THE IMPACT OF E F F E C T I V E D E L E G A T I O N IN

ORGANIZATIONS

A CASE STUDY OF K E N Y A R E V E N U E AUTHORITY

Unitea States inieniduoiim universiiy Africa - Library

BY

ANNE N. MPUTHIA

A Research Project Report Submitted to the Chandaria School

of Business in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the

Degree of Executive Masters in Organizational Development

(EMOD)

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

\

SUMMER 2014

U S I U - A

400000017931

STUDENT 'S DECLARATION

I , the undersigned, declare that this is my original work and has not been submitted to any other college, institution or university other than the United States International University in Nairobi for academic credit.

Signed: . ^ ^ - ^ ^ ' g Date: /s/yJ^V/'^ Anne Mputhia (ID No: 637968)

This project has been presented for examination with my approval as the appointed supervisor.

Signed

Dr. George O. K'Aol

: Date: X t i ^ ^

Signed: (S^^E- ^ Date: ^ - 3 iTu^H -̂̂ >

Dean, Chandaria School of Business

11

COPYRIGHT

All rights reserved. No part of this project may be reproduced or distributed in any form

or by any means or stored in a database without prior written permission from the author.

© 2014 by Anne Nkatha Mputhia.

iii

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of effective delegation on

Organizations. This study was guided by the following research questions: What are the

criteria for effective delegation in organizations, what are the barriers to effective

delegation in organizations and what are the benefits of effective delegation in

organizations?

A case study research design was used to conduct this research. The target population

consisted of Senior Tax Officers at Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA). Stratified random

sampling was used to select a sample size of 316 Senior Tax Officers. Data was collected

using a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was first piloted to ensure its

relevance and reliability. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics in terms of

frequency distribution and percentages. The results were presented in figures and tables.

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used as a tool for data analysis.

The major findings on the criteria for effective delegation in organization revealed that

majority of the respondents did not follow some of the essential steps in the effective

delegation process including: task suitability, task definition, goal definition, identifying

the right person and proper training. The respondent also indicated that staffs buy-in,

clarification of expectations, organization structure and role definition were key factors in

effective delegation.

On the extent to which officers experienced the barriers while delegating, lack of

confidence, preferring to do work themselves, lack of trust in employees, having

inexperienced staff and neglect in level of authority contributed to a large extent why

delegation was not effective. The other factors provided by the respondents on the

barriers that prevent effective delegation included not having enough time to do the task

and not having enough resources.

The major findings also showed that delegation benefits the organization as well as the

managers and employees by building and developing skills, meeting deadlines, enhancing

job satisfaction and improving productivity of the organization. The respondents also

iv

mentioned other benefits of effective delegation such as sharing of knowledge, improving

communication and facilitating teamwork among the employee and management.

The conclusion drawn from the findings of this study is that Senior Tax Officers did not

effectively delegate responsibilities to their subordinates. The study revealed that the Tax

Officers faced individual and organizational barriers when delegating. The study also

revealed that delegation has many benefits for the managers, employees and the

organization; it builds and develops skills, enhances job satisfaction and improves

productivity.

The study recommends that officers should be trained through various courses and

seminars on delegation in order to be effective in the delegation process. Tax Officers

need to consider employee's input during the planning process of delegation by arranging

for team building to enhance relationships and communication with their subordinates to

alleviate the barriers to delegation. The study recommends that a wider research should

be conducted on Kenya Revenue employees in non management to determine their

perceptions of delegation practices. A comparison could then be made on similarities and

differences between the two studies and an action plan developed to address differences.

The managers should be educated on the benefits of effective delegation.

V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to acknowledge the Almighty God for seeing me through the EMOD Program. I

would also like to acknowledge the contribution of a number of people.

1 would like to acknowledge with appreciation the effort of my supervisor Dr. George

K'Aol for the support, guidance and direction during the preparation for this work,

shaping my mind and helping appreciate research issues.

To my classmates and peers in the university in the many hours we spent together and

shared so much joy and happiness and for contributing so much to the knowledge we

have through the study groups and questions they asked and some of which they

answered.

1 wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to all my lecturers at the United States

International University whose guidance made my pursuit of knowledge both

comfortable and fruitful.

To my parents and other close family members and friends who prayed and endured; my

absence in a lot of important occasions and events.

There are numerous others that I cannot specifically mention, but to all I say thank you

very much; may the Almighty God bless you all and continue to show his mercy as he

has always done.

vi

DEDICATION

I dedicate this paper to my employer and to my family.

vii

T A B L E OF CONTENTS

STUDENT DECLARATION ii

COPYRIGHT iii

ABSTRACT iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT vi

DEDICATION vii

TABLE OF CONTENT viii

LIST OF FIGURES x

LIST OF TABLES xi

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background of the Problem 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem 3

1.3 Purpose of the Study 4

1.4 Research Questions 4

1.5 Significance of the Study 5

1.6 Scope of the Study 5

1.7 Definition of Terms 6

1.8 Chapter S ummary 7

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 8

2.1 Introduction 8

2.2 Criteria for Effective Delegation 8

2.3 Barriers to Effective Delegation 14

2.4 Benefits of Effective Delegation 24

2.5 Chapter Summary 29

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 30

3.1 Introduction 30

3.2 Research Design 30

viii

3.3 Population and Sampling Design 30

3.4 Data Collection Method 32

3.5 Research Procedure 33

3.6 Data Analysis Method_ 34

3.7 Chapter Summary 34

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS 3̂5

4.1 Introduction 35

4.2 General Characteristics of the Study Group 35

4.3 Criteria for Delegation 38

4.4 Barriers of Delegation 46

4.5 Benefits of Delegation 52

4.6 Chapter Summary 59

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 61

5.1 Introduction 61

5.2 Summary 61

5.3 Discussion 62

5.4 Conclusion 66

5.5 Recommendations 67

REFERENCES 69

APPENDIX I : COVER L E T T E R 74

APPENDIX I I : RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRES 75

APPENDIX I I I : TABLE FOR DETERMINING SAMPLE SIZE 79

ix

L IST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Tannebaum and Schmidt Continuum Delegation Model 11

Figure 2.2 Delegation Process Framework 12

Figure 4.1: Criteria to Improve Delegation 46

Figure 4.2: Barriers to Effective Delegation 52

Figure 4.3 Benefits of Delegation 59

X

L IST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Population Distribution 31

Table 3.2: Sample Size Distribution 32

Table 4.1 Gender 35

Table 4.2 Ages 36

Table 4.3 Current Position 36

Table 4.4 Years in Management 37

Table 4.5 Direct Reports 37

Table 4.6 Education level 38

Table 4.7 Frequency of Assigning Work 38

Table 4.8: Managers input whether Task is Suitable 39

Table 4.9 Define the task 39

Table 4.10 Identify key goals 40

Table 4.11 Plan the Delegation 40

Table 4.12: Identify the Right Person 41

Table 4.13: Anticipate problems 41

Table 4.14: Ensure proper training 42

Table 4.15: Establish Clear Reporting Links 42

Table 4.16 Establish Scope of Authority 43

Table 4.17: Agree on Time-scale 43

Table 4.18 Agree on milestone 44

Table 4.19 Establish Key Performance Indicators 44

Table 4.20: Give specific feedback 45

Table 4.21: Do work yourself 47

Table 4.22: Lack confidence 47

Table 4.23: No time to train 48

Table 4.24: Lack of trust in employees 48

Table 4.25: Negotiate boundaries 49

Table 4.26: Inexperienced staff 49

Table 4.27: Neglect level of authority 50

Table 4.28: Resist Responsibility 50

xi

Table 4.29 Success is my Responsibility 51

Table 4.30: Decision are Made Under Crisis 51

Table 4.31: Build New Skills 53

Table 4.32: Work Deadlines are met 53

Table 4.33: Employees become Committed 54

Table 4.34: Control less Difficult 54

Table 4.35: Growth and Development 55

Table 4.36: Performance can be measured 55

Table 4.37: Staff Satisfaction and Recognition Enhanced 56

Table 4.38: Manage Effectively 56

Table 4.39: More Productivity 57

Table 4.40: less travel and stress 57

Table 4.41: More time to manage 58

xii

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Time is a precious commodity for any leader and should be wisely invested in decision­

making activities that are distinctively suited to accomplish (Hughes, 2012). It is not easy to

recognize what it takes to be a manager. In a many organizations, it is not likely or realistic

for any one individual to carry out all essential activities to create, maintain and grow a viable

enterprise (Smith, 2012). Fact is that to become an effective manager, you need to be able to

efficiently and successfully integrate people and activities in order to meet your team's needs

and your organization's goals (Northouse, 2013).

Delegation as a leadership skill is very important for improving the efficiency and motivation

of supervisors and employees as through delegation they actively participate in decision

making (Heller, 1998). Many writers who have addressed delegation have done so in the con­

text of participative decision making. Yukl (1981) defined delegation as a subset of

participative decision making; most treatments of delegation have included it on continua of

processes by which subordinates may be involved in decision making. Broadly, delegation is

"the act of authorizing to act as representative or agent for another" (Mish, 2008; Smith,

2012).

Delegation is not only used for freeing up the boss's time but as a management technique it

can be used to build up your people and yourself (Lawson, 2007). A manager must ensure that

delegation happens properly. Just as significantly, as the recipient of delegated tasks you can

suggest improvements to the delegation process and understanding especially i f your boss

could use the help. This will give you the opportunity to 'manage upwards' and consequently

enhance your skills. Managing upwards is a central skill in delegation and this is determined

by the way you receive and agree to do delegated tasks (Finch & Maddux, 2006). To ensure

subordinate performance when letting go one must first, ensure that high standards are

established and understood by the employee. The boss must personally demonstrate these

standards and communicate them to the subordinate and organization at large. Secondly, the

vision and objective must be clearly understood and explicit. When delegating responsibility,

it should be described in detail, defining necessary parameters and establishing performance

standards (Smith, 2012). It is critical for the manager to know that the ultimate responsibility

1

lies with him. Therefore it is necessary to delegate as this helps an organization grow and

become successful.

In order for the manager to focus on more strategic and suitable matters it is best for the

manager to expand objectives and pressures to do more with less by assessing who is best to

carry out specific activities. At Kenya Revenue Authority ( K R A ) due 'to the pace required to

respond to collecting revenue on behalf of the Government of Kenya, the changes of policy

and regulations that require quick implementation, it is common place to find managers at

upper level increasingly in quick reaction mode. They regularly find themselves negofiafing

challenging activities, with overlapping and constricted deadlines. Performance in any

organization depends not only on the response of co-workers and work teams but also on

one's own behavior, (Sharma, 2008). This is why superior delegation and the response from

immediate subordinates must both be considered to measure the overall results on the

organization.

Extensive research categorically proves that the manager himself is the largest barrier to

effective delegations (Hasan, 2007). Other common reason managers at K R A fail to delegate

effectively, or sometimes not delegate at all, is because of psychological barriers, the greatest

being fear. A manager may be afraid that i f subordinates fail to do work properly, the

manager's performance will suffer. Axely (2002) cites fear for the consequences of delegation

makes managers sometimes argue: ' I can do it better myself, 'It takes too much time to

explain what I want done', 'my subordinates are not capable'. This results in managers finding

it difficult to identify a person in their institution who would be properly qualified and able to

replace them effectively i f an opportunity to move up the hierarchy comes along. In order to

get over any fear of failure, impatience or insecurity to delegate certain measures can be

introduced by managers for effective delegation. Not only may such measures make managers

better delegators, it may also help them not to be afraid to try at all (Lawson, 2007).

Ruff (2011) states that good delegation not only a time saver but it develops and motivates

your subordinates and grooms a successor. Poor delegation will cause a manager fhastration,

de-motivates and confuses the subordinates leading to failure to achieve the task or purpose

and in the long run may cause the organization not to meet its goals. So if s a management

skill that's worth improving. Delegation is a very helpful aid for succession planning, personal

development and seeking and encouraging promotion (Smith, 2012). Delegation enables us to

gain experience to take on higher responsibilities; it is how we grow in the job. Delegation is

crucial for effective leadership. Effective delegation is essential for management and

leadership succession. The main task of a manager in a growing and thriving organization is

ultimately to develop a successor and when this fails, the succession and progression becomes

dependent on bringing in new people from outside.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

When it comes to delegation many managers in many instances do not sufficiently or suitably

delegate to subordinates some are even reluctant to delegate any tasks or activities. Delegation

requires managerial skills and intent, which are necessary so that the manager can multiply his

strength through others (Ghumro, Mangi, & Soomro, 2011). It is important that

proper delegation is practiced to reap maximum benefit of the individuals, the organization

and to meet established goals. In fact, developing subordinates is one of the most important

duties that a manager has.

Luecke (2009) notes that when managers do not delegate he finds himself doing many or

most of the same tasks and this will lead to subordinates frequently come to you for

clarification or guidance, direct reports don't feel adequately prepared to execute, employees

become idle less busy than yourself this creates low morale, personnel turnover is rising, you

second guess subordinates decisions and personally redo their assignments, deadlines are

missed. This means productivity is low and managing the organization becomes

overwhelming and the manager is not able to make key decision and may end up performing

poorly.

The vast majority of literature on delegation consists of theoretical papers. To fiirther improve

research on delegation, it is important to do empirical research to test the outcomes of

theoretical models. Various researchers like Ruff (2011), have noted that a lack of knowledge,

skills, and attitudes affect delegation and decision-making skills. This is a result of inadequate

education on the subject during school. Other researchers include Smith (2012) who noted in

her research that the failure to recognize the need and benefits of depending on others in the

workplace which is brought about by some differences in leadership experience. Most

supervisors realize they need to delegate, most think they delegate well, but few actually do

(Urbaniak, 2011). Few empirical researches on delegation have been done. Bloom et al.

(2010b) have presented a survey of the recent empirical studies in the field of organizational

economics, including works on delegation. The most significant empirical study on the

determinants of delegation is that of Colombo and Delmastro (2004). They noted that in order

to reap maximum benefit from individuals and to meet established goals for any organization

it is crucial that proper delegation is practiced. In fact, developing subordinates is one of the

most important duties that a manager has. Skillfiilly apportioning tasks to less skilled workers

is a means to achieve this end (Smith, 2012).

1.3 The Purpose of the Study

This purpose of this study was to determine the impact of effective delegation at Kenya

Revenue Authority.

1.4 Research Questions

This study was guided by three research questions.

1. 1.4.1 What are the criteria for effective delegation in organizations?

2. 1.4.2 What are the barriers to effective delegation in organizations?

