# data[].attributes.headline
Why Some Teams Succeed (and So Many Don't)- Harvard Business Impact

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Some Teams Succeed (and So Many Don't)- Harvard Business Impact

# data[].attributes.body
Learn about team dynamics, psychological safety, and productivity habits that set high-performing teams apart.

https://www.hbsp.harvard.edu/product/U0610D-PDF-ENG

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Some Teams Succeed (and So Many Don’t)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teams--sometimes they have great results, and sometimes they are huge failures. What makes the difference? Research shows that it’s how teams are managed--and whether the organization they are part of provides them the support they need. This article brings together researchers and practitioners to describe the balancing act, skills, measures, and company support that make for successful teams.

# data[].attributes.headline
Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing- Mindtools

# data[].attributes.subject
Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing- Mindtools

# data[].attributes.body
This article explains the forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning model, with team-building suggestions at each stage.

https://www.mindtools.com/abyj5fi/forming-storming-norming-and-performing

# data[].attributes.headline
The 5 Dysfunctions of a Team: Book Summary- Natalia Rossingol

# data[].attributes.subject
The 5 Dysfunctions of a Team: Book Summary- Natalia Rossingol

# data[].attributes.body
A breakdown of five common team dysfunctions and how to overcome them. Great for diagnosing and improving team culture.

https://www.runn.io/blog/5-dysfunctions-of-a-team-summary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What would you call a person who tries to save a Silicon Valley company from collapse, giving the boss's position to an old-school, blue-collarish executive with no real high-tech experience who, on top of it, is fifty-seven years old (oh my God) and, what's even worse, a woman? Maybe the word you're looking for is extravagant or desperate, or just out of his mind. But before you start judging the poor guy, just know that the person he chose had great team-building skills... and you know, sometimes that's enough to keep the company afloat.

"The Five Dysfunctions of a Team" by Patrick Lencioni is not a typical book about management. Lencioni, founder and president of a management consulting firm specializing in team development and organizational health, decided to be creative and share his ideas in a fictional story. In a nutshell, the story tells about the efforts of Kathryn Petersen to create a healthy environment in fictional DecisionTech. As the plot unfolds, she tells her executives about the 5 Dysfunctions of a Team Model, saying that these dysfunctions are the reason why the team fails.

Represented graphically, the Five Dysfunctions Model looks like a five-level pyramid. Like in any pyramid, the levels do not exist separately from each other; Kathryn explains that they are interconnected, and each dysfunction directly impacts the one above it. Next to the levels, she writes a word that serves as an evidence of a particular dysfunction.

Besides the fictional part, Lencioni also organizes and summarizes his ideas in the theoretical part of the book, where he also provides an assessment tool helping to evaluate the team susceptibility to the five dysfunctions.

As we will see in this "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team" book summary, Lencioni structurally describes the model, giving characteristics of dysfunctions one by one, providing suggestions for overcoming them, highlighting the role of leaders in each case, and explaining how exactly the levels correlate.

Below you can read a short "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team" summary by chapter:

Dysfunction 1: Absence of Trust

Trust is the foundation of real teamwork. And so the first dysfunction is a failure on the part of team members to understand and open up to one another. And if that sounds touchy-feely, let me explain, because there is nothing soft about it. It is an absolutely critical part of building a team. In fact, it's probably the most critical.

According to Lencioni, trust is the most fundamental principle of team cohesiveness, without which a team falls like a house of cards. Despite the traditional definition of trust as the ability to predict how a particular person would act, Lencioni puts different meaning into this concept, making it more human-oriented. For him, trust is a state when people are confident that those surrounding them wish well and, figuratively speaking, do not hold a knife behind their backs. Trust allows people to be sincere and let go of fears of getting judged. Logically, if there is no trust, the team will not feel comfortable being vulnerable with each other - the evidence of the first dysfunction.

The ambience of trust makes it possible for people to focus on their actual work instead of dispersing their energy on trying to make the right impression. Feeling comfortable with their colleagues, people won't hide their vulnerabilities like skill deficiencies and requests. There won't be any necessity to feel ashamed. Unfortunately, says the author, this approach is not accepted in contemporary companies: on the contrary, people tend to get competitive and defensive, so it will take time for them to change it.

Suggestions for overcoming. Naturally, trust cannot be developed overnight; however, there are some tools that can help it thrive. When consistently applied, they can have a long-lasting effect. Here are some of the techniques the author speaks about:

Personal histories exercise. This is a very simple exercise: during a meeting, people ask each other questions about their family, education and so on. The questions do not need to be over sensitive. The main goal is to get to know your colleagues better because it often appears that we know nothing about people we see every day at the office.

Team effectiveness exercise. This exercise requires team members to pick one area in which their colleagues do the best, and one where they do the worst. It can sound like walking on thin ice, but in fact, it helps discover constructive decisions, as well as motivate people to continue doing what they do well.

Personality and behavioral preference profile. All people are different, and it doesn't mean someone is worse and someone is better. Recognizing the uniqueness of every person, we can develop empathy and improve relationships. It makes sense to spend time and identify psychological types of those who work together on a daily basis, so they tolerate quirks and forgive excessive emotionality or other psychological nuances of each other.

The Role of the Leader. To develop trust, the leader must start with themselves, becoming the role model, says Lencioni. If they demonstrate their own weaknesses and failures, and don't allow team members to harshly criticize each other, the seeds of trust they sow will grow fast.

Connection to Dysfunction 2. The correlation between the first and second dysfunction is obvious: only when people trust each other will they engage in a productive conflict, as they won't be afraid that the conflict will lead to irreparably burnt bridges.

Wanting to become a healthy team? Learn more tactical advice in our recent ebook:

Dysfunction 2: Fear of Conflict

Harmony itself is good, I suppose, if it comes as a result of working through issues constantly and cycling through conflict. But if it comes only as a result of people holding back their opinions and honest concerns, then it's a bad thing.

It may sound paradoxical, but for a relationship to grow, there must be conflicts. We are all used to the thought that conflicts are a destructive force that negatively influences all involved. However, this is not necessarily so, says Lencioni.

First of all, there is a difference between interpersonal and ideological conflict. Interpersonal conflicts are really dangerous as they are directed at personality, which often means aggression. Unlike it, ideological conflicts are about ideas, and they can be the fire in which brilliant solutions are born. The problem is, these both types share the same features - they can both be emotionally loaded and full of frustration, so it's quite easy to mistake one for another.

