Our current approach to leaders and leadership can perhaps best be crudely summarized as follows:  “leaders are people who have particular qualities and engage in particular behaviors that result in their being people others choose to follow”.  Leaders, for example, have charisma and inspire people with compelling visions.  They “walk their talk” while enabling and empowering others to act to challenge the status quo and bring about a new future.

Based on this approach, and its many variations, our formula for developing leaders could be called the “Have-Do-Be Formula”.  The application of this formula leads us to employ various training and development techniques to give leaders who wish to become more effective, or non-leaders seeking to become leaders, those qualities (the “have’s”) and practices (the “do’s”) which, if successfully employed, will result in their being leaders or more effective leaders.  The challenge confronting academics, consultants, coaches, and trainers, therefore, is to identify THE “have’s” and “do’s” which truly define leaders and effective leadership and to successfully and effectively convey those to current and prospective leaders so that they too may exhibit them.  That we have not yet identified this holy grail of “have’s and do’s” is evidenced by the countless number of books and articles released every year on the subject of leadership.

Given the pervasiveness of the “Have-Do-Be Formula”, why is it that we do not see far more dramatic results in the development of leaders and leadership?  One explanation is that although we have made substantial progress, we still haven’t discovered the essential “have’s and do’s” of leaders and effective leadership.  So the search goes on.  A second explanation is that our training and development is not completely effective, so even though if we have found the essential “have’s and do’s”, we aren’t able to develop them fully in others.  Yet a third explanation is that we are good at training people in the essential “have’s and do’s”, it just that they do not fully implement them.

No doubt there is some validity to each of these explanations.  What is somewhat disturbing, however, is that none of these explanations focus on whether the underlying formula is valid.  After years of teaching practicing managers and reading the literature on leadership, I have come to question the validity of the underlying model and no longer teach it in my MBA management classes.

The “Have-Do-Be Formula” assumes leaders and leadership exist independent of assessment and interpretation.  That is, it assumes there ARE leaders and there IS leadership as an objective occurrence in the world that any competent observer can see and that differences in perceptions are either contextual differences or error variance.  But what if we are not simply describing some objective state or condition, but are instead reporting on a contextualized interpretation based on some experience? That is, what if the “have’s and do’s” we believe lead to being a leader have nothing to do with being a leader or effective leadership, but are simply the result of our attempts to differentiate, after the fact, between people we call leaders and people we don’t?  If this is the case, then we are treating the consequences of leadership and being a leader (i.e., the “have’s and do’s”) as the causes.  What this means is that rather than a “Have-Do-Be Formula”, we would have a “Be-Do-Have Formula”.

What do you think?

Consider the case of Paul (you met him earlier in http://professorford.com/2010/02/01/is-demanding-%E2%80%9Cnow%E2%80%9D-undermining-leadership/).  He has consistently had problems with his boss not setting deadlines and calling things “high priority”.  From where Paul sits, this habit is frustrating, inefficient, and ineffective.  So he wants his boss to stopping doing it and start having more complete performance conversations in which deadlines are established and agreements for actions and results clearly established.  Now, unlike many people who just complain about their bosses, Paul has actually talked to his boss about the issue, but without success.

In the face of his failure, Paul asked, “I need to come up with an angle/pitch that proves unequivocally that the form of “high priority” manipulation my boss uses is inefficient.  I need to detail a “process” to help him make better requests more efficiently. Any thoughts, resources, and editorial skills are welcome.”

I told him, “If it were me, I would want to know what my boss is concerned about, what he is accountable for and how he wins at his game.  Inefficiency may not be his thing in which case you are showing him something he may not care about. The thing that is likely to interest him is if you can show him that his actions are actually working to limit him getting what he wants or cares about.”

No matter how insane, inane, or just plain stupid the actions of a boss may seem to us, those exact same actions look reasonable, appropriate, and potentially effective from the boss’s point of view.  Bosses and the people who work for them live in different worlds – what looks “wrong” in our world looks “right” in theirs.  So, if you want to understand more about why bosses do what they do, you will want to learn more about what the world looks like to them rather than judge them from a world they do not inhabit – ours.

Paul raised an interesting issue: “Maybe that is the problem in of itself.  Maybe my requests to understand his concerns are not good enough.  It feels that when the topic comes up I am rebuffed more than answered.  I will have to think some more on that.  Maybe the simple answer is that my request is just not understood?”

What I like about Paul’s response is that he is beginning to consider that maybe he has something to do with how his boss is acting.  Rather than put all the blame on his boss, or make what his boss is doing wrong, Paul is looking at one of the things he can personally control – his own communications.

I told Paul, “Pperhaps he doesn’t understand why you would want to know what they [his concerns, etc.] are. There are at least two reasons someone might want to know my concerns – to support me or to thwart me.  Since most people don’t seem to care about the concerns of others, it can be seen as strange and create suspicion and guardedness.  The key would be to make it clear you are his partner in winning and that your only interest is to support him in winning at what he needs to win at.  Any other reason is worthy of suspicion.  If any of this were the case for him, then the approach would be a closure conversation to acknowledge the past attempts and your concern that your interest may have seemed out of place and apologize for that.  Then let him know it was out of an interest in support and that you still have that and if he is willing to share with you, you promise your support, thereby creating a new agreement with him [or something like that].”

Bosses are interested in winning at the game they are accountable for to their bosses, and anything we do that does not support them in that is seen as a hindrance, a distraction, or unnecessary.  Paul’s wanting deadlines is something he wants, not something his boss necessarily sees as valuable no matter how often Paul tries to explain it to him.  However, if through the use of deadlines, Paul can have his boss win, his boss is more likely to see the value in deadlines.  Paul now has a choice, complain about the way his boss works, or become a partner to his boss and use what he (Paul) knows to have his boss win.  If what Paul has to offer has value, the proof will be in the results.

Paul wants his boss to use deadlines rather than calling everything “high priority”.  One way of accomplishing that is to partner with his boss.  Now he has to decide if he wants to do that, or if he just wants to BMW (bitch, moan, and whine) about his boss – could be a tough choice!

No doubt, inspired understanding can get people excited and energized, and there are numerous books and websites that focus on being an inspirational leader.  But inspired understanding is not enough.  If it were, Obama and other inspirational leaders would be far more effective and successful than they are.  If leaders want reliable action from others they will need requests and accountability.

One of the biggest mistakes leaders make is to assume that when people understand something, they will take the appropriate actions on their own.  That somehow the excitement and engagement that comes from being inspired will automatically translate into effective action.  Unfortunately, understanding, even inspired understanding, does not cause reliable action.  During the 2008 Presidential campaign, there was considerable speculation whether the younger voters who were inspired by Obama would, in fact, vote.  This speculation shows that the link between inspired understanding and action is not direct or tight.

How many times have we attended meetings, conferences, or seminars in which we were inspired by what was said and then left the event and did nothing?  We may have talked about how great the event was, or even what difference it would make if people did the things that were talked about, but then still did nothing.  Or, maybe some of us did take action.  Maybe we were one of the one’s who saw the value and importance in what was said and initiated some actions on our own only to find that no one else was.  No, inspired understanding is not enough.

If leaders want action, reliable action, then the way to get people into action is by having performance conversations in which they make requests and then holding people accountable for their promises through closure conversations. The American Society of Training and Development (ASTD) conducted a study to determine under what conditions people are most likely to complete a task. Their results indicate that people are six times more likely to do something when they promise actions, results, or outcomes to someone else (65%) than when they just hear a good idea (10%).  And they are almost certain (95%) to complete a task when they have a scheduled appointment where they will be held to account for their promise.

Requests provide people with an opportunity to take specific actions that forward the accomplishment of something that may, or may not, inspire them.  Well formulated requests let people know what is wanted and needed, when it is wanted and needed, and why it matters.  Getting people inspired and not making a request gets everyone buzzed, but gives them no outlet for the energy.  As the ASTD study shows, leaders who assume inspired understanding is sufficient will be frequently disappointed.  People may “feel good” about the leader and the message, but little will happen.

