Business Governance - Ally Principle in Delegation - Essay Example

Business Governance: Ally Principle in Delegation Delegation in leadership and management skills is an imperative practice for the establishment and development of successful governance over the organization. When there is good delegation practice, it saves the organization and authority in that organization time, and develops the junior workers, as well as, grooms possible successors and motivates. However, with poor delegation, frustration, de-motivation and confusion can ruin the efforts of the organization to achieve the purposes intended. Therefore, it is essential for the governance of any organization to establish delegation practices that enable cohesive working relations within the organization and foster common purpose (Abebe, 2013 p. 491). There are several principles applied in leadership of organization and others that act as supporting platforms for delegation. These include aspects of game theory, agency theory and leadership techniques (Bendor, Glazer & Hammond, 2001 p. 241). The ally principle is among the widely used delegation strategy. There are various delegation principles and processes applicable to delegation in either teams or individual play. The ally principle of delegation is the widely applied practice in the process of delegating in many organizations. The ally principle in delegation entails that the person in authority, when there is an opportunity for delegation, he picks the agent closest to them for the job. This definition to this principle underlies in the belief that, those entities closest to the authority and who hold a similar line of thought, as well as, foster the ideologies of the authority are at the best position to foster the organizational goals. The practice of delegation to a close entity gives the authority space to allow the person or group they give authority to work in freedom. There are several levels of delegation using the ally principle. In delegating via either principle, whether ally or any other, the levels of delegation include the following. There is the delegation in which the authority gives the directions precisely for the person delegated work (Gersen, 2012 p. 2193). Secondly, the authority can tell the junior to look at the situation and report, then the authority decides, or they decide together. Additionally, the delegation can be allowing the junior to look at the situation, make the decision and wait for approval from the authority before proceeding. Moreover, the delegation can allow the agent to make decisions and implement them then report the outcome later. Lastly, the delegation may also be allowing the person freedom to act as though they are the responsible authority in that position and need not to report to any higher authority. All these levels of delegation freedoms determine the process of selecting a person to give the authority to conduct the activities of the organization or institution as a leader (Douma & Schreuder, 2008 p. 112). Leadership entails establishing working relations with the subordinates, in which all the agents in the organization work cohesively towards accomplishing the purposes of the organization. However, variation of thought raises a factor that contributes to the complications in the process of selecting a person or team to delegate authority. In view of the various levels of freedom that the leadership can allow in the process of exercising the position of the delegation in the business institution, the ally principle remains favourable for most organizations and institutions. The ally principle allows the leadership to assess the people within the organization that has the best qualifications for the position (Marquis & Huston, 2009 p. 97). Additionally, it also allows the leadership to check for the person who will run with the goals of the organization without conflicting with the authority. Moreover, the authority recognizes that, when they delegate their processes in the organization to a person with varying opinion of the organization way of accomplishing tasks, the consequences could cost the organization accordingly. Therefore, it is only essential that the leadership actors a person who holds a related view in the matter concerning the business organization. However, with the ally principle may also be non-conducive in the process of delegating authority and responsibilities in the institution. Recently, there are developments in which business entities are open to diversity and employ a non-conventional formula in selecting the person or group to delegate the responsibilities. This procedure of delegation, however, still relies on the various levels of freedom that the leadership will give to the person they delegate the authority to exercise various powers within the organizations (Menache & Ozdaglar, 2011 p. 164). For instance, in organizations that need some revolution in the process of conducting activities, allowing for change is essential to moreover the organization forward (Strøm, 2006 p. 76). Thus, the ally principle is not applicable in such scenarios. This exemplifies the first limitation and disadvantage of applying the ally principle in delegation. It gives way for the continuity of the organization and process, blocking the opportunity for change within the organization. When the leadership selects an ally to run the activities of the organization, they do not offer a different perspective of conducting activities readily, which may cause redundancy within the organization. Moreover, the ally principle also limits the opportunity for growth and establishment of the personal ability in person to whom they delegate authority. People have varied opinions and practices, thus, the ally in their pursuit of pleasing the leader, fail to explore their abilities in the leadership position they get after delegation (Windhoff-Héritier, 2013 p. 178). Thus, ally principle may limit the chances for person to grow