The lack of conflict leads to artificial harmony, says the author, and adds that the irony of the situation is that while avoiding conflicts we only let the tension boil up, which eventually may result in a huge scandal. This is why it is more reasonable to have debates and let everyone express their thoughts and disagreements. This will prevent people from holding grudges and transforming professional frustrations into personal attacks.

Suggestions for overcoming. The most important thing to overcome a conflict, says Lencioni, is to realize that it can actually be productive. Besides that, there are other methods that can be helpful:

Mining. Team members who usually use the tactics of avoiding conflict should assume a role of a "miner" and extract the problems covered under silent disagreements. This is not easy as it requires courage to point out sensitive issues, yet it is very effective.

Real-time permission. In the course of "mining" for a conflict, some people may get very uncomfortable and eager to end this whole story as soon as possible. To ease the tension, a leader can make a remark and remind them that the conflict they are involved in is productive, and that it is being encouraged on purpose. Lencioni says that even though this can look primitive, like a technique parents use with their children, the permission to continue in fact gives confidence and strength to go on.

Other tools. Besides personality-type tests the author already mentioned, there are others specifically designed to identify how a particular person reacts to conflict situations (like Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument). Knowing your natural inclinations, you can adjust them to situations and choose the most appropriate approach.

The Role of the Leader. Very often leaders try to do everything possible to soften the conflict, in order to protect their people. Though it can feel like losing control, it's very important for a leader to step back, let the conflict flow, and let people develop their conflict management skills.

Connection to Dysfunction 3. Unless people feel that their opinion has been heard and taken into account, they will never truly commit. And to hear everybody's views, there must be debates - and conflict, sometimes.

Dysfunction 3: Lack of Commitment

Consensus is horrible. I mean, if everyone really agrees on something and consensus comes about quickly and naturally, well that's terrific. But that isn't how it usually works, and so consensus becomes an attempt to please everyone.

Commitment on a team arises when all members agree with the decisions made. If they don't, they won't really commit, because they will probably start doing things in their own way. This will create ambiguity, which is the best evidence of this dysfunction, according to Lencioni.

Lencioni talks about two aspects of a good decision - clarity and buy-in. To accept a decision and not just pretend that you agree, you need to feel that it is pretty clear, and that you don't have any doubts about it. This happens through debates, when everyone gets a chance to contribute to the discussion.Even if your own suggestion doesn't appear to be final, you still support the one taken by the group.

Lencioni continues that two biggest obstacles to commitment are consensus and the need for certainty. As for consensus, instead of trying to find a decision that would please everyone, which is impossible, it is enough to make people feel that their ideas have been considered. And concerning certainty, we should remember that it can be an elusive thing:even though the decision you make doesn't look good, you can always change it later - and that will be much better than no decision at all.

According to the author, this dysfunction - lack of commitment - is especially troublesome for the employees who report to the executive team. If executives are not on the same page, their direct reports will inevitably misinterpret the orders, and that will lead to discrepancies of different kinds.

Suggestions for Overcoming Dysfunction 3. Obviously, to handle the lack of commitment, we need to reduce the need for certainty and consensus. The tools which can help with this, as well as teach us how to make decisions, are:

Cascading messages. Unfortunately, employees of lower levels often receive inconsistent information that confuses them. This can be eliminated if managers take message delivery more seriously: after each meeting, they should go over the key decisions and communicate them to their reports. Lencioni says that this exercise, which is basically summarizing the decisions, helps reveal the fact that executives don't see the overall picture in the same way. Besides, it helps them figure out what information should be kept confidential, and what needs to be spread out.

Deadlines. It's super banal, but setting time frames is incredibly effective when it comes to commitment. The author also points out that it's very useful to set deadlines even for intermediate tasks, as it makes the process more consistent.

Contingency and worst-case scenario. While a contingency plan can be reassuring, developing a worst-case scenario can actually show that the world will not collapse if you make the wrong decision. In most cases, the damage caused is not so bad and can always be improved.

Low-risk exposure therapy. This exercise consists in making a decision after a profound discussion, but without deep research. Its goal is to demonstrate that often we make good decisions even without a serious analysis, which can actually paralyze our ability to think out of the box.

The Role of the Leader. The leader must be comfortable making mistakes and accepting them calmly, to set an example for their employees. They should also control if employees stick to the schedule to meet the deadlines. Crucially, they should never encourage consensus.

Connection to Dysfunction 4. Without doubt, if a person doesn't understand what is expected, and therefore doesn't commit, they cannot be held accountable for the result.

Dysfunction 4: Avoidance of Accountability

Once we achieve clarity and buy-in, it is then that we have to hold each other accountable for what we sign up to do, for high standards of performance and behavior. And as simple as that sounds, most executives hate to do it, especially when it comes to a peer's behavior, because they want to avoid interpersonal discomfort.

When team members refuse to openly discuss problems of performance or behavioral issues, a team becomes dysfunctional. The evidence of the fourth dysfunction, according to Lencioni, is low standards, which no one really tries to raise. Scared to break up personal relationships, people prefer to turn a blind eye to any negative aspects of the work or behavior of their peers. However, acting like this, they only reach the opposite effect, provoking more dissatisfaction, which eventually deteriorates relationships instead of saving them.

Bringing issues to the surface, says Lencioni, shows respect and a belief that a person is capable of meeting higher standards. Peer pressure protects from bureaucracy (performance evaluations on managers' part) and, what's even more important, appeals to the sense of responsibility: hearing negative feedback from someone you respect and are friendly with makes you feel like you are letting them down. This is why it is a valuable instrument.

Suggestions for Overcoming Dysfunction 4. The fourth dysfunction can be reduced using the next techniques:

Publications of goals and standards. Setting the goals, the leader should not leave any room for ambiguity: everyone must know specifically what they have to do, and when. It is also important to make sure that everyone does whatever is required, to not let them just forget about the initial goals.

Simple and regular progress review. Team members should give each other feedback; this can be done either in oral or in written form. It is better when a progress review is conducted not by a person themselves but by their colleagues: people tend to procrastinate when they need to honestly evaluate their own progress.

Team rewards. A good idea is to create a culture of accountability - in other words, reward the team as a whole and not a person as an individual. After all, the essence of a team is the collective effort, so team members must realize that each and everyone is accountable for the overall result. Everyone must feel accountable for the mistakes made, even if the problem that arose was not the sphere of their responsibility.