3. 1.4.3 What are the benefits of effective delegation in organizations?

1.5 Significance of the Study

1.5.1 Kenya Revenue Authority

This study will benefit the Managers at all levels to recognize the practice and impact of

properly delegating responsibilities. The outcome of this study is to enhance understanding

the process of delegation and the reasons they do not delegate so that modification to

delegation practices can be considered and benefits can be realized. It will provide insight,

information and understanding to Managers in the organizations of a crucial leadership and

management duties. The study will also help leaders do their jobs more effectively and

efficientiy through delegation. It will also increase responsibility in a more effective manner

which will enhance job ownership and improve employee motivation thereby enhancing

productivity. This will also help enhance the performance of the employees as delegation

brings about growth of the employee.

4

1.5.2 Other Organization / Industry

Other organization will also benefit from the findings of this study as it will serve as a guide

on how delegation can improve quality of work by allowing the employees who have direct

knowledge of products and services to make decisions and complete tasks. It will also show

how effective delegation motivates employees as it enriches the worker's job by expanding

the types of tasks that are involved in it. The study will also bring out the needs of employees

in the government sector and how to address these needs.

1.5.3 Researchers

This research will contribute to the package of knowledge and skills on enhancing an

organization through effective delegation. It may provide theoretical researchers with new

insights on the delegation of authority in organizations. Those insights might be useful in the

development of better models of delegation.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The study was mainly targeting the Senior Tax officers that are Divisional and Unit Managers

in Revenue departments at headquarters' office in Times Tower. This was to help understand

the delegation practices and how effective they were. Data was collected between the 13- 19'*̂

of the month of June and analysis done. The study was limited to the responses received. Due

to possibility that employees may have felt uncomfortable revealing their names thereby

distorting the accuracy of the results, the study minimized such possibilities by giving

anonymity to and promising them utmost confidentiality.

1.7 Definition of Terms \

1.7.1 Delegation

According to Lawson (2007), delegation is the process where a manager assigns work to an

individual which he performs, because of his unique organizational placement, can perform

effectively, and so that he can get others to help him with what remains.

1.7.2 Leadership

Leadership is establishing direction and influencing others to follow that direction (Lussier &

Achua, 2013). Northouse (2013), states that leadership is a process whereby an individual

influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.

5

1.7.3 Productivity

Productivity is an overall measure of the ability to produce a good or service (Stevenson,

1999). More specifically, productivity is the measure of how specified resources are managed

to accomplish timely objectives as stated in terms of quantity and quality. He also noted that

productivity may also be defined as an index that measures output (goods and services)

relative to the input (labor, materials, energy, etc., used to produce the output).

1.7.4 Responsibility

Responsibility is the duty of the person to complete the task assigned to him. A person who is

given the responsibility should ensure that he accomplishes the tasks assigned to him (Lussier

& Achua, 2013).

1.7.5 Authority

The power and right of a person to use and allocate the resources efficiently, to take decisions

and to give orders so as to achieve the organizational objectives (Lussier & Achua, 2013).

1.7.6 Accountability

This is the state of being responsible or answerable (Weiss, 2000). Every employee/manager

is accountable for the job assigned to him. He is supposed to complete the job as

per the expectation & inform his superior accordingly. Accountability is the liability created

for the use of authority.

6

1.8 Chapter Summary

The chapter has introduced the research topic which is to establish the impact of effective

delegation at Kenya Revenue Authority. It has described the background of the study, the

statement of the problem and the study objectives. The chapter further outlines the

significance as well as the scope of the study. Chapter two will present relevant literature

review on the stated research questions. Chapter three will describe the research methodology.

Chapter four will describe the data findings results for the study and chapter five will describe

the recommendations by the researcher.

7

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a review of the literature on impact of delegation in organizations. This

chapter also seeks to provide literature on the criteria for successful delegation, the barriers to

delegation process and benefits of effective delegation in organizations.

2.2 Criteria For Effective Delegation

The inability to delegate has led to the downfall off many leaders from presidents to first line

supervisors. Leaders should know the first step to becoming a successfial delegator is to let go

(Lawson, 2007). This chapter will help identify the criteria for effectively delegating by

looking at what is delegation and the delegation process.

2.2.1 Definition of Delegation

Delegation is the assignment of power and culpability from a manager to a subordinate to

carry out specific activities (Stroh, 2002). Mangers should however know that delegation is

not task assignment (Lawson, 2007) task assignment is simply assigning work to an

individual within the duties and responsibility of his/ her position. Delegation is not dumping;

you should take special care to make sure that the employee does not think you are trying to

dump unpleasant assignments on him or her. Lawson also states that delegation is not

abdication. The manager still has the ultimate accountability for the assignment.

Managers should note for this to happen there are three important concepts and practices:

responsibility, authority and accountability. Fleming (2010) states that responsibility is the

duty to perform an assigned task that is delegated from the manager to the subordinate.

Authority flows from the organizational hierarchy and is the granting of the ability to use

appropriate organizational resources in fulfilling a delegated responsibility. The necessary

authority to accompany the delegated responsibility must be granted. He also notes that a

proper balance of responsibility and authority contributes to successful delegation and desired

organizational and individual outcomes; whereas an improper balance undermines effective

delegation and results in undesirable organizational and individual outcomes. The third

element of the delegation process, accountability, brings responsibility and authority into

alignment by holding the subordinate to task for the delegation based on the responsibility and

authority that they have been granted (Hasan, 2007). Once the decision to delegate is made,

8

the management challenge is to ensure freedom and monitoring to optimize employees

productivity, efficiency and effectiveness for the good of the organizational growth. They

need to understand the process of delegation in order to do it effectively.

2.2.2 A Framework for Delegation

According to Andolsen (2008) one of the first objectives a leader must accomplish is

achieving a true balance between individual efforts and teamwork of the staff as a whole.

Delegation is a structured, sequential process and thus delegated tasks must be Specific,

Measurable, Agreed, and Realistic, Time bound. Ethical and Recorded. It's a quick checklist

for proper delegation. Using guidance of these tools the process of delegation is a step by

step process which is dependent on various factors. For a manager to be able to effectively

delegate, he/she must understand how the process of delegation. Different leadership practices

will impact delegation in different ways. Anderson, Rapp, Mueller, McConnell, and Lekan

(May, 2010) in their research identified two primary approaches emerged in relation to the

delegation roles. These approaches included "Follow the Job Description" and "Scope of

Practice." In the Follow the Job Description" approach, the participants felt that job

descriptions and facility-level rules and policies relevant to specific jobs determined

delegation processes. When ascribing to the 'Consider the Scope of Practice' approach, they

deliberately grappled with scope of practice regulations and how to organize care across

licensed and unlicensed nursing staff.

Heller (1998) mentioned several steps to effective delegating that is analysis, appointment,

briefing, control and appraisal. Luecke (2009), also came with five steps that determine what

tasks to delegate these are: how to identify the right person, how to assign the task, monitor

progress and provide feedback and evaluate performance. Various authors have outlined these

steps which come to the same conclusion.

There are tools that help in this process such as the delegation and review form by Alan

Chapman (2002), goal planning tips and template, and the activity management template.

Another tool is the Tannenbaum and Schmidt mode shown Figure 1. Below depicts a

continuum of management delegation relative to subordinate freedom. It shows the

relationship between the level of freedom that a manager chooses to give to a team, and the

level of authority used by the manager. As the team's freedom is increased, so the manager's

9

authority decreases. The model provides extra guidance on delegating freedom to, and

developing a team.

Manager Oriented Subordinate Oriented

Use of Authority by the Manager

Area of Freedom for subordinates

t t ' .Vr r.lgr Takes •Sells-Decision & decision announces

tAgr Presents Decision v ^ h Ideas & Invite Qs

Mgr Mgr Suggests presents Provisional tlie situation d e c i s i o n s gets invites suggestions, d iscussion iheti decides

t f Mgr explains, defnes parameters & asks team to decide

Ulgr al lows team to develop options i decide on ac t ioa wittiin (he mgr's received limits

Figure 2.1. Tannenbaum and Schmidt Continuum Delegation Model.

(Source: Tannenbaum, A., & Schmidt, W. (1958). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review, 36: 95-101).

Bruce Tuckman's model is also another tool that is mainly helpfiil when delegating to teams

and individuals within teams. In this model delegation shifts decision-making authority fi-om

one organizational level to a lower level (Hasan, 2007).

10

2.2,2.1 Delegation Process

According to Smith (2012) for any manager to conduct effective and skillful delegation the

framework shown in Figure 2. should be followed.

1. Determine and sort tasks for delegation

i i

2. Determine the right delegate

3. Define the scope of the responsibility project

i i ~ 4. Support associate and monitor progress

U 5. Review and assess results

Figure 2.2 Delegation Process

(Source: Smith, C. C. (2012, 28 Mar). Recognizing the Need For, Impacts and Benefits of Effective Delegation in the Work Place)

The delegation process is clearly outlined as follows: Firstly, decide and confirm in your own

mind that the task is suitable to be delegated that is whether it meets the criteria for delegating

(Smith, 2012). Plan a structure with delegation that is how much authority and influence will

the delegate have without referring back to the delegator. Subdivision of authority takes place

when a superior divides and shares his authority with the subordinate. It is for this reason;

every subordinate should be given enough independence to carry the task given to him by his

superiors (Lussier & Achua, 2013). You should also define the roles and also understand who

is accountable for what. Accountability arises out of responsibility and responsibility arises

out of authority (Lussier & Achua, 2013). The second step is to select individual or team by

determining what your reasons for delegating to this person or team. Critically evaluating

what are they going to get out of it. By answering these questions you will get a clear picture

and also be able to brief the individual effectively of the task or role required of them.

11

Delegation is deeply rooted in the essential purpose of management, which is to produce

results through people (Luecke, 2009). The manager will find out whether the other person or

team of people capable of doing the task.

Thirdly the manager assigns the task by explaining why the job or responsibility is being

delegated. A manager must clearly communicate to the person selected what is important and

relevant, where the task fit in the overall scheme of things and what the result required

(Ruber, 2006). Clarify understanding by getting feedback fi-om the other person by making

sure they know how you intend to decide that the tasks is being done well. Tammens (2012)

saw that communication in delegation is of utmost important, effective delegation can only

occur if there is a common understanding. At the outset of any discussion of delegation it is

necessary to verify that the parties of the assignment and the assignment itself are understood.

The manager will then support and monitor progress by discussing and agreeing what is

required such as the people, location, premises, equipment, money, materials, other related

activities and services in order to get the work done. They will then after getting your

feedback analyze the difficulties encountered and how to manage them. The manager is also

required to clearly state the deadlines for the task assigned and i f any delay should arise how

this may be handled (Lawson, 2007). And determine the priorities of the task i f it is complex

and or has parts or stages that need close monitoring. It is important at this point for the

manager to also confirm understanding with the other person of the previous points, getting

ideas and interpretation. As well as showing you that the job can be done, this helps to

reinforce commitment. Methods of checking and controlling must be agreed with the other

person (Smith, 2012). Failing to agree this in advance will cause this monitoring to seem like

interference or lack of trust. Think about whom else needs to know what's going on, and

inform them. Involve the other person in considering this so they can see beyond the issue at

hand. Do not leave the person to inform your own peers of their new responsibility. Warn the

person about any awkward matters of politics or protocol. Inform your own boss i f the task is

important, and of sufficient profile.

Lastly it is essential to let the person know how they are doing, and whether they have

achieved their aims by establishing checkpoints (Lawson, 2007). I f not, you must review with

them why things did not go to plan, and deal with the problems. You must absorb the

consequences of failure, and pass on the credit for success (Finch & Maddux, 2006).

12

2.2.2.2 What and to Whom to Delegate

Delegation isn't just a matter of telling someone else what to do. The literature has shown that

leaders and supervisors often think they are effectively delegating but are not (Fimstahl,

2001). There is a wide range of varying freedom that you can confer on the other person. The

more experienced and reliable the other person is, then the more freedom you can give. The

more critical the task then the more cautious you need to be about extending a lot of freedom,

especially if your job or reputation depends on getting a good result. Take care to choose the

most appropriate style for each situation.

For each example the statements are simplified for clarity; in reality you would choose a less

abrupt style of language, depending on the person and the relationship. At the very least, a

"Please" and "Thank-you" would be included in the requests (Alan Chapman, 2002). It's

important also to ask the other person what level of authority they feel comfortable being

given ( Luecke, 2009). When you ask, you can find out for sure and agree this with the other

person. Some people are confident; others less so. It's your responsibility to agree with them

what level is most appropriate, so that the job is done effectively and with minimal

unnecessary involvement from you. Involving the other person in agreeing the level of

delegated freedom for any particular responsibility is an essential part of the 'contract' that you

make with them (Colombo & Delmastro, 2004).

These factors of delegation are not an exhaustive list. There are many more shades of grey

between these black-and-white examples. Take time to discuss and adapt the agreements and

'contracts' that you make with people regarding delegated tasks, responsibility and freedom

according to the situation. Be creative in choosing levels of delegated responsibility, and

always check with the other person that they are comfortable with your chosen level. People

are generally capable of doing far more than you imagine. The rate and extent of

responsibility and freedom delegated to people is a fundamental driver of organizational

growth and effecfiveness, the growth and well-being of your people, and of your own

development and advancement (Bums, 2001).

Remember, to delegate effecfively, you must choose the right task, identify the right person

and take time to hand over the task with the right level of detail and support, (Nelson,

1993).When a manager is uses the tools and processes of delegation it helps him reduce his

work load and allow him to concentrate his energies in critical issues of concern. It helps the

13

manager to attain communication skills, supervision and guidance, effective motivation and

the leadership traits are flourished. Delegation also ensures the flow of authority is from top to

bottom which is a way of achieving results and meaningflil superior-subordinate relationship.

The process of delegation gives enough room and space to the subordinates to flourish their

abilities and skill and this motivation provides appropriate results to a concern. Tripathe and

Reddy (2008) noted that job satisfaction is an important criterion to bring stability and

soundness in the relationship between superior and subordinates. It also helps in breaking the

monotony of the subordinates so that they can be more creative and efficient.

It is therefore important that the manager/ individual like Salinas-Maningo (2005) narrates

that the right task, right circumstances, right person, right direction and communication and

right supervision and evaluation are the components of an effective delegation.

14

2.3 Barriers to Effective Delegation

Tanner (2011) states that effective delegation is a critical skill that can make or break a

manager's career. After all, there is a limit to what any one of us can do and both management

and leadership involve working with and through others to achieve desired outcomes. When

delegation is done well, a manager is praised for his ability to get the best out of his people.

