T H E I M P A C T O F E F F E C T I V E D E L E G A T I O N IN

ORGANIZATIONS

A C A S E STUDY O F K E N Y A R E V E N U E A U T H O R I T Y

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 S T A T E S I N T E R N A T I O N A L U N I V E R S I T Y
\

SUMMER 2014

USIU-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:

Anne Mputhia (ID No: 637968)

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

Signed: Date:

Dr. George O. K'Aol

Signed: Date:

Dean, Chandaria School of Business

11
 COPYRIGHT
All rights reserved. No part of this project may be reproduced or distributed in any
or by any means or stored in a database without prior written permission from the au
© 2014 by Anne Nkatha Mputhia.

iii
 ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of effective delegation
Organizations. This study was guided by the following research questions: What a
criteria for effective delegation in organizations, what are the barriers to effec
delegation in organizations and what are the benefits of effective delegation
organizations?

A case study research design was used to conduct this research. The target pop
consisted of Senior Tax Officers at Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA). Stratified rand
sampling was used to select a sample size of 316 Senior Tax Officers. Data was colle
using a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was first piloted to ensur
relevance and reliability. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics in term
frequency distribution and percentages. The results were presented in figures and
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
majority of the respondents did not follow some of the essential steps in the effe
delegation process including: task suitability, task definition, goal definition, identi
the right person and proper training. The respondent also indicated that staffs b
clarification of expectations, organization structure and role definition were key facto
effective delegation.

On the extent to which officers experienced the barriers while delegating, lack
confidence, preferring to do work themselves, lack of trust in employees, hav
inexperienced staff and neglect in level of authority contributed to a large extent
delegation was not effective. The other factors provided by the respondents on
barriers that prevent effective delegation included not having enough time to do the
and not having enough resources.

The major findings also showed that delegation benefits the organization as well a
managers and employees by building and developing skills, meeting deadlines, enha
job satisfaction and improving productivity of the organization. The respondents

iv
mentioned other benefits of effective delegation such as sharing of knowledge, impr
communication and facilitating teamwork among the employee and management.

The conclusion drawn from the findings of this study is that Senior Tax Officers did
effectively delegate responsibilities to their subordinates. The study revealed that th
Officers faced individual and organizational barriers when delegating. The study
revealed that delegation has many benefits for the managers, employees and
organization; it builds and develops skills, enhances job satisfaction and impr
productivity.

The study recommends that officers should be trained through various courses
seminars on delegation in order to be effective in the delegation process. Tax Of
need to consider employee's input during the planning process of delegation by arr
for team building to enhance relationships and communication with their subordina
alleviate the barriers to delegation. The study recommends that a wider research s
be conducted on Kenya Revenue employees in non management to determine
perceptions of delegation practices. A comparison could then be made on similaritie
differences between the two studies and an action plan developed to address differe
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

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. Geo
K'Aol for the support, guidance and direction during the preparation for this w
shaping my mind and helping appreciate research issues.

To my classmates and peers in the university in the many hours we spent togethe
shared so much joy and happiness and for contributing so much to the knowledg
have through the study groups and questions they asked and some of which
answered.

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

International University whose guidance made my pursuit of knowledge bo
comfortable and fruitful.

To my parents and other close family members and friends who prayed and endure
absence in a lot of important occasions and events.

There are numerous others that I cannot specifically mention, but to all I say thank
very much; may the Almighty God bless you all and continue to show his mercy a
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
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 R E V I E W 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 T H R E E
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 ^35
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 III: T A B L E FOR DETERMINING SAMPLE SIZE 79

ix
 L I S T 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 I S T OF T A B L E S
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
 C H A P T E R ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Time is a precious commodity for any leader and should be wisely invested in d
making activities that are distinctively suited to accomplish (Hughes, 2012). It is not
recognize what it takes to be a manager. In a many organizations, it is not likely or
for any one individual to carry out all essential activities to create, maintain and grow
enterprise (Smith, 2012). Fact is that to become an effective manager, you need to b
efficiently and successfully integrate people and activities in order to meet your team
and your organization's goals (Northouse, 2013).

Delegation as a leadership skill is very important for improving the efficiency and mo
of supervisors and employees as through delegation they actively participate in
making (Heller, 1998). Many writers who have addressed delegation have done so in
text of participative decision making. Yukl (1981) defined delegation as a sub
participative decision making; most treatments of delegation have included it on co
processes by which subordinates may be involved in decision making. Broadly, dele
"the act of authorizing to act as representative or agent for another" (Mish, 2008
2012).

Delegation is not only used for freeing up the boss's time but as a management tec
can be used to build up your people and yourself (Lawson, 2007). A manager must en
delegation happens properly. Just as significantly, as the recipient of delegated task
suggest improvements to the delegation process and understanding especially i f
could use the help. This will give you the opportunity to 'manage upwards' and cons
enhance your skills. Managing upwards is a central skill in delegation and this is de
by the way you receive and agree to do delegated tasks (Finch & Maddux, 2006). To
subordinate performance when letting go one must first, ensure that high stand
established and understood by the employee. The boss must personally demonst
standards and communicate them to the subordinate and organization at large. Sec
vision and objective must be clearly understood and explicit. When delegating respo
it should be described in detail, defining necessary parameters and establishing pe
standards (Smith, 2012). It is critical for the manager to know that the ultimate respon

1
 lies with him. Therefore it is necessary to delegate as this helps an organization g
become successful.

In order for the manager to focus on more strategic and suitable matters it is bes
manager to expand objectives and pressures to do more with less by assessing wh
carry out specific activities. At Kenya Revenue Authority ( K R A ) due 'to the pace requ
respond to collecting revenue on behalf of the Government of Kenya, the changes
and regulations that require quick implementation, it is common place to find man
upper level increasingly in quick reaction mode. They regularly find themselves neg
challenging activities, with overlapping and constricted deadlines. Performance
organization depends not only on the response of co-workers and work teams bu
one's own behavior, (Sharma, 2008). This is why superior delegation and the respon
immediate subordinates must both be considered to measure the overall result
organization.

Extensive research categorically proves that the manager himself is the largest b
effective delegations (Hasan, 2007). Other common reason managers at K R A fail to d
effectively, or sometimes not delegate at all, is because of psychological barriers, th
being fear. A manager may be afraid that i f subordinates fail to do work proper
manager's performance will suffer. Axely (2002) cites fear for the consequences of de
makes managers sometimes argue: ' I can do it better myself, 'It takes too much
explain what I want done', 'my subordinates are not capable'. This results in manager
it difficult to identify a person in their institution who would be properly qualified and
replace them effectively i f an opportunity to move up the hierarchy comes along. In
get over any fear of failure, impatience or insecurity to delegate certain measures
introduced by managers for effective delegation. Not only may such measures make
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 m
your subordinates and grooms a successor. Poor delegation will cause a manager f
de-motivates and confuses the subordinates leading to failure to achieve the task o
and in the long run may cause the organization not to meet its goals. So if s a man
skill that's worth improving. Delegation is a very helpful aid for succession planning,
development and seeking and encouraging promotion (Smith, 2012). Delegation enab
gain experience to take on higher responsibilities; it is how we grow in the job. Deleg
 crucial for effective leadership. Effective delegation is essential for manageme
leadership succession. The main task of a manager in a growing and thriving organ
ultimately to develop a successor and when this fails, the succession and progressio
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 o
delegate to subordinates some are even reluctant to delegate any tasks or activities.
requires managerial skills and intent, which are necessary so that the manager can m
strength through others (Ghumro, Mangi, & Soomro, 2011). It is important
proper delegation is practiced to reap maximum benefit of the individuals, the orga
and to meet established goals. In fact, developing subordinates is one of the most
duties that a manager has.

Luecke (2009) notes that when managers do not delegate he finds himself doing
most of the same tasks and this will lead to subordinates frequently come to
clarification or guidance, direct reports don't feel adequately prepared to execute, e
become idle less busy than yourself this creates low morale, personnel turnover is r
second guess subordinates decisions and personally redo their assignments, de
missed. This means productivity is low and managing the organization be
overwhelming and the manager is not able to make key decision and may end up pe
poorly.

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

research on delegation, it is important to do empirical research to test the outc
theoretical models. Various researchers like Ruff (2011), have noted that a lack of kno
skills, and attitudes affect delegation and decision-making skills. This is a result of in
education on the subject during school. Other researchers include Smith (2012) who
her research that the failure to recognize the need and benefits of depending on oth
workplace which is brought about by some differences in leadership experienc
supervisors realize they need to delegate, most think they delegate well, but few ac
(Urbaniak, 2011). Few empirical researches on delegation have been done. Bloom
(2010b) have presented a survey of the recent empirical studies in the field of organ
economics, including works on delegation. The most significant empirical study
 determinants of delegation is that of Colombo and Delmastro (2004). They noted that
to reap maximum benefit from individuals and to meet established goals for any org
it is crucial that proper delegation is practiced. In fact, developing subordinates is o
most important duties that a manager has. Skillfiilly apportioning tasks to less skilled
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 a
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 im
properly delegating responsibilities. The outcome of this study is to enhance unde
the process of delegation and the reasons they do not delegate so that modifi
delegation practices can be considered and benefits can be realized. It will provide
information and understanding to Managers in the organizations of a crucial leader
management duties. The study will also help leaders do their jobs more effectiv
efficientiy through delegation. It will also increase responsibility in a more effective
which will enhance job ownership and improve employee motivation thereby enh
productivity. This will also help enhance the performance of the employees as de
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
on how delegation can improve quality of work by allowing the employees who hav
knowledge of products and services to make decisions and complete tasks. It will a
how effective delegation motivates employees as it enriches the worker's job by e
the types of tasks that are involved in it. The study will also bring out the needs of e
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 enhan
organization through effective delegation. It may provide theoretical researchers w
insights on the delegation of authority in organizations. Those insights might be use
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 M
in Revenue departments at headquarters' office in Times Tower. This was to help un
the delegation practices and how effective they were. Data was collected between the
of the month of June and analysis done. The study was limited to the responses rece
to possibility that employees may have felt uncomfortable revealing their names
distorting the accuracy of the results, the study minimized such possibilities b
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 wo
individual which he performs, because of his unique organizational placement, can
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 (L
Achua, 2013). Northouse (2013), states that leadership is a process whereby an ind
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 (Ste
1999). More specifically, productivity is the measure of how specified resources are m
to accomplish timely objectives as stated in terms of quantity and quality. He also n
productivity may also be defined as an index that measures output (goods and s
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 perso
given the responsibility should ensure that he accomplishes the tasks assigned to hi
& Achua, 2013).

1.7.5 Authority
The power and right of a person to use and allocate the resources efficiently, to take
and to give orders so as to achieve the organizational objectives (Lussier & Achua, 20

1.7.6 Accountability
This is the state of being responsible or answerable (Weiss, 2000). Every employee/m
is accountable for the j o b assigned to him. He is supposed to complete the
per the expectation & inform his superior accordingly. Accountability is the liability
for the use of authority.