The Role of the Leader. The leader must encourage the team to function as an accountability mechanism, even though this may be challenging as it seems natural for a leader to praise and to chastise. They should be ready to intrude when necessary, but overall, team members need to have freedom to create the environment where they can exchange thoughts and feel secure.

Connection to Dysfunction 5. If team members do not feel they are accountable for group work, they will not see the main team goal as their own one, focusing their attention on their own departments.

Dysfunction 5: Inattention to Results

When everyone is focused on results and using those to define success, it is difficult for ego to get out of hand. No matter how good an individual on the team might be feeling about his or her situation, if the team loses, everyone loses.

Failing to keep in mind the ultimate goal shared by the whole team, team members shift their focus and pay excessive attention to their own needs, personal or professional. It is like not seeing the woods for the trees, and it obviously has a negative impact on the overall results. For this reason, the evidence of the fifth dysfunction is ego and status.

Inattention to results means that the attention is paid to something else. What can this be? Lencioni singles out two main distractions, namely team and individual status.

Team status. Sometimes team members are satisfied to be a part of a particular group, and this is enough for them: for example, representatives of nonprofit organizations feel their mission itself is fulfilling their ambitions.

Individual status. Staying self-centered and caring more about your own career prospects than about the well-being of a group, people sacrifice overall results.

Lencioni says that, unfortunately, teams are rarely results-oriented, and no matter how much trust, conflict, commitment, and accountability they put in, it all proves useless without an actual result.

Speaking about results, Lencioni notes that he doesn't mean financial profit only: this also includes the goals on the way to achieving the final result (which is financial), since these goals set the direction.

Suggestions for Overcoming Dysfunction 5. To get focused on results, Lencioni suggests two main ways:

Public declaration of results. Public proclamations about future success can be dangerous in some scenarios. In sports,for instance, this can cause excessive pressure on players. But when it comes to business, boldly stating the intent to succeed can motivate people to work more passionately. Beware the phrase "We'll do our best" as it subconsciously prepares you for failure, says Lencioni.

Result-based rewards. Financial rewards should not be the main trigger to work harder; however, they are useful if tied to a specific result.

The Role of the Leader. Lencioni underlines the fact that leaders must permanently emphasize the importance of results, and what's more, fairly reward and recognize those team members who really deserve it.

A fractured team is just like a broken arm or leg; fixing it is always painful, and sometimes you have to rebreak it to make it heal correctly. And the rebreak hurts a lot more than the initial break, because you have to do it on purpose.

"Healing" an unhealthy team is a long process - because you have to start building a team all over again. But it would be fair to say that any team starts off in a state of dysfunction, since any team consists of people and people are imperfect. And as we have seen from this "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team" by Patrick Lencioni summary, it can be incredibly hard to overcome difficulties caused by human behavior, but trying to do so on a daily basis can make miracles. After all, practice makes perfect.

📚 Read other book summaries on management from Runn:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 5 Dysfunctions of a Team: Book Summary | Runn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If something is a bit "off" with how your team works, The 5 Dysfunctions of a Team is the book for you. Our summary will help you quickly gather the key points.

# data[].attributes.headline
The GROW Model of Coaching – Performance Consultants

# data[].attributes.subject
The GROW Model of Coaching – Performance Consultants

# data[].attributes.body
One of the most popular coaching frameworks, perfect for leaders looking to coach team members toward goal achievement.

https://www.performanceconsultants.com/resources/the-grow-model/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A breakthrough framework with a lasting legacy

The GROW model was developed by Sir John Whitmore and his peers in the late 1980s; since then it's become the definitive goal-setting, problem-solving, and performance-improving framework for organizations worldwide; further immortalized via Whitmore's seminal 'Coaching for Performance' book.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The GROW Model is a renowned, practical coaching model driven by a powerful coaching philosophy to help coaching conversations

# data[].attributes.headline
International Coaching Federation (ICF) Core Competencies

# data[].attributes.subject
International Coaching Federation (ICF) Core Competencies

# data[].attributes.body
Outlines the 8 core competencies used by certified coaches. Excellent resource for developing a professional coaching mindset.

https://coachingfederation.org/credentialing/coaching-competencies/icf-core-competencies/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ICF Core Competencies | Coaching Standards and Best Practices

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Master the ICF Core Competencies and enhance your coaching skills. Explore fundamentals that set the global standard for professional coaching excellence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Coaching vs Mentoring: What’s the Difference?- Amanda Schnieders

# data[].attributes.subject
Coaching vs Mentoring: What’s the Difference?- Amanda Schnieders

# data[].attributes.body
Simple breakdown of the difference and when to use each approach.

https://chronus.com/blog/coaching-vs-mentoring-whats-the-difference

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coaching vs Mentoring: What’s the Difference? | Chronus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Interested in learning the difference between coaching vs mentoring? Determine what’s best for your organization and how Chronus can help reach your goals!

# data[].attributes.headline
National Mentoring Resource Center – Tools & Research

# data[].attributes.subject
National Mentoring Resource Center – Tools & Research

# data[].attributes.body
Offers mentoring tools, guides, and best practices based on evidence-based research.

https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Mentoring Matters in a Hypercompetitive World

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Mentoring Matters in a Hypercompetitive World

# data[].attributes.body
This article outlines why mentoring is essential in today’s fast-changing work environment.

https://hbr.org/2008/01/why-mentoring-matters-in-a-hypercompetitive-world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today's professional service firms are so busy making money that they've lost the art of making talent.

Reprint: R0801H

Professional service firms (PSFs), like so many other companies, are juggling the modern challenges of global competition, increased regulation, and rapid employee turnover. In a people-oriented industry, attrition has special import. DeLong and Gabarro, of Harvard Business School, along with former Morgan Stanley and Ernst & Young executive Lees, argue that a PSF can gain a much-needed competitive edge by renewing its focus on mentoring. The authors' in-depth interviews with professionals from more than 30 PSFs have yielded four principles for firms to heed as they rediscover this lost art.

First, mentoring is personal. Rather than relying on standardized programs, mentors must frequently-and fairly-provide authentic advice and nurturing. Partners at PSFs know how to use their ample people skills effectively with clients; the benefits of using them with junior colleagues are even greater.

Second, not everyone is an A player. A small dose of attention given to a B player goes at least as far as a large one offered to an A player. Since B players constitute about 70% of PSF staff, that's time well spent.