Higher level managers take note of this manager's ability to run a productive unit and this

manager is considered for higher levels of management responsibility.

When delegation is done poorly, however, the manager is criticized for his inability to use his

human resources effectively. Higher level managers take note of this manager's limitations

and the under utilization of his team and they exclude him from further promotional

considerations There are many symptoms of ineffective managerial delegation including

micromanaging, the constantly changing project outcome, lack of communication (Hasan,

2007).

The root cause why a manager does not delegate effectively may be harder to determine

however. The root cause may come from one or more common human barriers to effective

delegation. Getting over these human barriers requires some emotional intelligence and

personal development. These barriers as Finch and Maddux (2006) stated are real or self

imposed by the manager, employee based or situation based.

2.3.1 The Obstacles

2.3.1.1 Self Imposed Obstacles

The first barrier is a lack of leadership experience. Corazzini, Anderson, Rapp, Mueller,

McConnell, and Lekan (2010) documented a paucity of leadership as a barrier to effective

delegation. To delegate effectively, the senior tax manager must be a leader. Delegation can

be a source of frustration unless the manager has the traits and characteristics of a leader.

Some managers insist on maintaining all control and authority due to insecurity and actually

fail to even meet the definition of a leader. A leader is an executive, a man who manages time,

resources, and people. A leader does not do everything himself; rather he marshals all of these

elements on the pathway to success.

The occurrence of poorly developed partnerships between senior tax manager and general

officers is another barrier. Corazzini et al. (2010) identified poor partnerships across staff as a

barrier to effective delegation. Facing poor partnerships, the senior tax managers resist

15

delegating responsibilities and simply do it themselves to avoid eliciting front-line staff

resentment. Superior's experience and personality can also be a barrier; a superior who works

his way through the corporate ladder will be more efficient in delegating authority to

subordinates than autocratic managers.

Many managers prefer to perform operating tasks, not management fiinctions, because they

understand those tasks better and know how to do those (Tanner, 2011). Others do not have

time to train their direct reports due to the job specification most subordinates learn on the

job and this leads to managers not knowing how to delegate and often do not know when to

delegate and to whom to delegate to. They need to learn that i f the limits of authority

delegated should be defined clearly. Generally delegation of authority with supposedly no

limits is not very effective. Ruff (2011) noted that managers do not completely trust their

employees, even their strong performers, they may fear loss of power or just be

uncomfortable with subordinates making decisions they made. He might feel that employees

will not like him i f he expects too much of them. "It is easier and quicker to do things myself

is a common fallacy amongst managers; they feel that they cannot afford to make any

mistakes. A manager may also be concerned about losing control; he might fear that with

delegating he just might do it too much that he might not be able to loose control (Lawson,

2007). Others are just not very interested in the development of any of his current employees.

Managers fail to keep employees informed about plans the supervisor has for the operation.

They note it is therefore important that employees must be fiilly informed to make the best

possible decisions for the organization (Ruff, 2011). Managers also have the tendency of not

requesting and /or utilize progress reports. This is when you do not have a method to check

employee's progress. It is important to set specific times to check progress from the beginning

of delegation through completion. When you do not ask for employee's opinion it shows you

do not value them. Therefore encourage employees to be creative and give their ideas about

ways to complete the task. Dumping projects usually occurs when the supervisor has not

taken time to plan the delegation properly. Without thinking the supervisor assigns the project

to the employee.

16

2.3.1.2 Employee-Imposed Obstacles

Delegation may be difficult because employees lack experience and competence. Due to their

tasks the employees may not be able adequately handle what they have. The team members

may resist responsibility maybe due to lack of motivation (Mohiedini, 2009). Most employees

fear manager's criticism and therefore avoid risk. The employees are not smart enough for

managers to safely delegate anything to them. Also, the lack of interest under hand to accept

the authority in KRA, afraid of interpellation and blame due to wrong decisions, lack of

sufficient motivation to take responsibility for heavier and lack confidence in themselves

(Mohiedini, 2009), can be a barrier to delegation.

Another barrier is attitude. Corazzini et al., (2010) determined attitudinal barriers prevented

effective delegation. A research team lead by Potter, 2010 identified five sources of conflict

as age, work ethic, role confusion, personality, and conflict. Attitudes are cited as a barrier to

delegation throughout much of the literature. Conflicting attitudes among officers can create

resentment within the division, section and unit teams hamper delegation. Attitudes come

from the values of people. The population in Kenya Revenue is diverse; there is a diversity of

values within the team. Diverse values are based on generational, cultural, social, religious,

political, and other factors.

2.3.1.3 Situation-Imposed Obstacles

Certain situations may cause barriers to delegation. These situations are most often lack of

resources, an unclear hierarchy and crisis situations (Atherton, 1999). I f either of these

barriers is present in your situation, make sure you remain flexible and do not blame

teammates for failures out of their control. Money is usually a concern for most organizations.

If this is a problem, try to work around it. Remember to be flexible. I f there is not enough

money to send your class on a refreat to Hawaii, be flexible with your destination. Not getting

your first choice does not make the whole task a failure.

In some organizations, it is difficult to understand the lines of authority and responsibility.

Fimstahl (2001) highlighted that staff and faculty members may share responsibilities, and

ultimate authority may lie with someone that is not always available. Be aware of the situation

and communicate clearly so that you may work to overcome this obstacle. The tasks may be

really important to expect a subordinate to handle it personally. Some employees cannot be

trusted to work on their own; some cadres of employees require constant supervision. The

17

success of work unit is totally the manager's responsibility. Most of manager's decisions are

made under crisis conditions.

2.3.1.4 Organizational Imposed Obstacles

Basu (2004) noted that a lack of well established organizational method and procedures,

coordination and communication coupled with the size and location of the organization may

hinder effectively delegation. The absence of a clear chain of command is a barrier to

delegation. Corazzini, et. al (2010) found managers had to accept uncertainty in their daily

work environment as they had to continuously negotiate the boundaries of the staff, scope of

practice and corporate policies and procedures. They faced Inherent conflict between how

their facilities are organized structured or staffed (chain of Command) and what professional

organizations required. The Managers at the lower levels needs to know for whom they work

and to whom they report this is because reporting structures and job descriptions need to be

reconciled with the managers' role and scope of practice rules. Due to the tall organizational

structure KRA and the sensitivity of various issues, the manager at every level needs to know

essentially who they work and reports to. Research reports delegation works better when there

is a clear reporting structure. Bittner and Gravlin (2009) suggests leaders need to address

issues here. In Kenya Revenue this is clearly seen as due to its size and its spread across the

nation delegation of tasks and responsibility is necessary. Where a clear chain of command

exists, Corazzini et al, (2010) reports managers will effectively delegating despite policy and

procedure conflicts within organization practice acts.

The absence of clear role definitions is a barrier to delegation. Role definitions can

significantiy reduce conflicts during delegation. This is seen in the organization where same

ranking managers tend to overlap their roles in matters that touch their sections. Potter,

Deshields and Kuhrik (2010) discovered respondents described conflict as the central theme

during delegation. A study by Mclnnis and Parsons (2009) revealed organizations should

augment the delegation process.

These barriers are echoed by other authors and researchers like Tripahi and Teddy (2008)

state that many managers are found unwilling to delegate authority and many subordinates are

found unwilling to accept it. To avoid ineffective delegation, barriers to delegation need to be

removed. I f barriers are not removed, even a manager with Dreyfus Model stage-five-expert

proficiency in delegation cannot delegate without putting the work at risk (Dreyfus, 1981).

18

The Dreyfus Model is the obtainment and development of a skill, which the manager

progresses through five stages of proficiency or mastery. The progression of proficiency

include: novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient, and expert. At the expert stage of

proficiency the manager has an intuitive grasp of each situation and a deep understanding of

the total situation. I f the barriers to delegation are not removed the only option for the stage-

five-expert proficient manager is to revert back to using analytic problem solving.

2.3.2 Measures Managers Can Use to Alleviate Barriers of Delegation

Delegation is one of the paradoxes of management (Stroh, 2002). It is often difficult for

managers to execute effectively yet it is considered to be a simple concept. There are

particular measures however, that can be introduced to make it easier and more effective:

2.3.2.1 Develop the Right Attitudes

To be truly effective at delegating, managers must have the positive attitudes about delegation

(Nelson, 1993). These attitudes are reflected by personal security: managers who lack

confidence in their abilities do not delegate or do not delegate satisfactorily because they are

afraid of being exposed or of surrendering control (Brown, 1998). A manager should be

willing to take risks in order to be effective at delegating, like allowing subordinates to make

important decisions. Managers must learn to accept and learn from failure when it occurs

(Undo, 1999). Managers must be willing to trust others to perform tasks for which they will

be held accountable. The manager when delegating should be fully aware of the limitations of

each subordinate. Quallich (2005) subordinates must be allowed to voice their own ideas on

how an assignment should be completed and managers who delegate effectively should be

patient and realize that delegation may not produce immediate results. They should allow time

for inexperienced subordinates to be trained in. They should also learn not micromanage but

allow subordinates to work on their own but make them aware of what is required by setting

out clear objectives and goals. They should be willing to allow subordinates to make full use

of the opportunity as this builds not only the person but also motives employees resulting in

organization growth.

2.3.2.2 Select a Suitable Employee for the Task

When managers are faced with having to delegate, they sometimes do it in a disorganized

fashion (Huber, 2006). They in turn faced by a crisis may throw out challenges to

subordinates in desperation. This can go either way as some subordinates may be able to

19

T handle the situation and others may not, which can have disastrous consequences for the

institution. Effective delegation rather requires managers to look at the subordinate in terms of

strengths and weaknesses and to consider these differences when making the delegation

decisions (McConkey, 1986). Delegation must be matched to the levels of proficiency of the

subordinate handling the task. The person's abilities, the importance of the task must also be

considered. I f the task is one that must be done in a hurry and with little supervision, the

person selected must have demonstrated ability in the past to undertake this type of work. I f

the task gives ample time to offer guidance, it may be advantageous to assign it to a less

skilled person and use this opportunity as a means of training and developing such a person's

I skills.

Weiss (2000) suggests the following guidelines that managers could use to analyze possible

candidates to whom tasks can be delegated: the person should be alert and active and

organized and confident. The person should be cooperative with both superiors and

colleagues, show sufficient self-control, be wiling to accept more responsibility and adjust

easily to change. In applying these guidelines to select a suitable employee for the task,

managers must avoid the trap of delegating to a few select individuals only usually those most

capable of handling a task. They must remember that delegation is an important aid for

assessing potential, training and development (Kreitner & Kinicki 2004). It would be

advisable to spread the tasks around to identify everyone's Capabilities and to train and

develop many of the employees this will create an opportunity to know those who need

training and development therefore needs to be established.

2.3.2.3 Set Objectives and Allow Subordinate Participation

If managers abdicate responsibility on subordinates without clarifying exactly what is to be

done, the expected level of performance and deadlines for completion, they are inviting

trouble and creating crisis. When objectives are not clear and realistic, subordinates tend to do

nothing or waste time on taking needless risks of making errors. Imprecision destroys the

whole purpose of delegation and leaves staff confused (Muir, 1995). Effective delegation

therefore requires sound manage-riel judgment in the setting of objectives.

Y To staff delegation of authority includes being involved in the decision making

(Ravanbakhsh, 2009) that is participation. The most effective delegation does not flow from

the superior to the subordinate only. Weiss, (2002) states that it flows both ways in the sense

that managers who strive to improve their delegating ability by allowing subordinates to

participate in determining which tasks they will perform, how much authority is needed to get

the job done, what are the set objectives and goals. Managers however, should note that

participation can present its own potential problems (Pollock, 2002). Subordinates, for

instance, may strive to expand their authority beyond what they need and what they are

capable of handling and this can undermine the effectiveness of the delegation process.

Most managers are willing to hand out assignments to their subordinates. However, all of

them are not equally willing to transfer their own authority to subordinates (Walker, 2002).

Providing subordinates with sufficient authority becomes a major stumbling block when there

is even the slightest reluctance to delegate. Managers must give subordinates the level of

authority commensurate with the requirements of the assignment; in other words, they must

give them the authority necessary to fulfill the responsibility that they were given (Nelson,

1993). The goal is to enable subordinates to complete the task, to make independent

decisions, to take initiative, and to continue working in the absence of the manager. With little

or no authority, the subordinate will be either unable to handle the assignment effectively or

will be limited to the method the manager prescribed for achieving the objective. By granting

too much authority, the manager might feel uneasy about the subordinate making a mistake

that can be costly in terms of time and money. 'To be effective, there must be an absolute

transfer of power within the agreed-upon parameters. I f the superior withholds even the

smallest degree of authority within the agreed-upon limits, the delegation is going to suffer'

(McConkey, 1986).

When delegating, managers should take into account the workload that subordinates will be

able to cope with (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2004). They should prevent overloading subordinates

with work too much to do in a given period of time or too many different tasks to do as this

may make them feel that doing the job right is next to impossible, which can have a negative

impact on their motivation to do well. Muir (1995) managers should strive to delegate

gradually instead of dumping a wide range of assignments on a subordinate at one time.

Forcing the subordinate to assume too much responsibility at one time can thwart the benefits

of delegation, especially when the subordinate is new in the job or has never received much

delegated responsibilities in the past.

21

Managers should guard against keeping the pleasant, more exciting tasks for themselves while

delegating the boring, trivial or unappealing tasks to their subordinates. Subordinates quickly

realize what the manager is doing and the respect they once had for the person may start to

wane (Lawson, 2007). It is necessary to maintain a balance between highly and less desirable

tasks according to an individual employee's abilities and interests. Managers, however, should

not be afraid to delegate the less appealing work. There are times that less desirable tasks have

to be delegated. Some managers feel guilty about delegating undesirable tasks and instead, do

it themselves, which may not always represent an efficient use of their time. The crux of the

matter that both pleasant and unpleasant tasks should be considered for delegation (Mondy &

Premeaux, 1995).

Managers who are unapproachable, unfriendly and demanding often create fear or resentment

in people (Lofland,J & Lofland, L , 1995). Such managers should not expect to get the

cooperation they really want from their subordinates. Subordinates are more likely to listen to

a manager who is a friend, to accept directions from such a manager and to be motivated

because of the friendship (Grant, 2001). Friendship builds trust and respect. No one likes to

disappoint a friend. I f a manager is a friend of his or her subordinates, those subordinates are

likely to perform well in the execution of their delegated tasks otherwise they may feel they

have let him or her down. Managers can develop a friendship with their subordinates by

treating them as equals on and off the job, by sharing interests with them, by inviting them to

engage in social activities, by showing that they enjoy being with them in both on and off the

job situations, and by helping them with personal problems and concerns. Sullivan and

Decker (2005), noted that managers, however, will undermine trust and respect in the

manager- subordinate relationship i f they make a habit of correcting work that has been

completed by their subordinates, to work on a task themselves although they have assigned it

to a subordinate, or to re-do the entire assignment after the subordinate has completed it.

