Reams and reams of material is available on the net by eminent people who have studied this concept of leadership. There are people who teach leadership skills.
To my mind, it is absolutely non-leader-like to come up with statements like - I have been betrayed by those I trusted, or I depended on them to do this, or How can I do everything?, or How can I look into everything?, or You come with good references, so I entrusted you with this, and you have let me down, and numerous other statements.
But can these statements hold? A person is put in a post of leadership precisely because it is believed that he can deliver. The least is to keep in touch with what is happening, not merely through those in immediate charge, but also by your actual presence; ask for daily/weekly reports, and follow-up on them; see for yourself, once in a way, whether things are in reality what they are being portrayed to be; hold impromptu meetings and checks. There are so many ways. Of course there are huge responsibilities and 24 hours are not enough; Of course a leader makes mistakes. But then, a leader is also in a position to correct things, change course if need be, make the necessary adjustments.
I do believe, too, that it is a leader's job to know (among a host of other things):
- whether the references/credentials match up with the person in reality
- the strengths and weaknesses of the teams he is leading - or the heads of the teams that he has made. That way, he can fill in the weak spots, and make better use of the strong ones. Instead of moaning about being betrayed, wouldn't it be better to have put in someone more suited to the job, or more apt for the job right in the beginning?
- how to insist on accountability
- how to create a sense of urgency, so that all pull together and all pull hard