6
1.8 Chapter Summary
The chapter has introduced the research topic which is to establish the impact of
delegation at Kenya Revenue Authority. It has described the background of the st
statement of the problem and the study objectives. The chapter further outli
significance as well as the scope of the study. Chapter two will present relevant
review on the stated research questions. Chapter three will describe the research me
Chapter four will describe the data findings results for the study and chapter five will
the recommendations by the researcher.

7
 C H A P T E R TWO
2.0 LITERATURE R E V I E W
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a review of the literature on impact of delegation in organizati
chapter also seeks to provide literature on the criteria for successful delegation, the
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
supervisors. Leaders should know the first step to becoming a successfial delegator
(Lawson, 2007). This chapter will help identify the criteria for effectively delegatin
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 subord
carry out specific activities (Stroh, 2002). Mangers should however know that deleg
not task assignment (Lawson, 2007) task assignment is simply assigning work
individual within the duties and responsibility of his/ her position. Delegation is not d
you should take special care to make sure that the employee does not think you are
dump unpleasant assignments on him or her. Lawson also states that delegatio
abdication. The manager still has the ultimate accountability for the assignment.

Managers should note for this to happen there are three important concepts and
responsibility, authority and accountability. Fleming (2010) states that responsibili
duty to perform an assigned task that is delegated from the manager to the sub
Authority flows from the organizational hierarchy and is the granting of the ability
appropriate organizational resources in fulfilling a delegated responsibility. The n
authority to accompany the delegated responsibility must be granted. He also not
proper balance of responsibility and authority contributes to successful delegation a
organizational and individual outcomes; whereas an improper balance undermines
delegation and results in undesirable organizational and individual outcomes. T
element of the delegation process, accountability, brings responsibility and autho
alignment by holding the subordinate to task for the delegation based on the respons
authority that they have been granted (Hasan, 2007). Once the decision to delegate

8
the management challenge is to ensure freedom and monitoring to optimize em
productivity, efficiency and effectiveness for the good of the organizational growth
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 accomp
achieving a true balance between individual efforts and teamwork of the staff as a
Delegation is a structured, sequential process and thus delegated tasks must be
Measurable, Agreed, and Realistic, Time bound. Ethical and Recorded. It's a quick ch
for proper delegation. Using guidance of these tools the process of delegation is a
step process which is dependent on various factors. For a manager to be able to e
delegate, he/she must understand how the process of delegation. Different leadership
will impact delegation in different ways. Anderson, Rapp, Mueller, McConnell, and L
(May, 2010) in their research identified two primary approaches emerged in relation
delegation roles. These approaches included "Follow the Job Description" and "S
Practice." In the Follow the Job Description" approach, the participants felt th
descriptions and facility-level rules and policies relevant to specific jobs dete
delegation processes. When ascribing to the 'Consider the Scope of Practice' appro
deliberately grappled with scope of practice regulations and how to organize care
licensed and unlicensed nursing staff.

Heller (1998) mentioned several steps to effective delegating that is analysis, appoi
briefing, control and appraisal. Luecke (2009), also came with five steps that determin
tasks to delegate these are: how to identify the right person, how to assign the task
progress and provide feedback and evaluate performance. Various authors have outli
steps which come to the same conclusion.

There are tools that help in this process such as the delegation and review form
Chapman (2002), goal planning tips and template, and the activity management te
Another tool is the Tannenbaum and Schmidt mode shown Figure 1. Below dep
continuum of management delegation relative to subordinate freedom. It show
relationship between the level of freedom that a manager chooses to give to a team,
level of authority used by the manager. As the team's freedom is increased, so the m

9
 authority decreases. The model provides extra guidance on delegating freedom
developing a team.

Manager Oriented Subordinate Oriented

Use of Authority by the Manager

Area of Freedom for subordinates

t t t f
'.Vr r.lgr Mgr Mgr Mgr Ulgr
Takes •Sells- Presents Suggests presents explains, allows team
Decision & decision Decision v ^ h Provisional tlie situation defnes to develop options
announces Ideas & decisions gets parameters decide o n a c t i o a
Invite Qs invites suggestions, & asks wittiin (he mgr's
discussion iheti decides to decide received limits

Figure 2.1. Tannenbaum and Schmidt Continuum Delegation Model.

(Source: Tannenbaum, A., & Schmidt, W. (1958).

Harvard Business Review, 36: 95-101).

Bruce Tuckman's model is also another tool that is mainly helpfiil when delegating t
and individuals within teams. In this model delegation shifts decision-making author
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 delegat
framework shown in should be followed.

ii

ii ~
4.

5.

Figure 2.2 Delegation Process

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

The delegation process is clearly outlined as follows: Firstly, decide and confirm in y
mind that the task is suitable to be delegated that is whether it meets the criteria for d
(Smith, 2012). Plan a structure with delegation that is how much authority and influen
the delegate have without referring back to the delegator. Subdivision of authority tak
when a superior divides and shares his authority with the subordinate. It is for this
every subordinate should be given enough independence to carry the task given to h
superiors (Lussier & Achua, 2013). You should also define the roles and also understa
is accountable for what. Accountability arises out of responsibility and responsibili
out of authority (Lussier & Achua, 2013). The second step is to select individual or t
determining what your reasons for delegating to this person or team. Critically ev
what are they going to get out of it. B y answering these questions you will get a clea
and also be able to brief the individual effectively of the task or role required of

11
 Delegation is deeply rooted in the essential purpose of management, which is to
results through people (Luecke, 2009). The manager will find out whether the other p
team of people capable of doing the task.

Thirdly the manager assigns the task by explaining why the job or responsibility
delegated. A manager must clearly communicate to the person selected what is impo
relevant, where the task fit in the overall scheme of things and what the result r
(Ruber, 2006). Clarify understanding by getting feedback fi-om the other person by
sure they know how you intend to decide that the tasks is being done well. Tammen
saw that communication in delegation is of utmost important, effective delegation c
occur if there is a common understanding. At the outset of any discussion of deleg
necessary to verify that the parties of the assignment and the assignment itself are un

The manager will then support and monitor progress by discussing and agreeing
required such as the people, location, premises, equipment, money, materials, othe
activities and services in order to get the work done. They will then after gettin
feedback analyze the difficulties encountered and how to manage them. The manage
required to clearly state the deadlines for the task assigned and i f any delay should
this may be handled (Lawson, 2007). And determine the priorities of the task i f it is c
and or has parts or stages that need close monitoring. It is important at this poin
manager to also confirm understanding with the other person of the previous point
ideas and interpretation. As well as showing you that the job can be done, this
reinforce commitment. Methods of checking and controlling must be agreed with th
person (Smith, 2012). Failing to agree this in advance will cause this monitoring to se
interference or lack of trust. Think about whom else needs to know what's going
inform them. Involve the other person in considering this so they can see beyond the
hand. Do not leave the person to inform your own peers of their new responsibility. W
person about any awkward matters of politics or protocol. Inform your own boss i f th
important, and of sufficient profile.

Lastly it is essential to let the person know how they are doing, and whether the
achieved their aims by establishing checkpoints (Lawson, 2007). I f not, you must revie
them why things did not go to plan, and deal with the problems. You must abso
consequences of failure, and pass on the credit for success (Finch & Maddux, 2006).
 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 sh
leaders and supervisors often think they are effectively delegating but are not (F
2001). There is a wide range of varying freedom that you can confer on the other pers
more experienced and reliable the other person is, then the more freedom you can g
more critical the task then the more cautious you need to be about extending a lot of
especially if your job or reputation depends on getting a good result. Take care to ch
most appropriate style for each situation.

For each example the statements are simplified for clarity; in reality you would choos
abrupt style of language, depending on the person and the relationship. At the very
"Please" and "Thank-you" would be included in the requests (Alan Chapman, 200
important also to ask the other person what level of authority they feel comfortabl
given ( Luecke, 2009). When you ask, you can find out for sure and agree this with th
person. Some people are confident; others less so. It's your responsibility to agree w
what level is most appropriate, so that the job is done effectively and with m
unnecessary involvement from you. Involving the other person in agreeing the l
delegated freedom for any particular responsibility is an essential part of the 'contract
make with them (Colombo & Delmastro, 2004).

These factors of delegation are not an exhaustive list. There are many more shades
between these black-and-white examples. Take time to discuss and adapt the agreem
'contracts' that you make with people regarding delegated tasks, responsibility and
according to the situation. Be creative in choosing levels of delegated responsibi
always check with the other person that they are comfortable with your chosen level
are generally capable of doing far more than you imagine. The rate and exte
responsibility and freedom delegated to people is a fundamental driver of organi
growth and effecfiveness, the growth and well-being of your people, and of you
development and advancement (Bums, 2001).

Remember, to delegate effecfively, you must choose the right task, identify the right
and take time to hand over the task with the right level of detail and support, (N
1993).When a manager is uses the tools and processes of delegation it helps him re
work load and allow him to concentrate his energies in critical issues of concern. It h
manager to attain communication skills, supervision and guidance, effective motiva
the leadership traits are flourished. Delegation also ensures the flow of authority is fro
bottom which is a way of achieving results and meaningflil superior-subordinate rela
The process of delegation gives enough room and space to the subordinates to flou
abilities and skill and this motivation provides appropriate results to a concern. Trip
Reddy (2008) noted that job satisfaction is an important criterion to bring stabil
soundness in the relationship between superior and subordinates. It also helps in br
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) n

that the right task, right circumstances, right person, right direction and communica
right supervision and evaluation are the components of an effective delegation.
 2.3 Barriers to Effective Delegation
Tanner (2011) states that effective delegation is a critical skill that can make or b
manager's career. After all, there is a limit to what any one of us can do and both man
and leadership involve working with and through others to achieve desired outcome
delegation is done well, a manager is praised for his ability to get the best out of his
Higher level managers take note of this manager's ability to run a productive unit
manager is considered for higher levels of management responsibility.

When delegation is done poorly, however, the manager is criticized for his inability to
human resources effectively. Higher level managers take note of this manager's lim
and the under utilization of his team and they exclude him from further promo
considerations There are many symptoms of ineffective managerial delegation in
micromanaging, the constantly changing project outcome, lack of communication
2007).

The root cause why a manager does not delegate effectively may be harder to de
however. The root cause may come from one or more common human barriers to e
delegation. Getting over these human barriers requires some emotional intellige
personal development. These barriers as Finch and Maddux (2006) stated are real
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, M
McConnell, and Lekan (2010) documented a paucity of leadership as a barrier to ef
delegation. To delegate effectively, the senior tax manager must be a leader. Delega
be a source of frustration unless the manager has the traits and characteristics of
Some managers insist on maintaining all control and authority due to insecurity and
fail to even meet the definition of a leader. A leader is an executive, a man who manage
resources, and people. A leader does not do everything himself; rather he marshals a
elements on the pathway to success.

