept, modify, or reject the recommendation, then responsibility has not been delegated, regardless of how much analysis the staff member performs. The staff member contributes judgment, but does not exercise authority. This distinction matters because conflating the two can lead to mismatched expectations—staff may feel unfairly blamed for outcomes they did not control, or managers may believe they have empowered staff when they have merely sought advice.

Choosing the Right Approach

Neither allocating work nor delegating responsibility is inherently superior; each has its place. Effective leadership lies in knowing when to use which approach. Allocation is appropriate when decisions are sensitive, high-risk, or strategically central. Delegation is appropriate when decisions are routine, bounded, or developmental, and when staff have—or are ready to acquire—the necessary competence.

Crucially, organisations function best when the distinction is made explicit. Staff should know whether they are being asked to advise or to decide. Managers should be conscious of when they are retaining authority and when they are genuinely handing it over.

Conclusion

Allocating work and delegating responsibility differ not in the amount of effort involved, but in where authority and accountability reside. Asking staff to make recommendations is a valuable managerial practice, but it is not delegation. Delegating responsibility, by contrast, involves trusting staff with decision-making power and accepting the consequences of that trust. Clarity about this distinction enhances governance, strengthens leadership, and fosters a culture in which responsibility is both understood and appropriately exercised.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Penny Wise and Pound Foolish

The Irrationality of False Economy

When I was working on legislation, a finance clerk once asked me to draft shorter Acts of Parliament to save on printing costs. Flabbergasted, I asked him whether this was an early April Fool’s Day joke. It wasn’t – he was being serious.

The phrase “penny wise and pound foolish” captures a perennial human failing: an excessive focus on small, visible savings that blinds decision-makers to far larger, less immediate costs. While the saying is old, the behaviour it describes is remarkably modern. In organisations especially—where budgets, incentives, and accountability are often fragmented—misguided attempts to save money frequently end up wasting it. What appears prudent in the short term can, with depressing regularity, prove irrational in the long term.

At the heart of penny-wise behaviour is a misunderstanding of cost. Organisations tend to fixate on direct, easily measured expenses—wages, materials, maintenance contracts—while neglecting indirect costs such as productivity loss, reputational damage, or future remediation. The result is a distorted picture of value, where cutting a small line item feels like fiscal responsibility even when it undermines the organisation’s broader purpose.

A common example is the reduction of preventative maintenance. Faced with budget pressure, organisations often delay servicing equipment, infrastructure, or IT systems. The savings are immediate and easily documented. Yet preventative maintenance exists precisely to avoid catastrophic failure. When machinery breaks down, servers crash, or buildings deteriorate, the repair costs are far higher than the maintenance ever was—often compounded by downtime, lost customers, and emergency premiums. The original “saving” becomes invisible amid the much larger loss it helped to cause.

Another classic case involves staff training. Training budgets are often among the first to be cut because training is seen as discretionary and its benefits are diffuse. But under-trained staff make more mistakes, require more supervision, and are less adaptable to change. Worse still, poor development opportunities increase staff turnover, imposing recruitment and onboarding costs that far exceed the original training expense. An organisation that prides itself on trimming training costs may find itself spending far more replacing employees who leave for better-run competitors.

Procurement decisions also provide fertile ground for false economy. Choosing the cheapest supplier can look prudent on paper, but low upfront costs often conceal inferior quality, unreliable delivery, or poor after-sales support. A cheaper component that fails early, or a low-cost contractor who must be re-engaged to fix their own mistakes, can erase any initial saving many times over. In such cases, the organisation has not saved money at all—it has merely deferred and multiplied its costs.

Information technology offers particularly stark examples. Organisations sometimes resist upgrading software or hardware to avoid capital expenditure, instead persisting with outdated systems. Over time, these systems become slower, harder to secure, and incompatible with modern tools. Staff waste hours working around limitations, cybersecurity risks increase, and eventually the forced upgrade—often under crisis conditions—costs more than a planned transition ever would have. The attempt to “save” money ends by maximising disruption.

