I encounter this complaint from the managers in my MBA classes as well as those I interact with in the “real world”. They insist that a lack of accountability is the primary source of the problems they have in their organizations.  Laurie (my management consultant wife) encounters it with her clients, some of whom maintain that the reasons for inefficiency and poor communication is because people are not being accountable.

It’s as if “accountability” has become the new mantra of managers or the new solution for whatever problems leaders might be having getting things accomplished.  “If people were more accountable, we would be much better off,” they say.

Unfortunately, the call for “more accountability” is often one sided, focusing on the lack of accountability in others, and fails to recognize that there are two sides to accountability: the “holder” side and the “producer” side.  The two sides are located in different places and both are necessary to have any accountability actually perform.

Holder Accountability is the responsibility of a person who wants something, asks for it, and “holds” that commitment until the result is produced. A person with Holder Accountability might be a manager who wants her team to handle customer service calls, or a supervisor who wants his crew to repair equipment. The manager or supervisor (or parent, or friend) requests what s/he wants and then checks back at the end of the day or week or month to see what portion of the request is completed. The manager holds people to account by asking the customer service team or the repair crew to account for their work, their performance, and their results.

When your boss gives you an assignment and then asks you questions regarding its status, she is demonstrating Holder Accountability, holding you to account for the assignment.  Similarly, if you tell a colleague you will do something for them by Friday and they ask you about it on Thursday or Friday (or the following Monday), they are holding you to account for what you said you would do.

The second side of accountability is Producer Accountability. It is the accountability of the person or group who will be producing the results or doing the work: the customer service phone team and the equipment repairmen who are doing their jobs are demonstrating Producer Accountability. They were assigned to do a job and they are doing it, and they will report on the status and outcomes as needed.

There is no “accountability” without both halves of the equation. If there is nobody making a clear request for something to be done and who cares enough about that request to follow through and see that it actually is performed, there is no Holder Accountability. If there is nobody who accepts the request to perform the work, there is no Producer Accountability. Getting “more accountability” in an organization requires accountability on both sides of the table: manager and staff, boss and worker, or any person who asks for something from another and the person(s) they ask.

Someone else can impose Holder Accountability on us, but only we can impose Producer Accountability on ourselves.  When my doctor gives me a diet to reduce my cholesterol, I don’t think about that as any kind of accountability – until I go back the next year for another blood test. She looks at the blood test results and she can tell whether I’ve kept my part of the bargain or not.  Producer Accountability is completely self-generated, and we have only ourselves to look to if it is missing. My doctor will hold me accountable by saying, “Your cholesterol has improved, but only a little bit. How much did you follow the diet?”

Authentic Producer Accountability says that we own the work we have to do – it is ours.  It’s like saying, “I will look to see what needs to be done to accomplish this, and I will do it. I will get the help and the resources needed, and if I can’t find them, I’ll get back to you and ask for your guidance in how to take the next steps.”

So, what is it that leaders are really calling for when they call for “more accountability” in their organizations? More often than not they want more Producer Accountability.  They want employees to show initiative in taking on work, to own their work, and to do what needs to be done without constant supervision and without excuses.

But here’s the catch: if a leaders does not provide a clear request with a visible outcome that permits a follow-up, they are not living up to their side by providing any Holder Accountability.  Furthermore, if a manager has no commitment to holding people to account, and following up with them regarding their performance, workers will eventually assume the managers doesn’t really cares how, when, or if the work gets done.

It is wishful thinking to expect people to generate a high level of Producer Accountability in the absence of Holder Accountability.  The key to building a culture and organization of “more accountability” starts by creating the conditions for authentic Holder Accountability.  In other words, if managers want more accountability, then they will want to learn how to assign work in a way that makes what people are accountable for clear and then hold them to account. Good Holder Accountability gives people a reason to develop Producer Accountability: with a great manager, I’ll maintain or improve my work performance even when I’m in a bad mood.

