Leadership throughout an organization – including the chairman and CEO – need to learn to “let go”. If you keep pulling back because you are fearful of loss of control or fearful of risk, then there’s no chance for people to grow. And when you don’t have people who are growing, learning and making their own mistakes, you will get a much, much weaker organization. [1]
Ho Ching, Temasek Trust chairman
As part of my reflections on educational management, I plan to discuss delegation and trust in due course. In particular, delegation without trust is inefficient and frustrating for everyone.
Recently, Temasek Trust chairman Ho Ching commented that leaders need to learn to let go to develop people, something which echoes my thoughts on this topic. Therefore, I set aside some time over the past week to pen down some thoughts. I hope to work on a fuller version in the future.
Trust
The inability to let go reflects a lack of trust. Some leaders feel compelled to delegate despite the lack of trust. That is not ideal. There is a Chinese saying: 用人不疑, 疑人不用. Translated literally, if you employ someone, do not doubt them. If you doubt someone, do not employ them.
Trust extends beyond team members. Strong systems (e.g., processes and policies) also provide assurance. The inability to let go reflects a lack of trust in our team members and in the system. Dependable team members and robust systems enable trust which allows our unit to flourish. While it is tempting to focus on immediate results, investing in a strong foundation made up of capable people and a robust system pays off in the long run.
Example 1: Responding to generative artificial intelligence
The public release of ChatGPT in Nov 2022 highlighted to the world the potentials of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). The public availability of GenAI tools presented opportunities and challenges to higher education. As the person overseeing the undergraduate programme at my department, I had to manage the risks.
In the initial stages, usage of GenAI by students and staff was exploratory and relatively limited. As most instructors at the department are experienced educators, I could rely on them to make appropriate decisions. Our existing practice where instructors decide based on their best judgement and escalate decisions when necessary was robust enough. At that time, I could trust my colleagues and the system we had in place. I only needed to remind my colleagues to be cautious in this developing landscape and that my doors were always open if they needed a second opinion.
As GenAI usage grew both in number and scope, it was unwise to rely solely on the experience of colleagues. We needed a more robust system. I was fortunate that the university published a forward-looking interim policy for the “Use of AI in Teaching and Learning” on 5 Feb 2023, just 63 days after the public release of ChatGPT on 30 Nov 2022.
The interim policy provided the principles and guidelines that I could use to manage the use of GenAI at the department. There was a clear stance by the university: a blanket ban on AI tools is neither feasible nor desirable. The university also reaffirmed that our current practice of instructors possessing broad authority to decide operational aspects of their courses remains and that extends to the use of AI tools. This was complemented with a reminder regarding the enforcement feasibility of policies that one sets (i.e., don’t come up with a rule that you cannot enforce).
During this period of change, my role wasn’t to tell my colleagues what to do. I did not have all the answers. No one did, not even the university policy workgroup. Rather, my role was to work with colleagues to help them figure out a suitable response. This includes:
- Communicating the university’s principles and guidelines to help colleagues in their decision making. This includes keeping colleagues up to date with the latest policy changes.
- Consolidate the opinions of colleagues to serve as feedback for the enhancement of the university’s policy.
- Advise and support colleagues as required.
I believe that we were successful in our AI response. A visiting committee consisting of highly distinguished professors from the Georgia Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of Cambridge who visited the department in August 2024 were impressed and gave us the following comments:
“From a learning delivery perspective, we were impressed by the smart response to emergence of AI in education and learning. The message that AI should be used as support tool – one which will be used in the workplace and so should be applied appropriately and critically – seems to have landed with students.”
Visiting Committee, 2024
Responsibility, authority and accountability
In a conversation about trust, it makes sense to discuss the following:
- Responsibility: Duty to execute and accomplish tasks.
- Authority: Power to make decisions.
- Accountability: Obligation to answer for the decisions made.
At our department, instructors are responsible for their courses. Pretty straightforward. Faculty members of the department were carefully considered before hiring. Therefore, we can have a certain level of trust regarding their ability to take care of their courses.