Even public sector organisations are not immune. Short-term budget cycles can encourage cuts that look responsible within a single financial year but create liabilities for the future. Deferring infrastructure investment, reducing regulatory oversight, or cutting early-intervention social programs may all lower immediate spending. Yet the long-term costs—structural decay, accidents, legal liability, or entrenched social problems—are far greater. The bill is merely passed forward in time, often to a different department or generation.

What makes penny-wise decisions particularly irrational is that they are often driven less by reason than by optics. Cutting visible costs signals “action” and “discipline,” while investing in prevention or quality requires trust in long-term thinking. In organisations where decision-makers are rewarded for short-term savings rather than long-term outcomes, false economy becomes not just likely but systematic.

The antidote to penny-wise thinking is not profligacy, but rational evaluation of value. This requires asking not “What does this cost now?” but “What does this save or enable over time?” It means recognising that money spent on maintenance, training, quality, and foresight is not wasteful but protective. True fiscal responsibility lies not in shaving pennies, but in avoiding pounds of unnecessary loss.

In the end, the wisdom of the old saying endures because it reflects a deep truth: economy without understanding is not prudence but folly. Organisations that mistake cheapness for efficiency may congratulate themselves today—only to pay dearly tomorrow.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

‘That’s just a formality’

A few decades ago, when I was on the board of an incorporated association, a bizarre situation arose. We discovered that another board member, who had recently been elected as Treasurer at the AGM, wasn’t actually performing the role of Treasurer. When questioned, she said “Oh, I thought you only needed a Treasurer to comply with the rules – just as a formality”. (We suspected that she agreed to be Treasurer only to gain a seat on the board).

It is common to hear meeting procedures, standing orders, and other rules of conduct dismissed as “mere formalities” — empty rituals that obstruct efficiency and serve no real purpose. This attitude mistakes visibility for significance and informality for substance. Far from being pointless, procedural rules are the very mechanisms that allow collective action to be rational, fair, democratic and intelligible.

At the most basic level, rules of procedure exist to structure discussions at meetings. Without agreed conventions about who may speak, when they may do so, and how decisions are recorded, meetings quickly become contests of volume, confidence, or status rather than forums for reasoned deliberation. Procedures do not silence discussion; they make discussion possible. They ensure that quieter voices can be heard, that dissent is recorded rather than overridden, and that debate proceeds by turns rather than interruption. In this sense, procedures are not constraints on freedom but preconditions for it. For instance, I recall reading in the news that an anarchist conference in Europe had to be abandoned because without any rules of procedure, competing speakers were literally fighting over the microphone.

Critics often argue that experienced or well-intentioned groups do not need formal rules because participants already “know what’s reasonable.” This overlooks a central function of procedure: it depersonalises authority. Rules shift power from individuals to offices and processes. Decisions are not valid because a charismatic chair thinks they are sensible, but because they have been reached through an agreed method. This is crucial not only when things go wrong, but precisely when they go right. Trust in outcomes depends on trust in the process that produced them. Democratic decisions are mostly accepted because they have been made via a fair process.

Moreover, procedures are memory devices for institutions. A meeting is not an isolated event but part of an ongoing sequence of decisions. Minutes, motions, voting procedures, and quorums ensure continuity over time. They allow newcomers to understand what has already been decided, prevent the same arguments being endlessly relitigated, and make organisations accountable to their own past commitments. To call this “mere formality” is to misunderstand the nature of collective memory.

There is also a moral dimension to procedural rules. Fairness in group decision-making is not merely a matter of good intentions but of visible, repeatable practices. A procedure that applies equally to all protects minorities, unpopular views, and future participants who are not yet in the room. Informality, by contrast, tends to favour the confident, the well-connected, and the powerful. What is described as “flexibility” often turns out to be discretion exercised by those already advantaged. Some people think they are oh so clever in breaking rules without even bothering to find out why the rules exist. On the contrary, they are being boorish and ignorant.

