For me, growth has always been more about personal development rather than managing teams. As long as I am upskilling and learning, I feel like I am progressing. But often my employer, Cactus Communications (CACTUS), has encouraged me to step into leadership roles that require managing a  team — a challenge I have often approached with trepidation. Until recently, my first response has always been “Why me?!” While I love the problem solving and strategy aspect of such roles, I looked upon the people side of things with dread.

About a year or so ago, when a similar opportunity came by, my response was no different. But it was Yashmi, the head of HR and a very dear friend who counseled me and asked “why? Why don’t you want to lead from the front?” This conversation became a turning point forcing me to reflect on and confront an aspect of my leadership style that I hadn’t fully understood.

The root of my stress lay in a pattern of behavior I hadn’t recognized  —  I felt accountable, not just for my team’s goals, but their setbacks as well, and even their failures. This meant that I would frequently step in, taking over tasks I had delegated. I also dreaded review meetings because they often resulted in more work falling back onto my plate, and I found myself becoming responsible for delays and deadline breaches for tasks that were not mine to begin with. I always had the monkey resting on my shoulder. This, I later learned, is called “reverse delegation” — a cycle where tasks flow back to the leader, not because the team lacks competence, but because of unclear boundaries or a misplaced sense of responsibility.

Just being conscious of this has helped me make deliberate changes to break the cycle. But it made me wonder: how does reverse delegation manifest in academia, where roles are notoriously complex and responsibilities often overlap? Whether you’re a researcher, a journal editor, a librarian, or an administrator, the intricate, overlapping responsibilities in academic settings create fertile ground for this leadership style. What happens when the drive to ensure success leads us to take on more than our fair share, unintentionally slowing progress for everyone? And how can we address it across the diverse roles in academia to foster healthier and more effective collaboration?

Academia, we all know, thrives on collaboration. Journal editors collaborate with peer reviewers; peer reviewers also have multiple responsibilities as they juggle research, teaching, and administrative duties. Librarians, on the other hand, balance traditional processes with the evolving demands of technology, while administrators manage competing priorities across different departments. It is this web of shared responsibilities that often leads to reverse delegation — where tasks, instead of being carried out by the delegate, return to the delegator.

The hierarchical culture of academia is probably a key reason for this culture of reverse delegation. Junior employees, students, or early-career researchers may not seek clarification or may resist taking on assignments for fear of coming across as incapable or disrespectful. They may redirect responsibilities back to senior faculty or administrators. Has this happened to you as well? And don’t you think this places undue pressure on leaders, who often feel obligated to shoulder these tasks? The result is a cycle where leaders are burdened with work that should instead be distributed, and in the process team members deny themselves opportunities to grow their own skills and confidence.

Moreover, academic culture tends to glorify overwork. This leads to many tasks being left incomplete or returned to under the pretext of needing more direction. This affects not just personal productivity but also fosters dependency.

While reverse delegation may seem like a minor inconvenience, it can negatively affect efficiency, team morale, and innovation. Leaders are in their position for the value they bring to the table but if they focus on tasks meant for others then strategic thinking and long-term planning may suffer. For example, top researchers are often recruited to serve as editors-in-chief for journals, largely because of their unique ability to provide a high-level vision for the future of the field and the journal. But when those editors take on (rather than delegate) the daily administrative tasks of running a journal, things bog down and delays are created, resulting in unhappy authors and publishers.

At the same time, team members whose responsibilities are taken back by their leaders may feel undervalued and disempowered. This creates a culture of dependency, eroding individual autonomy and problem-solving capabilities.

Such inefficiencies caused by reverse delegation extend to institutional resources, disrupting publishing workflows and wasting valuable time and energy that could be redirected toward innovation and growth.

To solve this, academia needs a cultural shift — one that promotes clear communication and empowers all members of the academic ecosystem to take ownership of their roles and their goals. Responsibilities need to be shared, not returned.

So how we can we work together to break this cycle of reverse delegation?

Are the roles and responsibilities of academic and administrative staff at every level across the institution clearly defined? Can departmental onboarding processes and guidelines help set these expectations?

Can training programs for graduate students, postdocs, and early-career researchers include guidelines on task ownership and decision-making? What can be done to effectively onboard new editorial board members and staff for journals? Will workshops on effective communication and assertiveness help early career academicians navigate hierarchies so that they can seek clarification without fear of being judged?

How can leaders reward those who demonstrate initiative and follow-through?

Can we put systems in place to monitor workload distribution?  Can tools like workload trackers or project management software provide transparency and help identify areas where responsibilities are disproportionate or where tasks are being re-delegated?

Moreover, can we create channels for anonymous feedback that allow staff and students to voice concerns about unclear tasks or overburdened leadership without fear of repercussion? This will help institutions identify and address systemic issues contributing to reverse delegation.

Most importantly, just as reverse delegation results in inefficiencies and frustration, similar issues arise from unclear reporting structures, excessive committee responsibilities, and an over-reliance on a few key individuals. How can we shift the cultural narrative that equates overwork with success? This will pave the way for a much healthier academic environment — an environment where every role is valued, every voice is heard, and every effort contributes to collective success.