Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IHR - Infdividual Assignment
IHR - Infdividual Assignment
Johnston
Wright-Patterson AFB
Introduction
This article discusses the nature of the delegation process in project organizations and the
necessity of a sharing of authority within and outside the project organization. Effective
delegation and the sharing of authority are vital prerequisites to the successful management
of a project. Without them, the project manager will not be seen by others as a manager, but
most likely will be considered the main technician on the project. The project manager should
always strive to be primarily a manager and only secondarily a technical expert. In addition,
for project managers who fail to effectively delegate and share authority there is a high
probability that the project will fail to achieve its objectives. If delegation and a sharing of
authority are so critical to project success, why is it often not effectively accomplished by
project managers? The factors contributing to this failure are thoroughly discussed and guides
to being an effective delegator are presented.
The authors propose that project managers who become effective delegators will be seen by
others, within and outside the project organization, primarily as managers rather than as
project technicians. Effective delegation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for
project success. The total success of a project is contingent upon the interpersonal skills of
the project manager. It is imperative for him to establish, through effective delegation, and
then to maintain, a mutuality of commitment to the project by all parties and organizational
elements. The primary orientation of all parties should be achievement of organizational
objectives first, and then achievement of project and functional objectives secondarily. This
process and orientation provides the framework to achieve the mutuality of commitment by
both project and functional personnel which is so essential for project success and the
accomplishment of both project and functional objectives. These are major factors
contributing to the success of the project as well as to the success of the organization and its
functional elements. Management is the key to success and the delegation process enables the
project manager to be seen and to operate as a manager rather than as a technical expert.
The rapidly changing technological environment in which most organizations operate today
has required many of them to adopt the project management concept with the matrix
organizational design. This has created a new and unique relationship between the traditional
functional line managers and the project manager. Authority is a critical element in this
relationship. The successful completion of a project in terms of time, cost and performance
objectives is contingent upon the mutual understanding and acceptance of these authority
patterns by all those with whom a project manager must work. Delegation and a sharing of
project authority involve a reciprocal interdependency which is unique to the project matrix
organization design; however, it is not understood. In addition, sharing of authority between
project and functional managers has an inherent potential for conflict unless this reciprocal
relationship is mutually understood and accepted. The mutual acceptance of this relationship
and minimization of potential conflict is discussed in a subsequent section which discusses
the systems approach.
The matrix organization is the primary focus of this article because it is within this
organizational design that the most complex delegation problems exist in project
management. Delegation is a complex process in most organizations, but the authors propose
that this complexity reaches its height in the matrix organization. In the early phases of
project management, many of the organizational structures were separate and autonomous
divisions which were allocated all the resources required for successful project completion. If
a project is sufficiently large and can efficiently utilize all allocated resources over its life
cycle, this structure may still be a viable alternative for project management. Delegation
problems are also encountered in this structure, but their complexity is not as great as that in a
matrix organization. The nature of the delegation process is discussed in general for all
organizational situations and then specifically for the matrix organization in the section on
delegation.
When organizations find themselves involved simultaneously in several projects, with each
having different technological requirements and schedules and with each competing for
limited organizational resources, the matrix organization design is used for project
management; it has become the more common organizational design in project management.
The matrix organization is an objective-oriented organizational component for the
management of projects with specified time, cost, and performance objectives. It is a
horizontal overlay on the traditional departmental functional organization and the result is the
creation of a new and unique relationship between two organizational managers, the
functional manager and the project manager.2
Not all projects, tasks or organizational efforts qualify for project management, and it would
be an error to employ this management concept for them.
• It must be interdisciplinary
If a task has the above characteristics and an organization has several tasks of this nature, the
matrix organization should be adopted. A matrix organization is, “…any organization that
employs a multiple command system that includes not only a multiple command structure but
also related support mechanisms and an associated organizational culture and behavior
pattern [3, pp. 11-18]. The matrix structure violates the traditional management principles of
unity of command and equality of authority with responsibility, established many years ago
by Fayol and followed by organizational designers and managers for many decades [4, pp.