Third, choice assignments are in short supply, which limits the number of learning opportunities available for associates. Good alternatives include shadowing senior professionals on assignments and taking on research or other projects that are not client-related but that nonetheless build expertise.

Finally, mentoring is a two-way street. Protégés should not only learn from their senior counterparts, but also be taught to attract mentors-and to co-mentor one another.

The Idea in Brief

Professional services firms-including law and accounting firms, consultancies, marketing agencies, and universities-live and die by their intellectual capital. Yet young associates are leaving PSFs in record numbers. Law firms alone suffered a cumulative 19% attrition rate from 2004 through 2006.

Why the exodus? According to DeLong, Gabarro, and Lees, hypercompetition has forced PSF partners to focus so much on satisfying clients that they've lost the art of developing talent. Frustrated by the neglect, associates are leaving for choicer opportunities-taking vital knowledge with them and leaving behind empty desks that will be costly to fill.

To stanch the talent hemorrhage in your PSF, you need a mentoring strategy tailored to today's young professionals. Fiercely independent, achievement-driven associates distrust anything that smacks of bureaucracy. So, instead of a formal mentoring system, provide hands-on, individualized feedback. And don't mentor only your star performers; include your "solid citizen" B players. They make up most of your workforce, and your firm's success rests on them.

The Idea in Practice

DeLong, Gabarro, and Lees recommend four principles for mentoring your professional staff:

Make Mentoring Personal

Associates at PSFs want individualized attention from senior professionals who take a personal interest in their careers. And they demand continuous feedback on how they're doing. To mentor them, go out of your way to acknowledge appreciation for their contributions. And demonstrate your investment in their success by asking what kinds of work they want to do, where their passions lie, and what skills they want to develop.

Include Your B Players

You may be tempted to mentor only your A players, especially if you identify with them. But B players bring important forms of value that your firm will lose if you ignore these "solid citizens." For example, they stay on staff longer, accumulating institutional knowledge that's especially valuable during major transitions such as mergers and expansions. And they put organizational goals over personal ones because they value stability for themselves and the company.

To mentor them, assign them to firmwide, cross-functional committees where they can interact with high fliers and demonstrate their capabilities. And monitor your interactions to ensure you don't neglect them.

Assign Projects Judiciously

There are never as many plum assignments as there are associates who want them. And when juicy projects aren't available, associates conclude the firm isn't interested in their career development. To combat this perception:

Let associates shadow you on assignments where you share your insight and expertise with them.

Give them projects that aren't client related. Research projects, for instance, enable associates to delve more deeply into a field of interest.

Let them do worthy, high-profile pro bono work. That gives your firm good PR and keeps associates stimulated.

Encourage Associates to Find Mentors

Senior partners are stretched too thin to form a relationship with everyone who needs to be mentored. Thus, associates can no longer expect just to be assigned a mentor; they also have to attract mentors themselves. Encourage them to keep an eye out for professionals at all levels who are particularly gifted at mentoring. Example:

McKinsey & Company encourages associates to "build their own McKinsey" by seeking out subordinates, peers, and partners with whom they share mutual chemistry, interests, and goals. These individuals eventually form a "personal advisory board"-a core group of people invested in associates' development.

After 10 years of rapid growth, Freedman-Miller, a midsize Seattle-based consulting firm, is in trouble. Junior and senior associate turnover is rising, and the firm is struggling to retain enough professionals to service existing clients, let alone acquire new ones. The loyal, cooperative culture that it enjoyed just five years ago has all but evaporated: Young professionals, seeing themselves as free agents, stay only until a choicer offer comes along. Others-women and men-are leaving to maintain work-life balance. Associates routinely complain that the partners don't invest time in helping them grow and develop. For their part, the partners wonder why they should spend so much energy teaching associates who will probably leave the firm anyway.

A version of this article appeared in the January 2008 issue of Harvard Business Review.

New!

Developing Employees Course

Accelerate your career with Harvard ManageMentor®. HBR Learning's online leadership training helps you hone your skills with courses like Developing Employees. Earn badges to share on LinkedIn and your resume. Access more than 40 courses trusted by Fortune 500 companies.

Support and challenge your direct reports to help them reach their potential.

Learn More & See All Courses

Robert J. Lees ( rob.lees2@btinternet.com) was formerly a director of professional development at Morgan Stanley and head of human resources at Ernst & Young International. All three are coauthors of When Professionals Have to Lead: A New Model for High Performance (Harvard Business School Press, 2007).

New!

HBR Learning

Developing Employees Course

Accelerate your career with Harvard ManageMentor®. HBR Learning's online leadership training helps you hone your skills with courses like Developing Employees. Earn badges to share on LinkedIn and your resume. Access more than 40 courses trusted by Fortune 500 companies.

Support and challenge your direct reports to help them reach their potential.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Mentoring Matters in a Hypercompetitive World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reprint: R0801H Professional service firms (PSFs), like so many other companies, are juggling the modern challenges of global competition, increased regulation, and rapid employee turnover. In a people-oriented industry, attrition has special import. DeLong and Gabarro, of Harvard Business School, along with former Morgan Stanley and Ernst & Young executive Lees, argue that a PSF can gain a much-needed competitive edge by renewing its focus on mentoring.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mentoring Toolkit- School of Medicine
& Health Sciences

# data[].attributes.subject
Mentoring Toolkit- School of Medicine
& Health Sciences

# data[].attributes.body
This toolkit provides resources to help mentees and mentors make the most of the mentoring relationship.

https://cfe.smhs.gwu.edu/mentoring-toolkit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Center for Faculty Excellence at the GW School of Medicine and Health Sciences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This toolkit provides resources to assist mentees and mentors in making the most of the mentoring relationship by:

# data[].attributes.headline
Summary of "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In"- Beyond Intractability

# data[].attributes.subject
Summary of "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In"- Beyond Intractability

# data[].attributes.body
This classic book offers strategies for principled negotiation without compromising relationships.

https://www.beyondintractability.org/bksum/fisher-getting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary of

By Roger Fisher, William Ury and for the second Edition, Bruce Patton

Summary written by Tanya Glaser, Conflict Research Consortium

Citation: Fisher, Roger and William Ury. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2011. < http://www.beyondintractability.org/library/external-resource?biblio=23737>.

In this seminal text, Ury and Fisher present four principles for effective negotiation, including: separating people from the problem, focusing on interests rather than positions, generating a variety of options before settling on an agreement, and insisting that the agreement be based on objective criteria. Three common obstacles to negotiation and ways to overcome them are also discussed.

