It is human nature to want authority but not responsibilities. Authority brings privileges; higher pay, travelling first class, for example. Responsibilities can be delegated. So, managers universally have the tendency to grasp more authority and dump responsibilities to their subordinates.

Staffs have to make sales. The manager may claim credit if they sell well. Staff will be told off if their manager’s manager is not satisfied with the sales figures. The sales team will be halved, with the sales target uncut.

Staffs have to create new products. The manager may claim the credits if new products were created. If the new products turn out to be unsuccessful, the manager will blame the staffs concerned. The manager himself will have no responsibilities.

Staffs have to look after customers. They will be told off by the managers if there are customer complaints. Measures will be put in to monitor staffs. Costs will be cut, but customer complaints must be reduced. How that could be achieved is entirely the responsibility of the staffs.

Without responsibilities, a manager doesn't have to care about how targets are achieved. All he needs to do is to set the targets for his subordinates to achieve. There is a tendency to set unrealistic targets, with the intention to push the workforce to the limit of its capacity. Should things go wrong, subordinates can be blamed, punished or replaced. The manager is never responsible for the failure, unless his manager tells him otherwise. His manager won't if she was the one who passed the art of responsibility delegation onto him.

The first chapter in the first management book that I read listed the principles of management: matching authority with liabilities in among the first principles. Violating this principle damages an organization. (At least it will damage the morale. It could also damage efficiency.) Unfortunately, it is human nature to grab power and delegate responsibilities, unless the managers are constrained, e.g. by higher authority or by market force.

[End]