As I have pointed out elsewhere, blaming resistance may be more about managers saving face and avoiding responsibility for the negative impact of their leadership than an accurate report on the responses of those actually implementing the change.  When it comes to change, leaders are generally told that the key to success is to be found in the steps they take to implement the change (see for example, John Kotter’s Leading Change).  The implication is that no matter what relationship leaders have with followers prior to the change, if they follow the right implementation process, they are likely to succeed.  But this implication may be more wishful thinking than practical advice.

A study reported in the Journal of Applied Psychology indicates that the overall relationship leaders have with their followers is more important in determining whether followers buy in to a change than are specific steps they take in implementing the change.  Where that relationship is based in trust and credibility, followers are more likely to buy in to a particular change.  In other words, if the leader is a jerk, then even if they follow the right implementation steps, the change is unlikely to succeed.

One implication of this study is that what leaders call resistance to change may be more a reflection of their relationship to those they lead than an attribute or characteristic of those same people.

What is a “sufficient period of time”? It is the amount of time it takes to get something done given (a) the nature of the work required and (b) the productivity of the person (people) doing the work.  In general, the more complex and involved the work, the longer it will take to get done compared to work that is less complex or involved.  Similarly, the more productive the person (people) doing the work, the less time it will take than someone who is less productive.

Example

One of the jobs I perform several times each University quarter is grading exams.  How long it takes me to grade an exam depends first on the nature of the work required. Are there 50 exams to grade, or 150? Just as important, what type of exam is it? An exam that has all objective questions – multiple choice and true-false questions – is much faster to grade than an all essay question exam.

And in addition to the nature of the work, what are the factors that influence my productivity?  One is my reading speed, which is influenced by the writing quality of the student answers on essay questions. A second is my writing speed, for making comments that will give students feedback on both types of exam. And a third is my sitting tolerance – how long I can stay focused on the grading task. I find my tolerance is higher when student writing is good, and lower when it’s not.

A sufficient period of time for me to grade exams, therefore, depends on what type of exam I give and my productivity while grading. The only two ways I can reduce the time it takes to grade an exam is by (1) changing the design of the exam (more objective, less essay) and/or (2) improving my productivity.

As an example, if it takes 1.5 hours to grade one question in a short-answer essay exam for a graduate class of 25 people.  If there are four questions on the exam, I will need a total of 6 hours in order to grade the entire exam for the whole class. I can choose to break it up into four segments of 1.5 hours, or two segments of 3 hours, etc. But if I schedule less time than that, I will not complete grading the exam.

Like the Law of Gravity, we must account for the First Law of Accomplishment.  In order to accomplish something, you must have a sufficient period of time in which to get it done.  If you don’t allocate the time, it won’t get done. Of course, you can get something done in less time if you do a sloppy job. Doing incomplete work, however, damages people’s credibility and reputation.

Steps to Obeying the First Law of Accomplishment

There are four things that will help you obey the First Law of Accomplishment.

1.       Record Your Promises.  You can’t accomplish what you can’t find or can’t remember.  Keep a record of everything you have agreed to do. Write your promises and commitments down somewhere – preferably in one place, like a promise log – and then refer to it regularly until the promises are completed.

Ideally you record (a) What is due to someone, (b) Who it is to be delivered to, and (c) When it is due – plus enough particulars about the “deliverable” so you can determine how much work will be involved. Be sure to consider the different types of work that may be involved – the desk and computer work, phone and email work, research, writing, getting approvals, etc.

2.       Determine the time periods needed to complete the accomplishment.  Given the nature of the work to be done and your level of productivity, determine how much time will be required to complete the assignment.  Bear in mind that most people are overly optimistic about how long something takes to get done, and as a result they often grossly underestimate the amount of time they will need.  If something takes six hours, don’t assume you can get it done in five.

I have learned that most people do not know how long it takes to do the many jobs they have, even the ones they do on a recurring basis.  It took me several University quarters to determine how long it takes to grade different types of assignments.  And grading is only one part of my work!

Determine whether your promise for a particular “deliverable” (a promised product, service, or other result) will take four hours, or fourteen hours. And decide if it would be best to do it all at once, broken up into two or three – or more – steps, i.e., the number and size of specific “periods of time” you will require to accomplish the promised result.

