Early in my management career, I had an analyst on my team who was excellent.
I don't mean that loosely. He was technically sharp, delivered consistently, and never needed hand-holding on work that was squarely in his lane. He had a strong track record and I trusted his judgment. So when the team's scope expanded and I needed to delegate more strategic conversations, he was the obvious choice. Senior stakeholders, cross-functional alignment, the kinds of discussions where you're not just presenting analysis but actively shaping how decisions get made.
It did not go well.
A few of those conversations went badly enough that the feedback found its way back to me secondhand. I had to step in, smooth things over, and quietly take those conversations back. And I had to be honest with myself about what had actually happened: he wasn't underskilled as a person. He was underskilled for that specific type of work, in a context he had never operated in before. I had assumed that because he was a strong performer in one lane, he was ready for a completely different one. But I learned that’s not how it works.
Why "just let go" fails
The most common delegation advice I've heard is some version of: you just have to let go. I believed it longer than I should have, because it sounds right. Trust your people. Stop micromanaging. Get out of the way. All of that is true. What it doesn't tell you is how to let go, or for what.
A lot of the conversation around delegation is about what to stop doing or when to hand things off. Those are real problems. But the failure mode I've watched most often isn't about whether to delegate. It's about assuming the person is ready when what you should actually be assessing is the task.
The advice treats readiness as a person-level trait. You decide whether someone is good, and then you delegate or you don't. But readiness isn't a person trait. It's a task trait. The same person can be fully autonomous on one type of work and completely unprepared for another, and both can be true at the same time.
The delegation ladder
For any task you're handing off, there are four levels of involvement:
Stage | What it looks like |
|---|---|
They own it, you hear about it | Full autonomy, outcomes reported after the fact |
They run it, you check in | Defined touchpoints, they flag issues |
They draft, you revise | They own the first version, you reshape |
You direct, they execute | You set the approach, review all outputs before they go anywhere |
The goal is always to move someone toward the top of the ladder over time. But you can't determine your starting point based on who the person is overall. You have to set it based on this task, this skill, this context. Where your strongest analyst sits on the ladder for data work is completely separate from where they sit for stakeholder management, writing a business requirements document, or running cross-functional alignment. Those are different ladders, and each one needs its own assessment.
Where to start on the ladder
Before you hand something off, ask two questions: Has this person done this specific type of work before? And what's the cost if it goes sideways?
If there is high familiarity and low stakes with the task: start higher in the ladder and give them room.
If it’s new territory, high visibility, or both: start lower down in the ladder and build in check-ins, even if you trust the person completely.
This isn't about confidence in them as a person. It's about setting them up to succeed on this particular thing. That assessment is judgment, not a formula, and it needs to happen every time you delegate something meaningfully different.
What it looks like when you get it right
I've seen what happens when you apply this well over a longer arc. A few years into my management career, I inherited an analyst who was already on a PIP. Her previous manager had been largely absent. She'd built a negative reputation with key stakeholders, and people were reluctant to work with her again.
I didn't hand her a big project and waited to see what happened. I was deliberate from day one about scope - what she worked on, who she worked with, how much room I gave her at each stage. We started at the bottom of the ladder: limited exposure, close coaching, working through patterns that weren't serving her and building new ones. As her confidence and track record rebuilt, I expanded the scope and pulled back my involvement.
A year and a half later, she was one of the top-performing ICs in the organization. That transformation didn't happen because I let go. It happened because I was intentional about when and how.
Most managers ask "should I delegate this?" That's not the hard part. The harder question is: where on the ladder should I start with this person on this task, and what does moving them up look like from here? That's the question "just let go" skips entirely.
One thing to do this week
Pick one thing you're currently delegating and be honest about where on the ladder you actually started versus where you should have. If you started too low and are still hovering, figure out what check-in structure would let you step back. If you started too high and things are off track, step back up. Not as a signal of distrust, but as the scaffolding the work actually needs right now.
P.S. Not sure where you actually are in the transition? I built a free 5-minute assessment that shows you exactly which IC habits are still running the show — across how you execute, communicate, and delegate ownership. Nine questions. Immediate results. You can find it here.
If someone forwarded this to you and you want to subscribe, you can do that here.