Once an assignment has been delegated, the manager's role should be primarily one of support

and minimum personal involvement (Baston, 1991). This implies that the subordinate should

be allowed to get on with the task in his or her own way, but within the parameters defined by

the manager, knowing that he or she is available for support. In supporting subordinates,

managers should prevent answering too many questions and solve too many problems when

the subordinate should display the initiative. Effective delegation requires that people answer

their own questions and solve their own problems as far as possible. An important facet in

22

supporting subordinates is to share information with them. Neglecting to share information

with subordinates, for instance, about the importance of delegation, why it is necessary for the

institution and what outcomes can be expected; they probably will see delegation as just

another management play to increase their workload (Mondy & Premeaux, 1995). They will

not trust that delegation will really occur, and i f it does, they will not be sure whether it is for

the right reasons.

2.3.2.4 Monitor and Evaluate the Progress

In order to identify problems and challenges as they happen, managers need to monitor

delegated tasks. This is done by comparing actual results with established standards.

Managers should also appraise the completed task and discuss the evaluation with their

subordinates this way areas of existing and potential problems can be highlighted. Sullivan &

Decker (2005) noted that when evaluating a delegated task, managers need to determine

whether the task was completed as intended in a timely manner in the right way and whether

the subordinate was able to handle the level of authority that was granted.

2.3.2.5 Clear Staff Roles and Hierarchical Structures

Reporting structures and job descriptions need to be reconciled with the different managerial

role and scope of practice rules (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2004). Each manager needs to know

essentially that they report to in the hierarchical structure and the general officers to the

managers. Research reports delegation works better when there is a clear reporting structure.

Bittner et al., (2009) suggests senior leaders need to address issues here. Where a clear chain

of command exists, Corazzini et al., (2010) reports managers will effectively delegate despite

policy and procedure conflicts within practice acts. A study by Mclnnis and Parsons (2009)

revealed organizations should augment the delegation process and safeguard the authority of

the Senior Tax officers by continuously educating the entire staff

In the absence of clear role definitions is a barrier to delegation. Role definitions can

significantly reduce conflicts during delegation. Potter et al., (2010) discovered respondents

described conflict as the central theme during delegation. The major cause of the conflict was

general officers saw their role as being the same as the managers except the managers had the

responsibility to authorize some clearance.

23

2.4 Benefits of Delegation

Managers find that it is often impossible to do everything that needs to be done in their work.

Therefore, it is often usefial to delegate certain tasks to other people. As a result, it is useful to

know the benefits of delegation before delegating any task. Benefits whether financial or non-

financial create motivation and commitment among employees (Ghumro, Mangi, & Soomro,

2011). Delegating of tasks makes an impact on the manager, the employee and the

organization.

2.4.1 Benefits to Organization

Delegation gives subordinates the opportunity to offer new ideas, viewpoints and suggestions

that can improve operations in the institution and diversity of products, operations, and people

can be managed effecfively, making the organization more efficient and achieve its objectives

(Fleming, 2010). An institution is likely to produce a higher level of output i f managers

delegate tasks according to the skills and abilities of subordinates (Lawson, 2007). Perhaps

the most important benefit for the company is a higher quality of work (Malone, 1997).

Delegation can improve quality of work by allowing the employees who have direct

knowledge of products and services to make decisions and complete tasks. Quality can also

improve through enhanced employee motivation. Employees may do a better job because they

feel a personal accountability for the outcome, even though responsibility ultimately rests

with the individual who made the delegation. Motivation should also be enhanced as

delegation enriches the worker's job by expanding the types of tasks that are involved in it

(Lussier & Achua, 2013). Effective communication between the superiors and subordinates is

developed by team spirit when delegation is done. The subordinates are answerable to

superiors and the superiors are responsible for the performance of subordinates.

Delegation help maintains cordial relationships; the superiors trust subordinates and gives

them necessary authority. The subordinates accept their accountability and this develops

cordial superior-subordinate relationships. Coleman and Bush (1994) notes that it leads to

fomiation of units with membership which cut across the various departments and serve as

means of achieving team work, coordinating organizations activities and disseminating

information within the authorities community. Maruca (1999) states that delegation allows

distribution of administrative responsibility among multiple administrative groups, each with

a defined scope of authority and a defined set of responsibilities. In addition, delegation of

administration allows organizations to efficiently manage their infrastructures and enforce

24

their security precautions by enabling organizations to distribute administrative

responsibilities on the basis of least privilege, which ensures that the individual or group of

individuals to whom the task has been delegated can perform only the tasks that are delegated,

and cannot perform tasks that have not been explicitly delegated or authorized (Sraub, 1998).

Reduce administrative costs by facilitating shared administrative responsibility. For example,

administrative responsibility for providing account support to all accounts in the organization

can be easily achieved within a matter of minutes.

Delegation when applied strategically provides a fresh approach to competitive dynamics and

designing effective managerial control systems. It is distinct irom the traditional view in that

it emphasizes how delegation instruments, more generally governance systems, induce or

constrain externally oriented (i.e., competitive) actions whose impacts are contingent on the

response of current or potential rivals (Mclnnis & Parson, 2009). They can influence strategy

implementation (e.g., high-powered incentives can encourage managers to act in the best

interests of shareholders) and/or strategy formulation (e.g., managers who are compensated on

market share may craft strategies that promote growth), but, either way, the focus is on the

focal firm. Even when the external industry characteristics are taken into account, it is a

contingency and hence exogenous to the focal firm's governance choices (Datta, Guthrie, &

Rajagopalan, 2002). Strategic delegation theory complements this perspective by highlighting

that, under strategic interdependence, delegation instruments may arise endogenously to

influence the competitive behavior of rivals and, hence, eventually the focal firm's

performance.

Firms can strategically manipulate their managerial incentives and governance systems to

influence their managers' competitive choices (Tripathi & Reddy, 2008). That, in turn, can

serve as a credible commitment to particular courses of competitive action and alter

competitive interactions with market rivals or potential entrants, and can lead to improved

competitive performance. Therefore, delegation decisions may be both externally oriented to

shape competitive interactions as well as internally oriented to achieve efficient strategy

fonnulation and implementation (Huppe, 1994). When you delegate tasks to your team, move

the tasks around to different members. This will increase the skills of everyone and the

flexibility of your team. This may prove important i f one of your members falls ill and must

be substituted with another.

25

2.4.2 Benefits to Managers

By doing everything themselves managers suffer at least three undesirable results: they

hamper their own productivity; they limit their prospective contribution to their institution;

and any contributions they do make are often accompanied by fiustration and excessive

personal effort (Blair, 2009).

One of the vital criteria for effective managers is how easy, not how difficult, they make a job

(Yoder-Wise, 2007). They should measure themselves by the results achieved rather than by

the amount and difficulty of the effort expended. Managers should know how to utilize their

subordinates as this can help to make their jobs easier and more productive. Subordinates'

time is less costly in comparison to that of their superiors. By delegating, managers will have

more time to address and solve problems that would otherwise have cost the institution more

money. The manager hence creates time for planning, organizing, motivating, and controlling

by effectively delegating.

i

The greater the distance between the operational level and the superior to whom it reports, the

greater the need for delegation to the person on the spot (Lindo, 1999). Even with the

dramatic advances in technology in the speed and content of communication transmission e.g.

emails; there are significant losses that will arise when the manager is not empowered to act

quickly. Effective delegation facilitates faster and more effective decisions. By effectively

delegating an organization is most responsive to changes in the environment, both internal

and external, when employees closest to the problems are making the decisions aimed at

resolving those problems. As employees closest to the problem usually have the most relevant

information upon which to base an intelligent decision, decision-akin responsibility should be

delegated downwards in the institutional hierarchy (Nelson, 1998).

Delegation facilitates management development, delegation acts as a training ground for

management development. It gives opportunity to subordinates to learn, to grow and to

develop new qualities and skills. It builds up a reservoir of executives, which can be used as

and when required. Delegation creates managers and not mere messengers (Smith, 2012).

26

2.4.3 Benefits to Subordinates

Trust and confidence are fostered through successful experiences with delegated tasks. When

a manager demonstrates trust in any of his subordinates, most people reciprocate with actions

that show that the trust was justified. In this way, trust enhances the prospects for delegation,

which in tum enhances the prospects for trust and confidence (Lisoski, 1999). Through

effective delegation, a work environment can therefore be created where trust among the

subordinates who are recipients of delegated tasks can be promoted.

The delegation of tasks and activities which involve decision making and accountability is

essential if managers are to provide opportunities for the development of their subordinates

(Lisoski, 1999).Subordinates will be convinced that they are improving their competence to

perform i f they have opportunities now and then to participate in organization's decisions.

Through delegation, managers provide subordinates with additional challenges, broaden their

experience and assist them in becoming better decision-makers (Bass & Valenzi, 1994).

Managers, who do not delegate, deprive subordinates of opportunities to progress their

knowledge and skills and to assume greater responsibility. A sense of contribution and

achievement are central to job and career satisfaction and productivity in the organization.

Delegation is a channel to this end. Moreover, self-confidence will grow and employees will

be more motivated (Dao, 2004). Ultimately they may feel that they are falling behind their

'competition' in institutions where delegation does take place. This is often enough stimuli to

generate a posture of unwillingness-to-try, or a don't-care attitude. It will result in

subordinates leaving the organization in search of more challenging and supportive

environments and they tend to be employees that are the most talented, precisely those that

the managers can least afford to lose.

Effective delegation gives subordinates the chance to incorporate their values in the work

environment and, in many cases, to undertake activities of special interest to them. By

managers increasing subordinates' involvement through delegation he/she heightens the

employees' passion and initiative for their work (Fleming, 2010). Delegation gives

subordinates an opportunity to invest something of themselves in their work and giving them

a feeling of owning the work as well as its outcomes.

27

I

Delegation therefore enhances subordinates' sense of accomplishment and self-esteem, as it is

much more rewarding to be able to congratulate oneself for a task that is well planned and

executed than for another person's plan, which is merely executed (Axley, 2002). Thus,

ownership of the plan is almost always more satisfying and motivating than stewardship of

someone else's plan.

28

2.5 Chapter Summary

The Hterature review is just a perception of what the authors feel should happen therefore it is

the ideal and not the reality in the work place. The authors viewed the key criteria for

effective delegation as well as the barriers to delegation and the benefits of delegation. The

case study will be carried out to establish the impact of effective delegation in Kenya Revenue

Authority as stipulated by the authors in the literature above.

Chapter three will describe the methods and procedures used to carry out this study.

Specifically the research design, population and sampling design, data collection methods,

research procedures as well as data analysis methods will be addressed.

29

CHAPTER 3

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the research methodology employed in this study. It discusses the

research design especially with respect to the choice of design. It also discusses the population

of the study, sampling technique and sample size, data collection methods as well as data

analysis and data presentation methods used.

32 Research Design

This study adopted a case study research design focusing on Senior Tax Managers at Kenya

Revenue Authority. Cooper and Emory (1995) define a case study as a study focused on an

organization selected from the total population of other organizations in same industry. The

case study was appropriate for this research for many reasons. Firstly, the research design is

good for contemporary events when the relevant behavior cannot be manipulated. Secondly;

the issues in this particular research have been studied by other researchers hence a substantial

body of literature exists. Thirdly, it will give a representative view on the effects of

delegation and to be able to compare between different situations (i.e. section with different

characteristics, different unit leaders).

33 Population and Sampling Design

33.1 Population

According to Cooper and Schindler (2006), a population is the total collection of elements

about which we wish to make inferences. The population in this study comprised of 1,540

Senior Tax Managers from Kenya Revenue Authority mainly from Divisional Managers and

the Unit Managers in the organization (see Table 3.1).

(

30

Table 3.1 Population Distribution

Category Population

Divisional Manage Deputy Commissioner 40

Divisional Manage Senior Assistant Commis,sioner 200

Unit Manager Assistant Commissiona- 300

Unit Manager Principle Revenue Officas 400

Unit Manager

Senior Revenue OflScer 600

Total 1540

332 Sample Design

332.1 Sampling Frame

Sampling frame is an objective list of the population from which the researcher can make a

selection (Denscombe, 1998). O'Leary (2004) fiirther defines sampling as the process by

which researchers select a sample of participants for a study from the population of interest.

The sampling frame was obtained from the human resource department of Kenya Revenue

Authority. The study targeted a representation of staff from Divisional managers who

comprised of Deputy Commissioners (DC) and Senior Assistant Commissioners (SAC) and

Unit managers who are Assistant Commissioners (AC), Principle Revenue Officers (PRO)

and Senior revenue Officer (SRO) were used in capturing data in line with study objectives.

The list was obtained from human resources department.

3322 Sampling Technique

The basic idea of sampling is that by selecting some elements in a population, conclusions

maybe drawn about the entire population. In this study stratified random sampling technique

was used. This is a probability sampling technique where the sample is constrained to include

elements from each of the mutually exclusive segments or strata within a population (Cooper

& Schindler, 2000). Leary (1995) indicates that a stratified random sample will typically

reflect the characteristics of the population as a whole. The strata in this study was

disaggregated by hierarchy to address the fact that there is wide variance in the number of

senior tax managers within each subgroup (Table 3.2) which was departmental, divisional

31

sectional and unit Managers. In this study the population was stratified according to the

master list of employees.

3323 Sample Size

Sample size determination is the act of choosing the number of observations or replicates to

include in a statistical sample. The sample must be carefully selected to be representative of

the population (Descombe, 1998). A sample size of 316 was selected from a total of 1540 to

be representative of each category of staff as shown in Table 3.2. The researcher chose the

sample size based on Krejcie & Morgan (1970) recommendations for determining size of a

stratified random sample (See Appendix I I I ) . They came up with a formula whereby the strata

differed in sizes and allocation of sample sizes to strata was performed proportional to these

stratum sizes.