A French translation of this summary is available in PDF format. To view it, please click here.

In this classic text, Fisher and Ury describe their four principles for effective negotiation. They also describe three common obstacles to negotiation and discuss ways to overcome them.

Fisher and Ury explain that a good agreement is one which is wise and efficient, and which improves the parties' relationship. Wise agreements satisfy the parties' interests and are fair and lasting. The authors' goal is to develop a method for reaching good agreements. Negotiations often take the form of positional bargaining. In positional bargaining each part opens with their position on an issue. The parties then bargain from their separate opening positions to agree on one position. Haggling over a price is a typical example of positional bargaining. Fisher and Ury argue that positional bargaining does not tend to produce good agreements. It is an inefficient means of reaching agreements, and the agreements tend to neglect the parties' interests. It encourages stubbornness and so tends to harm the parties' relationship. Principled negotiation provides a better way of reaching good agreements. Fisher and Ury develop four principles of negotiation. Their process of principled negotiation can be used effectively on almost any type of dispute. Their four principles are 1) separate the people from the problem; 2) focus on interests rather than positions; 3) generate a variety of options before settling on an agreement; and 4) insist that the agreement be based on objective criteria. [p. 11]

These principles should be observed at each stage of the negotiation process. The process begins with the analysis of the situation or problem, of the other parties' interests and perceptions, and of the existing options. The next stage is to plan ways of responding to the situation and the other parties. Finally, the parties discuss the problem trying to find a solution on which they can agree.

Separating People and Issues

Fisher and Ury's first principle is to separate the people from the issues. People tend to become personally involved with the issues and with their side's positions. And so they will tend to take responses to those issues and positions as personal attacks. Separating the people from the issues allows the parties to address the issues without damaging their relationship. It also helps them to get a clearer view of the substantive problem.

The authors identify three basic sorts of people problems. First are differences on perception among the parties. Since most conflicts are based in differing interpretations of the facts, it is crucial for both sides to understand the other's viewpoint. The parties should try to put themselves in the other's place. The parties should not simply assume that their worst fears will become the actions of the other party. Nor should one side blame the other for the problem. Each side should try to make proposals which would be appealing to the other side. The more that the parties are involved in the process, the more likely they are to be involved in and to support the outcome.

Emotions are a second source of people problems. Negotiation can be a frustrating process. People often react with fear or anger when they feel that their interests are threatened. The first step in dealing with emotions is to acknowledge them, and to try to understand their source. The parties must acknowledge the fact that certain emotions are present, even when they don't see those feelings as reasonable. Dismissing another's feelings as unreasonable is likely to provoke an even more intense emotional response. The parties must allow the other side to express their emotions. They must not react emotionally to emotional outbursts. Symbolic gestures such as apologies or an expression of sympathy can help to defuse strong emotions.

Communication is the third main source of people problems. Negotiators may not be speaking to each other, but may simply be grandstanding for their respective constituencies. The parties may not be listening to each other, but may instead be planning their own responses. Even when the parties are speaking to each other and are listening, misunderstandings may occur. To combat these problems, the parties should employ active listening. The listeners should give the speaker their full attention, occasionally summarizing the speaker's points to confirm their understanding. It is important to remember that understanding the other's case does not mean agreeing with it. Speakers should direct their speech toward the other parties and keep focused on what they are trying to communicate. Each side should avoid blaming or attacking the other, and should speak about themselves.

Generally the best way to deal with people problems is to prevent them from arising. People problems are less likely to come up if the parties have a good relationship, and think of each other as partners in negotiation rather than as adversaries.

Focus on Interests

Good agreements focus on the parties' interests, rather than their positions. As Fisher and Ury explain, "Your position is something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to so decide."[p. 42] Defining a problem in terms of positions means that at least one party will "lose" the dispute. When a problem is defined in terms of the parties' underlying interests it is often possible to find a solution which satisfies both parties' interests.

The first step is to identify the parties' interests regarding the issue at hand. This can be done by asking why they hold the positions they do, and by considering why they don't hold some other possible position. Each party usually has a number of different interests underlying their positions. And interests may differ somewhat among the individual members of each side. However, all people will share certain basic interests or needs, such as the need for security and economic well-being.

Once the parties have identified their interests, they must discuss them together. If a party wants the other side to take their interests into account, that party must explain their interests clearly. The other side will be more motivated to take those interests into account if the first party shows that they are paying attention to the other side's interests. Discussions should look forward to the desired solution, rather than focusing on past events. Parties should keep a clear focus on their interests, but remain open to different proposals and positions.

Generate Options

Fisher and Ury identify four obstacles to generating creative options for solving a problem. Parties may decide prematurely on an option and so fail to consider alternatives. The parties may be intent on narrowing their options to find the single answer. The parties may define the problem in win-lose terms, assuming that the only options are for one side to win and the other to lose. Or a party may decide that it is up to the other side to come up with a solution to the problem.

The authors also suggest four techniques for overcoming these obstacles and generating creative options. First it is important to separate the invention process from the evaluation stage. The parties should come together in an informal atmosphere and brainstorm for all possible solutions to the problem. Wild and creative proposals are encouraged. Brainstorming sessions can be made more creative and productive by encouraging the parties to shift between four types of thinking: stating the problem, analyzing the problem, considering general approaches, and considering specific actions. Parties may suggest partial solutions to the problem. Only after a variety of proposals have been made should the group turn to evaluating the ideas. Evaluation should start with the most promising proposals. The parties may also refine and improve proposals at this point.

Participants can avoid falling into a win-lose mentality by focusing on shared interests. When the parties' interests differ, they should seek options in which those differences can be made compatible or even complementary. The key to reconciling different interests is to "look for items that are of low cost to you and high benefit to them, and vice versa."[p. 79] Each side should try to make proposals that are appealing to the other side, and that the other side would find easy to agree to. To do this it is important to identify the decision makers and target proposals directly toward them. Proposals are easier to agree to when they seem legitimate, or when they are supported by precedent. Threats are usually less effective at motivating agreement than are beneficial offers.

Use Objective Criteria

When interests are directly opposed, the parties should use objective criteria to resolve their differences. Allowing such differences to spark a battle of wills will destroy relationships, is inefficient, and is not likely to produce wise agreements. Decisions based on reasonable standards makes it easier for the parties to agree and preserve their good relationship.

