There is a constant passive aggressive struggle between auxiliary leaders and those that hold the keys to extend church callings to members. This struggle is also apparent between bishoprics, and stake presidencies when stake callings are needed in the ward (i.e. clerks, elder's quorum leaders, high priest group leaders, etc.). A Relief Society president, for example, needs an instructor called for an upcoming lesson. She knows that if the person isn't called with enough time to prepare the lesson then the responsibility will fall on her. She doesn't have time to pick up the slack but is willing. This extra task keeps her away from tasks tied directly to leadership, and she will therefore have less of an influence over her stewardship. On the other hand, the bishop has seen the last three email requests from said Relief Society president. He sincerely intends to get to it, but the Lake family is in the middle of a crisis, and is taking most of bishop's attention.
Regardless of why the follow through of a calling is or isn't happening is beside the point. The reality is, trust and confidence between the leader and their auxiliary leaders can be damaged if intentional action and communication, is left undone.
There are a few adjustments both bishoprics and stake presidencies can make to simplify this administrative task. There are also a few things for auxiliary leaders to consider that will get their group staffed much more quickly.
Is the bishopric making all the calls?
A few years back I talked with a discouraged primary president. Her discouragement stemmed from the fact that she would be sitting in sacrament meeting and find out with the rest of the ward when a primary worker was called or released. It naturally caused her to feel out of control of her auxiliary and therefore discouraged her to take charge and make a difference. Why should she strive to magnify her calling when what she considered inspiration could be vetoed at any moment?
In defense of that bishopric, I don't think they were trying to lead with an iron fist, but they probably misunderstood their role and figured the bishopric is supposed to make all the calling changes. Using a Liz Wiseman-ism, they had become accidental diminishers—which happens to all leaders to some degree.
Again referencing Liz Wiseman's book Multipliers, she discusses the power of offering 51% of the vote. When a leader allows an auxiliary leader to own 51% of decisions made in their respective auxiliary, it validates their leadership and they feel like they can make a difference. Having 51% of the vote gives them 100% of the accountability. There is much less of the this-is-what-you-gave-me-to-work-with attitude. They will feel empowered and, most importantly, happier in their calling.
Naturally, every auxiliary leader can't have any near-perfect saint that happens to be in their ward. It should be expected that there is going to be competition to snag certain members. In these moments it is the responsibility of the bishopric to facilitate the discussion between auxiliary leaders, and to make the best decision for the individual and the ward. These debates are catalysts for revelation from above.
"Bishop Bottleneck, when are you going to make the call?"
It doesn't take a Nibley to tell you where the bottleneck is in the callings process. The Sunday school president submits a potential name for a Gospel Doctrine Instructor to the bishopric and then he waits. He gives it a week, maybe another week or two will pass, and he is wondering if the bishopric forgot. He is now tired of teaching the gospel doctrine lesson himself and finally asks the bishop, in such kind words,