The occurrence of poorly developed partnerships between senior tax manager and
officers is another barrier. Corazzini et al. (2010) identified poor partnerships across s
barrier to effective delegation. Facing poor partnerships, the senior tax manager
15
delegating responsibilities and simply do it themselves to avoid eliciting front-lin
resentment. Superior's experience and personality can also be a barrier; a superior w
his way through the corporate ladder will be more efficient in delegating autho
subordinates than autocratic managers.

Many managers prefer to perform operating tasks, not management fiinctions, beca
understand those tasks better and know how to do those (Tanner, 2011). Others do
time to train their direct reports due to the job specification most subordinates lea
job and this leads to managers not knowing how to delegate and often do not know
delegate and to whom to delegate to. They need to learn that i f the limits of au
delegated should be defined clearly. Generally delegation of authority with suppos
limits is not very effective. Ruff (2011) noted that managers do not completely trus
employees, even their strong performers, they may fear loss of power or ju
uncomfortable with subordinates making decisions they made. He might feel that em
will not like him if he expects too much of them. "It is easier and quicker to do things
is a common fallacy amongst managers; they feel that they cannot afford to ma
mistakes. A manager may also be concerned about losing control; he might fear t
delegating he just might do it too much that he might not be able to loose control (
2007). Others are just not very interested in the development of any of his current emp

Managers fail to keep employees informed about plans the supervisor has for the o
They note it is therefore important that employees must be fiilly informed to make t
possible decisions for the organization (Ruff, 2011). Managers also have the tendenc
requesting and /or utilize progress reports. This is when you do not have a method
employee's progress. It is important to set specific times to check progress from the
of delegation through completion. When you do not ask for employee's opinion it sh
do not value them. Therefore encourage employees to be creative and give their ide
ways to complete the task. Dumping projects usually occurs when the supervisor
taken time to plan the delegation properly. Without thinking the supervisor assigns th
to the employee.
 2.3.1.2 Employee-Imposed Obstacles
Delegation may be difficult because employees lack experience and competence. Due
tasks the employees may not be able adequately handle what they have. The team
may resist responsibility maybe due to lack of motivation (Mohiedini, 2009). Most emp
fear manager's criticism and therefore avoid risk. The employees are not smart eno
managers to safely delegate anything to them. Also, the lack of interest under hand
the authority in K R A , afraid of interpellation and blame due to wrong decisions, l
sufficient motivation to take responsibility for heavier and lack confidence in them
(Mohiedini, 2009), can be a barrier to delegation.

Another barrier is attitude. Corazzini et al., (2010) determined attitudinal barriers pre
effective delegation. A research team lead by Potter, 2010 identified five sources of
as age, work ethic, role confusion, personality, and conflict. Attitudes are cited as a b
delegation throughout much of the literature. Conflicting attitudes among officers ca
resentment within the division, section and unit teams hamper delegation. Attitude
from the values of people. The population in Kenya Revenue is diverse; there is a di
values within the team. Diverse values are based on generational, cultural, social, re
political, and other factors.

2.3.1.3 Situation-Imposed Obstacles

Certain situations may cause barriers to delegation. These situations are most often
resources, an unclear hierarchy and crisis situations (Atherton, 1999). I f either o
barriers is present in your situation, make sure you remain flexible and do not
teammates for failures out of their control. Money is usually a concern for most organ
If this is a problem, try to work around it. Remember to be flexible. I f there is not e
money to send your class on a refreat to Hawaii, be flexible with your destination. Not
your first choice does not make the whole task a failure.

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

Fimstahl (2001) highlighted that staff and faculty members may share responsibilit
ultimate authority may lie with someone that is not always available. Be aware of the s
and communicate clearly so that you may work to overcome this obstacle. The tasks
really important to expect a subordinate to handle it personally. Some employees ca
trusted to work on their own; some cadres of employees require constant supervis

17
 success of work unit is totally the manager's responsibility. Most of manager's dec
made under crisis conditions.

2.3.1.4 Organizational Imposed Obstacles

Basu (2004) noted that a lack of well established organizational method and proc
coordination and communication coupled with the size and location of the organiza
hinder effectively delegation. The absence of a clear chain of command is a ba
delegation. Corazzini, et. al (2010) found managers had to accept uncertainty in the
work environment as they had to continuously negotiate the boundaries of the staff,
practice and corporate policies and procedures. They faced Inherent conflict betw
their facilities are organized structured or staffed (chain of Command) and what prof
organizations required. The Managers at the lower levels needs to know for whom th
and to whom they report this is because reporting structures and job descriptions
reconciled with the managers' role and scope of practice rules. Due to the tall organ
structure K R A and the sensitivity of various issues, the manager at every level needs
essentially who they work and reports to. Research reports delegation works better w
is a clear reporting structure. Bittner and Gravlin (2009) suggests leaders need to
issues here. In Kenya Revenue this is clearly seen as due to its size and its spread
nation delegation of tasks and responsibility is necessary. Where a clear chain of c
exists, Corazzini et al, (2010) reports managers will effectively delegating despite pol
procedure conflicts within organization practice acts.

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

significantiy reduce conflicts during delegation. This is seen in the organization whe
ranking managers tend to overlap their roles in matters that touch their sections
Deshields and Kuhrik (2010) discovered respondents described conflict as the centr
during delegation. A study by Mclnnis and Parsons (2009) revealed organizations
augment the delegation process.

These barriers are echoed by other authors and researchers like Tripahi and Tedd
state that many managers are found unwilling to delegate authority and many subord
found unwilling to accept it. To avoid ineffective delegation, barriers to delegation ne
removed. I f barriers are not removed, even a manager with Dreyfus Model stage-five
proficiency in delegation cannot delegate without putting the work at risk (Dreyfus,
 The Dreyfus Model is the obtainment and development of a skill, which the ma
progresses through five stages of proficiency or mastery. The progression of pr
include: novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient, and expert. At the expert
proficiency the manager has an intuitive grasp of each situation and a deep underst
the total situation. I f the barriers to delegation are not removed the only option for th
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 diffic
managers to execute effectively yet it is considered to be a simple concept. Th
particular measures however, that can be introduced to make it easier and more effec

2.3.2.1 Develop the Right Attitudes

To be truly effective at delegating, managers must have the positive attitudes about d
(Nelson, 1993). These attitudes are reflected by personal security: managers wh
confidence in their abilities do not delegate or do not delegate satisfactorily because
afraid of being exposed or of surrendering control (Brown, 1998). A manager sho
willing to take risks in order to be effective at delegating, like allowing subordinates
important decisions. Managers must learn to accept and learn from failure when i
(Undo, 1999). Managers must be willing to trust others to perform tasks for which th
be held accountable. The manager when delegating should be fully aware of the limit
each subordinate. Quallich (2005) subordinates must be allowed to voice their own
how an assignment should be completed and managers who delegate effectively s
patient and realize that delegation may not produce immediate results. They should a
for inexperienced subordinates to be trained in. They should also learn not microma
allow subordinates to work on their own but make them aware of what is required by
out clear objectives and goals. They should be willing to allow subordinates to make
of the opportunity as this builds not only the person but also motives employees re
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 disor
fashion (Huber, 2006). They in turn faced by a crisis may throw out challeng
subordinates in desperation. This can go either way as some subordinates may b

19
 handle the situation and others may not, which can have disastrous consequence
institution. Effective delegation rather requires managers to look at the subordinate in
strengths and weaknesses and to consider these differences when making the d
decisions (McConkey, 1986). Delegation must be matched to the levels of proficiency
subordinate handling the task. The person's abilities, the importance of the task mus
considered. I f the task is one that must be done in a hurry and with little supervis
person selected must have demonstrated ability in the past to undertake this type o
the task gives ample time to offer guidance, it may be advantageous to assign it t
skilled person and use this opportunity as a means of training and developing such a
skills.

Weiss (2000) suggests the following guidelines that managers could use to analyze
candidates to whom tasks can be delegated: the person should be alert and ac
organized and confident. The person should be cooperative with both superio
colleagues, show sufficient self-control, be wiling to accept more responsibility and
easily to change. In applying these guidelines to select a suitable employee for t
managers must avoid the trap of delegating to a few select individuals only usually th
capable of handling a task. They must remember that delegation is an important
assessing potential, training and development (Kreitner & Kinicki 2004). It wou
advisable to spread the tasks around to identify everyone's Capabilities and to t
develop many of the employees this will create an opportunity to know those wh
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
done, the expected level of performance and deadlines for completion, they are
trouble and creating crisis. When objectives are not clear and realistic, subordinates t
nothing or waste time on taking needless risks of making errors. Imprecision dest
whole purpose of delegation and leaves staff confused (Muir, 1995). Effective dele
therefore requires sound manage-riel judgment in the setting of objectives.

To staff delegation of authority includes being involved in the decision ma

(Ravanbakhsh, 2009) that is participation. The most effective delegation does not flo
the superior to the subordinate only. Weiss, (2002) states that it flows both ways in th
 that managers who strive to improve their delegating ability by allowing subordin
participate in determining which tasks they will perform, how much authority is neede
the job done, what are the set objectives and goals. Managers however, should n
participation can present its own potential problems (Pollock, 2002). Subordinat
instance, may strive to expand their authority beyond what they need and what t
capable of handling and this can undermine the effectiveness of the delegation proce

Most managers are willing to hand out assignments to their subordinates. Howeve
them are not equally willing to transfer their own authority to subordinates (Walker,
Providing subordinates with sufficient authority becomes a major stumbling block wh
is even the slightest reluctance to delegate. Managers must give subordinates the
authority commensurate with the requirements of the assignment; in other words, t
give them the authority necessary to fulfill the responsibility that they were given (N
1993). The goal is to enable subordinates to complete the task, to make indep
decisions, to take initiative, and to continue working in the absence of the manager. W
or no authority, the subordinate will be either unable to handle the assignment effec
will be limited to the method the manager prescribed for achieving the objective. B y
too much authority, the manager might feel uneasy about the subordinate making a
that can be costly in terms of time and money. 'To be effective, there must be an
transfer of power within the agreed-upon parameters. I f the superior withholds e
smallest degree of authority within the agreed-upon limits, the delegation is going t
(McConkey, 1986).

When delegating, managers should take into account the workload that subordinate
able to cope with (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2004). They should prevent overloading subord
with work too much to do in a given period of time or too many different tasks to do
may make them feel that doing the job right is next to impossible, which can have a n
impact on their motivation to do well. Muir (1995) managers should strive to de
gradually instead of dumping a wide range of assignments on a subordinate at o
Forcing the subordinate to assume too much responsibility at one time can thwart the
of delegation, especially when the subordinate is new in the job or has never receiv
delegated responsibilities in the past.

21
Managers should guard against keeping the pleasant, more exciting tasks for themse
delegating the boring, trivial or unappealing tasks to their subordinates. Subordinate
realize what the manager is doing and the respect they once had for the person ma
wane (Lawson, 2007). It is necessary to maintain a balance between highly and less d
tasks according to an individual employee's abilities and interests. Managers, howeve
not be afraid to delegate the less appealing work. There are times that less desirable t
to be delegated. Some managers feel guilty about delegating undesirable tasks and in
it themselves, which may not always represent an efficient use of their time. The cru
matter that both pleasant and unpleasant tasks should be considered for delegation
Premeaux, 1995).