The first step is to develop objective criteria. Usually there are a number of different criteria which could be used. The parties must agree which criteria is best for their situation. Criteria should be both legitimate and practical. Scientific findings, professional standards, or legal precedent are possible sources of objective criteria. One way to test for objectivity is to ask if both sides would agree to be bound by those standards. Rather than agreeing in substantive criteria, the parties may create a fair procedure for resolving their dispute. For example, children may fairly divide a piece of cake by having one child cut it, and the other choose their piece.

There are three points to keep in mind when using objective criteria. First each issue should be approached as a shared search for objective criteria. Ask for the reasoning behind the other party's suggestions. Using the other parties' reasoning to support your own position can be a powerful way to negotiate. Second, each party must keep an open mind. They must be reasonable, and be willing to reconsider their positions when there is reason to. Third, while they should be reasonable, negotiators must never give in to pressure, threats, or bribes. When the other party stubbornly refuses to be reasonable, the first party may shift the discussion from a search for substantive criteria to a search for procedural criteria.

When the Other Party Is More Powerful

No negotiation method can completely overcome differences in power. However, Fisher and Ury suggest ways to protect the weaker party against a poor agreement, and to help the weaker party make the most of their assets.

Often negotiators will establish a "bottom line" in an attempt to protect themselves against a poor agreement. The bottom line is what the party anticipates as the worst acceptable outcome. Negotiators decide in advance of actual negotiations to reject any proposal below that line. Fisher and Ury argue against using bottom lines. Because the bottom line figure is decided upon in advance of discussions, the figure may be arbitrary or unrealistic. Having already committed oneself to a rigid bottom line also inhibits inventiveness in generating options.

Instead the weaker party should concentrate on assessing their best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). The authors note that "the reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating."[p. 104] The weaker party should reject agreements that would leave them worse off than their BATNA. Without a clear idea of their BATNA a party is simply negotiating blindly. The BATNA is also key to making the most of existing assets. Power in a negotiation comes from the ability to walk away from negotiations. Thus the party with the best BATNA is the more powerful party in the negotiation. Generally, the weaker party can take unilateral steps to improve their alternatives to negotiation. They must identify potential opportunities and take steps to further develop those opportunities. The weaker party will have a better understanding of the negotiation context if they also try to estimate the other side's BATNA. Fisher and Ury conclude that "developing your BATNA thus not only enables you to determine what is a minimally acceptable agreement, it will probably raise that minimum."[p. 111]

When the Other Party Won't Use Principled Negotiation

Sometimes the other side refuses to budge from their positions, makes personal attacks, seeks only to maximize their own gains, and generally refuses to partake in principled negotiations. Fisher and Ury describe three approaches for dealing with opponents who are stuck in positional bargaining. First, one side may simply continue to use the principled approach. The authors point out that this approach is often contagious.

Second, the principled party may use "negotiation jujitsu" to bring the other party in line. The key is to refuse to respond in kind to their positional bargaining. When the other side attacks, the principles party should not counter attack, but should deflect the attack back onto the problem. Positional bargainers usually attack either by asserting their position, or by attacking the other side's ideas or people. When they assert their position, respond by asking for the reasons behind that position. When they attack the other side's ideas, the principle party should take it as constructive criticism and invite further feedback and advice. Personal attacks should be recast as attacks on the problem. Generally the principled party should use questions and strategic silences to draw the other party out.

When the other party remains stuck in positional bargaining, the one-text approach may be used. In this approach a third party is brought in. The third party should interview each side separately to determine what their underlying interests are. The third party then assembles a list of their interests and asks each side for their comments and criticisms of the list. She then takes those comments and draws up a proposal. The proposal is given to the parties for comments, redrafted, and returned again for more comments. This process continues until the third party feels that no further improvements can be made. At that point, the parties must decide whether to accept the refined proposal or to abandon negotiations.

When the Other Party Uses Dirty Tricks

Sometimes parties will use unethical or unpleasant tricks in an attempt to gain an advantage in negotiations such as good guy/bad guy routines, uncomfortable seating, and leaks to the media. The best way to respond to such tricky tactics is to explicitly raise the issue in negotiations, and to engage in principled negotiation to establish procedural ground rules for the negotiation.

Fisher and Ury identify the general types of tricky tactics. Parties may engage in deliberate deception about the facts, their authority, or their intentions. The best way to protect against being deceived is to seek verification the other side's claims. It may help to ask them for further clarification of a claim, or to put the claim in writing. However, in doing this it is very important not to bee seen as calling the other party a liar; that is, as making a personal attack. Another common type of tactic is psychological warfare. When the tricky party uses a stressful environment, the principled party should identify the problematic element and suggest a more comfortable or fair change. Subtle personal attacks can be made less effective simply be recognizing them for what they are. Explicitly identifying them to the offending party will often put an end to suck attacks. Threats are a way to apply psychological pressure. The principled negotiator should ignore them where possible, or undertake principled negotiations on the use of threats in the proceedings.

The last class of trick tactics are positional pressure tactics which attempt to structure negotiations so that only one side can make concessions. The tricky side may refuse to negotiate, hoping to use their entry into negotiations as a bargaining chip, or they may open with extreme demands. The principled negotiator should recognize this as a bargaining tactic, and look into their interests in refusing to negotiate. They may escalate their demands for every concession they make. The principled negotiator should explicitly identify this tactic to the participants, and give the parties a chance to consider whether they want to continue negotiations under such conditions. Parties may try to make irrevocable commitments to certain positions, or to make-take-it-or-leave-it offers. The principled party may decline to recognize the commitment or the finality of the offer, instead treating them as proposals or expressed interests. Insist that any proposals be evaluated on their merits, and don't hesitate to point out dirty tricks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Summary of "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Summary of Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In By Roger Fisher, William Ury and for the second Edition, Bruce Patton Summary written by Tanya Glaser, Conflict Research Consortium Citation: Fisher, Roger and William Ury. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2011.

# data[].attributes.headline
Harvard Program on Negotiation – Daily Blog

# data[].attributes.subject
Harvard Program on Negotiation – Daily Blog

# data[].attributes.body
Harvard’s negotiation think tank with case studies, techniques, and free training.

https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/

# data[].attributes.headline
7 NEGOTIATION TACTICS THAT ACTUALLY WORK

# data[].attributes.subject
7 NEGOTIATION TACTICS THAT ACTUALLY WORK

# data[].attributes.body
This article highlights seven practical strategies to improve your negotiation skills, such as knowing your priorities, using silence effectively, and staying flexible. It offers clear, research-backed advice that’s easy to apply in everyday situations.

https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/negotiation-tactics-that-work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Negotiation Tactics That Actually Work | HBS Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are things you can do in a negotiation to improve your odds of getting what you want. Here are seven negotiation tactics to try that actually work.

