How much to delegate

Submitted by Christopher Benfield
in
General Questions and Comments

I struggle with how much to delegate to my directs.  I have 12 direct reports.  Ten are clinicians who are tasked with treating patients (read billing for services), the other two are support staff.  When I delegate (an hour long meeting for example) to a direct, that is one hour less of productive time they have during that day.  So, every time this happens, I know the revenues drop X amount for that day.  Right now I assess each situation and decide what I will get to do if my direct takes on this task.  It seems somewhat effective.  Not much in the way of long term planning, though.  Also, not much room for direct development. 

Has anyone run into this?

Thanks

Chris

Submitted by Michael Mann on Monday October 19th, 2009 11:55 am

Chris,
Could you be missing the value add of your time in your calculation of revenues?  On a day-to-day basis you might see a dip in revenues, but over the long term, your time away from running that meeting should give you the time you need to think about how you can boost revenues in a new and possibly dramatic way.  The important thing to remember is to eliminate distractions during that time and maintain focus on the primary objective... in this case, increasing revenues without adding labor.  I suggest Drucker's "The Effective Executive" to get yourself in the correct frame of mind.
 
--Michael

Submitted by Christopher Benfield on Saturday October 24th, 2009 7:16 pm

Michael,
Thanks for the reply.  Eliminating distractions is the tough part.  There is a good deal of daily work, important non-urgent, that I find myself catching up on when I do delegate these items.   It may be better to plan that time for some more strategic thinking.
Drucker's book.  Believe it or not, I"m waiting for it to arrive.  Just bought it on eBay. 

On a side note, I am working with my second on coaching her through many of the things she will need when she takes over.  I think our model is a little different in that each of my directs need to be billing when they are working.  So, with that in mind, we're working on a rotating delegation schedule (i.e. this task for a month until it is mastered, this one for two months, and so on.  Changing the item when mastery is demonstrated).  Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
 
Thanks again,
Chris

Submitted by Santiago Valenzuela on Tuesday October 27th, 2009 8:28 am

I run a shipping/warehouse op, and I had a similar problem when first trying to delegate.
If one of my guys was learning how to do something I did, that was however much less time he spent shipping stuff - $$$ down the drain, right? Well, not really.
I think a big thing most people miss is that after he's trained up and able to do something, it is a double return on investment, because:
1) Now he's doing what you could do, only for cheaper. Cost savings right there.
2) Now that you're freed up for that amount of time, you can do something more important.
For example, when I first started here, there was ZERO metrics in my department. Since I've trained a few directs to do parts of my job, I have had the time to come up with and implement several metrics that measure performance of my department. The result has been a lot more knowledge on the part of my bosses as to how well we're doing (great) and my ability to track both individual and departmental performance; for example, now I know when someone is slacking or having a home run day and give them immediate feedback about it. As well, my directs and I can try new things and analyze exactly how that effects efficiency that same day.
I urge you to look long-term in this. A little less money out the door today can mean a lot more out the door a month from now. I think that is a big problem for people in general - staying in the Now vs looking at things long-term. Management is, in my opinion, all about long-term thinking, or you'd just be another line worker for a few extra responsibilities.

Submitted by Christopher Benfield on Saturday November 7th, 2009 11:17 am

Sanjavalen,
Your example is well taken.  However different the situations are, in essence, very similar.   My company  has excellent metrics for team performance, but only one to show how the individual contributor is doing.   Each of my directs gets a producivity percentage.  I frequently tell the team this number is 'soft.'  If I translate out work in to boxes, there are two types of boxes we work with.
#1. fragile boxes -- we need to handle one at a time.  The direct working with these is a superstar if they achieve 80% productivity.
#2. tough boxes -- we can handle 3-5 at a time.  80% productivity is terrible.  WE expect something like 130%.
Our individual metric does not differentiate between the two.  This may have been just what I needed.  If we can discern based on 'box type' then finding the true superstars and those needing more help will be apparent.
In health care, we also have a difficult time measuring quality.  The severe variability of inputs makes a consistent measure here difficult.  We all struggle with this.  My team would do back flips if we could come up with a good quality measure. If there are any thoughts in this area. . . ?
Thanks again,
Chris