From a philosophical perspective, dismissing procedure as empty form rests on a false opposition between form and substance. As Aristotle observed, form is not an external decoration imposed on matter; it is the organising principle that makes something the kind of thing it is. A meeting without procedures is not a freer meeting; it is scarcely a meeting at all, but an unstructured conversation with no determinate outcome. The form is what allows the substance — deliberation, decision, and collective purpose — to exist.

Finally, the claim that procedures waste time confuses efficiency with speed. Decisions made quickly but illegitimately often have to be revisited, contested, or reversed. Proper procedures may slow the moment of decision, but they speed acceptance, implementation, and compliance. In the long run, they save time by preventing confusion, resentment, and conflict.

To dismiss rules and meeting procedures as “just a formality” is therefore not a mark of sophistication but a failure of institutional understanding. It is as if rules and meeting procedures have no practical purpose – they are merely historical conventions. Procedures are the grammar of collective life. Like grammar, they may go unnoticed when functioning well, but their absence quickly renders discussions incoherent. They do not replace judgement, goodwill, or intelligence; they make those virtues effective in common action.

Leave a comment

Filed under Logical fallacies

Praise in public, criticise in private

It is still regarded as poor management practice to criticise an employee in public, and the traditional maxim “praise in public, criticise in private” remains very much alive in modern management and HR principles.

1. The enduring principle

The idea dates back to early management theorists and remains supported by modern research in organisational psychology and leadership training. Public praise reinforces desired behaviours and builds morale, while public criticism typically causes embarrassment, defensiveness, and resentment. Constructive feedback is far more effective in a private setting where the employee can respond without fear of humiliation.

2. Why public criticism is harmful

Publicly criticising someone can:

  • Damage trust and respect — the employee may feel betrayed or singled out.
  • Undermine team cohesion — others may fear similar treatment and withdraw or become overly cautious.
  • Trigger defensiveness rather than reflection — people tend to justify themselves when embarrassed.
  • Hurt morale and engagement — employees who feel shamed in front of peers are less likely to show initiative.

3. Modern nuances

Some modern workplaces adopt a more “radically transparent” culture (e.g. open performance reviews in startups), but even there, good leaders distinguish between transparent processes and public shaming. Constructive discussions can be public if they’re framed as learning opportunities and depersonalised (“how can we improve this process?” rather than “you made a mistake”).

4. The best practice today

Current HR and leadership training still emphasise:

  • Private, specific, and timely feedback for corrections.
  • Public, sincere, and proportionate praise for recognition.
  • Feedback framed around behaviour, not personality.

In short, “praise in public, criticise in private” remains a sound rule of thumb — not old-fashioned but psychologically astute and supported by evidence.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Sick leave is for when you are sick

Sick Leave Exists for Illness, Not as a Financial Entitlement

Sick leave is a vital element of employment policy, intended to protect both workers and workplaces by ensuring that employees can recover from illness without suffering financial hardship. However, there is a growing trend to treat unused sick leave as a form of deferred pay or accumulated entitlement, to be “cashed out” when not used. This practice undermines the very purpose of sick leave, distorts its ethical foundation, and threatens the health and productivity of workplaces.

The Purpose of Sick Leave

The moral and practical justification for sick leave is simple: when an employee is ill or injured, they should be able to stay home and recover without losing income. This arrangement benefits everyone. The employee avoids financial stress while recuperating, the employer maintains a healthier and more productive workforce, and the broader community is spared the spread of contagious illnesses. Sick leave, therefore, is not a personal bonus—it is a public health measure and a humane workplace safeguard.

The Problem with Paying Out Unused Sick Leave

When employers offer to pay out unused sick leave, they transform a health-related safeguard into a financial incentive. This change undermines the integrity of the system. Workers may feel pressure—explicit or subtle—to come to work even when unwell, fearing they will “lose” potential income if they use their sick leave. Presenteeism, the act of attending work while sick, can spread illness, reduce productivity, and ultimately cost employers far more than the payout would have.