# data[].attributes.headline
The puzzle of motivation- Dan Pink (TED Talk)

# data[].attributes.subject
The puzzle of motivation- Dan Pink (TED Talk)

# data[].attributes.body
Explores how autonomy, mastery, and purpose motivate better than money or rewards.

https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_the_puzzle_of_motivation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Career analyst Dan Pink examines the puzzle of motivation, starting with a fact that social scientists know but most managers don’t: Traditional rewards aren’t always as effective as we think. Listen for illuminating stories -- and maybe, a way forward.

# data[].attributes.headline
Self-Determination Theory Overview – Learning Theories

# data[].attributes.subject
Self-Determination Theory Overview – Learning Theories

# data[].attributes.body
SDT explains the three psychological needs that drive motivation: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

https://learning-theories.com/self-determination-theory-deci-and-ryan.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan) - Learning Theories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Summary: Self-Determination Theory is a theory of motivation and personality that addresses three universal, innate and psychological needs: competence, autonomy, and psychological relatedness. Originators: Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan, psychologists at the University of Rochester. Key Terms: motivation, competence, autonomy, relatedness Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan) Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is an important theory of motivation that addresses issues of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. People have innate psychological needs:

# data[].attributes.headline
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – Simply Psychology

# data[].attributes.subject
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – Simply Psychology

# data[].attributes.body
Quick refresher on Maslow’s model and how it can help leaders meet team members' needs.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a motivational theory in psychology comprising a five-tier model of human needs, often depicted as hierarchical levels within a pyramid.

# data[].attributes.headline
Delegating vs. Dumping – Kyler Briscoe (Medium)

# data[].attributes.subject
Delegating vs. Dumping – Kyler Briscoe (Medium)

# data[].attributes.body
Explains the important difference between healthy delegation and unfair dumping.

https://medium.com/@bkyler2000/delegating-vs-dumping-1c4d0ab6da0f

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
" Don't you remember the rule we had when we lived with you? "If you don't work, you don't eat." And now we're getting reports that a bunch of lazy good-for-nothings are taking advantage of you. This must not be tolerated. We command them to get to work immediately - no excuses, no arguments - and earn their own keep. Friends, don't slack off in doing your duty. " 2 Thessalonians 3:10-13 (MSG)

Once some people become leaders on their job, they become lazy. They want the PERKS of leadership but not the WORKS of leadership. They enjoy having the title but don't want the task. The truth is that leadership is not rights, leadership is responsibility. When you're a leader, more is required of you.

I remember this " leader" on my job was ponding ALL his work on a former employee while he sat back and did nothing. He had a regular team member (who was making way less than him) watch over like 3 different departments at once. The leader who was salary was using the employee who was paid hourly and claimed he was just "delegating". There's a difference between delegating and dumping. To delegate is to entrust a task to someone. When you delegate, you're usually allowing a person to operate in their strengths and give them a chance to grow as well as help out. Dumping is having someone do something that you just don't want to do. It's being lazy and just trying to hand off your responsibilities on others. If you're just dumping your work on others to do, that's not delegation, that's abdication. What is abdication? To abdicate is to fail to fulfill your responsibility and it's abandoning your duty. We have too many leaders saying they're delegating and they're really abdicating!

When I first entered into the workforce, I was a bit naïve and took on more assignments that were outside of my job description. I did that in hopes of promoting into leadership but in a toxic work environment that got me nowhere. I eventually realized that I was being taken advantage of. I was doing the work of the leaders and was constantly getting overlooked for promotion. I remember one day some of the executive leads told me they wanted me to be the captain of the team (basically do their job) and I told them to give me captain pay. Don't add to my occupation without giving me more compensation. Romans 4:4 (MSG) says "If you're a hard worker and do a good job, you deserve your pay; we don't call your wages a gift." We should get paid according to the level of work that we do. If you add to someone's workload without adding any incentives, you're just taking advantage of them. Don't give people leadership responsibilities without giving them leadership rewards. If there's no appreciation and recognition, it's exploitation and manipulation.

I had to establish boundaries with lazy leaders who wanted to get paid but escape their job. I refuse to be DUMPED on! I refuse to do somebody else's job! You have the right to decline! Stop letting people dump their responsibilities on you! Only do what's in YOUR job description. If it's above your pay raise and it's not moving you further in the company- don't do it! Leaders, stop taking advantage of your team. It's okay to (we can't do everything on our own) but it's not okay to (try to make everyone do everything for you)! Don't accept the position if you don't want everything that comes with the position! Stop getting mad for having to do your job! That's what you get paid to do! You shouldn't make more money and do less than everyone else. It's time to WORK! It's time to LEAD! It's time to stop DUMPING!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Don't you remember the rule we had when we lived with you? "If you don't work, you don't eat." And now we're getting reports that a bunch of lazy good-for-nothings are taking advantage of you. This...

# data[].attributes.body
Great summary of how poor delegation can lead to burnout, inefficiency, and low morale.

https://www.tutorchase.com/answers/a-level/business-studies/what-are-the-effects-of-poor-delegation-on-organisational-performance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Dave - Qualified Tutor | BA Hons Economics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are the effects of poor delegation on organisational performance? | TutorChase

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Need help understanding the impact of poor delegation on organizational performance? | TutorChase

# data[].attributes.headline
HOW TO DELEGATE EFFECTIVELY: 9 TIPS FOR MANAGERS- Harvard Business School Online

# data[].attributes.subject
HOW TO DELEGATE EFFECTIVELY: 9 TIPS FOR MANAGERS- Harvard Business School Online

# data[].attributes.body
This article offers nine practical strategies for delegating smartly, including tips like knowing which tasks to delegate, matching assignments to people’s strengths, providing the right resources, and avoiding micromanagement to empower your team and boost productivity.

https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/how-to-delegate-effectively

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Delegation is a vital management skill. But for some, it's the hardest to put into practice.