How can you improve your Holder Accountability?  Here are some ideas:

1.            Spell out the conditions and measures that must be met in order for the assignment to be considered successful.  People need to know what the job is, and you need to know how to tell if they did it. No fair saying, “Do a better job.” You’ve got to say how you – and they – will measure success.  People need to know the “what”, and if needed the “how”, they will be held to account for.

2.            Provide specific time lines and due dates for when you’ll be checking back with them. They need to know YOUR timeline for your Holder Accountability, and when they will be expected to give you a status report or a result.  They need to know the “when” they will need to account for.

3.            Follow through on a consistent and regular basis, such as weekly debrief meetings in which people have to report on the status of all their work and make projections about what they will accomplish in the following week. Holder Accountability is all about reliable follow-up on assignments and is where holding them to account actually happens.

As to building Producer Accountability, here are some tips:

1.            Be sure you assign work to people who have the ability to do the job.  When you give a work assignment to someone you know will fail, it will not build their Producer Accountability. It will build resentment, distrust, and cynicism. If you have people who can’t do the job, you may have a training problem but you don’t have an accountability problem.

2.            Be sure people have all the information and resources they need to succeed. You can’t expect people to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. You’ll build Producer Accountability by telling people that you want them to be specific about what resources they need, to assemble as much as they can themselves, and to come to you when they need help.

3.            Give people timelines, milestones, and deadlines. It will support them in good planning to meet your expectations.  No fair saying, “Do it as soon as possible.” Performance is a function of time, and if people don’t have deadlines, they can’t organize their resources to deliver what you want.

When you strengthen your own Holder Accountability, you also strengthen other people’s Producer Accountability.  If you want more accountability in your workplace, start building it!

Flying back from a seminar in California, I read an article by Clive Thompson in Wired Magazine (Issue 17.08) entitled “Forgetful by Design”.  In it, he discusses how we forget most things and that forgetting is really useful.  However, the internet, particularly You-Tube, Facebook, and other sites where all manner of personal information is posted make it more difficult to forget.  Why?  Because we can Google people and find all kinds of things that might otherwise have been forgotten.  The internet, unlike our memory, doesn’t forget.  Even though it might be hard to find, if its posted, its out there.  So, he proposes that we now have to remember not to remember.

What has all this to do with management, leadership, or anything else for that matter?  First, it reminds us that in the absence of some mechanism to keep us from forgetting, we (and others) probably will.  Posting something on the internet keeps it in existence.  It doesn’t disappear.  We might forget that it is out there, but a good search will find it, allowing prospective employers, spouses, and others to recall what we did.

Second, it reminds us that if you want to remember something, or want others to remember something, you have to find a way to keep it in existence.  One of the reasons people keep “To Do” lists is so that they will remember what they have to do.  The same with schedules, they help us remember meetings, appointments, and when we will work on things.  Relying on memory is not sufficient in today’s world.

If you find that people are often late with things, start sending them polite and respectful reminders to see if there is anything they need from you or that you can do to support them.  If people don’t write things down they say they will do for you, send them an email thanking them and briefly outline what it was they agreed to do.  The point here is to give them some support in remembering, since the odds are they will forget.

We know when we are cutting corners, but its easier to cut them than to do what is necessary to make them right.  How many of us have complained “there’s no leadership”, but then don’t offer any ourselves?  And how many of us have said “yes” to something we know at the time we aren’t going to do rather than deal with the upset of saying no at the time? Managers know that performance can’t improve without feedback, but then find it easier not to give the feedback and blame poor performance on the employee than do the work of developing constructive feedback.

It takes practice to be good at something.  In fact, to be a world class expert requires 10,000 hours of practice.  Few of us are willing to invest that kind of time at something.  Bobby Knight, the basketball coach, is suppose to have said “Everyone wants to play on a championship team, but no one wants to come to practice.”  This is another form of “its easier to be stupid”.  Management, particularly good management, takes work.  Few people are naturally good managers and leaders.  It takes practice, which apparently most of us, myself included, are not always willing to invest.

Larry’s right, it is easier to be stupid.  But, contrary to the comedian Ron White’s assertion, it is possible to “fix stupid”.