Table 3.2: Sample Size Distribution

Category Total

Population

(%) Sample

Size Actual Sample

Size

Divisional

Manager

Deputy Commissioner 40 40% 16 Divisional

Manager Senior Assistant

Commissioner 200 20% 40

Unit Manager Assistant Commissiona 300 20% 60

Unit Manager Principle Revenue Offices 400 20% 80

Unit Manager

Senior Revenue Officer 600 20% 120

Total 1540 316

3.4 Data Collection Metiiod

Primary data was collected by a structured questionnaire. According to Leary (2004),

questionnaires have advantages which include: they can be administered to a group of people

simultaneously, are less costly and less time consuming than other data collection

instruments. According to Suskie (1996), a perfectly reliable questionnaire elicits consistent

responses. Although it is difficult to develop, it is reasonable to design a questionnaire that

32

approaches a consistent level of response. The questionnaire was designed according to the

research questions in chapter one of this research. The instrument consisted of two major

sections: Section One captured demographic information while Section two focused on the

Research Questions that is Part I addressed criteria for delegation, Part I I addressed barriers to

effective delegation and Part I I I focused on the benefits of effective delegation

3i Research Procedure

The Human resource manager of Kenya Revenue Authority was contacted to obtain the

sampling Irame for the target population for the study. The questionnaire was developed by

the researcher and before actual data collection was done, the questionnaire was pre tested on

5 employees. This was to check the questionnaire reliability in collecting data and in addition

check for clarity with regards to the three objectives of the study. It also provided

recommendation on structure, content, objectivity of the questions, and consistency with

research. The results from the pilot study were reviewed and changes were made on the

questionnaire as necessary.

The questionnaire was distributed by the researcher to each respondent who included the

Deputy Commissioner(DC), Senior Assistant Commissioner(SAC), Assistant

Commissioner(AC), Principle Revenue Officer(PRO) and Senior Revenue Officer(SRO). The

respondents were sent an introductory letter (Appendix I) requesting to complete the

questionnaire by the researcher (Appendix I I ) and were collected by the researcher within

3days. To facilitate filling out forms and data entry in a structured format, the form was

ideally laid out with data fields clearly identifiable and responses pre-coded. It also

contributes to the likelihood of doubling the initial response rate, the researcher is careful to

avoid constructing a complex and lengthy questionnaire.

3.6 Data Analysis

Qualitative and quantitative data analysis will be used to give a clear picture of the research

findings. Data will be analyzed using the content analysis technique. This method is usefijl

and appropriate as it facilitates systematic objectivity and descriptive analysis. Description of

the study is achieved through categorization of material analyzed. Content analysis is also

useful in analyzing material from interesting questions, which are not answered through other

means. Data will be analyzed using SPSS. Descriptive statistics will then be used to describe

33

the data. This will include the computation of mean. The data will be presented inform of

frequency tables, charts and graphs for easier interpretation of data.

3.7 Chapter Summary

This chapter has described the methodology which will be used in conducting the study.

Descriptive design was used in the study. The researcher will use a questionnaire to collect

the data from the Kenya Revenue Authority respondents. This chapter explained the research

design, population, sampling design, sample frame, data collection method and Research

procedure. The next chapter presents the analysis of the findings of the study.

34

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the results and findings of the study. The purpose of the study was to

determine the impact of effective delegation in organizations. First, it gives an overview of

some general characteristics of the respondents. Then, the results for each of the delegation

question which is on criteria of delegation, barriers of effective delegation and benefits of

effective delegation are presented using frequency tables and graphs. A total of 316

questionnaires were sent and 310 were received back. This represents a 98.1% response rate.

4.2 General Characteristics of the Study Group

4.2.1 Gender of Respondent

Data was collected in regards to the gender of the respondents. As shown in table 4.1, the

male respondents were 53.2% while the female respondents were 46.8%

Table 4.1 Gender of Respondent

Gender Distribution Gender

Frequency Percent

Male 165 53.2

Female 145 46.8

Total 310 100.0

4.2.2 Age of Respondent

Table 4.2, shows the age distribution of the respondents which was grouped into the following

categories: under 30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-45, 46 and over. From the distribution, majority of the

employees are over the youth category of 18-35 years which represents 80%. This shows that

the managers are in the senior years.

35

Table 4.2 Ages of Respondent

Age Group Distribution Age Group

Frequency Percent

Under 30 14 4.5

30-35 53 17.1

36-40 106 34.2

41-45 86 27.7

46 and above 51 16.5

Total 310 100.0

4.2.3 Current Position

Respondents were asked about their position which they held. 43.2 % of the respondents were

SRO, 25.8% were PRO 12.9% were Assistant Commissioners, 12.9% were Senior Assistants,

and, 5.2% of the respondents were Deputy Commissioners. This is shown in table 4.3

Table 4.3 Current Position

Current Position Distribution Current Position

Frequency Percent

Deputy Commissioner(DC) 16 5.2

Senior Assistant Commissioner(SAC) 40 12.9

Assistant Commissioner(AC) 40 12.9

Principle Revenue Officer(PRO) 80 25.8

Senior Revenue Officer(SRO) 134 43.2

Total 310 100.0

4.2.4 Years in Management

Respondents were asked to indicate the years of management they had. Table 4.4 reveals that,

19% of the respondents had 1-5 years in management. About 27% of the respondents had 6-

10 years in management. Twenty nine percent (29 % ) had 11-15 years, 16.1 % of the

respondents had 16-20 years in management while only 8.4% had over 21 years of

management experience

36

Table 4.4 Years in Management

Years of Management Distribution Years of Management

Frequency

1-5 59 19.0

6-10 84 27.1

11-15 91 29.4

16-20 50 16.1

21 and above 26 8.4

Total 310 100.0

4.2.5 Direct Reports

From Table 4.5, indicates that 14.2% of the Senior management had 1-5 employees directly

report to them ,21.9 % had 6-15 employees under them, 26.3% had 16-30 employees report

to them, 20.3% had 31.45 direct reports while only 16.8% had 46 and above employees report

to them directly.

Table 4.5 Direct Reports

Direct Reports Distribution Direct Reports

Frequency Percent

1-5 44 14.2

6-15 68 21.9

16-30 83 26.8

31 -45 63 20.3

46 and above 52 16.8

Total 310 100.0

4.2.6 Educational Level

When respondents were asked about their education level, from Table 4.6 9% have some

college level of education, 47.7 % have undergraduate degree, and 39% have Masters Degree

while only 4.2% have a Doctorate.

37

Table 4.6 Education level

Education level Distribution Education level

Frequency

Some college 28 9.0

Undergraduate 148 47.7

Master's 121 39.0

Doctorate 13 4.2

Total 310 100.0

4.2.7 Assigning Work

From Table 4.7, the responses for assigning work were 36.1 % rarely assign work to their

subordinates, 40.6% sometimes assign work to their subordinates, 4.9% often assign work to

their subordinates 11 % routinely assign work to their subordinates and 7.4% do not at all

assign work. The results are presented in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7 Assigning Work

Frequency of Assigning Work Distr ibution Frequency of Assigning Work

Frequency Percent

Rarely 15 36.1

Sometimes 34 40.6

Often 112 4.9

Routinely 126 11.0

Not at all 23 7.4

Total 310 100.0

4.3 Criteria for Delegation

Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they apply the process for delegation as a

criteria for delegating. The frequency analysis aimed at revealing the extent to which the

respondents agreed with the statements have been presented in the tables and figures.

38

4.3.1 Managers Input Whether Task is Suitable

Table 4.8, indicates that 41.3% of the respondents disagreed that the task is suitable to be

delegated followed by 36.8% who strongly disagreed that the task was suitable. Only 13.5%

agree with the statement while 8.4% strongly agreed.

Table 4.8: Managers Input Whether Task is Suitable

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly agree 26 8.4

Agree 42 13.5

Disagree 128 41.3

Strongly disagree 114 36.8

Total 310 100.0

4.3.2 Definition of Task

Table 4.9, shows that 43.9% of the respondents disagreed on defining the task to the

subordinates, 33.2% strongly disagreed defining and only 13.9% agreed and 9% strongly

disagreed that they define the task to the subordinates while delegating.

4.9 Define the Task

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency -

Strongly agree 28 9.0

Agree 43 13.9

Disagree 136

Strongly disagree 103 33.2

Total 310 100.0

4.3.3 Identify Key goals

Table 4.10, indicates that 46.8% of the respondents rated disagree followed by 32.9% who

strongly disagreed and 12.3 % of the respondents agreed when asked whether they identify

key goals of the task to their subordinates when delegating.

39

Table 4.10 Identify Key Goals

Radng Distr ibution Radng

Frequency

Strongly agree 25 8.1

Agree 38 - - -

Disagree 145 46.8

Strongly disagree 102 32.9

Total 310

4.3.4 Plan the Delegation

From the study findings, majority of the respondents accounting for 44.2% rated agreed

followed by 30.6% who strongly agreed, 15.8% disagreed and 9.4% strongly disagreed when

asked whether they plan the delegation. The results are presented in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11 Plan the Delegation

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly agree 29 9.4

Agree 49 15.8

Disagree 137 44.2

Strongly disagree 95 30.6

Total 310 100.0

4.3.5 Identify the Right Person

As shown in table 4.12, 43.2% of the respondents disagreed, 34.5% strongly disagreed and

13.5% agreed that they identify the right person to do the task delegated while only 8.7 %

strongly agreed in identifying the right person.

40

Table 4.12: Identify the Right Person

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency

Strongly agree 27 8.7

Agree 42 13.5

Disagree 134 43.2

Strongly disagree 107 34.5

Total 310 100.0

4.3.6 Anticipate Problems

Table 4.13, shows that majority of the respondents accounting for 80% disagreed when asked

whether they anticipate problems before the delegate a task. 12.6% of the respondents agreed

with the statement and only 8.7% of the respondents strongly agreed with the statement.

Table 4.13: Anticipate Problems

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly agree 27 8.7

Agree 39 12.6

Disagree 142 45.8

Strongly disagree 102 32.9

Total 310 100.0

4.3.7 Proper Training

Table 4.14 shows that 44.2% of the respondents disagreed while 33.9% strongly disagreed

that proper training was availed where need. While 13.5% of the respondents agreed and a

further 8.4% strongly agreed with the statement as depicted by the table.

41

_ Africa-Ubrary

Table 4.14: Ensure Proper Training

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency

strongly disagree 26 8.4

disagree 42 13.5

agree 137 44.2

strongly agree 105 33.9

Total 310

4.3.8 Establish Clear Reporting Links

When asked whether there is an established clear reporting links 40% of the respondents

agreed and 40% strongly agreed. Only 14.2% of the respondents disagreed while 8.1%

strongly disagreed with the statement. (See Table 4.15)

Table 4.15: Establish Clear Reporting Links

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly agree 25 8.1

Agree 44 14.2

Disagree 132 42.6

Strongly disagree 109 35.2

Total 310 100.0

4.3.9 Establish Scope of Authority

Table 4.16, shows that 44.2% of the respondents disagreed who agree when asked whether

they establish the scope of authority being delegated 33.2% of the respondents strongly

disagree with the statement and 9% of the respondents strongly agreed.

42

Table 4.16 Establish Scope of Authority

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency

Strongly agree 28 9.0

Agree 42 13.5

Disagree 137 44.2

Strongly disagree 103 33.2

Total 310

4.3.10 Agree on Realistic time-scale

When asked as a manager whether a realistic time-scale is agreed on when delegating task,

table 4.17 reveals that 43.9% disagreed, 33.9% who strongly disagreed and only 12.9% of the

respondents agreed with the statement and 9.4% strongly agreed with the statement..

Table 4.17: Agree on Time-scale

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly agree 29 9.4

Agree 40 12.9

Disagree 136 43.9

Strongly disagree 105 33.9

Total 310 100.0

4.3.11 Agree on Milestone

When asked whether each task is assessed at the agreed milestones. Table 4.18 reveals that

41.9% of respondents disagreed with the statement, 14.8% agreed and also 10.6% of the

respondents strongly agreed with the statement.

43

Table 4.18 Agree on milestone

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency

Strongly agree 33 10.6

Agree 46 14.8

Disagree 130 41.9

Strongly disagree 101 32.6

Total 310 100.0

4.3.12 Establish Key performance indicators

From the study findings, 40% strongly disagreed, 40% also disagreed when asked whether

they establish key performance indicators to all team members delegated. Twenty percent

(20%) of the respondents agreed with the statement. Table 4.19 shows the distribution

Table 4.19 Establish Key Performance Indicators

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly agree 29 9.4

Agree 42 13.5

Disagree 135 43.5

Strongly disagree 104 33.5

Total 310 100.0

4.3.13 Give specific feedback

From Table 4.20, 42.9% of the respondents disagreed that do they gave feedback that covers

positive points and areas of concern followed by 32.6% who strongly disagreed while 15.8%

of the respondents agreed while only 8.7% strongly agreed with the statement shows the

distribution.

44

Table 4.20: Give specific feedback

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly agree 27 8.7

Agree 49 15.8

Disagree 133 42.9

Strongly disagree 101 32.6

Total 310 100.0

4.3.14 Other Criteria used to Improve Delegation

Respondents were asked to recommend what a manager should do to improve on delegation.

Twenty percent (20%) of the respondents felt that one should delegate to people who report to

you. Eighteen percent (18%) of the respondents stated that you need to delegate according to

the size/amount of task. This was followed by fifteen percent (15%) of the respondents who

felt that one need staff buy in to achieve it. Fifteen percent 15% of the respondents felt that a

manager should talk about the consequences of the results of the tasks. Ten percent (10%) of

the respondents also noted that to have efficient delegation it will be good to define roles and

a fiirther Ten percent (10%) stated that one need to delegate results not the process. Others

stated that a manager should also establish checkpoints, ensure Open communication is

important when delegating across functional areas or through different levels of an

organizafion. And a final 2% say you need to clarify your expectation. Figure 4.1 shows

distribution of responses.

45

Organization Structure

Individual V Team g

Staff buy in

Talk about consequences

Define your role

Delegate the results, not the process

10 15 20 25

B Percentage

Figure 4.1: Criteria to Improve Delegation

4.4 Barriers of Delegation

The Respondents were asked to rate whether the obstacles affect how they delegate tasks. The

responses are shown in the tables below.

4.4.1 Work Yourself

Table 4.21 shows that the respondents accounting for 39% agreed that they prefer to do work

themselves, while 32.3% strongly agreed, 17.7% disagreed and 11% strongly agreed that they

prefer to do the work themselves.

46

Table 4.21: Do Work yourself

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly disagree 34 11.0

Disagree 55 17.7

Agree 121 39.0

Strongly agree 100 32.3

Total 310 100.0

4.4.2 Lack Confidence

About forty four percent (44.2%) of the respondents agreed that they lack confidence in their

staff to complete tasks and 33.2 % strongly agreed while 13.5% disagreed with the statement

and 9% strongly disagree. Table 4.22 shows the distribution.