There are several reasons why managers may shy away from delegating work. They might:

Think it would take longer to explain the task than actually completing it themselves

Want to feel indispensable to their team by being the keeper of specific knowledge

Enjoy completing certain projects so prefer not to reassign them

Feel guilty about adding more work onto another employee's to-do list

Lack confidence or trust in who they need to transfer the project to

Believe that they're the only ones who can do the job right

Whatever the reason, it's important to continue honing the skill, as refusing to delegate can have negative consequences. Not only will you overload your schedule and prioritize the wrong tasks, but your employees will miss out on valuable learning and growth opportunities.

Free E-Book: How to Become a More Effective Leader

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Delegation and Why Is It Important?

Delegation refers to the transfer of responsibility for specific tasks from one person to another.

From a management perspective, delegation occurs when a manager assigns specific tasks to their employees. By delegating those tasks to team members, managers free up time to focus on higher-value activities while also keeping employees engaged with greater autonomy.

According to a Gallup study, CEOs who excel in delegating generate 33 percent higher revenue. These executives know they can't accomplish everything alone and position their team to tackle tasks they're confident they'll achieve-in turn empowering employees, boosting morale, and increasing productivity. In the process, CEOs free up their time to focus on activities that will yield the highest returns and grow the company.

Here are nine ways you can start delegating more effectively to cultivate high-performing teams.

9 Delegation Tips for Managers

1. Know What to Delegate

Not every task can be delegated. For example, performance reviews or any personnel matters should be handled by you. After all, hiring the right talent and knowing each employee's strengths and weaknesses will ultimately make you better at assigning deliverables and transferring responsibility to the appropriate team members.

Several other day-to-day activities don't require your oversight, though. Is there a task you regularly tackle despite knowing your co-worker is better equipped to complete it? Would assigning the project to other employees help bolster their careers? If there's someone who could do the work better, or you think this could be a teachable moment, delegate. It will show you trust and value your team, while also giving you time to focus on more strategic projects.

2. Play to Your Employees' Strengths and Goals

Every employee should have goals they're working toward, and within those goals are opportunities to delegate. For example, maybe you have a direct report who wants to gain management experience. Is there an intern they could start supervising, or a well-defined project they can own the execution of? The type of work you delegate could factor into their professional development plan.

For other tasks, there's likely someone on your team with the specific skill set needed to achieve the desired result. Leverage that and play to your employees' strengths. When someone has a higher chance of excelling, they're more motivated and engaged, which then benefits the entire business.

How to Become a Better Manager

3. Define the Desired Outcome

Simply dumping work onto someone else's plate isn't delegating. The projects you hand off should come with proper context and a clear tie into the organization's goals.

"You've got to have real clarity of objective," says Harvard Business School Professor Kevin Sharer in the online Management Essentials course. That includes having alignment on "what does good look like" and by what timeline, and "the technique of measuring accomplishment."

Before anyone starts working on a project, they should know what they need to complete and by when, including the metrics you'll use to measure the success of their work.

4. Provide the Right Resources and Level of Authority

If the person you're delegating work to needs specific training, resources, or authority to complete the assigned project, it's your role as a manager to provide all three. Setting someone up for an impossible task will frustrate both sides; your colleague won't be able to achieve the desired outcome, and then you'll likely need to put that work back on your to-do list.

This is also where you need to fight the urge to micromanage. Telling your co-worker, step-by-step, how you would accomplish the task and then controlling each part of the process won't enable them to learn or gain new skills. Focus instead on what the desired end goal is, why the task is important, and help address any gaps between the outcome and their current skill set.

5. Establish a Clear Communication Channel

While you want to avoid micromanaging, you do want to establish a communication channel so that the person you're delegating to feels comfortable asking questions and providing progress updates.

"You've got to have some way to communicate so that the person you delegated to can come back to you and report," says Sharer in the Management Essentials course. "You've got to have some way along the way to see how things are going. It isn't fire and forget. That is, 'I just give you the task and I don't worry about it anymore. We've got to have some way to monitor the progress along the way without me getting in your way.'"

Setting up regular check-ins and providing feedback throughout the project can help with this.

6. Allow for Failure

This step is particularly important for the perfectionists who avoid delegating because they think their way is the only way to get the work done. You need to allow for failure-not because your employees might fail, but because it will enable experimentation and empower the people you're assigning tasks to, to take a new approach.

If you're open to new ideas and approaches to the work, you'll have an easier time delegating when able.

7. Be Patient

As a manager, you likely have more years of experience in your field. Because of this, a task you can complete in 30 minutes might take an employee a full hour the first time they complete it.

You might be tempted to refrain from delegating certain tasks knowing that you can get them done faster, but be patient with your employees. Think back to the first time you completed a specific task early on in your career. You probably weren't as efficient as you are now; your time management skills have improved.

As you continue to delegate and your employees become more familiar with the tasks that need to be completed, you'll notice that the work will get done faster over time.

7 Strategies for Improving Your Management Skills

8. Deliver (and Ask For) Feedback

In addition to monitoring progress, you should also deliver feedback to your employees after the tasks you've delegated are complete.

If a task wasn't completed as assigned, don't be afraid to offer constructive criticism. Your employees can take this feedback and make changes the next time a similar task is assigned. On the other hand, remember to provide positive feedback and show your appreciation when a task was done well.

To ensure you're delegating effectively, you'll also want to ask your team for any feedback that they can give you. Ask your employees if you provided clear instructions and determine if there's anything you can do to better delegate in the future.

9. Give Credit Where It's Due

After you've delegated tasks and they've been seen through to completion, credit those who achieved the work.

"Recognizing that success is because of your team is not only right, but it has the added benefit of making those around you more engaged-making you even more successful," writes HBS Online Executive Director Patrick Mullane for Richtopia. "It's counter-intuitive, but not claiming success for yourself will lead to more future wins."

The more you thank and credit those you've delegated work to, the more likely it is they will want to help you on other projects in the future.

Honing Your Delegation Skills

Delegating isn't easy; it's a skill that must be practiced and honed over time. But the better you become at aligning the right people with the right tasks and responsibilities, the more effective you'll become at your job as a manager.
Are you interested in further improving your managerial skills? Download our free leadership and management e-book to find out how. Also, explore our eight-week online Management Essentials course, which will provide you with real-world tools and strategies to excel in decision-making, implementation, organizational learning, and change management. This post was updated on June 2, 2021. It was originally published on January 14, 2020.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Delegate Effectively: 9 Tips for Managers | HBS Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Delegation is a vital management skill. But for some, it's the hardest to put into practice. There are several reasons why managers may shy away from delegating work.