Moreover, paying out unused sick leave sends the wrong signal about its nature. It encourages employees to view sick leave as part of their personal income package, rather than as an insurance policy for unforeseen illness. This blurs the line between a benefit designed for wellbeing and a reward for attendance, fostering inequity between workers who happen to remain healthy and those who, through no fault of their own, fall ill.

Ethical and Economic Fairness

Fairness is central to the argument. Paying out unused sick leave rewards those who are fortunate enough not to have been sick—effectively turning good health into a financial windfall. Meanwhile, employees who have genuinely needed to use their leave are penalised, as they receive no such payout. This is contrary to the egalitarian principle that workplace benefits should exist to support need, not to reward luck.

Economically, sick leave is not a liability in the same sense as annual leave. It is a contingent entitlement, much like an insurance claim—it exists to cover a potential event, not to accumulate as a personal asset. When employers must account for sick leave payouts, they carry an unnecessary financial burden that distorts payroll budgeting and incentivises unhealthy workplace practices.

Maintaining the Integrity of Sick Leave

Preserving sick leave for its intended purpose supports a more responsible and compassionate work culture. Workers should be encouraged to take leave when unwell, without guilt or financial penalty. Employers should value a workforce that recovers properly rather than one that drags itself to work out of financial motives.

Instead of paying out unused sick leave, employers could reward attendance in other transparent ways—such as performance bonuses or wellness incentives—while keeping sick leave as a dedicated health provision. This maintains moral clarity: sick leave is for sickness, and nothing else.


Conclusion

Sick leave is not a savings account, a performance reward, or a form of hidden income. It is a collective agreement that illness should not lead to destitution or workplace contagion. Paying it out when the employee is not sick perverts its intent, encourages unhealthy behaviour, and creates unfairness between workers. To maintain both moral integrity and workplace wellbeing, sick leave must remain exactly what it claims to be—leave taken when one is sick, and only then.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Dominance assertion or power signalling

I have inside information that former Australian PM Kevin Rudd lost the respect of senior public servants when he kept them waiting too long for meetings – even the Chief of the Defence Force. As if the CDF had nothing better to do! He would also have them up all night writing reports that he would then not bother to read. How to lose friends and demotivate people.

There are many well-known historical and contemporary examples of leaders who deliberately kept others waiting as a way to assert dominance, establish hierarchy, or test the patience and deference of subordinates or rivals. This behaviour is often described as a form of “status display” or “power signalling.”

Here are some illustrative cases:


1. Louis XIV of France

At Versailles, Louis XIV’s entire court life was choreographed around his personal schedule. Courtiers had to wait hours for brief audiences or even to watch him wake up, eat, or dress. By making access to himself scarce and tightly controlled, Louis reinforced his image as the “Sun King” — the centre of political gravity.


2. Joseph Stalin

Stalin was notorious for keeping Politburo members and foreign dignitaries waiting for hours or even all night before meetings. This created anxiety and dependence, demonstrating that his time and decisions were the only ones that mattered. The unpredictability increased subordinates’ fear of displeasing him.


3. Adolf Hitler

Hitler frequently arrived late for meetings with both allies and adversaries, including Neville Chamberlain and Mussolini. His lateness was part of a broader psychological strategy — projecting importance and unsettling others before negotiations began.


4. Charles de Gaulle

De Gaulle often kept even senior ministers waiting. He viewed the presidency as almost monarchical and believed that grandeur demanded distance. Waiting emphasised his role as the embodiment of France rather than an ordinary politician.


5. Modern Examples

  • Vladimir Putin is well known for arriving hours late to meetings with world leaders (including the Pope, Angela Merkel, and the Japanese Prime Minister). Russian observers often interpret this as a deliberate assertion of power and independence.
  • Donald Trump was reported to keep some visitors waiting before meetings, a common business tactic in New York real estate circles that migrated into his political style.
  • Corporate executives in some hierarchical cultures (e.g., certain East Asian or Middle Eastern contexts) sometimes use lateness as a subtle signal of seniority — the idea that “those with power wait for no one.”