Managers who are unapproachable, unfriendly and demanding often create fear or re
in people (Lofland,J & Lofland, L , 1995). Such managers should not expect to g
cooperation they really want from their subordinates. Subordinates are more likely to
a manager who is a friend, to accept directions from such a manager and to be m
because of the friendship (Grant, 2001). Friendship builds trust and respect. No one
disappoint a friend. I f a manager is a friend of his or her subordinates, those subordi
likely to perform well in the execution of their delegated tasks otherwise they may fe
have let him or her down. Managers can develop a friendship with their subordin
treating them as equals on and off the job, by sharing interests with them, by inviting
engage in social activities, by showing that they enjoy being with them in both on and
job situations, and by helping them with personal problems and concerns. Sulliv
Decker (2005), noted that managers, however, will undermine trust and respect
manager- subordinate relationship i f they make a habit of correcting work that ha
completed by their subordinates, to work on a task themselves although they have as
to a subordinate, or to re-do the entire assignment after the subordinate has complete

Once an assignment has been delegated, the manager's role should be primarily one o
and minimum personal involvement (Baston, 1991). This implies that the subordinate
be allowed to get on with the task in his or her own way, but within the parameters def
the manager, knowing that he or she is available for support. In supporting subo
managers should prevent answering too many questions and solve too many proble
the subordinate should display the initiative. Effective delegation requires that people
their own questions and solve their own problems as far as possible. A n important

22
 supporting subordinates is to share information with them. Neglecting to share inf
with subordinates, for instance, about the importance of delegation, why it is necessa
institution and what outcomes can be expected; they probably will see delegation
another management play to increase their workload (Mondy & Premeaux, 1995). Th
not trust that delegation will really occur, and i f it does, they will not be sure whether
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
delegated tasks. This is done by comparing actual results with established s
Managers should also appraise the completed task and discuss the evaluation w
subordinates this way areas of existing and potential problems can be highlighted. S
Decker (2005) noted that when evaluating a delegated task, managers need to de
whether the task was completed as intended in a timely manner in the right way and
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 m
role and scope of practice rules (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2004). Each manager needs to
essentially that they report to in the hierarchical structure and the general officer
managers. Research reports delegation works better when there is a clear reporting
Bittner et al., (2009) suggests senior leaders need to address issues here. Where a c
of command exists, Corazzini et al., (2010) reports managers will effectively delegate
policy and procedure conflicts within practice acts. A study by Mclnnis and Parson
revealed organizations should augment the delegation process and safeguard the au
the Senior Tax officers by continuously educating the entire staff

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

significantly reduce conflicts during delegation. Potter et al., (2010) discovered resp
described conflict as the central theme during delegation. The major cause of the con
general officers saw their role as being the same as the managers except the manage
responsibility to authorize some clearance.
2.4 Benefits of Delegation
Managers find that it is often impossible to do everything that needs to be done in th
Therefore, it is often usefial to delegate certain tasks to other people. As a result, it is
know the benefits of delegation before delegating any task. Benefits whether financia
financial create motivation and commitment among employees (Ghumro, Mangi, &
2011). Delegating of tasks makes an impact on the manager, the employee a
organization.

2.4.1 Benefits to Organization

Delegation gives subordinates the opportunity to offer new ideas, viewpoints and su
that can improve operations in the institution and diversity of products, operations, a
can be managed effecfively, making the organization more efficient and achieve its ob
(Fleming, 2010). An institution is likely to produce a higher level of output i f man
delegate tasks according to the skills and abilities of subordinates (Lawson, 2007).
the most important benefit for the company is a higher quality of work (Malone,
Delegation can improve quality of work by allowing the employees who have
knowledge of products and services to make decisions and complete tasks. Quality
improve through enhanced employee motivation. Employees may do a better job beca
feel a personal accountability for the outcome, even though responsibility ultimate
with the individual who made the delegation. Motivation should also be enhanc
delegation enriches the worker's job by expanding the types of tasks that are invol
(Lussier & Achua, 2013). Effective communication between the superiors and subordi
developed by team spirit when delegation is done. The subordinates are answe
superiors and the superiors are responsible for the performance of subordinates.

Delegation help maintains cordial relationships; the superiors trust subordinates a

them necessary authority. The subordinates accept their accountability and this
cordial superior-subordinate relationships. Coleman and Bush (1994) notes that it
fomiation of units with membership which cut across the various departments and
means of achieving team work, coordinating organizations activities and dissem
information within the authorities community. Maruca (1999) states that delegation
distribution of administrative responsibility among multiple administrative groups, ea
a defined scope of authority and a defined set of responsibilities. In addition, deleg
administration allows organizations to efficiently manage their infrastructures and
their security precautions by enabling organizations to distribute admini
responsibilities on the basis of least privilege, which ensures that the individual or
individuals to whom the task has been delegated can perform only the tasks that are
and cannot perform tasks that have not been explicitly delegated or authorized (Srau
Reduce administrative costs by facilitating shared administrative responsibility. For
administrative responsibility for providing account support to all accounts in the org
can be easily achieved within a matter of minutes.

Delegation when applied strategically provides a fresh approach to competitive dyna

designing effective managerial control systems. It is distinct irom the traditional view
it emphasizes how delegation instruments, more generally governance systems, i
constrain externally oriented (i.e., competitive) actions whose impacts are contingen
response of current or potential rivals (Mclnnis & Parson, 2009). They can influence
implementation (e.g., high-powered incentives can encourage managers to act in
interests of shareholders) and/or strategy formulation (e.g., managers who are compe
market share may craft strategies that promote growth), but, either way, the focus
focal firm. Even when the external industry characteristics are taken into account
contingency and hence exogenous to the focal firm's governance choices (Datta, G
Rajagopalan, 2002). Strategic delegation theory complements this perspective by high
that, under strategic interdependence, delegation instruments may arise endogen
influence the competitive behavior of rivals and, hence, eventually the focal
performance.

Firms can strategically manipulate their managerial incentives and governance sy

influence their managers' competitive choices (Tripathi & Reddy, 2008). That, in tur
serve as a credible commitment to particular courses of competitive action an
competitive interactions with market rivals or potential entrants, and can lead to im
competitive performance. Therefore, delegation decisions may be both externally ori
shape competitive interactions as well as internally oriented to achieve efficient
fonnulation and implementation (Huppe, 1994). When you delegate tasks to your team
the tasks around to different members. This will increase the skills of everyone a
flexibility of your team. This may prove important i f one of your members falls ill and
be substituted with another.
2.4.2 Benefits to Managers
By doing everything themselves managers suffer at least three undesirable resu
hamper their own productivity; they limit their prospective contribution to their ins
and any contributions they do make are often accompanied by fiustration and e
personal effort (Blair, 2009).

One of the vital criteria for effective managers is how easy, not how difficult, they mak
(Yoder-Wise, 2007). They should measure themselves by the results achieved rather
the amount and difficulty of the effort expended. Managers should know how to utili
subordinates as this can help to make their jobs easier and more productive. Sub
time is less costly in comparison to that of their superiors. B y delegating, managers
more time to address and solve problems that would otherwise have cost the institu
money. The manager hence creates time for planning, organizing, motivating, and co
by effectively delegating.

The greater the distance between the operational level and the superior to whom it re
greater the need for delegation to the person on the spot (Lindo, 1999). Even w
dramatic advances in technology in the speed and content of communication transm
emails; there are significant losses that will arise when the manager is not empower
quickly. Effective delegation facilitates faster and more effective decisions. B y effe
delegating an organization is most responsive to changes in the environment, both
and external, when employees closest to the problems are making the decisions
resolving those problems. As employees closest to the problem usually have the mos
information upon which to base an intelligent decision, decision-akin responsibility s
delegated downwards in the institutional hierarchy (Nelson, 1998).

Delegation facilitates management development, delegation acts as a training gro

management development. It gives opportunity to subordinates to learn, to grow
develop new qualities and skills. It builds up a reservoir of executives, which can be
and when required. Delegation creates managers and not mere messengers (Smith, 20
 2.4.3 Benefits to Subordinates
Trust and confidence are fostered through successful experiences with delegated ta
a manager demonstrates trust in any of his subordinates, most people reciprocate w
that show that the trust was justified. In this way, trust enhances the prospects for d
which in tum enhances the prospects for trust and confidence (Lisoski, 1999). T
effective delegation, a work environment can therefore be created where trust am
subordinates who are recipients of delegated tasks can be promoted.

The delegation of tasks and activities which involve decision making and accounta
essential i f managers are to provide opportunities for the development of their sub
(Lisoski, 1999).Subordinates will be convinced that they are improving their compet
perform i f they have opportunities now and then to participate in organization's d
Through delegation, managers provide subordinates with additional challenges, broa
experience and assist them in becoming better decision-makers (Bass & Valenzi, 1994

Managers, who do not delegate, deprive subordinates of opportunities to progre

knowledge and skills and to assume greater responsibility. A sense of contribu
achievement are central to job and career satisfaction and productivity in the orga
Delegation is a channel to this end. Moreover, self-confidence will grow and employ
be more motivated (Dao, 2004). Ultimately they may feel that they are falling behind
'competition' in institutions where delegation does take place. This is often enough s
generate a posture of unwillingness-to-try, or a don't-care attitude. It will res
subordinates leaving the organization in search of more challenging and su
environments and they tend to be employees that are the most talented, precisely t
the managers can least afford to lose.

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

environment and, in many cases, to undertake activities of special interest to th
managers increasing subordinates' involvement through delegation he/she heigh
employees' passion and initiative for their work (Fleming, 2010). Delegation
subordinates an opportunity to invest something of themselves in their work and giv
a feeling of owning the work as well as its outcomes.
 I

Delegation therefore enhances subordinates' sense of accomplishment and self-este

much more rewarding to be able to congratulate oneself for a task that is well plan
executed than for another person's plan, which is merely executed (Axley, 2002)
ownership of the plan is almost always more satisfying and motivating than stewar
someone else's plan.
2.5 Chapter Summary
The Hterature review is just a perception of what the authors feel should happen there
the ideal and not the reality in the work place. The authors viewed the key crite
effective delegation as well as the barriers to delegation and the benefits of delega
case study will be carried out to establish the impact of effective delegation in Kenya
Authority as stipulated by the authors in the literature above.

Chapter three will describe the methods and procedures used to carry out thi
Specifically the research design, population and sampling design, data collection
research procedures as well as data analysis methods will be addressed.
 CHAPTER 3
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the research methodology employed in this study. It disc
research design especially with respect to the choice of design. It also discusses the
of the study, sampling technique and sample size, data collection methods as wel
analysis and data presentation methods used.

