Juanita Vorster
Leaders often assume that delegation equals empowerment, only to be frustrated when delegated tasks end up back on their desks after some time. Unfortunately, more often than not, what is perceived as delegation is merely handing over the responsibility for task delivery without the structure, authority, or tools needed to deliver outcomes.
It is not enough to empower; leaders must also equip. Empowerment, in practical terms, means giving people the authority to make the decisions required to achieve a result. It involves being explicit about what they are responsible for, what decisions fall within their mandate, where the boundaries are, and what preferences or non-negotiables should shape their approach. It also requires ensuring others in the organisation recognise that authority and are prepared to cooperate accordingly.
But too often, empowerment is implied rather than clearly articulated. Someone is asked to “take ownership,” but there’s no follow-up conversation about decision rights, expected actions, or how to handle resistance from others. They are left to interpret vague expectations, often running into unspoken rules or a lack of cooperation that undermines the very task they have been asked to lead.
On its own, empowerment does not guarantee outcomes. That is where equipping comes in. To equip someone is to ensure they have the tools, systems, access, content, processes, information and skills required to succeed. It is not about spoon-feeding or micro-managing; it is about removing friction and making sure they are not spending time battling for basic resources.
This disconnect is especially evident in organisations that demand innovation but withhold what is needed to pursue it. In such an organisation, a team may be asked to find new ways to speed up delivery. They might research options thoroughly and identify specific tools or platforms that could make it possible. But if those proposals are dismissed – for example, because leadership is unwilling to fund essential software – the team remains accountable for outcomes they are not equipped to deliver. The message is mixed: be innovate, but do not ask for support. Move faster, but use the same constraints.
The result is frustration on both sides. Momentum is lost because the conditions for success were never put in place.
This dynamic often shows up at the leadership level as well. In one coaching scenario, a chief executive officer (CEO) delegated key operational responsibilities to his second-in-command (2IC) but struggled to let go of control. Although he appeared to be handing over authority, he retained strong preferences shaped by how things had always been done. The result was that his 2IC, though technically in charge, had little room to exercise independent judgement. The delegation lacked the freedom necessary for progress.
The cost of this leadership gap is real. Projects stall. Capable people hesitate. Leaders continue to carry too much, believing they have delegated when in fact they have only shifted the burden without enabling delivery.
Closing this gap does not require a new framework – just a more intentional pause. Before assigning a task, ask yourself: Am I clearly empowering this person, including what they are responsible for and what decisions they have the authority make? And do they have what they need to succeed, or am I leaving them to piece it together on their own and fight their way through resistance from others?
When the answer to both is yes, leadership becomes far more effective. Teams gain momentum. Individuals take real ownership. Delegation becomes a tool for progress rather than a source of friction. Empowerment feels good to say – but it only works when it is matched with the means to act.
True leadership does not end at the assignment of responsibility. It includes creating the conditions that make success possible.
■ Juanita Vorster is an independent business advisor.