192-194]. It is this violation which makes delegation in matrix organizations infinitely more
complex and yet at the same time more essential. The interdisciplinary nature of projects in
the multiple command structure of the matrix organization requires delegation by the project
manager to others in the organization not under his direct line supervision, i.e., there are two
or more managers making decisions on a project, one from the project perspective and one
from the functional perspective.
Although the matrix organizational structure is one of the most adaptive, flexible, and
preferred structures for organzations with multiple projects of varying scope and duration,
Davis and Lawrence state that the following three conditions are prerequisites to its adoption
[3, pp. 11-18]:
In its most general sense, a project manager is an individual who is appointed to accomplish
the task of integrating functional and extraorganizational efforts for the achievement of
predetermined project objectives [2, p. 18]. As stated previously, the project manager
achieves project objectives by a sharing of authority in a multiple command (authority)
system with functional managers. A functional manager is that individual who is responsible
for the achievement of objectives for an organizational component which is structured on the
basis of function or process such as engineering, production, finance, marketing, etc.
Another approach to understanding the role of the project manager and the critical nature of
delegation is to separate and analyze the term by dividing it into its two basic components:
project and manager. For the purpose of this article and the analysis of the role of the project
manager, a project is defined as a complex, identifiable task which is interdisciplinary
(interfunctional) in nature and has specific objectives established for the parameters of time,
cost, and performance. Thus, we can conclude that a project manager is an individual who
manages a project. But, what is a manager? There are many possible definitions of a
manager, but the following one illustrates the essential nature of this role in contemporary
organizations:
Therefore, a project manager is that designated individual who coordinates all resources
required to achieve project objectives by planning, organizing, directing, and controlling.
This primary responsibility of a project manager is clearly stated and, it is thought, easily
understood. However, in the operations of a project there are many technical activities which
must also be performed. A project has the following major activities:
• management activities
• technical activities
Both of these must be effectively performed to achieve success. As an individual, the project
manager engages in both of these activities; the proportion of time allocated to each will vary
by the nature and scope of the project. The project manager should spend a much larger
proportion of his time performing management activities on projects with a large scope and a
lesser amount of time if the scope is smaller. But all projects require management, and it was
for this reason project managers were appointed to give each individual project the required
management attention. Management is and should always be their primary responsibility.
However, many project managers face a dilemma between the performance of technical
versus management activities in any given period of time. Most newly appointed project
managers are selected on the basis of their technical expertise in a given field (e.g.,
engineering) and it is probably this discipline which is most critical to the success of the
project. Then, when the project manager is faced with a situation in which he should perform
technical and management activities, he will probably select technical activities because of
the human fallacy of omnipotence. This is known as the “I can do it better myself” fallacy [6,
p. 135]; that is, others just cannot do the task quite so effectively as I. In most projects of
moderate to large scope, the project manager cannot afford to become involved in the
technical activities on a continuous basis; he requires most of his time for management
activities. To be able to perform his managerial role, he must delegate to others the
responsibility for subtask completion with the requisite authority to make decisions
pertaining thereto. Delegation enables the project manager to establish relationships with
others for task and project completion. Through delegation he becomes a manager and not the
chief technician on a project.
Another perspective of management is that it is getting things done through people. The
authors focus on this perspective because delegation involves a person-to-person relationship,
the relationship between the project manager and those with whom he must coordinate to
manage the project. To be an effective manager, the project manager must establish and
maintain meaningful relationships between all individuals with whom he must work to
achieve project objectives. These individuals, most of whom are not under his direct line of
supervision, are part of the project team discussed in the next section.
A factor critical to the success of matrix project management is the ability of the project
manager to develop a cohesive project team. To do this, he must maintain viable relationships
with functional managers and their personnel with whom he must work in order to achieve
project objectives. In most matrix project organizations there are three classes of project
personnel:
• personnel from functional departments who are assigned by a functional manager to work
on the project but are not co-located with the project manager; they remain physically located
in their functional departments
The project manager's delegation process involves all these personnel, although delegation is
traditionally considered a line relationship between a superior and a subordinate. In project
management there is also delegation to those not under the direct line of supervision of the
project manager; these delegations are just as critical, if not more so, than the traditional ones.