Course instructors are also entrusted with the authority to decide most aspects of their courses. However, there are policies in place to facilitate appropriate oversight and control. For example, instructors who wish to utilize AI to provide student feedback will need to seek approval.
Accountability is shared. Course instructors are accountable for execution. I am accountable for oversight and control. Instructors who are uncertain about certain decisions can share their accountability by consulting me before execution (e.g., take ownership but justify by highlighting that decision was made in consultation with me).
I believe that trust in people and systems, coupled with clarity on responsibility, authority and accountability enables one to lead without micromanaging.
Example 2: Programme accreditation
In 2023, the accreditation of our Bachelor of Engineering programme was due for a renewal. I know that we have a strong programme. We just needed to gather the evidence and present them in a way that will be appreciated by the evaluation team. That was my focus.
The other aspects of the accreditation were left in the good hands of my Assistant Head and Programme Manager, both of whom are capable and experienced. Throughout the preparations, the bulk of the responsibilities and decision making were entrusted to them. I will provide suggestions but usually leave the final decisions to them. I do not recall a point in time where I felt that I had to intervene in their decisions. I believe that empowering people with authority, along with corresponding accountability, is important for developing a sense of ownership to responsibilities delegated.
I do not mean that we should never intervene. However, we need to be aware that every time we intervene, we take away some sense of ownership from our team member. Therefore, there should be sufficient reason (e.g., abysmal outcomes) before I would overwrite their decisions. My sense is that, in practice, many managers overinflate the consequence of mistakes and underappreciate the cost of diminished ownership. The question is not whether if leaders should intervene. The questions should be whether the benefits of intervening outweigh the costs.
The accreditation of our Bachelor of Engineering programme was successfully renewed for another five years. More importantly, the evaluation team reported zero weaknesses and deficiencies, which reflects their belief that we can be trusted to do what is right.
Develop people, improve processes
One may say that I was lucky because I already have capable people and good systems in place. To these critics, I say that having capable people and good systems in place is not sufficient. After all, I know of capable people who are still unnecessarily micromanaged by their superiors.
More importantly, it is unwise to adopt a binary approach towards people. Rather than classifying someone as capable or incapable, we should appreciate that every individual has his or her own strengths and weaknesses. The same is true for systems. What we need to do is leverage on the strengths and address the weaknesses. We need to be able to adapt and work with what we have.
More importantly, leaders need to recognize that people development and process improvements are part of our job scope. It is fine to complain about people and processes when you are new to the job. However, if those issues remain after being on the job for a while, I believe that some self-reflection is warranted.
Developing people takes time and effort. Improving systems also takes time and effort. Do not be distracted by daily firefighting. It is like trying to fill a pail with holes. Tiring work with little results to show. My experience is that it is hard to lead people to do tiring work that produces little results. People are drawn to leaders who are efficient, not those who toils needlessly. It can get increasingly difficult to get people to do things when they question the value of the things that are asked of them (i.e., why do you keep asking me to fetch water when the pail is full of holes).
I am not saying that we stop all operations. In many cases, the show must go on. It is like repairing a plane mid-flight. We do not have the luxury to turn off all the engines. However, we need to recognize that this cannot go on forever and must allocate some energy to address the root cause (i.e., patch the holes in the pail), rather than expend all our energy on relieving the symptoms (i.e., adding more water to the pail). We may not be able to turn off all engines, but we could switch off one or two to facilitate maintenance works mid-air. Don’t risk crashing the plane just because we are fearful of arriving late. Pause some non-critical tasks if required.
Conclusion
Leaders are expected to provide oversight and exercise appropriate control. Unfortunately, many leaders today struggle to find the right balance and exert excessive control to the determinant of all parties.
It is my opinion that developing a healthy trust can help leaders find the right balance. Trust in our people and trust in the system. Here, we are not advocating blind faith but well-grounded trust. I believe that a clear understanding on responsibility, authority and accountability serves as a basis for well-grounded trust.
Finally, good leaders don’t wait for perfect conditions. They deliver what is achievable in the present and steadily improve people and systems to make better results easier over time.
Reference
[1] https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companies-markets/ceo-egos-must-be-kept-check-prevent-them-becoming-emperors-ho-ching