Do the Two Tens Well: A Practical Guide to Delegation

You delegate a piece of work. Then you check it, adjust it, answer every question and quietly finish it yourself. The task leaves your desk for a brief holiday and comes home with more luggage.

A useful question is where your involvement actually helps. Effective delegation asks you to make the outcome clear, give someone room to own the work, and review the result together.

I use a simple shorthand for this: do the two tens well. It also offers a useful way to think about the work you hand to AI.

What the 10/80/10 rule means

John C. Maxwell has been an influential author for me, and I appreciate his contribution to leadership. He describes a 10/80/10 approach to delegation: the leader helps shape the work at the beginning, the team carries the middle, and the leader returns at the end to help bring it home. He puts the middle plainly: “The middle 80% is carried by my team.”

The numbers are a memory aid. They describe a pattern of involvement, not a measured formula or a literal division of your calendar. The work, the person’s experience and the consequences of a mistake should shape your oversight.

Here is how I apply that pattern in coaching: clarity at the start, ownership through the work, and learning at the finish.

The first ten: make the outcome clear

Before handing over a task, agree on what a useful result looks like and why it matters. Make the deadline, quality standard and practical limits visible. Give the person the information, time and authority they need.

This is where an apparently simple request can become expensive. “Put together an update” might mean a one-page decision brief to you and a comprehensive slide deck to someone else. Both people can work hard and still miss each other.

Consider an illustrative example. You want a colleague to prepare a monthly project update. A clear brief could establish four things:

Outcome: a one-page summary that lets the leadership team see progress, the largest risk and the decision it needs to make.

Standard: current figures, checked with the people responsible for them, with any uncertainty stated clearly.

Authority: the colleague can gather information and choose the format; changes to project commitments need your approval.

Review: a first version together on Thursday, ahead of Friday’s meeting, with earlier escalation if a missing input threatens the deadline.

Then ask the person to explain the outcome and their first move in their own words. Give them room to question the brief. You may discover that a dependency is missing, another priority conflicts, or your wonderfully clear explanation was clear mainly to you.

The principle is closely related to mission-type leadership: communicate the purpose and boundaries, and give the person closest to the work room to choose how to deliver it.

The middle eighty: let ownership stay with the owner

Once the work begins, your preferences can become a second, unofficial specification. You would use a different heading. You would make the call before writing the email. You would put the chart on the other side.

Some differences matter. Many are simply differences. If the approach meets the agreed standard and stays within the boundaries, let the person develop their own judgement.

Agree on check-ins that fit the work. A person learning a new task may need more guidance. A familiar task with manageable consequences may need very little. Safety requirements, required approvals and serious risks still govern the work.

When a blocker appears, ask what is stuck, what the owner recommends, and what specific help would move it forward. You might clarify a priority, obtain information or make a decision outside their authority. The person can still carry the task.

Sometimes intervention is necessary. If you take over part of the work, say why, define the part you are taking, and agree how ownership will return. Otherwise, a small rescue can quietly become the permanent operating model.

This is a practical expression of high demand with high support: keep the expectation clear and make useful help available.

The last ten: review the result and the handoff

Review against the outcome you agreed on. Start with what worked. Identify what needs to improve, and let the owner help decide the next move.

When the result misses, inspect the beginning before reaching a conclusion about the person. Was the outcome clear? Did they have the necessary resources and authority? Did something change? Was a skill missing, a decision poorly made, or an agreed action left undone?

In the project-update example, you might expect a recommendation and receive a polished summary of the options. If you never asked for a recommendation, start by improving the brief. In another case, the brief may have been clear and the owner may have skipped an essential check. Those situations call for different responses.

Checking your contribution gives you a better basis for accountability. Repeated misses after clear direction and adequate support may require skill development, a firmer performance conversation or a review of role fit.

If you need help with that conversation, start with a constructive response to disappointing work. Keep the discussion grounded in what happened, its impact and the next action.

Resist rewriting the whole result before the owner has a chance to learn. Agree on the correction and who will make it. Carry one useful lesson into the next handoff.

The same discipline applies to AI agents

An AI agent can work through a task using connected tools. Here is how I would extend Maxwell’s idea to that setting.

Use the first ten to make the assignment clear: the result, relevant context, acceptable sources and quality standard. Define which tools and data the agent can use, which actions it may take, and when it must return to you. Set the available permissions to match those boundaries.

For the project update, you might give an agent access to approved reports and ask it to draft the one-page summary. Require links to the supporting figures and a clear list of missing information. Keep changing project commitments and sending the update outside its authority.

During the middle, let it work within that scope. Set a time or spending limit and a stopping point if evidence is missing or the task requires new access. Start with a small assignment whose result you can check.

In the last ten, inspect the actual output and supporting evidence. Open the sources, check the important figures, and confirm what was completed. Correct the brief or workflow where needed. A polished answer still needs your judgement.

The agent can do the work. You remain accountable for the decisions, permissions and work you accept.

Try it with one piece of work this week

Choose a task you keep pulling back onto your own desk. Write a short brief covering the outcome, standard, authority and review point. Discuss it with the person who will own the work, including their capacity to take it on. To try the same discipline with an AI agent, choose a small task with a result you can verify, and add the tool permissions and stopping conditions to your brief.

During execution, notice the moments when you want to step in. Ask whether the work needs your intervention or whether you are uncomfortable with someone doing it differently.

At the review, assess both the result and your contribution. What became clearer? Where did you overreach? What support was missing? What will you change next time?

Do the two tens well. Give the middle an owner.

Build a team that can carry the work

If delegation keeps landing back on your desk, explore ViDA’s executive coaching to work on clearer expectations, useful support and stronger ownership in your team.

Adam Kreek is an executive coach, Olympic gold medallist and keynote speaker based in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Do hard things well, and stay human.

Quote and framework source: John C. Maxwell, “The Key to Maximizing Your Time and Effort,” published by The John Maxwell Co. on iDisciple.

Portrait: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes Guatemala, via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0); cropped and treated in monochrome.