Table 4.22: Lack Confidence

Rating Distri bution Rating

Frequency

Strongly disagree 28 9.0

Disagree 42 13.5

Agree 137 44.2

Strongly agree 103 33.2

Total 310 100.0

4.4.3 No time to Train

Table 4.23 shows that 46.8% agreed that there was no time to train their direct reports

followed by 31.3% who strongly agreed. A Further 13.2% of the respondents disagreed with

the statement and 8.7% of the respondents strongly disagreed with the statement.

47

Table 4.23: No Time to Train

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency

Strongly disagree 27 8.7

Disagree 41 13.2

Agree 145 46.8

Strongly agree 97 31.3

Total 310 100.0

4.4.4 No trust in employees

From Table 4.24, 46.5% of the respondents agreed they did not trust their employees even

their strong performers while only 31.6 % of the respondents strongly agreed with the

statement while 13.5 disagrees with the statement. Only 8.4% strongly disagreed.

Table 4.24: No Trust in Employees

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly disagree 26 8.4

Disagree 42 13.5

Agree 144 46.5

Strongly agree 98 31.6

Total 310 100.0

4.4.5 Negotiate Boundaries

As shown in table 4.25, majority of the respondents accounting for 44.8% agreed followed by

32.9% who strongly agreed when asked whether the continuously negotiate the boundaries of

the staff, scope of practice and corporate policies and procedures . 14.2 % disagreed with the

statement and 8.1 % of the respondents strongly disagree with the statement.

48

Table 4.25: Negotiate Boundaries

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency

Strongly disagree 25 8.1

Disagree 44 14.2

Agree 139 44.8

Strongly agree 102 32.9

Total 310 100.0

4.4.6 Inexperienced Staff

As shown in table 4.26, 45.5% & 31.9% agreed and strongly agreed respectively when asked

whether they do not delegate because their staff lack experience and competence. Only 14.2%

of the respondents disagreed with the statement and 8.4%) strongly disagreed.

Table 4.26: Inexperienced staff

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly disagree 26 8.4

Disagree 44 14.2

Agree 141 45.5

Strongly agree 99 31.9

Total 310 100.0

4.4.7 Neglect Level of Authority

Table 4.27, indicate that, 43.5% agreed that they neglect to tell staff and other people their

level of authority, 36.1% strongly agreed with the statement. While 8.4%) strongly disagreed

and 11.9% disagreed with the statement.

49

Table 4.27: Neglect level of authority

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency

Strongly disagree 26 8.4

Disagree 37 11.9

Agree 135 43.5

Strongly agree 112 36.1

Total 310 100.0

4.4.8 Resist Responsibility

Table 4.28 shows that 46.5% of the respondents agreed that the team members resist

responsibility. A fiirther 30.6% of the respondents strongly agreed with the statement and

only 14.6% of the respondents disagreed with the statement while only 8.4% strongly

disagreed with the statement

Table 4.28: Resist Responsibility

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly disagree 26 8.4

Disagree 45 14.5

Agree 144 46.5

Strongly agree 95 30.6

Total 310 100.0

4.4.9 Success is my Responsibility

From the study findings, 52.5 % of the respondents agreed that success of their work is totally

their responsibility, while 27.9% who strongly agreed. Only 11.6% of the respondents

disagreed with the statement. Table 4.29 shows the distribufion.

50

Table 4.29 Success is my Responsibility

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly disagree 28 9.0

Disagree 36 11.6

Agree 156 52.5

Strongly agree 90 27.9

Total 310 100.0

4.4.10 Decision are Made under Crisis

When respondents were asked whether most of their decisions were made under crisis 47.4%

of the respondents agreed; while 31% of the respondents strongly agreed with the statement,

11.9% disagreed while only 9.7% strongly disagreed with the statement. The results are

shown in Table 4.30.

Table 4.30: Decision are Made under Crisis

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly disagree 30 9.7

Disagree 37 11.9

Agree 147 47.4

Strongly agree 96 31.0

Total 310 100.0

4.4.11 Other Barriers to Effective Delegation

Respondents were asked to state what other key barriers they face when they decide to

delegate. Thirty percent (30%) of the respondents stated that they lose out on getting the

credit for the work. This was followed by twenty five percent (25%) of the respondents not

having enough resources barred them fi-om delegating. Fifteen percent (15%) of the

respondents felt that their subordinates did not have enough time to take on other tasks.

Twelve percent (12%) of the respondents found it hard to delegate these tasks and a further

ten percent (10%) say that their subordinate fear being a scapegoat. And a final 8% say they

might delegate themselves out of a job. Figure 4.3 above shows distribufion of responses

51

Barr ie rs to Effective Delegation

Figure 4.2: Barriers to Effective Delegation

4.5 Benefits of Delegation

The Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which delegation is a benefit to the manager,

organization and the employees. The responses are shown in the tables below.

4.5.1 Build New Skills

Table 4.31 shows that the majority of the respondents accounting for 45.8% strongly agreed

that delegation builds new employee skills and strengthen existing ones.31.6% strongly

agreed when asked whether delegation builds new employee skills and strengthen existing

ones. About twelve (12.9%) of the respondents disagreed with the statement and 9.7% of the

respondents strongly disagreed.

52

Table 4.31: Build New Skills

Rating Distribut ion Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly disagree 30 9.7

Disagree 40 12.9

Agree 98 31.6

Strongly agree 142 45.8

Total 310 100.0

4.5.2 Work Deadlines are met

Table 4.32 indicates that, 46.1% of the respondents agreed that through delegation more work

is accomplished and deadlines can be met more easily, 31% strongly agreed with this

statement, 13.2% disagreed with the statement and a fiarther 9.7% of the respondents strongly

disagreed with the statement.

Table 4.32: Work Deadlines are met

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly disagree 30 9.7

Disagree 41 13.2

Agree 143 46.1

Strongly agree 96 31.0

Total 310 100.0

4.5.3 Employees become Committed

Table 4.33 shows that the majority of the respondents accounting for 49.7% agreed that

delegation helps employees become involved and committed, 31.9% who strongly agreed

with the statement, 10% of the respondent disagreed and a fiirther 8.4% strongly disagreed

with the statement.

53

Table 4.33: Employees become Committed

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency

Strongly disagree 26 8.4

Disagree 31 10.0

Agree 154 49.7

Strongly agree 99 31.9

Total 310 100.0

4.5.4 Control is less difficult

Table 4.34; indicates that, 46.5% of the respondents strongly agreed that the assignment of

specific responsibility and authority makes control less difficult, 33.5% agreed. Only 9% of

the respondents strongly disagreed with the statement while 11% disagreed with the

statement.

Table 4.34: Control less Difficult

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly disagree 28 9.0

Disagree 34 11.0

Agree 104 33.5.

Strongly agree 144 46.5

Total 310 100.0

4.5.5 Growth and Development

Table 4.35 indicates that 47.4% of the respondents agreed when asked whether delegation

helps employees grow and develop, 29.4% strongly agreed with the statement and 12.6% of

the respondents disagreed and 10.6 strongly disagreed with the statement.

54

Table 4.35: Growth and Development

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency

Strongly disagree 33 10.6

Disagree 39 12.6

Agree 147 47.4

Strongly agree 91 90 A

Total 310 100.0

4.5.6 Performance can be measured

Table 4.36 shows that the majority of the respondents accounting for 46.1% rated agreed that

individual performance can be measured more accurately. Thirty one (31%) of the

respondents strongly agreed with the statement. And 9.4% strongly disagreed with the

statement.

Table 4.36: Performance can be measured

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly disagree 29 9.4

Disagree 42 13.5

Agree 143 46.1

Strongly agree 96 31.0

Total 310 100.0

4.5.7 Staff Satisfaction and Recognition Enhanced

Table 4.37 shows that, 43.5% agreed that delegation enhance employee satisfaction and

recognition. Only 29.4% of the respondents strongly agreed with the statement. About Nine

percent (8.7%) of the respondents disagreed with the statement while 18.4% strongly

disagreed.

55

Table 4.37: Staff Satisfaction and Recognition Enhanced

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly disagree 57 18.4

Disagree 27 8.7

Agree 135 43.5

Strongly agree 91 29.4

Total 310 100.0

4.5.8 Manage Effectively

When asked whether a diversity of products, operation and people can be managed more

effectively, 44.5% of the respondents disagreed, 32.3% of the respondents strongly disagreed

with the statement while 13.9% agreed with the statement. The distribution is shown in table

4.38

Table 4.38: Manage Effectively

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly disagree 100

Disagree 138 44.5

Agree 43

Strongly agree 29 9.3

Total 310

4.5.9 More Productivity

Table 4.39 shows that the majority of the respondents accounting for 45.5% agreed and 30.3

strongly agreed that staffs are more fully and productivity improves and 15.2% disagreed with

the statement and 9% strongly disagreed with the statement.

56

Table 4.39: More Productivity

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency Percent

Strongly disagree 28 9.0

Disagree 47 15.2

Agree 141 45.5

Strongly agree 94 30.3

Total 310 100.0

4.5.10 Less Travel and Stress

Table 4.40 shows that 45.5% of the respondents agreed and 30.3%) strongly agreed that

delegation helped distance operations are managed with less stress and travel while 13.2 % of

the respondents disagreed and 11% strongly disagreed with the statement.

Table 4.40: less travel and stress

Rating Distri jution Rating

Frequency

Strongly disagree 28 11.0

Disagree 47 13.2

Agree 141 45.5

Strongly agree 94 in T.

Total 310 100.0

4.5.11 More Time to Manage

Table 4.41 indicates that the majority of the respondents accounting for 45.2% agreed that

delegation allows a manager more time to plan organize, motivate and control the

organization. Thirty two percent (32.9%) strongly agreed with the statement and 13.9% of the

respondents disagreed with the statement.

57

Table 4.41: More time to manage

Rating Distribution Rating

Frequency

Strongly disagree 25 8.1

Disagree 43 13.9

Agree 140 45.2

Strongly agree 102 32.9

Total 310 100.0

4.5.12: Benefits of Effective Delegation

Respondents were asked to state other benefit that arises from effective delegation. Twenty

percent (20%) of the respondents felt that delegation helps the organization as knowledge is

shared. Another Twenty percent (20%) saw that delegation increases management experience.

Eighteen percent (18%) of the respondents stated that by delegation communication amongst

managers and subordinates is improved. This was followed by Fifteen percent (15%) of the

respondents who felt that delegation facilitates teamwork. Twelve percent (12%) of the

respondents felt it also incorporates fresh perspectives and creative way as it allows staff

engagement. Ten percent (10%) of the respondents also noted it also gives appropriate

recognition to those participating in the tasks delegated. And a final five percent (5%) say that

delegation gives a sense of achievement. Figure 4.3 shows distribution of responses

58

Bene f i t s of E f fec t i ve De lega t ion

sharing knowledge 20

increases your management experience

improves communication 18

fecilitates teamwork 15

incorporates fresh perspectives and creati\

ways ] 1 2

appropriate recognition 10

0 5 10 15 • % I

20 2 5

Figure 4.3 Benefits of Delegation

4.6 Chapter Summary

In this chapter the findings were obtained from questionnaires administered to senior

employees at Kenya Revenue Authority, the findings of the study were based on the research

questions. The findings were presented in frequency tables and figures.

The study revealed managers did follow the process of delegation. They did not choose

suitable tasks to be delegated, nor define the task, they also did not identify goals for the

subordinates to achieve nor identify the right person for the task and they also did not

properly train their subordinates.

From the findings managers experienced the following obstacles individually and also noticed

barriers presented by those they delegate to as: lack of confidence, managers prefer to do the

work themselves, having no time to train, lack of trust in employees, having inexperienced

staff and neglect in level of authority were some of the barriers to effective delegation. The

other factors that were provided by the respondents on the barriers that prevent effective

delegation include: not having enough resources and not getting credit.

59

The managers are also aware of the benefits of effective delegation even though they do not

follow the process of effective delegation these include: building and developing skills,

meeting deadlines, enhancing satisfaction and commitment, managing effectively, improved

productivity which many of the respondents revealed.

60

CHAPTER F I V E

5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the summary, discussions, conclusions and recommendations. The first

section of this chapter will give the summary of the methodology of the study of the major

findings. The second section discusses the findings based on the research question. The

subsequent section will discuss the conclusions drawn from the findings and discussions. The

chapter concludes by giving recommendations for improvement and further studies.

5.2 Summary

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of effective delegation at Kenya

Revenue Authority. The study was guided by the following research questions: What are the

criteria used for effective delegation in organizations? What are the barriers to effective

delegation in organizations? What are the benefits of Delegafing in organizations?

The research design used in this study was a case study design focusing on Kenya Revenue

Authority a Government Parastatal with the mandate of collecting taxes on behalf of the

Government of Kenya. The target population was 1540 in total from Senior Tax Managers.

Stratified random technique was used to select a sample size of 316 respondents. The data

was collected using questionnaires. The collected data was analyzed using descriptive

statistics in terms of frequencies and percentages and presented in tables and figures.

Statistical Package for Social Scientist (SPSS) was used as a tool for data analysis.

The findings on the criteria for effective delegation revealed that respondents felt that

managers should delegate to those who report to them in the organization. The majority of the

respondents agreed that using teamwork for complex tasks and an individual for easier tasks

help delegation become effective. The respondents also talked about having staff buy in the

tasks would go a long way to successfully delegating. The manager should also have

checkpoints and clearly communicate on the job and finally establish expectation of the task

delegated.

Regarding the extent to which the barriers affect delegation process at K R A , the respondents

mentioned some barriers as: they would not get credit i f they delegated, some stated that by

61

delegating they lost tasks they enjoyed performing. Others were afraid they would delegate

out of their Job. They also observed that some of their staff did not have enough time to take

on other duties and some of their employees feared that managers would use them as

scapegoats. There was also the issue of not having enough resources to which an employee

would use to handle the tasks delegated.

Regarding the benefits of effective delegations most of the managers stated that delegation

augmented management experience by learning how to effectively assign, coordinate, and

administrate tasks. It also helped incorporate fresh perspectives and creative ways to fialfill

responsibilities. Other respondents say it allows appropriate recognition of member

contributions, and others say that delegation brings a sense of achievement. It allows sharing

knowledge, you and your organization will achieve more by working with well-trained,

motivated members. It also improves communication and facilitates teamwork.