Psychological and Social Analysis

Keeping others waiting functions as:

  • display of control over time (the most valuable resource);
  • test of loyalty or submission;
  • method to heighten anticipation and perceived importance;
  • ritual of hierarchy, where waiting becomes a form of homage.

However, in more egalitarian or efficiency-oriented cultures, such behaviour can backfire — seen as arrogance or poor leadership.

Here are examples from non-political contexts where leaders or influential figures used lateness or deliberate waiting as an assertion of dominance or prestige. They span business, entertainment, academia, and religion, showing that this tactic transcends politics.


1. Business and Corporate Leadership

Steve Jobs (Apple)

Jobs sometimes made subordinates or even business partners wait outside meeting rooms, often without explanation. Former Apple employees have said this was not always conscious cruelty — he valued control of timing and energy — but it did reinforce his power and the sense that his attention was a rare commodity.

Wall Street Executives

In the high-pressure culture of finance, lateness by powerful figures (e.g., CEOs or managing directors) is often used to project scarcity and importance. A junior banker or client left waiting in a glass-walled office learns quickly who controls the tempo of business.
This behaviour became known informally as “power lateness.”

Elon Musk

Musk’s meeting style is famously erratic — he sometimes cancels or delays meetings at the last minute. While often due to overcommitment rather than strategy, it has the same effect: signalling that his time is far more valuable than others’.


2. Entertainment and the Arts

Hollywood Stars

Old Hollywood contract stars (e.g., Bette Davis, Marlon Brando) sometimes arrived hours late to sets or meetings. This was partly temperament — but also a statement that the production waited for them. It established a clear hierarchy between the “talent” and the rest of the crew.

Pop and Rock Stars

Performers like Axl Rose of Guns N’ Roses were notorious for taking the stage hours late. This became a ritual of dominance — the crowd’s frustration eventually feeding into the sense of spectacle and power when the artist finally appeared.
In contrast, Paul McCartney and Bruce Springsteen are known for punctuality, deliberately rejecting this tactic to show respect and professionalism.


3. Academia and Intellectual Life

Senior Professors or Nobel Laureates

At elite universities, there have long been stories of eminent professors arriving late to seminars or lectures, forcing students and junior academics to wait in hushed respect. This can function as a subtle hierarchy ritual — signalling intellectual superiority and social status within academia’s “courtly” culture.

Sigmund Freud

Freud was said to make some analysands wait deliberately in the waiting room, using the delay as a way to unsettle them — part of the psychoanalytic dynamic of authority and dependency. (His followers, such as Jung, sometimes copied this style.)


4. Religious and Ceremonial Contexts

Popes and Monarchs in Religious Audiences

In papal or royal audiences, the tradition of waiting before an audience is ancient. The personage’s delayed entrance heightens reverence. The ritual is not meant as rudeness but as a liturgical expression of hierarchy — time itself is used to separate the sacred or royal from the ordinary.

Gurus and Spiritual Leaders

In some Eastern religious traditions, a guru or spiritual teacher may keep followers waiting for hours before appearing. This waiting is interpreted as a test of devotion or patience — though from a sociological perspective it also reinforces asymmetrical power.


5. The Psychology Behind It

Across all these domains, the underlying dynamics are similar:

FunctionEffect
ScarcityMaking one’s time appear rare increases perceived value.
DominanceControl over others’ time displays superior status.
RitualisationWaiting becomes part of the power theatre — a modern echo of royal protocol.
TestingThose who endure waiting prove their loyalty or desire.
Insecurity CompensationOccasionally, lateness is not confidence but insecurity masked as importance.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Boards and Ministers steer: management rows

The board of directors and management of a company have distinct but complementary roles. Both are essential for good governance and effective operation. Here’s how they differ:


1. Board of Directors

  • Strategic Oversight: The board sets the long-term direction of the company, defining vision, mission, and values. They ensure the business strategy aligns with shareholder interests.
  • Governance and Accountability: They act as fiduciaries for the shareholders (or members, in a non-profit), ensuring compliance with laws, regulations, and ethical standards.
  • Appointment of Management: The board hires, evaluates, and if necessary, removes the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and sometimes other top executives.
  • Major Decisions: Approves significant corporate actions, such as mergers, acquisitions, major capital expenditure, issuance of shares, or dividend policy.
  • Risk Oversight: Ensures that proper systems are in place to manage risks and that the company remains financially sound.