32 Research Design
This study adopted a case study research design focusing on Senior Tax Managers
Revenue Authority. Cooper and Emory (1995) define a case study as a study focuse
organization selected from the total population of other organizations in same indu
case study was appropriate for this research for many reasons. Firstly, the research
good for contemporary events when the relevant behavior cannot be manipulated. S
the issues in this particular research have been studied by other researchers hence a
body of literature exists. Thirdly, it will give a representative view on the effec
delegation and to be able to compare between different situations (i.e. section with
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 e
about which we wish to make inferences. The population in this study comprised o
Senior Tax Managers from Kenya Revenue Authority mainly from Divisional Manage
the Unit Managers in the organization (see Table 3.1).

(
Table 3.1 Population Distribution

Category Population

Deputy Commissioner 40
Divisional Manage
Senior Assistant Commis,sioner 200

Assistant Commissiona- 300

Unit Manager
Principle Revenue Officas 400

Senior Revenue OflScer 600

Total 1540

Sample Design
332.1 Sampling Frame
Sampling frame is an objective list of the population from which the researcher can
selection (Denscombe, 1998). O'Leary (2004) fiirther defines sampling as the proc
which researchers select a sample of participants for a study from the population o
The sampling frame was obtained from the human resource department of Kenya R
Authority. The study targeted a representation of staff from Divisional manager
comprised of Deputy Commissioners (DC) and Senior Assistant Commissioners (SA
Unit managers who are Assistant Commissioners (AC), Principle Revenue Officers
and Senior revenue Officer (SRO) were used in capturing data in line with study obj
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, con
maybe drawn about the entire population. In this study stratified random sampling t
was used. This is a probability sampling technique where the sample is constrained t
elements from each of the mutually exclusive segments or strata within a population
& Schindler, 2000). Leary (1995) indicates that a stratified random sample will typ
reflect the characteristics of the population as a whole. The strata in this stu
disaggregated by hierarchy to address the fact that there is wide variance in the n
senior tax managers within each subgroup (Table 3.2) which was departmental, di
 sectional and unit Managers. In this study the population was stratified accordin
master list of employees.

3323 Sample Size

Sample size determination is the act of choosing the number of observations or re
include in a statistical sample. The sample must be carefully selected to be represe
the population (Descombe, 1998). A sample size of 316 was selected from a total of
be representative of each category of staff as shown in Table 3.2. The researcher
sample size based on Krejcie & Morgan (1970) recommendations for determining s
stratified random sample (See Appendix III). They came up with a formula whereby th
differed in sizes and allocation of sample sizes to strata was performed proportiona
stratum sizes.

Table 3.2: Sample Size Distribution

Total (%) Sample

Category Actual Sample
Population Size
Size

Deputy Commissioner 40 40% 16

Divisional
Senior Assistant
Manager 200 20% 40
Commissioner

Assistant Commissiona 300 20% 60

Unit Manager
Principle Revenue Offices 400 20% 80

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
questionnaires have advantages which include: they can be administered to a group
simultaneously, are less costly and less time consuming than other data c
instruments. According to Suskie (1996), a perfectly reliable questionnaire elicits c
responses. Although it is difficult to develop, it is reasonable to design a question
approaches a consistent level of response. The questionnaire was designed accord
research questions in chapter one of this research. The instrument consisted of t
sections: Section One captured demographic information while Section two focuse
Research Questions that is Part I addressed criteria for delegation, Part I I addressed
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 ob
sampling Irame for the target population for the study. The questionnaire was deve
the researcher and before actual data collection was done, the questionnaire was pre
5 employees. This was to check the questionnaire reliability in collecting data and in
check for clarity with regards to the three objectives of the study. It also pr
recommendation on structure, content, objectivity of the questions, and consiste
research. The results from the pilot study were reviewed and changes were made
questionnaire as necessary.

The questionnaire was distributed by the researcher to each respondent who inc
Deputy Commissioner(DC), Senior Assistant Commissioner(SAC), Assis
Commissioner(AC), Principle Revenue Officer(PRO) and Senior Revenue Officer(SRO)
respondents were sent an introductory letter (Appendix I) requesting to comp
questionnaire by the researcher (Appendix I I ) and were collected by the researche
3days. To facilitate filling out forms and data entry in a structured format, the for
ideally laid out with data fields clearly identifiable and responses pre-coded.
contributes to the likelihood of doubling the initial response rate, the researcher is c
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 r
findings. Data will be analyzed using the content analysis technique. This method i
and appropriate as it facilitates systematic objectivity and descriptive analysis. Desc
the study is achieved through categorization of material analyzed. Content analysi
useful in analyzing material from interesting questions, which are not answered throu
means. Data will be analyzed using SPSS. Descriptive statistics will then be used to
the data. This will include the computation of mean. The data will be presented inf
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 th
Descriptive design was used in the study. The researcher will use a questionnaire t
the data from the Kenya Revenue Authority respondents. This chapter explained the
design, population, sampling design, sample frame, data collection method and R
procedure. The next chapter presents the analysis of the findings of the study.
 CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the results and findings of the study. The purpose of the stu
determine the impact of effective delegation in organizations. First, it gives an over
some general characteristics of the respondents. Then, the results for each of the d
question which is on criteria of delegation, barriers of effective delegation and ben
effective delegation are presented using frequency tables and graphs. A total
questionnaires were sent and 310 were received back. This represents a 98.1% respon

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

Table 4.1 Gender of Respondent

Gender Distribution
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
categories: under 30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-45, 46 and over. From the distribution, majority
employees are over the youth category of 18-35 years which represents 80%. This sh
the managers are in the senior years.

35
Table 4.2 Ages of Respondent
Age Group Distribution
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 responde
SRO, 25.8% were PRO 12.9% were Assistant Commissioners, 12.9% were Senior Assi
and, 5.2% of the respondents were Deputy Commissioners. This is shown in table 4.3

Table 4.3 Current Position

Current Position Distribution
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 rev
19% of the respondents had 1-5 years in management. About 27% of the respondent
10 years in management. Twenty nine percent (29 % ) had 11-15 years, 16.1 % o
respondents had 16-20 years in management while only 8.4% had over 21 ye
management experience
 Table 4.4 Years in Management
Years of Management Distribution
Frequency
1-5 59 19.0

6-10 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
report to them ,21.9 % had 6-15 employees under them, 26.3% had 16-30 employees
to them, 20.3% had 31.45 direct reports while only 16.8% had 46 and above employee
to them directly.

Table 4.5 Direct Reports

Direct Reports Distribution
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% hav
college level of education, 47.7 % have undergraduate degree, and 39% have Masters
while only 4.2% have a Doctorate.

37
 Table 4.6 Education level
Education level Distribution
Frequency
28 9.0
Some college

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
subordinates, 40.6% sometimes assign work to their subordinates, 4.9% often assign
their subordinates 11 % routinely assign work to their subordinates and 7.4% do n
assign work. The results are presented in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7 Assigning Work

Frequency of Assigning Work Distr ibution
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 deleg
criteria for delegating. The frequency analysis aimed at revealing the extent to wh
respondents agreed with the statements have been presented in the tables and figure
4.3.1 Managers Input Whether Task is Suitable
Table 4.8, indicates that 41.3% of the respondents disagreed that the task is suitab
delegated followed by 36.8% who strongly disagreed that the task was suitable. Only
agree with the statement while 8.4% strongly agreed.

Table 4.8: Managers Input Whether Task is Suitable

Rating Distribution
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
subordinates, 33.2% strongly disagreed defining and only 13.9% agreed and 9% s
disagreed that they define the task to the subordinates while delegating.

4.9 Define the Task

Rating Distribution
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
strongly disagreed and 12.3 % of the respondents agreed when asked whether they
key goals of the task to their subordinates when delegating.

39
Table 4.10 Identify Key Goals
Radng Distr ibution
Frequency

Strongly agree 25 8.1

-- -
Agree 38
Disagree 145 46.8
Strongly disagree 102 32.9
310
Total

4.3.4 Plan the Delegation

From the study findings, majority of the respondents accounting for 44.2% rated
followed by 30.6% who strongly agreed, 15.8% disagreed and 9.4% strongly disagreed
asked whether they plan the delegation. The results are presented in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11 Plan the Delegation

Rating Distribution

Frequency Percent
29 9.4
Strongly agree

Agree 49 15.8
Disagree 137 44.2
Strongly disagree 95 30.6
310 100.0
Total

4.3.5 Identify the Right Person

As shown in table 4.12, 43.2% of the respondents disagreed, 34.5% strongly disagre
13.5% agreed that they identify the right person to do the task delegated while only
strongly agreed in identifying the right person.

40
 Table 4.12: Identify the Right Person
Rating Distribution
Frequency
27 8.7
Strongly agree

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 wh
whether they anticipate problems before the delegate a task. 12.6% of the responden
with the statement and only 8.7% of the respondents strongly agreed with the statem

Table 4.13: Anticipate Problems

Rating Distribution
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 di
that proper training was availed where need. While 13.5% of the respondents agree
further 8.4% strongly agreed with the statement as depicted by the table.
 _ Africa-Ubrary

Table 4.14: Ensure Proper Training

Rating Distribution
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 resp
agreed and 40% strongly agreed. Only 14.2% of the respondents disagreed whil
strongly disagreed with the statement. (See Table 4.15)

Table 4.15: Establish Clear Reporting Links

Rating Distribution
Frequency Percent
Strongly agree 25 8.1

44 14.2
Agree
132 42.6
Disagree
109 35.2
Strongly disagree
310 100.0
Total

4.3.9 Establish Scope of Authority

Table 4.16, shows that 44.2% of the respondents disagreed who agree when asked
they establish the scope of authority being delegated 33.2% of the respondents
disagree with the statement and 9% of the respondents strongly agreed.
 Table 4.16 Establish Scope of Authority
Rating Distribution
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 delega
table 4.17 reveals that 43.9% disagreed, 33.9% who strongly disagreed and only 12.9%
respondents agreed with the statement and 9.4% strongly agreed with the statement..

Table 4.17: Agree on Time-scale

Rating Distribution
Frequency Percent
Strongly agree 29 9.4

40 12.9
Agree

136 43.9
Disagree

105 33.9
Strongly disagree

310 100.0
Total

4.3.11 Agree on Milestone

When asked whether each task is assessed at the agreed milestones. Table 4.18 re
41.9% of respondents disagreed with the statement, 14.8% agreed and also 10.6%
respondents strongly agreed with the statement.

43
Table 4.18 Agree on milestone
Rating Distribution
Frequency

Strongly agree 33 10.6

Agree 46 14.8
Disagree 130 41.9
Strongly disagree 101 32.6
310 100.0
Total

4.3.12 Establish Key performance indicators

From the study findings, 40% strongly disagreed, 40% also disagreed when asked
they establish key performance indicators to all team members delegated. Twenty
(20%) of the respondents agreed with the statement. Table 4.19 shows the distribution

Table 4.19 Establish Key Performance Indicators

Rating Distribution
Frequency Percent

Strongly agree 29 9.4

42 13.5
Agree
135 43.5
Disagree

104 33.5
Strongly disagree

310 100.0
Total

4.3.13 Give specific feedback

From Table 4.20, 42.9% of the respondents disagreed that do they gave feedback tha
positive points and areas of concern followed by 32.6% who strongly disagreed while
of the respondents agreed while only 8.7% strongly agreed with the statement sh
distribution.