5.3 Discussion

5.3.1 The Criteria for Effective Delegation

The findings revealed that there is a need to establish task suitability when delegating. This

was confirmed by the findings of (Smith, 2012) which revealed that a manager needs to know

which tasks can be delegated and those that should not be delegated. The findings also

showed that there was a need that the task should be clearly defined. This is also in line with

the study of Lawson (2007) which revealed that manager should plan on how to present the

assignment as this will go along way to minimize miscommunication.

Most of the respondents stated that they did not categorize the key goals of the task to the

subordinate creating a need for identifying goals. This was confirmed by (Ruff, 2011) who

stated that providing requirements of the tasks allows a subordinate to focus on what needs to

be done. The findings revealed that majority of the respondents disagreed that delegation

needs to be planned. In his study (Lawson, 2007) concluded that one should take time to plan

the parameters, requirements, authority level, checkpoints and expectations. In his study

(Roebuck, 1998) noted that you need to choose the right person, by assessing their skills and

experience as objectively as possible, choose a person you can depend on. Most respondents

like Roebuck agreed that it is important to assign the right person. Majority of the respondents

also agreed that they expect problems to arise but as it was highlighted by Luecke (2009), let

the employee understand who he/she can tum to for help as well as other available resources.

62

Most of the respondents also agreed that proper training of employees should be done before

assignment of tasks. Majority of the respondents felt that there was no need to establish scope

of authority. (Lawson, 2007) however in his study highlighted that it was important to train a

subordinate on the tasks delegated this she explained by placing an internal focus on that

helps employees grow and further their own professional development and that also outlining

authority and responsibility helps minimize miscommunication and also insubordination or a

clash. Most of the respondents did not make clear associations between themselves and the

delegate but as per Roebuck (1998) views; it necessary while delegating that clear links

should be established.

According to the study, most of the respondents did not give a timescale of the task to the

delegatee. This according to (Lindo, 1999), is necessary as establishing deadlines allowed a

manager to effectively monitor the progress of the assignment being done. Most of the

managers while delegating did not agree on milestones but in her study (Lawson, 2007) states

that agreeing on checkpoints with the employees ensures there is mutual agreement this way it

becomes a collaborative process and there is staff buy in. The other most important factor on

the criteria for effective delegation is to establish performance indicators echoed in the

literature review by Colombo and Delmastro (2004) to ensure you achieve the result as

required. Majority of the respondents however did not establish key performance indicators

with their delegatees. The study revealed that most of the respondents did not give specified

feedback. Huppe (1994) in his study explained that giving feedback helped the manager

determine i f employees does indeed understand what is expected of him/her.

5.3.2 The Barriers to Effective Delegation

The study revealed that majority of the managers prefer to do the work themselves .This is

confirmed by (Longnecker, 2004) where it was observed that doing the work alone as a

manager is a common barrier to delegating. This is because some managers insist in

maintaining all control and authority due to insecurity. The study also revealed that managers

lack confidence in their staff This is in line with (Smith, 2012) who revealed that managers

have little or no faith in subordinates who may be contributed by a prior bad experience or

unrealistic standards and timelines dictated by the superior which is created by poorly

developed partnerships with subordinates. Most of the respondents stated that have they did

not have the time to train their employees, this is brought about by the nature of the work

63

whereby most employees go through a two year course training before being deployed and

therefore managers feel they require no fiirther training.

The study also revealed that majority of the respondent take time with the staff to agree and

negotiate boundaries. In his study (Northouse, 2007) states that many managers should agree

and negotiate boundaries to avoid miscommunication. Many respondents in this study did not

delegate tasks due to inexperience of staff that they supervised thereby having difficulty in

choosing the right person for the task. Roebuck (1998) stated that in order to choose the right

person, you need to assess their skills and experience as objectively as possible, choose a

person you can depend on. The majority of respondents agreed that many of their employees

resisted responsibility. Smith (2012) noted that people fear supervisory reprisal which might

put professional and personal reputation on the line and Mohiedini (2009) also noted that i f an

employee lacks motivation then they will resist responsibility.

When asked what other barriers they faced while delegating the desire for personal credit was

stated. Lawson (2007) reveals that where supervisors seek self fiilfillment therefore tend to do

important tasks themselves so personal credit is attributed to them therefore not delegating.

Most respondents agreed that success is their responsibility therefore they decided not to

delegate. Luecke (2009) confirmed this but stated that a manager should know that he is

responsible for the task assigned as delegation is not abdication hence delegate the job. Most

of the respondents unfortunately delegate even under crisis. Lawson (2007) has stated that one

should not delegate during an emergency or a short-term tasks where there is no time to

explain or train. In conclusion many managers face many of the barriers which is confirmed

by many of the authors. Conflicting attitudes such as age, work ethics, role confiision and

personality can create resentment within the division and hamper delegation. Clear role

definition can significantiy help reduce conflict by clarifying job task and scope of authority

and augmenting the delegation process then these barriers can be alleviated.

5.3.3 The Benefits of Effective Delegation

When asked whether delegation helps build new skills many of the respondents agreed. This

confirms that proper delegation is important factors in boosting employee skills. This is

confirmed by Lawson (2007) where she states that a benefit of delegation is developing

employee's skills and the organization as a whole is likely to produce a higher level of out

put. It was revealed in the study where majority agreed that deadlines are met with the help of

64

delegation. According to Ward and Wilcox, (1996) delegation ensures that work deadlines are

met by having checkpoints and agreeing on key goals and milestones deadline are met. In this

study most of the employees agreed that the delegation makes employees become more

committed. This was confirmed in a study by Ruff (2011) which stated that effective

delegation ensured that employees are given opportunity to be involved with decision making

which lead to commitment and increased morale This also encourages also allows for and

maintains cordial relationships further developing team spirit leading to effective

communication.

When asked whether delegation makes control less difficult majority of the respondents,

agreed while just a few of the respondents disagreed. Nelson (1999) agrees with this, where

his study revealed that delegation creates an environment where there is buy in from

employees enhancing teamwork thereby making control less difficult. In this study majority

of the respondents felt delegation supports growth and development. According to Lawson's

(2012) study delegation provides professional growth opportunities to subordinates. Most of

the employee's further performance can be measured through delegation. According to Ruff

(2011) delegations gives employees' personal satisfaction and a sense of achievement through

involving them in decision making, this was revealed in this study where majority of the

respondents agreed that the satisfaction and recognition is enhanced. Most of the employees

felt that delegation helps them manage effectively. Lawson (2007) brings it out when she

revealed that through having a plan whereby requirement are set, milestones are agreed on

and performance indicators set then management becomes more effective.

In this study the respondents agreed that it also helps improve on productivity. Smith (2012)

notes that productivity and efficiency is increased as delegation motivate employees who in

tum work with more commitment. Majority of the respondents indicate that there is less travel

and stress therefore leading to more time to manage. Delegation when applied strategically it

brings about competitive dynamics and designing of effective managerial control systems

which give the organization a competitive edge against rival both potential and current

(Mclnnis & Parson, 2009). Most employees suggest that delegation has many benefits for the

organization, the manager and the employees.

65

5.4 Conclusions

5.4.1 Criteria for Effective Delegation

From the study findings, the key criteria for delegation are to know what delegation is and the

process of delegating. Senior Tax officers revealed that they do know what delegation is but

do not delegate and those who do, do it albeit with varying fi-equency. The majority of the

respondents failed to carry out the various steps which make delegation an effective process

which include identifying the key goals, choosing the right person, training their employees

and outiining authority and responsibility. From the findings, we can conclude that the crucial

matter is not just the act of delegation, but doing so in an effective and skillfiil maimer.

5.4.2 Barriers to Effective Delegation.

From the findings it has been revealed that managers do not delegate mainly due to:

inexperience staff who are fi-esh graduates with no experience, lack of trust in employees they

supervise, and having no time to train, lack of confidence in their delegates, inability to

negotiate boundaries and the supervisors thinking they are better suited for the job. Managers

being better suited for the job and inexperienced staffs are two of the most firequent reasons

for not delegating according to various researchers. This could be due to fear of losing control

and wanting to ensure visibility i.e. getting credit. What is clear is that senior leaders are often

reluctant to appropriately tum over therein to their subordinates. K R A leaders must be

conscience of this finding to be more purposeftil about pushing down responsibility and

authority. Failure to do this can have ill effects. One repercussion is employees will not be

responsible nor will their capabilities broaden. Another is that associates will look outside the

current department for professional fulfillment and challenge, leaving the exited organization

with the task of backfilling personnel.

5.4.3 Benefit of Effective Delegation

Majority of the respondents agree that delegation has its benefits to the manager, employees

and the organization. As highlighted by the findings, delegation increases your management

experience by leaming how to effectively assign, coordinate, and administrate tasks. It also

incorporates fresh perspectives and creative ways to fulfill responsibilities. It allows

appropriate recognition of member contributions, a sense of achievement. Sharing knowledge

improves communication and facilitates teamwork. It brings about productivity and saves on

money. It is therefore noted that delegation does much more good to every element in the

organization than not delegating.

66

5.5 Recommendations

5.5.1 Recommendations for Improvement

The following recommendations are made based on the findings and conclusion of the study.

5.5.1.1 Criteria to Achieve Effective Delegation

There is a need to emphasis to senior leaders at Kenya Revenue Authority that delegation is

an important distinction of leadership. Caution should be exercised in interpreting the high

reporting of delegation as an indication that all is well with this important leadership function.

K R A would greatly benefit i f superiors emphasized that delegation should be exercised

thoughtfially and methodically. Training courses or seminars that focus on the importance of

delegation and its effectiveness are widely available and could be pursued to enhance and

sharpen skills in the delegation process.

5.5.1.2 Barriers to Effective Delegation.

KRA needs to create a culture of trust by instituting policies that ensure they consider the

contributions and ideas of employees when delegating. KRA can through engagement ensure the

organization structure fosters teamwork and improves communication network by reducing the

hierarchical level. Leaders are therefore encouraged to develop better attitudes about their

staff and allow participation. They are also advised to monitor and give feed back on progress

to achieve the goal they desire. They should also choose the right people for the tasks. For

effective delegation, however, the element of trust is important for both parties, just as

authority must be commensurate with responsibility. K R A can organize for team building

activities to foster relationships.

5.5.1.3 Benefit of Effective Delegation

Managers need to know the benefits of delegation through highlighting the benefits to the

organization and themselves. Through seminars and Team building activities they learn the art

of delegating through engaging in team activities which in reality will appreciate delegation.

The managers should be made aware through sensitization activities that there is much to be

gained by both the individual and the organizafion not simply to disperse and apportion

responsibility, but to delegate effecfively.

67

5.5.2 Recommendations for Further Studies

Additional investigation that a research pursuit also could focus the study on Kenya Revenue

employees in non management to determine their perceptions of delegation practices.

Delegation is a two way process between a supervisor and subordinate and efforts to quantify

their assessments and reconcile with these findings would provide a more comprehensive look

at the issue of delegation in Kenya Revenue Authority. A comparison could then be made on

similarities and differences between the two studies and an action plan developed to address

differences. The inclusion of interviews for expanded understanding of past experiences and

barriers to delegafion is also recommended.

68

R E F E R E N C E S

American Nurses Association, (2007), Position statement of Registered Nurse Utilization of UAP, (online) available: http://ww.nursingworld.org..

Andolsen, A. A. (2008). The Ingredients of a Good Leader. The Information Management Journal, pg. 42. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com.

Atherton, T. (1999). How to be better at: delegation and coaching. London: Kogan Page Limited.

Axley, S. R. (2002). Delegate: Why we should and how we can. Industrial Management Retrievedfromhttp:// uir. unisa. ac.za/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10500/2913/stroh2.pdf.

Bass, B . M., & Valenzi, E . (1994). Contingent aspects of effective management styles. In J.G.Runt & L . L . Larson (Eds.).

Baston, R. (1991). Dele,gation skills: Tutor's guide. London: Kogan Press.

Basu, C. (June, 2013) What Can Be Delegated in a Business? (online) available http://smallbusiness.chron.coni/ can-delegated-business- 22197 .html

Blair, G. M. (2009) Starting to Manage: the essential skills: Chartwell-Bratt (UK) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (USA).

Bittner, N. P., & Gravlin, G. (2009). Critical thinking, delegation, and missed care in nursingpractice. Journal of Nursing Administration, 39(3), 142-146.

Bloom, N., R. Sadun, R &Van Reenen, J . (2010b). Recent Advances in the Empirics of Organizational Economics. Annual Review of Economics.

Brown, M. R. (1998). Don't be a micro manager: share the responsibility. Black Enterprise.

Chapman, A. (2012). Delegating Authority Skills, Tasks and the Process of Effective Delegation. From< http://www.businessbaIIs.com/delegation.htm> (Retrieved on 8 May, 2013).

Coleman, M. & Bush. T. (1994). Managing with teams. In T. Bush & 1. West - Bumham (Eds.), The principles of educational management. Essex: Longman.

Colombo, M.G., & Delmastro, M. (2004). Delegation of Authority in Business organizations: an Empirical Test. Journal of Industrial Economics, pg 53-80.

Corazzini, K. , Anderson, R.A., Rapp, c , Mueller, C , McConnell, E . , & Lekan, D., (2010). "Delegation in Long-Term Care: Scope of Practice or Job Description?": The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing Vol. 15, No.2, Manuscript 4.

69

Cooper, D R. & C. Emory, W. (1995) Business Research Methods, 5th ed, Mc-Graw Hill International Edition.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2006). Business Research Methods (6th Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Datta, D., Guthrie, J . P., & Rajagopalan, N. (2002). Different industries, different CEOs? An empirical study of CEO career specialization. Human Resource Planning, 25: pg 14-25.

Denscombe, M. (1998). The Good Research Guidefor Small scale Social Research Project. New Delhi: Viva books private limited.

Dreyfus, S. E . (1981) Four models v human situational understanding: inherent limitations on the modelling of business expertise USAF Office of Scientific Research, refF49620-79-C-0063.

Fleming, R. S. (2010). The Role of Effective Delegation in Professional and Organizational Success, Rowan University.

Fimstahl, T.W. (2001). Letting go. Harvard Business Review, 64(5), pgl4-18.

Finch, L . & Maddux, R. B . (2006). Delegation Skills for Leaders an Action Plan for Success Third Edition,

Gazda, S. (2002, January). The Art of Delegating. HR Magazine, pp. 16-1%.