2. Management

  • Day-to-Day Operations: Management (led by the CEO and executive team) runs the company on a daily basis—making operational decisions, managing staff, and delivering products or services.
  • Implementation of Strategy: They take the high-level strategy set by the board and turn it into actionable business plans.
  • Financial Performance: Management is responsible for meeting budgets, growing revenue, controlling costs, and reporting financial results to the board.
  • Human Resources: They recruit, train, and supervise employees, as well as establish company culture.
  • Operational Risk Management: While the board oversees risks, management actively manages them in day-to-day operations.

3. Key Differences

  • Scope: The board governs; management executes.
  • Time Horizon: The board focuses on the long term; management often on short- to medium-term performance.
  • Accountability: Management is accountable to the board; the board is accountable to shareholders.
  • Nature of Decisions: The board makes broad, high-level, and often infrequent decisions; management makes numerous, detailed, operational decisions daily.

👉 In short: the board steers, management rows.

The relationship between a company’s board and management is quite similar to the relationship between a government minister and the head of a public service department (often the Secretary or Director-General). Here’s the comparison:


1. Strategic vs Operational Roles

  • Minister (like the Board)
    • Sets policy direction and determines priorities for the portfolio.
    • Is accountable to Parliament (analogous to shareholders).
    • Approves major initiatives, budgets, and legislative changes.
    • Provides political leadership and ensures alignment with government objectives.
  • Department Head (like Management)
    • Runs the day-to-day administration of the department.
    • Implements the minister’s policies through programs, services, and regulations.
    • Manages staff, budgets, and operations.
    • Provides expert advice to the minister and ensures public service neutrality and legality.

2. Accountability

  • The minister is accountable to Parliament and the public for the overall performance of the department.
  • The department head is accountable to the minister, and through the minister, indirectly to Parliament.

This parallels the way:

  • The board is accountable to shareholders.
  • Management is accountable to the board.

3. Time Horizon

  • Ministers tend to think in terms of electoral cycles and policy outcomes (longer-term, high-level strategy).
  • Department heads focus on immediate operational delivery (short-to-medium term).

This mirrors the board’s strategic oversight vs management’s execution.


4. Nature of Decisions

  • Ministers decide what should be done (the “what” and “why”).
  • Department heads decide how it should be done (the “how”).

Exactly as the board decides direction while management executes operations.


✅ So, the comparison holds: Board = Minister; Management = Department Head.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

The False Virtue of “Hands-On” Management

Modern media often extols the figure of the “hands-on” manager—the leader who inserts themselves into every detail of daily operations. Real experienced managers realise that this is a fallacy. Such a managerial style is frequently portrayed in the ignorant media as a virtue, a demonstration of dedication, engagement, and control. Yet beneath the rhetoric lies a dangerous flaw: excessive managerial interference undermines the very purpose of leadership, which is to enable performance and evaluate outcomes. The supposed virtue of “hands-on” involvement is, in truth, a hindrance to effective performance evaluation and a distortion of accountability.

The Illusion of Engagement

The “hands-on” manager often prides themselves on knowing every detail, approving every action, and shaping every process. This posture may create the appearance of vigilance and control, but it often masks insecurity and distrust. Rather than empowering staff to exercise judgment and develop initiative, micromanagement sends the signal that employees cannot be trusted. Far from improving results, this creates dependency, resentment, and a narrowing of responsibility.