44
Table 4.20: Give specific feedback
Rating Distribution
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 de

Twenty percent (20%) of the respondents felt that one should delegate to people who r
you. Eighteen percent (18%) of the respondents stated that you need to delegate acco
the size/amount of task. This was followed by fifteen percent (15%) of the responden
felt that one need staff buy in to achieve it. Fifteen percent 15% of the respondents fe
manager should talk about the consequences of the results of the tasks. Ten percent
the respondents also noted that to have efficient delegation it will be good to define r
a fiirther Ten percent (10%) stated that one need to delegate results not the process
stated that a manager should also establish checkpoints, ensure Open communi
important when delegating across functional areas or through different levels
organizafion. And a final 2% say you need to clarify your expectation. Figure 4.1 s
distribution of responses.

45
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 t
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
themselves, while 32.3% strongly agreed, 17.7% disagreed and 11% strongly agreed th
prefer to do the work themselves.

46
Table 4.21: Do Work yourself
Rating Distribution

Frequency Percent

34 11.0
Strongly disagree

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
staff to complete tasks and 33.2 % strongly agreed while 13.5% disagreed with the s
and 9% strongly disagree. Table 4.22 shows the distribution.

Table 4.22: Lack Confidence

Rating Distri bution
Frequency
Strongly disagree 28 9.0

42 13.5
Disagree

137 44.2
Agree
103 33.2
Strongly agree

310 100.0
Total

4.4.3 No time to Train

Table 4.23 shows that 46.8% agreed that there was no time to train their direct
followed by 31.3% who strongly agreed. A Further 13.2% of the respondents disagre
the statement and 8.7% of the respondents strongly disagreed with the statement.

47
Table 4.23: No Time to Train
Rating Distribution
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 employe
their strong performers while only 31.6 % of the respondents strongly agreed w
statement while 13.5 disagrees with the statement. Only 8.4% strongly disagreed.

Table 4.24: No Trust in Employees

Rating Distribution
Frequency Percent
26 8.4
Strongly disagree

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 follo
32.9% who strongly agreed when asked whether the continuously negotiate the boun
the staff, scope of practice and corporate policies and procedures . 14.2 % disagreed
statement and 8.1 % of the respondents strongly disagree with the statement.
Table 4.25: Negotiate Boundaries
Rating Distribution
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
whether they do not delegate because their staff lack experience and competence. On
of the respondents disagreed with the statement and 8.4%) strongly disagreed.

Table 4.26: Inexperienced staff

Rating Distribution
Frequency Percent

26 8.4
Strongly disagree

Disagree 44 14.2
Agree 141 45.5
Strongly agree 99 31.9
310 100.0
Total

4.4.7 Neglect Level of Authority

Table 4.27, indicate that, 43.5% agreed that they neglect to tell staff and other peopl
level of authority, 36.1% strongly agreed with the statement. While 8.4%) strongly disa
and 11 disagreed with the statement.

49
Table 4.27: Neglect level of authority
Rating Distribution
Frequency

Strongly disagree 26 8.4

Disagree 37 11.9

Agree 135 43.5

112 36.1
Strongly agree

Total 310 100.0

4.4.8 Resist Responsibility

Table 4.28 shows that 46.5% of the respondents agreed that the team members
responsibility. A fiirther 30.6% of the respondents strongly agreed with the stateme
only 14.6% of the respondents disagreed with the statement while only 8.4% st
disagreed with the statement

Table 4.28: Resist Responsibility

Rating Distribution
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
their responsibility, while 27.9% who strongly agreed. Only 11.6% of the respon
disagreed with the statement. Table 4.29 shows the distribufion.

50
Table 4.29 Success is my Responsibility
Rating Distribution
Frequency Percent

28 9.0
Strongly disagree

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 cris
of the respondents agreed; while 3 1 % of the respondents strongly agreed with the s
11.9% disagreed while only 9.7% strongly disagreed with the statement. The resu
shown in Table 4.30.

Table 4.30: Decision are Made under Crisis

Rating Distribution
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 d
delegate. Thirty percent (30%) of the respondents stated that they lose out on get
credit for the work. This was followed by twenty five percent (25%) of the responden
having enough resources barred them fi-om delegating. Fifteen percent (15%)
respondents felt that their subordinates did not have enough time to take on oth
Twelve percent (12%) of the respondents found it hard to delegate these tasks and
ten percent (10%) say that their subordinate fear being a scapegoat. And a final 8% s
might delegate themselves out of a job. Figure 4.3 above shows distribufion of respon

51
 B a r r i e r s 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 m
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
that delegation builds new employee skills and strengthen existing ones.31.6% s
agreed when asked whether delegation builds new employee skills and strengthen
ones. About twelve (12.9%) of the respondents disagreed with the statement and 9.7%
respondents strongly disagreed.

52
Table 4.31: Build New Skills
Rating Distribut ion
Frequency Percent
30 9.7
Strongly disagree

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 mo
is accomplished and deadlines can be met more easily, 3 1 % strongly agreed wi
statement, 13.2% disagreed with the statement and a fiarther 9.7% of the respondents
disagreed with the statement.

Table 4.32: Work Deadlines are met

Rating Distribution
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 30 9.7

41 13.2
Disagree

143 46.1
Agree

96 31.0
Strongly agree

310 100.0
Total

4.5.3 Employees become Committed

Table 4.33 shows that the majority of the respondents accounting for 49.7% agree
delegation helps employees become involved and committed, 31.9% who strongly
with the statement, 10% of the respondent disagreed and a fiirther 8.4% strongly dis
with the statement.

53
Table 4.33: Employees become Committed
Rating Distribution
Frequency
Strongly disagree 26 8.4

31 10.0
Disagree

154 49.7
Agree
99 31.9
Strongly agree

310 100.0
Total

4.5.4 Control is less difficult

Table 4.34; indicates that, 46.5% of the respondents strongly agreed that the assign
specific responsibility and authority makes control less difficult, 33.5% agreed. Only
the respondents strongly disagreed with the statement while 11% disagreed wi
statement.

Table 4.34: Control less Difficult

Rating Distribution
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 28 9.0

34 11.0
Disagree

104 33.5.
Agree
144 46.5
Strongly agree

310 100.0
Total

4.5.5 Growth and Development

Table 4.35 indicates that 47.4% of the respondents agreed when asked whether del
helps employees grow and develop, 29.4% strongly agreed with the statement and 12
the respondents disagreed and 10.6 strongly disagreed with the statement.

54
Table 4.35: Growth and Development
Rating Distribution
Frequency
Strongly disagree 33 10.6

39 12.6
Disagree

147 47.4
Agree

91
Strongly agree

310 100.0
Total

4.5.6 Performance can be measured

Table 4.36 shows that the majority of the respondents accounting for 46.1% rated agree
individual performance can be measured more accurately. Thirty one (31%) of
respondents strongly agreed with the statement. And 9.4% strongly disagreed wit
statement.

Table 4.36: Performance can be measured

Rating Distribution
Frequency Percent
29 9.4
Strongly disagree

42 13.5
Disagree

143 46.1
Agree

96 31.0
Strongly agree

310 100.0
Total

4.5.7 Staff Satisfaction and Recognition Enhanced

Table 4.37 shows that, 43.5% agreed that delegation enhance employee satisfaction
recognition. Only of the respondents strongly agreed with the statement. About Nine
percent (8.7%) of the respondents disagreed with the statement while 18.4% stro
disagreed.
Table 4.37: Staff Satisfaction and Recognition Enhanced
Rating Distribution
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 57 18.4

27 8.7
Disagree

135 43.5
Agree

91 29.4
Strongly agree

310 100.0
Total

4.5.8 Manage Effectively

When asked whether a diversity of products, operation and people can be managed
effectively, 44.5% of the respondents disagreed, 32.3% of the respondents strongly dis
with the statement while 13.9% agreed with the statement. The distribution is shown in
4.38

Table 4.38: Manage Effectively

Rating Distribution
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
strongly agreed that staffs are more fully and productivity improves and 15.2% disagreed
the statement and 9% strongly disagreed with the statement.
Table 4.39: More Productivity
Rating Distribution
Frequency Percent
28 9.0
Strongly disagree

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 agree
delegation helped distance operations are managed with less stress and travel while 1
the respondents disagreed and 11% strongly disagreed with the statement.

Table 4.40: less travel and stress

Rating Distri jution
Frequency
28 11.0
Strongly disagree

47 13.2
Disagree
141 45.5
Agree

94
Strongly agree

310 100.0
Total

4.5.11 More Time to Manage

Table 4.41 indicates that the majority of the respondents accounting for 45.2% agree
delegation allows a manager more time to plan organize, motivate and contro
organization. Thirty two percent (32.9%) strongly agreed with the statement and 13.9%
respondents disagreed with the statement.

57
Table 4.41: More time to manage
Rating Distribution
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.
percent (20%) of the respondents felt that delegation helps the organization as knowl
shared. Another Twenty percent (20%) saw that delegation increases management expe
Eighteen percent (18%) of the respondents stated that by delegation communication a
managers and subordinates is improved. This was followed by Fifteen percent (15%)
respondents who felt that delegation facilitates teamwork. Twelve percent (12%) o
respondents felt it also incorporates fresh perspectives and creative way as it allow
engagement. Ten percent (10%) of the respondents also noted it also gives appr
recognition to those participating in the tasks delegated. And a final five percent (5%) s
delegation gives a sense of achievement. Figure 4.3 shows distribution of responses

58
 B e n e f i t s of E f f e c t i v e D e l e g a t i o n

sharing knowledge 20

increases your management experience

improves communication 18

fecilitates teamwork 15
incorporates fresh perspectives and creati\
ways ]12

appropriate recognition 10

0 5 10 15 20 25
• %I

Figure 4.3 Benefits of Delegation

4.6 Chapter Summary

In this chapter the findings were obtained from questionnaires administered to

employees at Kenya Revenue Authority, the findings of the study were based on the r
questions. The findings were presented in frequency tables and figures.

The study revealed managers did follow the process of delegation. They did not
suitable tasks to be delegated, nor define the task, they also did not identify goals
subordinates to achieve nor identify the right person for the task and they also d
properly train their subordinates.

From the findings managers experienced the following obstacles individually and also
barriers presented by those they delegate to as: lack of confidence, managers prefer
work themselves, having no time to train, lack of trust in employees, having inexper
staff and neglect in level of authority were some of the barriers to effective delegatio
other factors that were provided by the respondents on the barriers that prevent e
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
follow the process of effective delegation these include: building and developing
meeting deadlines, enhancing satisfaction and commitment, managing effectively, im
productivity which many of the respondents revealed.

60
 CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the summary, discussions, conclusions and recommendations.

section of this chapter will give the summary of the methodology of the study of the
findings. The second section discusses the findings based on the research questi
subsequent section will discuss the conclusions drawn from the findings and discussi
chapter concludes by giving recommendations improvement and further studies.

