We all experience failure from time to time. We might fall short of our expectations or even fail outright upon occasion. What defines our overall success is not the absence of failure, but rather - how we react to failure and our success-to-failure ratio over time.
When we delegate responsibility, we are empowering others within our organizations to act in our stead. By definition, this means we are empowering them to succeed for us over the long run, but also to fail from time to time. (Just as we would.)
Some managers think that they are delegating effectively; they allow their subordinates latitude and autonomy to work independently, but in actuality they are only delegating the right to succeed. The true mark of effective delegation is what happens after results fall short of expectations? Can subordinates look forward to a collaborative and matter-of-fact discussion on the topic of 'how do we move on from here', or will they cringe at the prospect of recrimination and rebuke?
It might seem counter-intuitive, but I predict a greater degree of long-term success in an environment where delegation not only confers freedom to succeed, but also - permission to fail.
What do you think?