I recently gave an assignment to the managers in my MBA class on management in which they were to identify their top three persistent challenges.  In giving the assignment, I told them to identify challenges they had been unable to alter or resolve or couldn’t see a way to alter or resolve.  These were challenges they said limited their success and satisfaction at work.

After completing the assignment, I asked them to indicate into which of eight categories their particular challenges fell.  Since some challenges could pertain to more than one category, they were to indicate all applicable categories.  The results, listed in order from most to least frequently mentioned (% of respondents) are:

1.  Poor Planning (67%). There are frequent changes in priorities and assignments, and things are not well thought out in advance.

2.  Difficult People (63%). People are unresponsive, uncooperative, or just plain hard to work with.

3.  Lack of Teamwork (61%).  People with whom I need to collaborate or coordinate my work do not communicate with me or others as needed.

4.  Poor Quality Work (44%).  The work I get from others is incomplete, inaccurate, inappropriate, or simply wrong.

5.  Work Overload (40%).  I have more to do than I can get done in the time available and telling people I am full, unavailable, or can’t do it doesn’t seem to matter.

6.  Insufficient Support or Resources (40%).  I do not have and do not get the support or resources I need to get my work done.

7.  Lateness (39%).  I get things late from other people.

8.  Other (25%).  Any challenge not covered by the above. [People said such things as “poor communication”, “lack of accountability”, “poor management”, and “seniority issues”.]

What is interesting is that the students believe they have these problems because of “them” (e.g., other people).  It is because of “their” lack of motivation, commitment, accountability, etc., that the issue persists.  The difficulty with this belief is that it makes students victims.  It denies them the possibility that many, if not all, of their particular challenges can be significantly reduced, if not eliminated, through appropriate communication.  Appropriate communication requires a willingness to consider oneself at least partially responsible for the persistent challenge.

One way to move from being a victim to being responsible is by authentically asking and answering the question “How does the way I communicate (or don’t) contribute to the persistence of this situation?”  It’s a tough question.  But without it, all we have to look forward to is the continuation of our persistent challenges.

Most organization changes fail to deliver their intended results.  When asked why, managers and executives overwhelming blame resistance for the failures.  In one study, 62% of the managers asked replied that resistance was the reason for the failure of change.

There is no question that people can and do resist changes, particularly when they see the change as a threat.  But what is missing in the accounts of managers who blame resistance is (1) any acknowledgment that they had anything to do with the resistance, and (2) the failure to recognize that resistance is a form of feedback that can be used to improve the likelihood of success.

Like most people, managers react to what they perceive as resistance (any failure to go along with what is wanted?) by fighting it.  They see resistance as dysfunctional, a threat to the viability of the change and their leadership, so they try to counter or overcome it.  It rarely, if ever, occurs to them that resistance is a form of feedback and a resources that can be beneficial, even invaluable to the success of a change.

Here are three ways (there are others) in which resistance can be useful for change:

1.         Keeps people talking about the change.  One of the greatest risks to a change, particularly in its early stages, is that it will go out of existence and people will forget about it. People who resist a change have to talk about it to do so, thereby, helping to keep the change in front of people.

2.         Resistance can reveal where communication is missing.  One of the reasons people appear to resist change is because it was never really been explained to them completely.  We all make the mistake of assuming that if we explain something to someone, that’s it, they got it (or should have) and we can go on.  When people don’t understand something, they are naturally hesitant to move forward.

3.         Resistance can reveal weaknesses in the change or its implementation.  The fact is, most people go along with change.  It’s the few that don’t that seem to be the problem.  One reason people raise issues about a change is not because they are against it, but because they are for it and have concerns about its likely success.  When such people are dismissed as “resistors”, the insights they have are lost and the likelihood of success diminished.

In order for managers to be able to use resistance, they have to be willing to consider that not all resistance is dysfunctional for change and that people who managers believe are resisting may be trying to tell them something of value.  Rather than resisting, managers could listen and use what they learn.