A striking example comes from the fall of Nokia in the late 2000s. Senior management interfered in product development cycles, dictating trivial design choices while ignoring broader shifts in the smartphone market. This “hands-on” involvement may have looked like attentiveness, but it suffocated innovation, delayed decision-making, and blinded the company to the real performance measure: whether their products could compete against Apple and Android.

The Value of Evaluation by Performance

The true task of management is not to stand perpetually over the shoulders of subordinates but to define clear objectives, allocate resources, and then evaluate results. Performance must be judged by outcomes, not by how closely employees conform to a manager’s preferences in the process of achieving them.

Consider Alfred Sloan’s leadership at General Motors in the 1920s–1950s. Sloan was no “hands-on” meddler; instead, he designed a system of decentralized divisions, each with clear goals and the autonomy to achieve them. Success was measured by performance in the market, not by adherence to a manager’s day-to-day dictates. This model allowed GM to eclipse Ford, whose founder Henry Ford famously interfered in every detail and resisted delegation—an approach that eventually left the company stagnant.

How Interference Undermines Evaluation

Excessive interference sabotages the very possibility of objective evaluation. When a manager inserts themselves into every decision, it becomes impossible to disentangle an employee’s independent contribution from the manager’s intrusion. Success is claimed by the manager; failure is blamed on the subordinate. This breeds a culture of ambiguity where responsibility is never clear and accountability is distorted.

Even in military history, this truth is clear. Hitler’s obsessive interference in German military strategy during World War II—dictating troop movements down to the regimental level—crippled his generals’ ability to adapt to conditions on the ground. By micromanaging operations, he destroyed his own ability to evaluate his officers’ real performance. In contrast, leaders like Dwight Eisenhower defined objectives, allocated resources, and judged his subordinates by outcomes, allowing generals like Patton and Montgomery to be assessed on results rather than adherence to interference.

The Counterproductive Costs of Control

Beyond undermining evaluation, “hands-on” interference imposes broader costs. It slows decision-making, as approval must constantly be sought from above. It stifles innovation, since employees fear deviation from managerial preferences. It burdens managers themselves, who spend their time meddling in details rather than focusing on strategic direction.

Steve Jobs’ early years at Apple illustrate this problem. In the 1980s, Jobs’ obsessive interference in product teams led to delays, internal strife, and the eventual failure of the Lisa computer. Only after his return in the late 1990s did Jobs balance his exacting vision with the ability to delegate to strong managers, evaluating them by results rather than micromanaging every circuit board. The shift from interference to outcome-based leadership transformed Apple from near-bankruptcy to the world’s most valuable company.

Perhaps the most egregious example of the failure of micromanagement is the frequent interference by the amateur Corporal Hitler in the decisions by professional Field Marshalls and Generals during WW2. These expert officers came to believe that they could not move any large military units without Corporal Hitler’s approval. This is one of the main reasons why Germany lost the war.

Conclusion: The Real Virtue of Leadership

The cult of “hands-on” management must be exposed for what it is: a false virtue that erodes accountability, smothers initiative, and clouds the judgment of leaders who should know better. A manager who boasts of being “hands-on” is often confessing, unwittingly, to a lack of trust, discipline, and vision. They are not guiding their organization but hobbling it, not measuring success but obscuring it.

The true virtue of leadership lies in restraint—establishing goals, empowering others, and judging by performance. Anything less is vanity disguised as diligence. The meddling manager may flatter themselves with the illusion of control, but in reality they are stealing responsibility from their staff, sabotaging their own capacity to evaluate results, and ensuring that the organization never discovers what its people are truly capable of.

Leaders must decide: do they want to build organizations that perform, or organizations that merely comply with their interference? History and business alike show the answer is obvious—if only managers can resist the false pride of being “hands-on.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Mission Creep: A Philosophical and Policy Critique

Mission creep – the gradual expansion of a project beyond its original goals – reflects a failure both of strategic clarity and moral responsibility. Though the term originates in military contexts, its implications span policy, business, and humanitarian operations.

