In its most basic form, accountability is holding yourself, another person or group, to the promises they made to do or not do something. Sounds simple enough. So why are most people hesitant to do so and why isn’t it more successful?
Here are a few aspects of accountability.
Failure to hold others accountable. Many people are avoidant. When I administer the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Resolution instrument to my executive coaching clients, many score highest in this behavior (as compared to competing, collaborating, compromising, or accommodating). Avoidance can be useful in some situations but not when you need to hold a person to their word.
Confrontation is uncomfortable to most people, even when it involves things that are not personal. Reasons, to name a few, can be temperament, past experiences, cultural influences, or fear of reprisal. The risk to the project, and the team, is the quality and integrity of the work. A group that cannot constructively confront or criticize one another is doomed to mediocrity and isolation.
Learn to tolerate the discomfort. Focusing on the ultimate reward helps. As does tapping into your passion and honoring your ethical code. At the more basic level, it gets things off your chest and the process moving. Like a good marriage, people who can express their disappointment and hold others to a certain standard often have more solid, long lasting, relationships than those who skirt the issues or operate in anger.
Lack of accountability erodes trust. If I can’t trust you will do what we agreed upon, why would I involve you in the work? Or, if you don’t deliver, does this mean I should micromanage you? That seems like too much effort.
There is a competitive spirit to accountability. The work has your signature and the commitment not to be the one who screws up; it saves face. There is also a sense of group and individual pride for a job well done. Those of us who are not deadline driven are helped with managing our time and energy. The quality of the work is enhanced because no one wants to be the weak link.
Accountability to goals. This may seem obvious but team members need to know what is expected and how to reach the goals. Too often the target is vague, too vast, or the responsibilities unclear. In an accountability-based group the basics of key deliverables of who, what, when, and how are clearly defined and agreed upon in advance. There’s a process for adjusting and measurement along the way. Hard to hold a person to something they never understood was their responsibility.
Accountability exposes weak links. When goals and responsibilities are clear, those who don’t or can’t deliver become obvious. From a performance management perspective, it becomes easier to address the problem. It also reassures quality players that you recognize their contribution, don’t expect them to carry all the weight, and will not let a slacker get away with the behavior.
All of this is possible if the tone and spirit of the accountability is done with the best motives — the quality of the work, not the glory of the individual. It allows for demonstrations of success and appreciation rarely seen.
A very positive side of a culture of accountability is it reassures the participants that members are going to deliver what and when they say they will. Like in any relationship, this repeated outcome strengthens the bond and shows respect. It encourages people to take risks with others, not do it alone or exclude.
Accountability cannot be about personal traits. If someone doesn’t produce what they say they would, it can deteriorate into a condemnation of the person. Criticism must stay objective and focused. While that seems obvious, it is not always reality. Nothing destroys collaboration quicker than personal attacks. People have long memories. Quoting Maya Angelou, “People will forget what you said but they will never forget how you made them feel.”
Leave a Reply