Opinion: 4 ways to increase accountability

Marlene Chism

While researching accountability, I interviewed a founder and CEO who shared insights he gained during COVID and the evolution of hybrid work: “During COVID there were three types of employees. Ten percent didn’t perform and did as little as they could. They didn’t care if they were terminated. Fifty percent worked hard and were busy, but they weren’t producing value. They even didn’t know what value was. The remaining 40% were negative and risk averse. They were negative Nellies, talking about risk or how it can’t be done.” 

I asked him, “Did the middle-level leaders know how to identify poor performance, as well as values and priorities? Did they know how to focus the conversation and make decisions about performance?”

“I’m not sure they did. We’re moving so quickly, we haven’t had time to develop them,” he said.

After our conversation, I realized that there’s a disconnect between the levels of leadership when it comes to producing value and creating a culture of accountability. Here are four ways to start increasing accountability.

Notice irresponsible language
How do you recognize irresponsible language? The most common component of irresponsible language is the absence of choice. The absence of choice is revealed by critical listening. If there’s a lack of responsibility you’ll hear blame, complaining, excuses, pot-stirring, manipulation, justification and other distractions.

It’s human nature to vent, complain and make excuses for poor performance, and everyone falls into these patterns. To build more ownership organizationwide, leaders must consciously model the language of responsibility. When you change the language, you change the culture.

Address conflicts quickly
Whether the issue is a conflict between peers, poor performance or disruptive behavior, the biggest mistake leaders make is to avoid difficult conversations. A good sign there’s a culture of avoidance is to observe the mindsets and behaviors of top leaders when it comes to managing conflict. The question is this: Who does conflict resolution belong to?

If there’s avoidance you’ll hear justifications: “I’m not here to babysit; I’m a hands-off leader,” and “They’re adults; they’ll figure it out.”  Instead of addressing the issue, conflict-averse leaders move the problem employee to another department or wait for the problem employee to retire. Other leaders wait for the yearly performance review only to blindside the employee. From over 20 years of observation, research and experience, here’s what I’ll share: Every problem that escalates can be traced back to a conversation that should have happened but did not.

Redefine accountability
Leaders often have a dysfunctional relationship with accountability. They associate accountability with micromanaging, or documenting someone so they can be terminated. Employees also have an unhealthy relationship with accountability. They unconsciously define accountability as punishment. We’ve all heard the statement while watching a news story, “Someone is going to be held accountable.”

Redefine accountability as a tool for measurement, not a method for punishment. Measurement is about looking at facts, not searching for blame. Accountability determines whether  standards are being met. Real accountability involves not only the tools of measurement but a witness. The witness is the leader or a coach.  When the definition of accountability is shifted in the minds of employees and leaders, there’s no need to “hold” anyone accountable because accountability is measured, practiced, coached and desired.

Develop all leaders
In a perfect world, middle- and front-line leaders understand the priorities of senior leaders. They know how to identify performance and behavior that aligns to outcomes and objectives. They have the skills to coach their employees and promote an accountable culture.

In the real world, as in the beginning example, front-line and middle-level leaders lack confidence. They don’t have the skills to have critical conversations in a way that inspires the desired behavior. They don’t know how to start a conversation, what to do if the conversation gets off track or how to handle a situation if they inherited it. Even with the capabilities, leaders may lack the emotional capacity or the courage to engage in difficult conversations. Mid-level leaders often refuse to take a stand because they fear that their senior leader won’t support their decision. A system for formally developing leaders at all levels gets everyone on the same page and improves vertical communications among the levels of leaders.

Marlene Chism is a Springfield-based consultant and author of “From Conflict to Courage: How to Stop Avoiding and Start Leading.” She can be reached at marlene@marlenechism.com.