Back | Up | Next

Conversations in Management

George Marshall

I must have assistants who will solve their own problems and tell me later what they have done.

George Marshall was our first General of the Army (that’s five stars!) and in that capacity served as America’s principal Nazi-buster in World War II. But, in the words of the modern infomercial, “but wait, there’s more!” With the war won, he turned his attention to putting a war-ravaged continent back together again. He did it as Secretary of State and was the chief architect of the European Recovery Plan—something we know better as The Marshall Plan. Recognizing that world was still a dangerous place, he then served as Secretary of Defense and helped shaped our modern military while establishing the parameters for containing the Soviet Union. Few men had done more to secure and sustain peace then George Marshall and in a fitting tribute his long career was capped with the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953.

Now you might think that such a gifted leader would be able to get precisely what he wanted from his subordinates (he was Chief of Staff after all!) but as his comment suggests, this wasn’t always the case. He made this observation to then Colonel Dwight Eisenhower and added, “The department is filled with able men who analyze their problems well but bring them to me for solution.” It seems Marshall was a victim of upward delegation—that insidious strategy employed by crafty workers to avoid accountability. It was a problem for Marshall and it bedevils leaders to this very day.

If your employees delegate up, you might reasonably wonder, “why?” Supervisors tend to believe that upward delegation reflects a failing on the part of their employees. Some attribute it to a character flaw or more popularly today, a generational issue—though Marshall’s experience with the Greatest Generation seems to put that notion to rest! Workers, on the other hand, blame it on the boss. They claim it’s hard to take accountability when you’re always second-guessed and when even routine decisions require multi-levels of review. The problem is one of expectations and assumptions. Most supervisors assume that their folks understand what’s expected. They believe they share a common work ethic with their employees and that it’s one based on common sense. Most workers don’t, however, intuitively know what their boss wants, and so they take their best guess. In fairness, it’s an educated guess. They make assumptions about what’s expected based on past experience. You can bet that if the supervisor is an explosive, critical, micromanager, the rank and file isn’t likely to eagerly seek accountability. The corrective to all this confusion is a two-way street. It’s a matter of all parties to the process clearly stating their expectations. For supervisors it means plainly stating what’s wanted and from time to time even explaining (this will go down hard for some folks) why the task is important. For workers, it requires that you ask questions and confirm your understanding. Granted, knowing what the boss really wants, could lead to more work, but it’s a risk worth taking if you want a more satisfying job.

Once again, in the infomercial spirit, “but wait, there’s more.” If you want to beat upward delegation, you have to trust and be trusted. Ultimately, this is what helped Marshall get the best from his staff. It was risky but it paid off and it can pay off for you too.

—Ebert