At its core, mission creep violates the principle of teleological clarity: the notion that every organisational action should have a clearly defined purpose. For instance, in Somalia (1992-1993), a humanitarian mission to deliver food expanded into disarming militias and nation-building. Strategically, this diluted resources and ended in unanticipated combat (e.g. Battle of Mogadishu), undermining the original achievable objective of saving lives.

In public policy, mission creep erodes legitimacy. Governments introduce income taxes for narrow wartime purposes but expand them into general revenue streams without re-justification. This risks a breach of the social contract, as citizens consent to specific measures, not open-ended expansions.

In management, mission creep risks lack of authorisation and budget overshoots. At worst, there is a risk of projects getting out of control with serious consequences for the organisation. For example, sometimes an advisory committee mission creeps into an executive committee, clashing with legitimate executive management.

Morally, mission creep embodies a type of good intention overreach. Charities expanding from well-building to schooling and healthcare, or businesses adding unplanned features to software projects, may believe they are doing more good. Yet, they betray their core mission and stakeholders by pursuing unmandated goals. This reflects a deeper ethical failing: lack of humility about institutional limits.

Philosophically, mission creep reveals how practical reasoning can become corrupted by scope inflation. Ends and means become blurred, leading to what Aristotle would consider a failure of practical wisdom (phronesis). Strategically, it fosters incoherence; morally, it undermines trust.


Policy implication:
To avoid mission creep, organisations and governments must maintain disciplined adherence to original objectives, ensure transparent redefinition of goals when necessary, and remain accountable to those who entrusted them with limited mandates. Without such clarity, mission creep risks turning justified missions into failures both pragmatic and ethical.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Policy vs management

Understanding the distinctions between policy and management is essential for comprehending how organizations, whether in business or government, function effectively. This essay will argue that company boards and government cabinets primarily focus on making policy decisions, while management staff focus on the implementation of these policies and handle day-to-day operations.

Policy decisions refer to the strategic choices that set the overall direction, goals, and principles guiding an organization or government. These decisions address broad questions, defining objectives and frameworks within which operations are carried out. Company boards and government cabinets are tasked with developing these high-level directives, evaluating risks, and setting priorities. For instance, a corporate board may decide on long-term goals such as expanding into international markets or committing to sustainability practices. Similarly, a government cabinet might formulate a healthcare policy aimed at providing universal coverage or a defense policy to ensure national security.

In contrast, management refers to the operational side responsible for implementing the policies set by boards or cabinets. Management staff, including CEOs, department heads, and civil servants, translate broad policy frameworks into actionable plans and tasks. They allocate resources, set specific short-term targets, and ensure daily operations align with overarching strategies. Managers are responsible for achieving outcomes efficiently and effectively, monitoring progress, and making adjustments when necessary. For example, while a board sets a policy goal to increase market share, managers develop marketing campaigns, manage supply chains, and oversee sales teams to achieve that target.

The distinction is not merely hierarchical but also functional. Boards and cabinets, by virtue of their position, have the vantage point required to focus on long-term implications and overall coherence. They must weigh various factors such as ethical considerations, stakeholder interests, and long-term sustainability. Meanwhile, management focuses on practicality and immediacy, confronting operational challenges, staffing needs, logistics, and financial constraints on a day-to-day basis.

Furthermore, the skills required for effective policy formulation differ significantly from those needed for effective management. Policymakers need strong analytical skills, the ability to foresee long-term implications, and competence in balancing competing stakeholder interests. Managers, meanwhile, require proficiency in leadership, detailed organizational capabilities, and practical problem-solving skills to ensure policies translate into successful outcomes.

In conclusion, company boards and government cabinets are primarily concerned with policy decisions—establishing the goals and guidelines that shape strategic directions. Management staff, in contrast, are responsible for the concrete implementation of these policies and the ongoing management of daily operations. Recognizing and respecting this distinction is crucial to ensuring both effective governance and efficient management.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks