I have 2 clients who are focused on “accountability” this year, and it’s proving a hard row to hoe for both of them. Why?
Well, first of all, accountability is a somewhat scary term. If someone is saying we need it, then that must mean that we are not being accountable, and that sounds like someone’s not happy with people’s performance.
Worse, if there’s not a way to gauge performance, the people are likely to take a need for accountability as a judgment on their dedication. They’ll confuse accountability with work ethic.
It’s unfortunate that accountability gets this reaction. In Stage 2 companies, accountability is more about making things that used to be managed intuitively into things that are managed objectively. It does make a judgment about how people are working, but not in the way they think – accountability focuses on working on the right things, not the level of effort.
In fact, most of the time I work on accountability, people have a clearer sense of direction and less stress in their jobs.
I can spend lots of time talking about how to make your organization more accountable, but for now, let me finish by answering the question, “How do you overcome the initial resistance to accountability?”
I recommend 3 steps. First, before you bring up accountability, praise the team’s work ethic (assuming it deserves praise…if it doesn’t, that’s a deeper problem…), so that they know that you know they are dedicated. Second, give them an example of people spending more time in an area than they should. (Serving the bottom 20% of your customer base is a fairly typical area.) Finally, ask the team, “Do you have a way of quickly seeing whether the other people on the Leadership Team are succeeding?” If you don’t, then you’re probably spending more time than you should simply understanding how you’re doing, instead of diving into the issues that will make your business better.
I spent the last 2 days in a workshop learning about performance and accountability from Shane Yount of Process-Based Leadership. His model is a terrific match for the strategy work I do – once you know where you want to go, then you need to activate the organization in a consistent, engaging, disciplined-but-flexible process.
I often talk with my clients about “strategic management,” which is the on-going ability of the organization to identify the right things to work on, and then to actually work on them – as opposed to getting consumed by day-to-day work that puts things off-track.
What powers Shane’s performance system is a “culture of accountability.” What does that look like?
- There are clear priorities for each team – and the company as a whole – to focus on
- There is a sense of urgency in each team – Shane is a strong proponent of a weekly cycle
- There are “non-negotiable rules” that people hold themselves, others, and the organization to – things like showing up for meetings on time, coming to meetings prepared, and taking responsibility for “re-negotiating” commitments if they are not met
- The dialogue is about what people do, not how they feel
- How do you know if you need it?
- The performance of your company or team is driven by the force of the leader’s personality (and if that wasn’t there, who knows what would happen…)
- The company or team focuses on whatever is in front of it at the moment
- There is selective engagement – people are able to set their own level of effort and contribution
Many companies don’t need or want a complete structured performance system like what Shane offers. But whether you’re talking about my “strategic management,” or Shane’s “process-based leadership,” every company needs its own “management toolbox” to drive performance.
Is your company’s performance saying you have the right tools?