3.       Determine the time available in your schedule to do the work. If you are like most people, you have far less time in which to do the work you have promised than you realize.  The reason for this is because of meetings, appointments, recurring events (including lunch and breaks), and interruptions.  When you are engaged in any of these things, you are not available for working on the other things you have promised – the “accomplishment work” that will fulfill your commitments.

In order to determine when you can work on the things you have promised, start with a blank schedule, then put in all the appointments and meetings you plan to attend, the recurring events like meals and coffee breaks, and an estimate of when you are most likely to be interrupted (and for how long). NOTE: Most of us have more control over interruptions than we think we do, and we know something about our typical patterns of timing and duration of interruptions too.

So what’s left? The time that remains after all these things are accounted for is your unscheduled time.  That is the time you have available for working on everything else – including your “accomplishment work”.  Pause a moment here to allow yourself to be shocked at how much time you are giving to appointments, meetings, recurring events, and interruptions, and how little you are giving to your “accomplishment work”.

4.       Schedule your work, then follow your schedule. Now that you know how many time periods are needed to complete the work you have promised (#2 above) and how much time you have available for doing that work (#3 above), you can schedule the work.  Put the periods of time necessary to accomplish your promises into your calendar.

One trick here is not to schedule yourself too tightly (i.e., back-to-back with no space in between), so that when unexpected events occur, you have some flexibility to deal with them.  Another trick is to use your schedule when people ask you to do things: when someone wants you to do something, pull out your calendar and look to see when you will be able to do the work required.

Remember, the First Law of Accomplishment says, “The accomplishment of anything requires a sufficient period of time in which to accomplish it.”  When your schedule is full, you will be unable to make new promises without modifying or revoking existing promises. Use your schedule as a guide to when you can say yes, and what conditions you must apply to the agreements you make.

This will put your all of your communication skills to work. You can make requests for resources and support, decline to take on something you know you cannot deliver, and make requests to change agreements on due dates for promises you have made with other people.

Conclusion

The biggest challenge to our personal performance is finding ourselves overcommitted because we have (1) failed to keep a good record of everything we have promised, (2) underestimated the amount of time a job will take, and/or (3) overestimated the amount of time available.  When we say yes to more things than we have time in which to do them, we are in an argument with the First Law of Accomplishment. This argument is stressful and unwinnable.  The integrity of your scheduling process is what produces your calendar, establishes the validity of your promises, and provides the foundation for your personal effectiveness. It’s best to make friends with the First Law of Accomplishment.

[This article is reprinted from The Great Managing Newsletter, Vol. 9, Issue 22, November 30, 2010 by permission of Jeffrey and Laurie Ford. For additional information, visit www.laurieford.com or www.professorford.com]

There are lots of reasons why we don’t like some people at work: they don’t treat us or others the way we think they should, they create problems for us and others, they don’t do what they say they will, and so on.  For the most part, these differences don’t create problems for us and we can go on about our work without much difficulty.  But occasionally the fact that we don’t like them, or the things they do, gets in our way.  It is at these times that our lack of affinity for them actually works against us; our effectiveness is reduced, our stress increases, and we lose our sense of humor.  Work gets harder and more unpleasant and it takes longer and more effort to get things done.  And, we blame them.

What we fail to consider in all this is that it is OUR lack of affinity for them that is an issue.  It is not surprising that we treat people we like differently than the people we don’t. Nor is it surprising that we use the fact we like or dislike someone as a justification for how we treat them.  When asked why we do or don’t do things for others, we are likely to respond (if truthful) “I like/don’t like them”.   We act as if they are responsible for our liking or disliking them; that it is their fault we don’t have much affinity for them.  As a result, we believe that unless and until they change, our relationship with them has little chance of improving.  We are not responsible.

Like most people, the managers in my MBA class bought into this line of reasoning.  That is, until they did an exercise in which each one of them wrote a letter to three people they didn’t particularly like.  In the letter, they were to write out exactly what they would say to the person to authentically:
1. Acknowledge the person for something they had done but which the manager had not acknowledged, e.g., completing a project on time;
2. Appreciate something about the person, e.g., a good sense of humor;
3. Apologize for a mistake or misunderstanding the manager was responsible for but had not owned up to, e.g., not providing clear directions on an assignment; and
4. Amend an agreement that had been broken but had been stepped over, e.g., an agreement to meet on a weekly basis which wasn’t kept.

What surprised each and every manager was that they had more affinity for the person after they wrote the letter than before.  They discovered that it was their interpretations, assessments, evaluations, and conclusions about the other person that was the source of their liking or disliking them, not the other person.  They realized that they could be responsible for their affinity toward others and that if they were willing, they could shift that affinity.  What they found most exciting was that they could potentially improve their working relationships with other people if they were willing to authentically engage in something as simple as acknowledging, appreciating, apologizing, and amending agreements with them.

Escape hatches, however, can undermine our success. When it comes to the promises we make, it helps us keep them if we cultivate a “no alternative” attitude in which failure is not an option.  One way to do this is to root out any talk about “I’ll try”, or “I’ll do my best”, or “I’ll see”.  I have a friend Blair who has a habit of saying “No problem” in response to the requests made of him.  When I first heard Blair say that, I asked, “How can you say ‘no problem’ when you don’t know if it can be done?”  His response was “If I go into something with that point of view, I am much more open to what is required and willing to take it on because I was the one who said it wan’t going to be a problem.  This doesn’t mean it won’t take work or that there won’t be setbacks, there almost always are, it’s just that it gives me a different context in which to work than ‘I’ll try.”  For Blair, saying “no problem” was a way of burning the boats.

Another way to create a “no alternative” attitude is to make promises to people you would never consider not keeping it.  Stephanie, a manager, wanted to hire a staff person.  Her boss, however, was unwilling to commit the additional resources.  Undeterred, Stephanie promised that if the goal for which the staff person was being hired was not achieved, then her boss could not only assign the staff person to someone else, but also reduce her development budget (a big deal in this organization).  By making this promise, which her boss accepted, Stephanie was burning the boats.

If you’re serious about making and keeping a promise, take a tip from Caesar: he wasn’t interested in trying, he was interested in conquest.  As Yoda, the Jedi master in Star Wars said to Luke Skywalker “Do or do not.  There is no try.”   If you want more than half-hearted efforts from people, find a way to help them burn the boats.

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!

I recently had a conversation with a manager who was disturbed by her inability to meet the expectations of those “higher up” (her term).  They would give her assignments and then, when she would complete them, they would point out something that was missing they expected to be included. Has this ever happened to you? Although it is easy for this manager to blame the “higher ups” for not being clear, she shares some of the responsibility for not finding out what they wanted.

If you look at each of your current assignments, are you confident you are 100% clear about what is expected of you in every case?  Is everyone else involved in the assignment also 100% clear about what you expect of them?  Or are you assuming you’ll figure it out, or they already know?

Assumptions and expectations are “silent standards”. We take a big risk when we assume that everyone knows what to do. If creativity is desirable, it’s fine to give a general direction. But if there are specific creative requirements that matter, you’ll want to get them spelled out.

Take the time to spell things out. What should the final product look like? What are the components? When do they need to be ready? Are there other people who should be involved and if so, who?  Is there a particular method or process that should be used or avoided? What restrictions and specifications apply? Don’t take a chance: assume nothing is obvious.

Remember: everyone associated with an assignment has expectations and assumptions.  Some people expect you to ask for their advice, others want to be kept informed, and some only want to be involved in an emergency.  And, they expect you to operate according to these expectations even if you don’t know them!  Ask people to take time with you to spell out their expectations.  Yes, you have to ask.

Sometimes people are afraid to ask because it might make them look less competent or capable, or they don’t want to deal with an unpleasant reaction.  One way around this is to say something like “I want to be sure you get exactly what you want and in order to do that, I want to be sure I understand the assignment clearly.  I don’t want to complete it only to find out there is something missing that you wanted included.  Could we take a few more minutes to clarify some things?”

Getting clear creates a common ground in that both of you know what is expected.  This has the effect of turning an expectation into an agreement and gives you (and them) the opportunity to say whether you can or cannot do what they ask. If something new comes up later, you can always say, “I didn’t agree to that, but I’m willing to consider it.”  What you want to avoid is having to say, “I didn’t know you needed that,” or, “I thought this is what you wanted”.

Reduce your risk by taking time to unspoken expectations into clear agreements that everyone can see and understand.

If you go into any workplace, what you will see is people doing things.  They are talking to each other, walking from one place to another, working on their computers, sitting in meetings, etc.  In short, what you see is people and their behavior.  What you don’t see are such context factors as the hierarchy of authority (titles and reporting relationships), workflow, accountability, trust, personal relationships, goals and objectives, or most of the other things that happen “in between” people.  People and behavior are in the foreground, context factors are in the background.

Why does this matter?  Because it leads to what is called the “fundamental attribution error” in which observers overattribute behavior to the dispositional factors (e.g., attitudes, emotions, motivations, skills, traits) of people rather than to contextual factors.  I can see you and your behavior, but I can’t see all the context factors or how they are impacting you.  As a result, when you do something – more often when you don’t do something – I look to you and you alone for the explanation.  I assume it has something to do with your commitment, your attitude, your motivation, your competence, whether you care, etc.  I don’t look to me and our relationship, or to the myriad things you have to deal with, or any of the factors going on between you, me, and others.  In short, your behavior is a function of you and you alone.

The impact of making this “error” is that if I want you to behave in some different way, for example, being more accountable, then I will try to alter your disposition in some way.  I might send you to training, talk to you about the value of being accountable in an attempt to motivate you to be more accountable, or any number of other things to change your disposition.  What I won’t do, however, is consider other context explanations, such as our conversations, and whether your being accountable is a function of the requests I make and whether I consistently follow up on them.

In my MBA class on management, I assign the book “Leadership and Self Deception” (I strongly recommend it).  Its and easy and engaging book in which the “hero” of the story discovers he has been interacting with people based on erroneous attributions, how and why he made those attributions, and the impact the errors have had on his leadership.  What I find particularly interesting is that students don’t want to talk about how they make similar attribution errors and how to overcome them.  They want to talk about how then can stop their boss or the people around them from making the error!

That was the second part of my insight – the fundamental attribution error is extremely persistent.  Even in the face of evidence to the contrary, people will continue making the same attribution error.  In other words, telling people, even demonstrating to people, that they are making an error, an error that has negative real life consequences, they will persist in the error.

For years I have wondered why it was that even though countless of articles and experts have said it is not possible to motivate others, that motivation is an internal state, managers persisted in wanting to know “How can I motivate them?” I now see an answer – they believe behavior is a function of disposition, not context, and anything said to the contrary is ignored.  That belief makes my job harder and reduces the opportunity for breakthroughs in leader effectiveness.

Folklore has it that if you want to kill a werewolf, you do it with a silver bullet.  In fact, the story is that a mere threat of being shot with a silver bullet will stop one in its tracks.  Ordinary people are also stopped in their tracks, sometimes with a single word or phrase, or tone of voice. These silver bullets stop productivity in its tracks.

A silver bullet is unique to each of us: it’s whatever way we don’t want people to think, say, or feel about us.  If we’re afraid people will think we’re arrogant or inconsiderate, then any hint that we are being arrogant or inconsiderate can stop us cold. If we’re proud of our honesty and integrity, or our intelligence and open-mindedness, or our principles and values, then we can be brought down by someone suggesting we’re dishonest, stupid, biased, or unprincipled.

Silver bullets are very effective – they always alter our behavior.  I know a manager who won’t ask his boss for anything – he doesn’t want to appear “incompetent”. Another friend doesn’t want to be thought of as “pushy”, so she avoids delegating assignments and does it all herself. An executive says he won’t apologize because he doesn’t want people to think he is “weak”. When we’re hit, or even threatened, by a silver bullet, we stop what we were doing and focus on how to deal with the insult.

The solution?  Get to know your silver bullets. What’s the worst, most offensive thing someone could think, say, or feel about you? What is the most important aspect of your reputation? What is the worst way to be perceived in the workplace? The answers to these questions will reveal potential silver bullets that give others control, steer you toward making reactive decisions, and jeopardize your performance.

Then consider disarming the bullets by “making friends” with them.  One way to do this is by public acknowledging the silver bullet through a closure conversation.  For example, one of my silver bullets is being called or thought of as “stupid” (and I have a Ph.D. to prove I’m not!).  Whenever I have a concern that people might feel or think that, I say something like “I know I might appear stupid at times, and its true that there are many things I am stupid about, but this is not one of them.”  I have even introduced myself to MBA classes making a statement like this just so that it will not be an issue for me.

Silver bullets are never about others, they are about our fears.  Maybe those accusations don’t deserve the power we’ve given to them.

[Adapted from Deadline Busting: How to be a Star Performer in Your Organization by Jeffrey and Laurie Ford]

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.