Ghumro, H.J, Mangi, R.A & Soormo, A.R. (2011). A Journal on Leadership behavioral Taxonomies in Unversities

Grant, P. C. (2001). The effort-net return model of employee motivation. New York: D K Publishing, Inc

Hasan. (2007, June 23). How to Delegate Effectively. Retrieved June 11, 2013, from http://dirjoumal.com/guides/how -to-delegate-effectively

Heller, R. (1998). How to Delegate. New York: DK Publishing, Inc.

Huppe, F . (1994). Successful delegation. Hawthorne, NJ: Career Press.

Huber, D. (2006). Leadership and Nursing Care Management.

Hughes, G. C. (2012). Leadership enhancing the lessons of experience. New York: McGraw-Hill/ Irwin.

Kreitner, R. & Kinicki, A. (2004). Organizational Behavior 6th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Krejcie, R. V. &, Morgan, D. W. (1970), "Determining Sample Size for Research Activities", Educational and Psychological Measurement.

70

Lawson, K. (2007) How to delegate effectively. Lawson Consulting Group. Inc.

Lindo, D. (1999). Will you ever get it right? Supervision 60(12): pg 6-8.

Lisoski, E . (1999). Five key success factors of outstanding recognition programs. Supervision pg7.

Lofland, J . & Lofland, L . (1995). Analyzing social settings. 3rd edition. Wadsworth, Belmont.

Longenecker, C. O. (2004). The delegation dilemma. Supervision pg 3-5.

Luecke, R. A. (2009). The Busy Manager's Guide to Delegation. New York, NY: American Management Association McConkey, D. D.

Lussier, R. N. & Achua, C. (2013) Effective Leadership. International Edition-5th Edition. United Kingdom: South-Western Cengage Leaming.

Malone, T. W. (1997), Is Empowerment Just a Fad? Control Decision, Decision Making and IT. Sloan Management Review. Pg 23-35.

Mamca, R. F. (1999). Fighting the urge tofightfires. Harvard Business Review, 77(6), pg 30-32.

McConkey, D. D. (1986). No-nonsense delegation. New York: Amacom. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc

Mclnnis, L . A., & Parson, L . C. (2009). Thoughtful nursing practice: Reflections on nurse delegation decision-making. Nursing Clinics of North America, 44, pg 461-470.

Mind Tools (January 10, \999).How to delegate work to other people. (Online) available http://www.mindtools.comltmdelegt.html."

Mohiedini, P. (2009), Management and Delegation of Authority, Journal of Science -Educational, Managers broadcasting organization. Islamic Republic oflran. No 101, p-p:

120

Mondy, R. W. & Premeaux, S. R. (1995). Management: Concepts, practices and skills. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Muir, J . (1995). Effective management through delegation. Work study 44(7):pg 6&7.

Nelson, R. B. (1993) Empowering Employees through Delegation 2nd edition

Northouse, P. (2007) Leadership Theory ScPractice pg 3

O'Leary, Z. (2004) The Essential Guide to Doing Research. London: Sage

71

Pollock, T. (2002). 8 rules for getting things done throughpeople. Automotive Design and Production, 114(2), 10-13.

Potter, P., & Deshields, T., & Kuhrik, M. (2010). Delegation practices between registered Nurses and nursing assistive personnel. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 157-165.

Quallich, S. A. (2005). A bond of trust: Delegation. Urologic Nursing, 25(2), 120-123.

Ravanbakhsh. J , (2009), The Importance of In-service Iraining in Organizations, Publications the Organization Industry, Trade and Mines of Khorasan Razavi Province, P-P: 148

Roebuck, C. (1998). Effective Delegation. New York: American Management Association,

Ruff, V .A. (2011), "Delegation Skills: Essential to the Contemporary Nurse" Master of Arts in Nursing Theses. Paper 21.

Salinas-Maningo, M. J . (2005). Leadership. Atlanta: Prentice-Hall.

Sharma, M. K . (2008). Employee Empowerment: A Conceptual Analysis. The Journal of Global Business Issues, Volume 2, Issue 2, 7-12.

Smith, C. C. (2012, 28 Mar). Recognizing the Need For, Impacts and Benefits of Effective Delegation in the Work Place. Published by Defense Acquisition University

Stevenson, W. J . (1999) Production and Operations Management. Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Straub, J . T. (1998). The Agile Manager's Guide to Delegating Work. Bristol, VT : Velocity Business Publishing.

Stroh, E . (2002^. Don't be Afraid to Delegate. Department of Public Administration and Development Studies, University of South Africa Poletia Vol 21 No 2 pg 66

Sullivan, E. & Decker, P. (2005). Effective Leadership & Management in Nursing.

Suskie, L. A. (1996, Paperback) Questionnaire Survey Research: What Works

Tanner, R. (2011) Five Common Human Barriers to Effective Delegation. (Online) available http://managementisajoumey.coni/five-common- human-barriers- to-effective delegation! .html

Tammens, E. (July, 2012). Delegation of authority. An empirical study in supermarkets Erasmus University Rotterdam. Master Thesis Economics of Markets, Organisations and Policy

Tannenbaum, A., & Schmidt, W. (1958). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review, 36: 95-101.

Tripathi, P. C. & Reddy, P. N. (2008). Principles of Management 4* ed. McGraw-Hill,

72

Wackerly, D.D., Mendenhall, W. & Scheaffer, R. L . (2008) Mathematical Statistics with Applications (5th edition)

Walker, C.A. (2002). Saving your rookie managers from themselves. Harvard Business Review, 80(4),pg91-\03.

Ward, M.E. & Wilcox, B.M. (1999). Delegation and empowerment. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Weiss, W. H. (2000). The art and skill of delegating. Supervision 61(9):pg3-5.

Williams, J . C, Du-Brin, A. J , & Sisk, H. L , (1985). Management & organization. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Weston Publishing Co.

Yoder-Wise, P. (2007). Leading and Managing in Nursing (4th Ed.).

73

APPENDIX I : C O V E R L E T T E R

ANNE NKATHA

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY-AFRICA

P.O.BOXl 4634-00800

NAIROBI

Dear Respondent,

R E : R E S E A R C H QUESTIONNAIRE ON D E L E G A T I O N

I am carrying out research on the impact of delegation in organizations. This is a partial

fulfillment of the requirement of the Execufive Master of Science in Organizafional

Development (EMOD) degree program at the United States International University.

The study focuses Kenya Revenue Authority as a case study and therefore you have been

selected as a respondent. The result of this study will provide the management of K R A and

other organizations information on the importance of effective delegafion and how the

delegation process can be improved in organizations.

It is an academic research and confidentiality will be strictly adhered to. Your need not put

your name and personal informafion anywhere in the report. Kindly spare some time to

complete the questionnaire attached. It shall take you only ten minutes.

Thank you in advance

Yours sincerely,

Anne Nkatha Mputhia

EMOD Student

74

APPENDIX I I : R E S E A R C H QUESTIONNAIRE

S E C T I O N ONE: D E M O G R A P H I C S Tick the answer which is most representative 1. What is your gender? • Male

• Female 2. What is your current position? • Deputy Commissioner

• Senior Assistant Commissioner

• Assistant Commissioner • Principle Revenue Officer • Senior Revenue Officer

3. What is your age group? • under 34 • 35-40 • 41-45 • 46-50 • 51 and over

4. How many years of management do you have?

• 1-4 • 5-10 • 11-15 • 16-20 • 21-25 • 26-30 • more than 30

5. How many direct reports do you have currently?

• 0 • 1-15 • 16-30 • 31-45 • over 45

6. What is your educational level? • Some college • Undergraduate degree • Master's • Doctorate

7. With what frequency do you typically assign work or delegate tasks to immediate subordinates (direct reports)?

• rarely • sometimes • often • routinely • not at a all

75

SECTION 2: PART I : C R I T E R I A FOR DELEGATION

Taking statements in tum, tick the number which is most representative of your attitude and behavior in each of the statements below using the following scale: 4=strongly agree, 3 = agree, 2= disagree = strongly disagree

Strongly agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree

1.1 always consider whether a task is suitable to be delegated 4 3 2 1

2.1 define the task so that 1 understand exactly what is

required 4 3 2 1

3.1 identify the key goals that need to be accomplished. 4 3 2 1

4. I plan the delegation to set realisfic and measurable

timescale 4 3 2 1

5. 1 identify the right person by considering their skills,

knowledge and attitude to perform well 4 3 2 1

6.1 anticipate potential problems before delegating the task. 4 3 2 1

7.1 ensure that proper training is available where needed. 4 3 2 1

8. 1 establish clear reporting links. 4 3 2 1

9. 1 establish the scope of authority being delegated. 4 3 2 1

10.1 agree upon realisfic time-scales with the person when I

delegate a task to them. 4 3 2 1

11.1 ensure that each task is assessed at the agreed

milestones. 4 3 2 1

12. 1 establish key performance indicators. 4 3 2 1

13.1 give specific feedback that covers posifive points and

areas of concem. 4 3 2 1

14. Based on your position and level of responsibility. List at least four other criteria can be

used to delegate effectively?

a. )

b. )

c. )

d. )

*

76

SECTION I I : PART I I : BARRIERS TO DELEGATION

Taking statements in tum, tick the number which is most representative of your attitude and behavior. Assess whether the obstacles affect how you delegate tasks to your team.

Strongly Agree

agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

1.1 Prefer to do the work yourself 4 3 2

2.1 Lack confidence in staff to complete tasks. 4 3 2

3. I do not have time to train my direct reports 4 3 2

4.1 do not completely trust my employees, even my strong performers.

4 3 2 >

5. I continuously negotiate the boundaries of the staff, scope of practice and corporate policies and procedures

4 3 2 •

6.1 cannot delegate because my employees lack experience and competence

4 3 2

7.1 Neglect to tell staff and other people their level of authority.

4 3 2

8. My team members resist responsibility 4 3 2

9. The success of my work unit is totally my responsibility.

4 3 2

10. Most of my decisions are made under crisis conditions.

4 3 2 1

12. Based on your experience of delegation how can we overcome or alleviate the barriers of

delegating?

a. )

b. )

c. )

d. )

77

SECTION I I : PART I I : BARRIERS TO DELEGATION

Taking statements in tum, tick the number which is most representative of your attitude and behavior. Assess whether the obstacles affect how you delegate tasks to your team.

Strongly Agree

agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

1.1 Prefer to do the work yourself 4 3 2

2. I Lack confidence in staff to complete tasks. 4 3 2

3.1 do not have time to train my direct reports 4 3 2

4.1 do not completely tmst my employees, even my strong performers.

4 3 2

5.1 continuously negotiate the boundaries of the staff, scope of practice and corporate policies and procedures

4 3 2 >

6.1 cannot delegate because my employees lack experience and competence

4 3 2

7.1 Neglect to tell staff and other people their level of authority.

4 3 2

8. My team members resist responsibility 4 3 2

9. The success of my work unit is totally my responsibility.

4 3 2 >

10. Most of my decisions are made under crisis conditions.

4 3 2 1

12. Based on your experience of delegation how can we overcome or alleviate the barriers of

delegating?

a. )

b. )

c. )

d. )

77

SECTION I I : PART I I I : BENEFITS OF DELEGATION

Taking statements in tum, tick the number which is most representative of how delegation benefits your team or organization.

Strongly Strongly Agree agree Disagree Disagree

1.1 use delegation to build new employee skills and strengthen existing ones.

4 3 2 1

2. More work is accomplished and deadlines can be met more easily

4 3 2 1

3. Delegation helps employees become involved and committed

4 3 2 1

4 The assignment of specific responsibility and authority makes control less difficult

4 3 2 1

5. Employees grow and develop 4 3 2 1

6. Individual performance can be measured more accurately

4 3 2 1

7. Employee satisfaction and recognition are enhanced 4 3 2 1

8. A diversity of products, operations, and people can be managed effectively 4 3 2 1

9.Human resources are used more fully and productivity improves

4 3 2 1

10.Distant operations can be managed with less travel and stress

4 3 2 1

11. The manager has time for plarming, organizing, motivating, and controlling

4 3 2 1

9. What are other benefits of delegafing?

a. )

b. )

c. )

d. )

78

APPENDIX I I I : T A B L E FOR DETERMINING SAMPLE SIZE FROM A GIVEN

POPULATION

N S N S N S N S N s \

10 10 100 80 280 162 800 260 2800 338 \

15 14 110 86 290 165 850 265 3000 341

20 19 120 92 300 169 900 269 3500 246

25 24 130 97 320 175 950 274 4000 351

30 28 140 103 340 181 1000 278 4500 351

35 32 150 108 360 186 1100 285 5000 357

40 36 160 113 380 181 1200 291 6000 361

45 40 180 118 400 196 1300 297 7000 364

50 44 190 123 420 201 1400 302 8000 367

55 48 200 127 440 205 1500 316 9000 368

60 52 210 132 460 210 1600 310 10000 373

65 56 220 136 480 214 1700 313 15000 375

70 59 230 140 500 217 1800 317 20000 377

75 63 240 144 550 225 1900 320 30000 379

80 66 250 148 600 234 2000 322 40000 380

85 70 260 152 650 242 2200 327 50000 381

90 73 270 155 700 248 2400 331 75000 382

95 76 270 159 750 256 1 2600 335 100000 384

Note: "N" is population size

" S " is sample size.

United States intemBtionai University

Africa - Library

79

APPENDIX I I I : T A B L E FOR DETERMINING SAMPLE SIZE FROM A GIVEN POPULATION

N S N S 1 N S 1 N S II N 1 S

10 10 100 80 1 280 162 1 800 260 1 2800 1 338

\ \ WO \ &6 I 290 \ \65 \0 \ 265 \0 \ 3A\

20 ^ 19 1 120 92 1 300 169 1 900 1 269 1 3500 246 25 24 130 97 320 175 950 274 4000 351 30 28 140 103 340 181 1000 278 4500 351 35 32 150 108 360 186 1100 285 5000 357 40 36 160 113 380 181 1200 291 6000 361 45 40 180 118 400 196 1300 297 7000 364 50 44 190 123 420 201 1400 302 8000 367 55 48 200 127 440 205 1500 316 9000 368 60 52 210 132 460 210 1600 310 10000 373 65 56 220 136 480 214 1700 313 15000 375 70 59 230 140 500 217 1800 317 20000 377 75 63 240 144 550 225 1900 320 30000 379 80 66 250 148 600 234 2000 322 40000 380 85 70 260 152 650 242 2200 327 50000 381 90 73 270 155 700 248 2400 331 75000 382 95 76 270 159 1 750 256 2600 335 100000 384

Note: " N " is population size " S " is sample size.

United states intemanonai University Africa - Library

79