The matrix project organization creates a new and unique relationship which does not exist in
the traditional departmental organization; this relationship involves the project
manager/functional manager interface. This new relationship is superimposed upon the
traditional line and functional relationships, and the clarity of these roles is still evolving
today as further experience is gained in the functioning of the matrix organization. Delegation
is the process by which this new relationship can be clarified in an operational sense but,
unlike delegations in the traditional line relationship, they must be flexible and adaptive to
the situation over the project life cycle. A viable project/functional manager relationship
requires a mutually accepted sharing of authority and, because of the dynamic nature of
projects, provisions must be made for change. At the beginning of the project the areas of
responsibility and authority for both the project and functional manager should be established
through mutual agreement in project documentation such as the Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS). The project manager is primarily responsible for determining the project activities,
schedules, and financial plan, while the functional manager is responsible for determining the
degree of technical expertise required and available, the skills and individuals who will work
on the project, and for establishing a status reporting procedure to the project manager [2, p.
246]. The project and functional managers negotiate the above until there is mutual
agreement and acceptance. At this point the responsibility and authority for the respective
tasks within the project are specified; each manager shares his authority with the other. In
most project management activities there is a high degree of reciprocal interdependence
between the project and functional managers, i.e., what each functional manager does affects
the management of the project and as the project manager adapts to these changes there will
be reciprocal impacts on the functional managers. Delegations should be as explicit as
possible, with provisions for change.
This section and its subsections have identified the nature of the environment within which
the project manager operates and the complexity of the roles and relationships which
influence the delegation process. Authority and its delegation should reflect the nature of the
organizational environment. The concepts identified above are discussed in the next section.
Authority is a deceivingly simple concept; however, in reality it is very complex and highly
controversial as evidenced by its many theories. Everyone seems to understand the nature of
authority because it is an inherent aspect of our cultural environment with our first exposure
to it being parental authority; authority is pervasive in our lives. A complete discussion of
authority is beyond the scope of this paper, but it will be discussed in sufficient detail to
enable the reader to grasp the role of authority in organizational operations and its
relationship to project management and the delegation process.
Authority
It is difficult for two writers to agree on a single all-inclusive definition of authority. The
authority of one person over another is a complex phenomenon and ultimately rests on the
manner in which one individual perceives another individual in the organization. In essence,
authority can be considered a mutually accepted relationship between two or more
individuals. However, in a managerial sense, authority can be defined as, “the right to act or
to direct the action of others in the attainment of organizational goals” [8, p. 213]. This
definition is generally used to explain the right of a superior to direct the activities of others
in the organization who are subordinate to him, i.e., line authority. Based upon this definition,
project authority is defined as the right of the project manager to act or to direct the action of
others in the attainment of the proper objectives. However, in the project environment the
project manager is often directing the activities of others who do not report to him in a line or
superior-subordinate relationship, but he must nevertheless find a way to give this direction.
This is accomplished through the three critical steps of the delegation process discussed in the
next subsection.
Cleland and King have stated that, “Authority is a conceptual framework and, at the same
time, an enigma in the study of organizations... Early theories of management regarded
authority more or less as a gravitational force that flowed from the top down. Recent theories
view authority more as a force which is to be accepted voluntarily and which moves both
vertically and horizontally” [2, p. 300]. The voluntary acceptance of a project manager's
authority by functional managers and their personnel is a vital element in the management of
a project. For over a decade the management literature has commented on the ambiguous
nature of the project manager's authority, and how he has to rely more on his interpersonal
influence with others than on his formally designated authority: his de facto (actual) vs. his de
jure (formal) authority [2, p. 319]. The authors propose that the baseline configuration of the
project manager's authority should be reflected in the project documentation and
implementation policies and procedures; these provide the basis for effective delegation.
Project management itself is an example of delegation from the chief executive officer of an
organization to a project manager. Since a project manager's authority is interfunctional in
nature, he is in a position similar to that of top management and is often referred to as “an
extension” of the chief executive. A chief executive cannot effectively cope with the
requirements for the management of multiple projects and, therefore, he appoints a project
manager to perform this responsibility [9, p. 295]. The appointment of the project manager
represents a delegation of authority to the project manager from the chief executive.
A project organization is basically an objectiveoriented work allocation structure where the
primary organizational lines are horizontal and integrative across the functional structure.
Project authority is essentially an integrative relationship involving the sharing of authority
and influence between the project and functional managers as they interact. The various
situations in which the project manager finds himself interacting with functional managers
should be considered as the primary points of reference, with project documentation
providing basic guidance. The project manager will have varying degrees of authority where
the forces of time, function, technical task, and organizational environment become prime
determinants of his actual authority. These forces are all in constant interaction with each
other during the life of the project. Thus, project authority must be viewed as dynamic, not
static, and it evolves over the life of the project.
It is through delegation that a manager becomes a manager in reality rather than in title only.
In a previous section, management was defined as getting things done through people. A
manager is not necessarily a doer but obtains results through the efforts of others and this
allows the manager to concentrate on his managerial activities rather than being immersed in
technical activities. Therefore, delegation can be defined as “giving people things to do” and,
by definition, management and delegation become inextricably interwoven [6, p. 122]. Many
management writers and scholars, such as Peter Drucker, have stated that delegation is the
essence of good management because if a person cannot delegate he cannot manage.
Almost all managers recognize the necessity of delegation, but it is one of the most difficult
tasks to perform. It does not come naturally or occur easily; every manager needs to develop
the skill to delegate, and it is often one of the most difficult skills to develop. Most
organizational achievers develop a reputation by being doers and are rewarded by being
promoted to managerial rank. In this new role there is usually insufficient time, especially in
the higher levels of management, to be both a doer and a manager. Many attempt to be both
with resulting frustrations and failures.
A more precise definition of delegation includes the recognition that it is authority to make
decisions that is delegated from superiors to subordinates in the traditional organizational
sense. “Delegation of authority is an organizational process that permits the transfer of
authority from superior to subordinate” [8, p. 235]. In the project matrix organization,
delegation of authority reflects the transfer of authority to make decisions affecting the
project from the project manager to others upon whom the project is dependent for successful
completion: the doers of the project. The results of this process become a mutual sharing of
authority on project matters, with the project manager being predominately the manager, and
the functional managers and their people being primarily the doers. Being managers in their
own right, functional managers in turn delegate their authority to people within their
departments when they are assigned responsibility for a specified project.
One of the major misconceptions about delegation is that when you delegate you do not have
to be concerned about the task or that you are relieved of responsibility. Nothing could be
further from the truth; delegation does not relieve one of responsibility; a manager's
responsibility cannot be delegated away. Therefore, in any organizational situation involving
delegation, provision must be made for evaluation and control.
The process of delegation consists of three distinct although interrelated steps:
These three distinct steps must be included in all delegations to insure they are effective; they
provide the framework for the delegation process.
Responsibility
This refers to the assignment of duties that must be performed, milestones that must be
reached, or tasks that must be completed in order to successfully complete the project. These
elements should be explicitly stated in the project's documentation like the Work Breakdown
Structures (WBS), Network Plans (CPM and PERT), etc. These planning documents require
negotiation and mutual acceptance between project and functional managers. They should not
be unilateral directives from project to functional managers or vice versa.
Authority
Through formally accepted project documentation, the project manager empowers the
functional managers and their personnel to act for him on project matters as specified. They
have the right to make the required decisions to accomplish the responsibility mentioned
above.
Accountability
This aspect of delegation is often overlooked by the new and inexperienced manager. Steps 1
and 2 above create an obligation to perform the assigned work, and the functional managers
become accountable to the project manager for the “proper exercise of authority and
performance of assigned responsibilities” contained in the project documentation [8, p. 236].
The project documentation should reflect the above three factors and, as experience is gained
during the life cycle of the project, policies can be used to further clarify the reciprocal roles
and relationships between the project and functional managers and the responsibilities and
authorities related thereto. At the inception of the project, provisions must be made for
establishing accountability which is operationalized through project evaluation and control
procedures; the timely processing of vital information and its evaluation by the project
manager and his team is critical to the successful management of any project. These
procedures should be part of the mutual agreements reached between the project and
functional managers and contain provisions for modifications as project requirements change.
The importance and critical nature of delegation to project success has been stressed in the
previous sections of this paper. The following are some of the direct and indirect benefits that
managers and their organizations can obtain from effective use of the delegation process [6,
p. 123].
• Extends results from what a manager can do himself to what he can control (accountability)
• Provides time for the manager to engage in management activities (their primary
responsibility) rather than being involved in technical activities
• Provides opportunity for the development of subordinates, increasing their skill, knowledge,
and competency
• Places responsibility for decisions at the proper level in the organization where the relevant
information and competency is located
The following are some of the major causes of ineffective delegation, and these causes lie
with the delegator, the delegatee, and/or the situation (organizational environment).
• Insecurity
• Lack of competence
• Avoidance of responsibility
• Disorganization
• Overload of work
• Immersion in trivia
• One-man-show policy
• No toleration of mistakes
• Understaffing
Reverse Delegation
This presents a rather interesting, although not uncommon, situation; it is when the delegatee
delegates back to the delegator. The following are several causes which should be understood
to better cope with this potential situation
• The subordinate lacks the necessary information and resources to accomplish the job
successfully
As stated previously, delegation does not occur naturally or, for most people, easily.
Managers must first recognize the importance of delegation and then develop the necessary
interpersonal skills to accomplish it. If an individual desires to be a manager, then he must
become an effective delegator because delegation is the essence of good management.
Summary
Project authority is the formal (legal) and personal influence of the project manager over his
project [2, p. 319]. It flows vertically from the chief executive and horizontally and
diagonally to the functional managers and their personnel through the delegation process.
Project authority is pervasive throughout the organization and should be shared with all
organizational elements which support the project for achievement of its objectives. It should
be used to facilitate a congruency of both project and functional objectives in terms of overall
organizational objectives.
There are many different meanings to the concept “systems.” It has different meanings in
different contexts and different meanings to different individuals in the same context. For the
purpose of this discussion the systems concept provides the basic framework for establishing
meaningful relationships within the organization. It is a “way of thinking” about authority
and the sharing of authority through the delegation process.
The following factors are essential in applying the systems concept to project and functional
management and the sharing of authority through the delegation process:
• Determination of the strategies or courses of action it will pursue in achieving its objectives
This approach to organizing requires that the organization be analyzed from the perspective
of its being a system with subsystems. In its most general sense, a system can be defined as
“an organized or complex whole; an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a
complex or unitary whole.” However, the following is a more meaningful definition.
A system is:
In organizational analysis, the total organization must be considered first and then, in relation
to this perspective, the parts (functional and project) should be considered, i.e, the
relationship of each part to the whole and to each other. The basic guides in this analysis are
the organizational objectives which reflect the reason for the organization's existence.
After the master objectives and plan of action for the organization have been established,
derivative or subsystem objectives for parts of the organization should be determined. For the
purpose of this article, the authors assume that the decision has been made to adopt project
management with the matrix organizational structure. A discussion of the reasons why an
organization should adopt project management is beyond the scope of this article and is
contained in other articles and papers [10, pp. 105-113].
Figure 1
System and Subsystem Objectives
Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between system and subsystem objectives. With the
implementation of the matrix organization, the authors propose that two primary subsystems
are created:
• A subsystem for its technical functions and activities, such as engineering, manufacturing,
marketing, finance, etc.; this is the functional subsystem.
In the current technological environment, organizations must perform very well in both their
project/product and their specialized functional activities in order to compete effectively and
to survive. Each of the above subsystems should have its own derivative objectives which are
supportive of the organizational objectives and not in conflict with each other. The objectives
in Figure 1 are stated in general terms for illustration purposes only but, in actual practice,
they would be quantified to the maximum extent possible with specific time frames.
Congruency of system and subsystem objectives is the key to organizational, project, and
functional success. Without the congruency of all objectives, there is a high probability of
conflict within and between the parts of the organization making it difficult, if not impossible,
to establish and maintain meaningful authority, responsibility, and accountability
relationships between the project and functional subsystems. Congruency of objectives or
goals is not easily obtained, but if top management and their subsystem managers approach
the process from the system perspective, they have a viable frame of reference which
facilitates the realization of goal congruency.
Subsystem Relationships
The matrix organization has two major subsystems, project and functional. As stated above,
each subsystem should have explicit objectives that support, on an integrated basis, the
achievement of organizational (system) objectives. The interrelationships of the objectives
are depicted in Figure 1. The purposes of these subsystems are:
Figure 2
Project/Product Subsystem and Functional Subsystem Relationships 5
Figure 2 is not an organizational chart, but a model that illustrates the basic interfaces
between the project and functional subsystems. It provides a frame of reference for these two
major subsystems.
Within the guidelines established for all organizational projects, each project manager must
identify and, through mutually accepted project documentation, establish the nature of the
interface with each functional activity which supports the project. These points of interface
are the authority, responsibility, and accountability relationships required for the successful
management of projects and specialized activities. This is where delegation and a sharing of
authority occur. This is a primary responsibility of the project manager and should not be
avoided or dealt with informally. These interfaces will change over the life of a project, but a
baseline reference should be initially established so there will be a reference point for the
analysis and acceptance of the inevitable changes.
One of the greatest challenges to contemporary organizations has been how to establish and
maintain meaningful relationships between and among all its resources, especially human
resources.
These human relationships are reflected, in a formal sense, by the organization's authority,
responsibility, and accountability patterns. Because of the rapidly changing technological
environment in which many organizations operate today, the project management concept has
been adopted with the matrix organizational structure. This structure has created a new and
complex organizational relationship. That relationship is the project-functional manager
interface, which requires a sharing of authority for project activities with the project manager
being ultimately responsible for the achievement of project objectives, i.e., he is the manager
of the project.
The delegation process is the mechanism by which authority is shared with others who must
furnish support for the successful completion of the project. Delegation of authority does not
come naturally or easily. Its importance must be understood and the causes of ineffective
delegation recognized. If a project manager desires to be a manager rather than a project
technician, he must develop the skill of delegation. Delegation has been referred to as the
“essence of good management,” and it is proposed that it is a vital prerequisite to the
effective management of a project. The project manager must delegate his authority to others
throughout the organization to achieve project objectives. It must be emphasized that project
planning documentation and effective control and evaluation procedures are essential to
delegation. Since a project is not static but dynamic, provisions must be made for changes in
the authority, responsibility, and accountability relationships between project and functional
managers and their people. Consequently, periodic reviews of the understandings between the
project and the various functional managers should be conducted to assure that they are
current in the light of changing conditions.
The following systems perspectives are presented as a guide for developing and maintaining
relationships between the project and functional activities of an organization.
• The organization must be viewed as a system with mutual understanding and acceptance of
system objectives by all managers throughout the organization.
• The organizational system has two major subsystems, each of which has objectives
supportive of system objectives and compatible with each other. These subsystems are the
project/product and the functional subsystems.
• The nature and the reciprocal interdependence of the authority, responsibility, and
accountability relationships between each subsystem must be recognized and mutually
accepted through effective delegation and sharing of authority.
References
2. Cleland, D.I., & King, W.R. Systems Analysis and Project Management. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975.
5. Johnson, R.A., Kast, F.E., & Rosensweig, J.E. The Theory and Management of Systems.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973.
6. Mackenzie, R.A. The Time Trap. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972.