5.2 Summary
The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of effective delegation at K
Revenue Authority. The study was guided by the following research questions: What a
criteria used for effective delegation in organizations? What are the barriers to eff
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 R
Authority a Government Parastatal with the mandate of collecting taxes on behalf o
Government of Kenya. The target population was 1540 in total from Senior Tax Mana
Stratified random technique was used to select a sample size of 316 respondents. T
was collected using questionnaires. The collected data was analyzed using desc
statistics in terms of frequencies and percentages and presented in tables and
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 fel
managers should delegate to those who report to them in the organization. The majorit
respondents agreed that using teamwork for complex tasks and an individual for easi
help delegation become effective. The respondents also talked about having staff buy
tasks would go a long way to successfully delegating. The manager should also
checkpoints and clearly communicate on the job and finally establish expectation of th
delegated.

Regarding the extent to which the barriers affect delegation process at K R A , the respo
mentioned some barriers as: they would not get credit i f they delegated, some stated

61
delegating they lost tasks they enjoyed performing. Others were afraid they would d
out of their Job. They also observed that some of their staff did not have enough time
on other duties and some of their employees feared that managers would use th
scapegoats. There was also the issue of not having enough resources to which an e
would use to handle the tasks delegated.

Regarding the benefits of effective delegations most of the managers stated that de
augmented management experience by learning how to effectively assign, coordina
administrate tasks. It also helped incorporate fresh perspectives and creative ways t
responsibilities. Other respondents say it allows appropriate recognition of m
contributions, and others say that delegation brings a sense of achievement. It allows
knowledge, you and your organization will achieve more by working with well-trai
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 delegatin
was confirmed by the findings of (Smith, 2012) which revealed that a manager needs to
which tasks can be delegated and those that should not be delegated. The findin
showed that there was a need that the task should be clearly defined. This is also in li
the study of Lawson (2007) which revealed that manager should plan on how to prese
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
subordinate creating a need for identifying goals. This was confirmed by (Ruff, 2011
stated that providing requirements of the tasks allows a subordinate to focus on what
be done. The findings revealed that majority of the respondents disagreed that dele
needs to be planned. In his study (Lawson, 2007) concluded that one should take time
the parameters, requirements, authority level, checkpoints and expectations. In his
(Roebuck, 1998) noted that you need to choose the right person, by assessing their sk
experience as objectively as possible, choose a person you can depend on. Most resp
like Roebuck agreed that it is important to assign the right person. Majority of the respo
also agreed that they expect problems to arise but as it was highlighted by Luecke (20
the employee understand who he/she can tum to for help as well as other available res

62
Most of the respondents also agreed that proper training of employees should be don
assignment of tasks. Majority of the respondents felt that there was no need to establis
of authority. (Lawson, 2007) however in his study highlighted that it was important to t
subordinate on the tasks delegated this she explained by placing an internal focus
helps employees grow and further their own professional development and that also o
authority and responsibility helps minimize miscommunication and also insubordinati
clash. Most of the respondents did not make clear associations between themselves
delegate but as per Roebuck (1998) views; it necessary while delegating that clear
should be established.

According to the study, most of the respondents did not give a timescale of the task
delegatee. This according to (Lindo, 1999), is necessary as establishing deadlines all
manager to effectively monitor the progress of the assignment being done. Most
managers while delegating did not agree on milestones but in her study (Lawson, 2007
that agreeing on checkpoints with the employees ensures there is mutual agreement th
becomes a collaborative process and there is staff buy in. The other most important fa
the criteria for effective delegation is to establish performance indicators echoed
literature review by Colombo and Delmastro (2004) to ensure you achieve the resu
required. Majority of the respondents however did not establish key performance ind
with their delegatees. The study revealed that most of the respondents did not give sp
feedback. Huppe (1994) in his study explained that giving feedback helped the ma
determine if 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 .
confirmed by (Longnecker, 2004) where it was observed that doing the work alone
manager is a common barrier to delegating. This is because some managers in
maintaining all control and authority due to insecurity. The study also revealed that ma
lack confidence in their staff This is in line with (Smith, 2012) who revealed that mana
have little or no faith in subordinates who may be contributed by a prior bad experie
unrealistic standards and timelines dictated by the superior which is created by
developed partnerships with subordinates. Most of the respondents stated that have
not have the time to train their employees, this is brought about by the nature of the

63
whereby most employees go through a two year course training before being deploy
therefore managers feel they require no fiirther training.

The study also revealed that majority of the respondent take time with the staff to agr
negotiate boundaries. In his study (Northouse, 2007) states that many managers shou
and negotiate boundaries to avoid miscommunication. Many respondents in this study
delegate tasks due to inexperience of staff that they supervised thereby having diffic
choosing the right person for the task. Roebuck (1998) stated that in order to choose t
person, you need to assess their skills and experience as objectively as possible, c
person you can depend on. The majority of respondents agreed that many of their em
resisted responsibility. Smith (2012) noted that people fear supervisory reprisal which
put professional and personal reputation on the line and Mohiedini (2009) also noted th
employee lacks motivation then they will resist responsibility.

When asked what other barriers they faced while delegating the desire for personal cre
stated. Lawson (2007) reveals that where supervisors seek self fiilfillment therefore tend
important tasks themselves so personal credit is attributed to them therefore not del
Most respondents agreed that success is their responsibility therefore they decided
delegate. Luecke (2009) confirmed this but stated that a manager should know that
responsible for the task assigned as delegation is not abdication hence delegate the jo
of the respondents unfortunately delegate even under crisis. Lawson (2007) has stated t
should not delegate during an emergency or a short-term tasks where there is no t
explain or train. In conclusion many managers face many of the barriers which is conf
by many of the authors. Conflicting attitudes such as age, work ethics, role confiisio
personality can create resentment within the division and hamper delegation. Clea
definition can significantiy help reduce conflict by clarifying job task and scope of aut
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 agree
confirms that proper delegation is important factors in boosting employee skills. T
confirmed by Lawson (2007) where she states that a benefit of delegation is develo
employee's skills and the organization as a whole is likely to produce a higher level
put. It was revealed in the study where majority agreed that deadlines are met with the h

64
delegation. According to Ward and Wilcox, (1996) delegation ensures that work deadline
met by having checkpoints and agreeing on key goals and milestones deadline are met.
study most of the employees agreed that the delegation makes employees become
committed. This was confirmed in a study by Ruff (2011) which stated that effect
delegation ensured that employees are given opportunity to be involved with decision m
which lead to commitment and increased morale This also encourages also allows fo
maintains cordial relationships further developing team spirit leading to effec
communication.

When asked whether delegation makes control less difficult majority of the respond
agreed while just a few of the respondents disagreed. Nelson (1999) agrees with this,
his study revealed that delegation creates an environment where there is buy in
employees enhancing teamwork thereby making control less difficult. In this study ma
of the respondents felt delegation supports growth and development. According to La
(2012) study delegation provides professional growth opportunities to subordinates. M
the employee's further performance can be measured through delegation. According
(2011) delegations gives employees' personal satisfaction and a sense of achievement t
involving them in decision making, this was revealed in this study where majority o
respondents agreed that the satisfaction and recognition is enhanced. Most of the em
felt that delegation helps them manage effectively. Lawson (2007) brings it out when
revealed that through having a plan whereby requirement are set, milestones are agre
and performance indicators set then management becomes more effective.

In this study the respondents agreed that it also helps improve on productivity. Smith
notes that productivity and efficiency is increased as delegation motivate employees w
tum work with more commitment. Majority of the respondents indicate that there is less
and stress therefore leading to more time to manage. Delegation when applied strategi
brings about competitive dynamics and designing of effective managerial control sy
which give the organization a competitive edge against rival both potential and cu
(Mclnnis & Parson, 2009). Most employees suggest that delegation has many benefits fo
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 a
process of delegating. Senior Tax officers revealed that they do know what delegation
do not delegate and those who do, do it albeit with varying fi-equency. The majority o
respondents failed to carry out the various steps which make delegation an effective
which include identifying the key goals, choosing the right person, training their emp
and outiining authority and responsibility. From the findings, we can conclude that the
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 du
inexperience staff who are fi-esh graduates with no experience, lack of trust in employee
supervise, and having no time to train, lack of confidence in their delegates, inabil
negotiate boundaries and the supervisors thinking they are better suited for the job. M
being better suited for the job and inexperienced staffs are two of the most firequent
for not delegating according to various researchers. This could be due to fear of losing
and wanting to ensure visibility i.e. getting credit. What is clear is that senior leaders ar
reluctant to appropriately tum over therein to their subordinates. K R A leaders mu
conscience of this finding to be more purposeftil about pushing down responsibili
authority. Failure to do this can have ill effects. One repercussion is employees will n
responsible nor will their capabilities broaden. Another is that associates will look outs
current department for professional fulfillment and challenge, leaving the exited organ
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, em
and the organization. As highlighted by the findings, delegation increases your manag
experience by leaming how to effectively assign, coordinate, and administrate tasks.
incorporates fresh perspectives and creative ways to fulfill responsibilities. It a
appropriate recognition of member contributions, a sense of achievement. Sharing kno
improves communication and facilitates teamwork. It brings about productivity and sa
money. It is therefore noted that delegation does much more good to every element
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

5.5.1.1 Criteria to Achieve Effective Delegation

There is a need to emphasis to senior leaders at Kenya Revenue Authority that deleg
an important distinction of leadership. Caution should be exercised in interpreting t
reporting of delegation as an indication that all is well with this important leadership fu
K R A would greatly benefit i f superiors emphasized that delegation should be exe
thoughtfially and methodically. Training courses or seminars that focus on the import
delegation and its effectiveness are widely available and could be pursued to enhan
sharpen skills in the delegation process.

5.5.1.2 Barriers to Effective Delegation.

K R A needs to create a culture of trust by instituting policies that ensure they consi
contributions and ideas of employees when delegating. K R A can through engagement en
organization structure fosters teamwork and improves communication network by redu
hierarchical level. Leaders are therefore encouraged to develop better attitudes abo
staff and allow participation. They are also advised to monitor and give feed back on p
to achieve the goal they desire. They should also choose the right people for the tas
effective delegation, however, the element of trust is important for both parties, j
authority must be commensurate with responsibility. K R A can organize for team bu
activities to foster relationships.

5.5.1.3 Benefit of Effective Delegation

Managers need to know the benefits of delegation through highlighting the benefits
organization and themselves. Through seminars and Team building activities they learn
of delegating through engaging in team activities which in reality will appreciate deleg
The managers should be made aware through sensitization activities that there is mu
gained by both the individual and the organizafion not simply to disperse and app
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 R
employees in non management to determine their perceptions of delegation pra
Delegation is a two way process between a supervisor and subordinate and efforts to
their assessments and reconcile with these findings would provide a more comprehens
at the issue of delegation in Kenya Revenue Authority. A comparison could then be m
similarities and differences between the two studies and an action plan developed to
differences. The inclusion of interviews for expanded understanding of past experien
barriers to delegafion is also recommended.

