It is a serious mistake to assume that a weak person in charge of a division can be bolstered by surrounding him with one or more subordinate supervisors who are of known ability. This solution is poor primarily because the:

• A. The administrator exercises control which cannot be delegated regardless of the exigencies of the situation.
• B. The administrator will merely tend to allow these subordinates to take over his responsibility without attempting to assert himself.
• C. The level of performance of the division can seldom rise higher than the capacity of the administrator.
• D. Administrative control in a decentralized organization relies on unity of command, rather than functional division of responsibility.

Answer: (B)

Leadership authority and accountability are at stake when a weak manager tries to compensate with a team of capable subordinates. If the leader is unsure of himself, he tends to step back and let others handle decisions, effectively letting the subordinates absorb his responsibilities without him asserting his own authority. That move removes unified direction and clear accountability, so the division can drift rather than improve. The real flaw isn’t that delegation is impossible or that capability alone would raise performance; it’s that the weak administrator relinquishes control, leaving management to others while still bearing the ultimate duty to lead. The other statements miss the core dynamic: control can be exercised through leadership, and the problem is the administrator’s reluctance to assert himself, not an inherent limit on delegation, the absolute ceiling of performance, or a broad organizational principle.