as a leader in the institution. Game theories in running an institution entail understanding the models of conflict and cooperation within entities with varying rational decision-making abilities. The practice applies mainly in entities such as political science and economics (Lussier & Achua, 2010 p. 52). For instance, in a political entity, the persons represented in the leadership within that entity may have varying perceptions on the best procedures of achieving their goals. Therefore, in such entity, applying the ally principle seems the most convenient practice of delegation. The ally principle in such a scenario eliminates the possibility of happenings such as disagreements that may foster the institution or entity to split due to personal decisions that conflict the leadership. The theory of games and economic behaviour evaluates the cooperative levels of the varying players within the organization (Gersen & Vermeule, 2012 p. 2201). The factor of consideration in conducting delegation in such a case is the ability of the person to sustain the pressures within the organization and to act with due diligence overseeing the activities of the organization. Decision making process entails a logical sequence that regards the repercussions of the decision on the organization and its goals. Therefore, in view of exercising such means of delegation to persons that hold varying and conflicting views over the leadership may negatively influence that process of the organization in achieving its goals. In agency theory, the focal point is on the ubiquitous relationships in which a person in leadership delegates the work to another, the agent, such as, in the employer to the employee or the minister to a public servant. In the agency theory, the focus is to solve the issues that arise in agency relationships such as when the desires of the principal vary from those of the agent. Additionally, agency theory also applies when the principal cannot verify what the agent does in the organization (Sahni & Vayunandan, 2010 p. 321). The factor is that in both scenarios, there is the concern over the ratio of sharing risks as the difference in attitudes between the delegating authority and the agent may result in undesirable outcomes within the organization (Groenewgen, Spithoven & Van der Berg, 2010 p. 132). Therefore, in view of the practices entailed in the agency theory, the ally principle in delegation remains essential to the practice the ideal relationships between the principal and the agent should reflect efficient and successful flow of information and risk bearing. There are practices in which the principal may need information that the agent may not willingly offer. The current business legislations do provide practices in which the principal can legally force the agent to facilitate such information (Jo & Rothernberg, 2014 p. 157). This is according to agency theory. However, this practice is not favourable for the successful development of relationships and working of the leadership in an organization. Therefore, the ally principle remains key in ensuring cohesiveness within the working confines of the organization. It is useful in facilitating processes of conflict resolution in the leadership as well as development of future leaders in the institution. Delegation is an essential practice in the organizational leadership. It facilitates the process of easing work for the leadership as well as giving opportunity to others in the organization to exercise their leadership abilities. Effective deliberation requires consent and cooperation in the people involved (Yukl, 2010 p. 187). Therefore, the ally principle of delegation is the favourable practice in the games of delegation, as a varied practice will bring conflicts and possibly undesirable consequences to the organization leadership. Bibliography Abebe, D 2013, ‘Rethinking the costs of international delegations’, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, Vol. 34, p. 491, LexisNexis Academic: Law Reviews, EBSCOhost, viewed March 24 2014. Douma, S. W., & Schreuder, H. 2008, Economic approaches to organizations. Financial Times Prentice Hall, Harlow Gersen, J, & Vermeule, A, 2012, ‘Delegating to enemies’, Columbia Law Review 112, 8, pp. 2193-2238, Buisness Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 March 2014. Gersen, J, E 2012, ‘Delegating to enemies’, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 112, p. 2193, LexisNexis Academic: Law Reviews EBSCOhost, viewed 24 Macrh 2014. Groenewgen, J. Spithoven, A, & Van der Berg, A, 2010, Institutional Economics: an introduction, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke Sahni, P., & Vayunandan, E 2010 ‘Administrative theory, PHI Learning, New Delhi, India Bendor, J, Glazer, A. and Hammond, T. 2001 ‘Theories of Delegation, Annual Review of Political Science, Vol.4, 235-269, DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.235 Jo, J & Rothernberg, L 2014, ‘The Importance of Beareaucratic Hierachy: Conflitcing Preferences, Incomplete Control, and Policy Outcomes’, Economics and Politics, Vol, 26, No.1, p. 157, Publisher Provided Full Text Seacrhing File, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 March 2014. Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. 2010, Leadership: theory, application, skill development. Australia, SouthWestern/Cengage Learning. Marquis, B. L., & Huston, C. J 2009, Leadership roles and management functions in nursing: theory and application. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, Menache, I., & Ozdaglar, A 2011, Network games theory, models, and dynamics, Morgan & Claypool, New England. Strøm, K. 2006. Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford Windhoff-héritier, A. 2013. Changing rules of delegation: a contest for power in comitology, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Yukl, G. A. 2010, Leadership in organizations, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J. Read More