Yesterday I met Marcia Reynolds, a former president of the International Coach Federation (ICF).  She was telling me that one of the concerns executives have in hiring coaches, either for themselves or other managers in their organizations, is getting someone who is qualified.  Lots of people call themselves coaches (e.g., life coach, leadership coach, executive coach, etc.) no matter what their background or capabilities.  So how does an executive know whether a coach is qualified?  One way is by getting a coach who is ICF certified.  As she was talking, it got me thinking “Why don’t we certify managers?”

Certification is not new.  Lawyers take the bar, physicians take boards, accountants take the CPA, and engineers take specialized exams.  Project managers are certified by the Project Management Institute, teachers are certified, and people can be certified in Six Sigma.  But there is no certification for “managers”.  We don’t have, for example, a “professional manager” or a “professional leader” certification. As a result, we have no independent way to determine whether someone who represents themselves as a manager is, in fact, a qualified manager.  Anyone, regardless of qualification or background, can be a manager. 

What about an MBA?  Doesn’t that certify something?  Yes, it certifies that the person completed a program of study, but it does not certify that they can manage or lead.  It would be nice if we had some way of knowing if people have some basic management capability.  If management is going to be a profession like law, medicine, accounting, etc.. we should certify managers.  And someone who is in a position to do that is the American Management Association.

My dad was a board certified pathologist, and when I told physicians, they were generally impressed.  They knew the exam was very tough and few people passed it.  Board cerfified meant something.  I don’t get the same reaction when I tell people a friend of mine is a manager.  It would be nice if I did.

People have two modes of thinking: automatic and reflective. Automatic is what we do automatically, without thinking. Getting angry when we spill coffee, ducking when someone throws a shoe at our head, and yawning when someone elese yawns are all the product of automatic thinking. Thinking that is so ingrained, so “who we are” that it can happen without us even being aware. Reflective thinking is the kind you use when you are considering options, designing plans, or working things out. You have the opportunity to consider, to weigh, to contemplate options and possible consequences. Reflective thinking is the kind of thinking you do when you are given a problem and have to come up with a solution.

So here’s what I am looking at. Much of management appears to happen in automatic thinking in the day-to-day interactions that constitute work. When we are at a team meeting and tempers rise, most of us do not reflect “Hmmm, I notice I am getting bothered here. Perhaps I should….before I say anything.” Nope, it’s more likely we “just do it” and say or do what we do – automatically and without thinking. Then after the meeting, when our reflective thinking considers what happened, we may decide what we did was the right/wrong thing. How many times after an interaction with someone have you thought about what you should have said or done? That’s your reflective thinking commenting on your automatic thinking.

But in-class education is based mostly in reflective thinking. It’s talking about what we could, would, should do without the immediacy of the situation and our life impinging on us. It’s good that it’s removed from the “on-the-firing-line” nature of life so we can think about it and come to understand it. But therein lies the issue – reflective thinking isn’t automatic. Learning a new theory of leadership in reflective thinking doesn’t move it into automatic thinking where it is more likely to be used, “in the moment”.

I don’t have any answers, though I have some suspicions (like practice is required). And I don’t think everything we have in reflective thinking should become automatic, but some of it would probably be more helpful to managers if it were more “ready to hand”.

I have had the opportunity to work for six different Deans at three different Universities – Christine is the seventh.  And you know, all six of the prior Deans had one thing in common.  If you were to meet with them, you met in their office when they were available.  Christine is different, and it’s a difference that people notice and talk about.

A couple of weeks after joining the college, Christine was walking past my office on the 7^th floor (her office is on the second) on her way to talk with a colleague.  Upon seeing her, I called out “Dean on the floor, Dean on the floor.”  She turned and, put her finger to her lips and said “sssshhh – don’t tell anyone”, and entered my office.  Whereupon several of my colleagues, having heard the “ruckus”, congregated in my office and we had a jam session with the Dean for about 10 minutes.

Now, this might not be remarkable in your organization, but none of my previous deans at any university ever did that.  People noticed.

