authority can be delegated but responsibility cannot. comment
Because authority comes in the form of titles, ranks,andpositions, authority can be delegated to one who is appointed.Responsibility, however, is a personal choice: One can choose to be responsible or not. It is an individualquality rather than a concrete "name." If one is assigned an authoritativepost, that choice is essentiallyeliminated.
Hence, a supervisor can bestow titles and authority, but it remains up to the named person to live up tothe responsibility inferred by positions of trust. Both words can be used asnouns, but they eachhaverelated butdifferent implications. One can be responsible without being an authority, just as onecan be an authority without being responsible.
In an organizational set up delegation of authority from superior to his subordinate is not only possible but essential. Once the authority to take a decision is delegated to the subordinate, the boss free from performing those tasks himself, and can devote his or her time and energies to tasks that subordinate cannot perform successfull for one reason or other. This way work of the organization gets done more effectively and efficiently.
However when it comes to delegating responsibility things are somewhat different. When authority is delegated to the subordinate for performing some specific work, the subordinate must also assume responsibility for successful execution of the work done. But does this mean that subordinate in no longer responsible for the results of the subordinates. The answer is an emphatic "No".
If the responsibility is also delegated then the boss can wash off his hand from all that his subordinates, and as managers get most of their results through the efforts of their subordinates, it would amount to them having no or limited responsibility. There will be no one to take responsibility for the organization as a whole and steer it in the right direction.