68
 REFERENCES

American Nurses Association, (2007),

(online) available: http://ww.nursingworld.org..

Andolsen, A. A . (2008). The Information Management

Journal, pg. 42. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com.

Atherton, T . (1999). London: Kogan Page

Limited.

Axley, S. R. (2002). Industrial Management

Retrievedfromhttp://

Bass, B . M., & Valenzi, E . (1994). In

J.G.Runt & L . L . Larson (Eds.).

Baston, R. (1991). Tutor's guide. London: Kogan Press.

Basu, C . (June, 2013) (online) available

http://smallbusiness.chron.coni/ can-delegated-business- 22197 .html

Blair, G. M. (2009) Chartwell-Bratt ( U K ) and the

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (USA).

Bittner, N . P., & Gravlin, G. (2009).

Journal of Nursing Administration, 39(3), 142-146.

Bloom, N., R. Sadun, R &Van Reenen, J . (2010b). Recent Advances in the Empirics of
Organizational Annual Review of Economics.

Brown, M. R. (1998). Don't be a micro manager: share the responsibility. Black Enterp

Chapman, A . (2012).
From< http://www.businessbaIIs.com/delegation.htm> (Retrieved on 8
May, 2013).

Coleman, M. & Bush. T. (1994). In T. Bush & 1. West - Bumham

(Eds.), The principles of educational management. Essex: Longman.

Colombo, M.G., & Delmastro, M.

Journal of Industrial Economics, pg 53-80.

Corazzini, K., Anderson, R.A., Rapp, c , Mueller, C , McConnell, E . , & Lekan, D.,
(2010). Scope
The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing Vol. 15, No.2, Manuscript 4.

69
Cooper, D R. & C. Emory, W. (1995) 5th ed, Mc-Graw Hill
International Edition.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (6th Ed.). New York,

N Y : McGraw-Hill.

Datta, D., Guthrie, J . P., & Rajagopalan, N .

Human Resource Planning, 25: pg 14-
25.

Denscombe, M. (1998).
Viva books private limited.

Dreyfus, S. E . (1981) v
U S A F Office of Scientific Research, refF49620-
79-C-0063.

Fleming, R. S. (2010).
Rowan University.

Fimstahl, T.W. (2001). Harvard Business Review, 64(5), pgl4-18.

Finch, L . & Maddux, R. B .

Third Edition,

Gazda, S. January). HR Magazine, pp.

Ghumro, H.J, Mangi, R.A & Soormo, A.R. (2011).

Grant, P. C. (2001). New York: D K

Publishing, Inc

Hasan. June 23). Retrieved June 11, 2013, from

http://dirjoumal.com/guides/how -to-delegate-effectively

Heller, R. (1998). New York: D K Publishing, Inc.

Huppe, F . (1994). Hawthorne, NJ: Career Press.

Huber, D. (2006).

Hughes, G. C. (2012). New York:

McGraw-Hill/ Irwin.

Kreitner, R. & Kinicki, A. (2004). 6th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-

Hill/Irwin.

Krejcie, R. V . &, Morgan, D. W. (1970),

Educational and Psychological Measurement.

70
Lawson, K . (2007) Lawson Consulting Group. Inc.

Lindo, D. (1999). Supervision 60(12): pg 6-8.

Lisoski, E . (1999).
pg7.

Lofland, J. & Lofland, L . (1995). 3rd edition. Wadsworth,

Belmont.

Longenecker, C. O. (2004). The delegation dilemma. Supervision pg 3-5.

Luecke, R. A. (2009). New York, N Y : American

Management Association McConkey, D. D.

Lussier, R. N. & Achua, C. (2013) International Edition-5th Edition.

United Kingdom: South-Western Cengage Leaming.

Malone, T. W. (1997), Decision Making

and IT. Sloan Management Review. Pg 23-35.

Mamca, R. F . (1999). Harvard Business Review, 77(6), pg

30-32.

McConkey, D. D. (1986). New York: Amacom. Englewood Cliffs,

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc

Mclnnis, L . A., & Parson, L . C. (2009).

Nursing Clinics of North America, 44, pg 461-470.

Mind Tools (January 10, (Online) available

http://www.mindtools.comltmdelegt.html."

Mohiedini, P. (2009),
Educational, Managers broadcasting organization. Islamic Republic oflran. No 101
120

Mondy, R. W. & Premeaux, S. R. (1995).

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Muir, J . (1995). Work study 44(7):pg 6&7.

Nelson, R. B . (1993) 2nd edition

Northouse, P. (2007) pg 3

O'Leary, Z. (2004) London: Sage

71
Pollock, T. (2002). 8 Automotive Design and
Production, 114(2), 10-13.

Potter, P., & Deshields, T., & Kuhrik, M. (2010).

18, 157-165.

Quallich, S. A. (2005). Urologic Nursing, 25(2), 120-123.

Ravanbakhsh. J , (2009),

P-P: 148

Roebuck, C. (1998). New York: American Management Association,

Ruff, V . A . (2011), Master of Arts

in Nursing Theses. Paper 21.

Salinas-Maningo, M. J . (2005). Atlanta: Prentice-Hall.

Sharma, M. K . (2008). The Journal of

Global Business Issues, Volume 2, Issue 2, 7-12.

Smith, C. C. (2012, 28 Mar).

Published by Defense Acquisition University

Stevenson, W. J. (1999) Boston, MA: Irwin

McGraw-Hill.

Straub, J . T. (1998). Bristol, V T : Velocity

Business Publishing.

Stroh, E . (2002^. 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) What Works

Tanner, R. (2011) (Online) available

http://managementisajoumey.coni/five-common- human-barriers- to-effective delegation!
.html

Tammens, E. (July, 2012).

Tannenbaum, A., & Schmidt, W. (1958). Harvard

Business Review, 36: 95-101.

Tripathi, P. C. & Reddy, P. N . (2008). 4* ed. McGraw-Hill,

72
Wackerly, D.D., Mendenhall, W. & Scheaffer, R. L . (2008) Mathematical Statistics w
Applications (5th edition)

Walker, C.A. (2002). Saving your rookie managers from themselves.

Ward, M.E. & Wilcox, B.M. (1999). Larchmont, N Y : Eye on

Education.

Weiss, W. H . (2000). Supervision 61(9):pg3-5.

Williams, J . C, Du-Brin, A. J , & Sisk, H . L , (1985). 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 N K A T H A
UNITED S T A T E S I N T E R N A T I O N A L U N I V E R S I T Y - A F R I C A
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

fulfillment of the requirement of the Execufive Master of Science in Organizafio
Development (EMOD) degree program at the United States International University.

The study focuses Kenya Revenue Authority as a case study and therefore you hav
selected as a respondent. The result of this study will provide the management of K R
other organizations information on the importance of effective delegafion and ho
delegation process can be improved in organizations.

It is an academic research and confidentiality will be strictly adhered to. Your need n
your name and personal informafion anywhere in the report. Kindly spare some ti
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: DEMOGRAPHICS
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 • 1-4

have? • 5-10
• 11-15
• 16-20
• 21-25
• 26-30
• more than 30

5. How many direct reports do you have • 0

currently? • 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
• rarely
work or delegate tasks to immediate • sometimes
subordinates (direct reports)? • often
• routinely
• not at a all

75
S E C T I O N 2: PART I : C R I T E R I A F O R D E L E G A T I O N
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: Strongly agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
4=strongly agree, 3 = agree, 2= disagree = strongly 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
4 3 2 1
required
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
4 3 2 1
timescale
5. 1 identify the right person by considering their skills,
4 3 2 1
knowledge and attitude to perform well
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
4 3 2 1
delegate a task to them.
11.1 ensure that each task is assessed at the agreed
4 3 2 1
milestones.
12. 1 establish key performance indicators. 4 3 2 1
13.1 give specific feedback that covers posifive points and
4 3 2 1
areas of concem.

14. Based on your position and level of responsibility. List at least four other criteria
used to delegate effectively?

a. )
b. )
c. )
d. )

76
S E C T I O N I I : PART I I : B A R R I E R S T O D E L E G A T I O N
Strongly
Taking statements in tum, tick the number which is agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
most representative of your attitude and behavior.
Assess whether the obstacles affect how you delegate
tasks to your team.

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 4 3 2 >

strong performers.

5. I continuously negotiate the boundaries of the staff,

4 3 2 •
scope of practice and corporate policies and procedures

6.1 cannot delegate because my employees lack 4 3 2

experience and competence

7.1 Neglect to tell staff and other people their level of 4 3 2

authority.

8. My team members resist responsibility 4 3 2

9. The success of my work unit is totally my 4 3 2

responsibility.

10. Most of my decisions are made under crisis 4 3 2 1

conditions.

12. Based on your experience of delegation how can we overcome or alleviate the bar
delegating?

a. )
b. )
c. )
d. )
S E C T I O N I I : PART I I : B A R R I E R S T O D E L E G A T I O N
Strongly
Taking statements in tum, tick the number which is agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
most representative of your attitude and behavior.
Assess whether the obstacles affect how you delegate
tasks to your team.

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 4 3 2

strong performers.

5.1 continuously negotiate the boundaries of the staff,

4 3 2 >
scope of practice and corporate policies and procedures

6.1 cannot delegate because my employees lack 4 3 2

experience and competence

7.1 Neglect to tell staff and other people their level of4 3 2
authority.

8. My team members resist responsibility 4 3 2

9. The success of my work unit is totally my 4 3 2 >

responsibility.

10. Most of my decisions are made under crisis 4 3 2 1

conditions.

12. Based on your experience of delegation how can we overcome or alleviate the barr
delegating?

a. )
b. )
c. )
d. )
 S E C T I O N I I : PART I I I : B E N E F I T S O F D E L E G A T I O N

Taking statements in tum, tick the number which is

most representative of how delegation benefits your
Strongly Strongly
team or organization. Agree agree Disagree Disagree

1.1 use delegation to build new employee skills and 4 3 2 1

strengthen existing ones.

2. More work is accomplished and deadlines can be 4 3 2 1

met more easily

3. Delegation helps employees become involved and4 3 2 1

committed

4 The assignment of specific responsibility and 4 3 2 1

authority makes control less difficult

5. Employees grow and develop 4 3 2 1

6. Individual performance can be measured more 4 3 2 1

accurately

4
7. Employee satisfaction and recognition are enhanced 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 3 2 1

productivity improves

4
10.Distant operations can be managed with less travel 3 2 1
and stress
11. The manager has time for plarming, organizing,
4 3 2 1
motivating, and controlling

9. What are other benefits of delegafing?

a. )
b. )
c. )
d. )
A P P E N D I X I I I : T A B L E F O R D E T E R M I N I N G S A M P L E S I Z E F R O M 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 University

Africa - Library

79
 APPENDIX I I I : T A B L E F O R D E T E R M I N I N G S A M P L E S I Z E F R O M A G I V E N
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
\65 \0 \ 265 \0 \ 3A\
\
\ WO \ &6 I 290 \
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 University

Africa - Library

79