Last week, I got an email from Christine’s secretary asking when I was available for a meeting with her.  We arranged the time at which time I was informed that Christine would be coming to my office.  It turns out, that she is meeting with all the faculty, and she is going to their office for the meeting.  Now, it might not be unusual for senior managers in your organization to come to your office or cube to meet, but this is not the norm most of the faculty are use to.

What makes all this a game changer is that it alters the relationship between dean and faculty.  It makes the dean more of a partner and a colleague rather than someone to whom you report.  And, it shows respect and regard for the faculty.  It’s one thing to say you respect and regard someone, it’s quite another to show it in your actions.  Christine is showing it in a small, but significant way.  Surprisingly, it is not the big things that frequently make or break leaders, it’s the small things – like going to their office.

What would happen if you were to suddenly start meeting in the offices and cubes of people you have come to you?  What would happen if “they” started coming to your office?  It would probably change the game for you – and them.

A few months ago, I had the pleasure of training the managers of COSI here in Columbus.  They, like most people, were having problems getting all their work done and wanted to know what changes they could make to improve their success rate.  One of the things we talked about was “you can’t get anything done if you don’t have a period of time in which to do it”.  Although this seems self-evident, it isn’t.  People really think there is a way to get everything done, they just haven’t figured it out yet.  Unfortunately, they are wrong, but that’s a topic for a different time.

Ok, if you need a period of time in which to do work, how do you increase the amount of time available?  One way is to cut out unnecessary interruptions (e.g., social calls, bs’ing, etc).  But how do you keep people from interrupting you?  If you are working at your desk and someone asks “Are you available?”, they have already interrupted you.  You could try what a VP in one of my classes did – he removed all the chairs from his office so people who “dropped by” didn’t have any place to sit.  But I think the idea the people at COSI came up may be more practical.

Outside the entrance to their work area, they post a three color traffic light – like the stop lights we are all familiar with.  If the light is green, they are available and can be interrupted.  If its yellow, they are busy and would prefer not to be disturb, but can be if it’s necessary. Red means they are not to be interrupted unless it is a real emergency where life is at stake. Simple, but effective.

What makes it work well at COSI is that everyone abides by the traffic light, so if you want to try something like this, you will want to educate people as to what you are up to.

I have a meeting with some of the managers at COSI in two weeks and will let you know what they say about it now.

I am in the midst of preparing my upcoming MBA class on management.  It is the core class in the Working Professional Program, so all the students are working full time. As part of my preparation, I am searching for new material that gets me, and hopefully the students, thinking about new things or old things in new ways.  In my pursuit, I have come across two videos I think you might find of interest.

The first is of Malcolm Gladwell giving a TED talk on what turns out to be the folly of pursuing universal truths (I recommend the 20 minutes it takes to watch it).  Many managers seem to believe there is “the” tip, technique, method, style, etc., which if they learned it, would make them really successful.  I call this the holy grail of management – the belief in a perfect and universal form of leadership.  It doesn’t exist.  Gladwell gives a very compelling argument, based on the diversity of consumer products, why such a search is in vain.  Rather than look for universals, he proposes we settle in to dealing with the diversity we actually confront.

The second video is by Barry Schwartz giving a TED talk on the paradox of choice (another 20 minutes of your life).  What I find interesting about this video is he challenges the belief that more freedom means more choices, and more choices means more satisfaction and happiness.  One implication of Gladwell’s video is we need myriad choices for effectively leading and managing the diversity we confront.  But Schwartz argues the more options we have, the less satisfied and happy we are.  So, if we are to be happy, we need fewer choices, not more.

So, there you have it.  The more we look for a holy grail of management, the more options (tips, techniques, etc) we discover there are for leading and managing, and the more dissatisfied and discontent we become.  What’s the solution?  Well, there is no “the” solution (another holy grail?).  However, one of the things I get from the two videos is that there is no need to keep looking for the “perfect form of leadership” as there are many forms that work really well.  Rather, you may be better off finding a few that work really well for you and then continue to develop those through concerted practice (but that’s another book).