But requests must come with accountability.  Accountability is built in the interactions between people in which they account for the status of the promises they made to each other.  As the ASTD study shows, if this accounting does not happen, there is a substantial reduction in the likelihood people will do what they promised.  As a result, leaders lose credibility and trust by failing to follow through on their requests.

Inspired understanding clearly can energize people.  But if leaders want reliable and appropriate actions, they will combine inspired understanding with requests and accountability.  Otherwise, they run the risk of becoming “motivational speakers” people like listening to, but do nothing with what they hear.

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!

When Ed Koch was mayor of New York, he was concerned about the number of accidents resulting from bikers darting in and out of traffic. Determined to solve the problem, he had “bike lanes” painted on the sides of city streets. But instead of making things better, the bike lanes actually made things worse. Drivers, undeterred by the double yellow lines identifying bike lanes, crossed them so frequently that police could not write enough tickets, and accidents involving bikers increased. As a result, Mayor Koch had the bike lanes removed, ending a futile exercise that cost the city millions of dollars.

Plenty of editorial space was given to criticizing the blunder and Koch’s poor judgment. Reporters, looking for blood, sought interviews with the beleaguered mayor. In one television interview he agreed to, which was scheduled to last thirty minutes, the host was armed with a list of questions that were sure to make Koch look bad. The host began by asking, “Mayor Koch, you spent millions of taxpayer dollars to paint those bike lanes only to remove them. That tax money could have gone to valuable social services. What do you have to say for yourself?”

Pausing, Mayor Koch replied, “You’re absolutely right. It was a huge mistake. I made the wrong decision, and I apologize.” The host, stunned by the mayor’s response, gathered herself and proceeded through her list of questions, each of which was an accusation of some kind. To each accusation, Mayor Koch gave a similar response, admitting the mistake and apologizing for it. The interview lasted for only five of the scheduled thirty minutes after which the topic was dropped, never to be raised again.

Mayor Koch’s success in this interview demonstrates the power of what we call Closure Conversations. By acknowledging the facts that New Yorkers already knew—that the bike lanes were an idea that didn’t work—and then apologizing for it, Mayor Koch completely disarmed the issue and brought it to a close. In the process, he restored some of his credibility and the confidence New Yorkers had lost in his stewardship of the city.

Closure Conversations can restore credibility and confidence, reduce resentment, build accomplishment and accountability, add velocity to projects, and increase the engagement of participants and potential participants.  Try them – they work.

[From “The Four Conversations: Daily Communication that Gets Results” by Jeffrey and Laurie Ford, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, p. 131-2]

Here is what Paul has to say about it:  “While I continually ask my boss for deadline and priority setting, I often receive non-committal responses or am blatantly ignored when I attempt to clarify his requests.  He has also taken to using the excuse that his boss “demands it now” and that is why he does it.”

Clearly there are times when bosses are under the gun to get something to happen immediately.  Emergencies do happen and unexpected opportunities arise with short response windows.  When these arise, bosses are completely justified in asking that things be done “now”.  But these should be rare occasions, not standard operating procedure.  The fact that bosses can demand something be done now doesn’t make it good leadership practice.  And passing the blame, as this boss does, only further undermines credibility, reduce other’s confidence, and creates victims who are not accountable.

Habitually asking for things “now” is inconsiderate, disruptive, and reduces the likelihood of getting them “now”.  It is inconsiderate because it denies people the opportunity to plan and schedule their work while increasing their levels of uncertainty and stress.  It is disruptive because these types of interruptions result in missed deadlines on other projects and assignments, lower productivity, and increase inefficiencies.  As a result, things that are wanted “now” can actually take longer to achieve than they would have if planned for in advance.

Habitually asking for things “now” contributes to a “fire fighting” culture where people become increasing resentful (resistant?), resigned, and disengaged.  You can almost hear the resentment and resignation in how Paul describes his response to when his boss demands “now”: “I just pull out my sheet, point to the deadlines, and say “We’ll keep working at it.”

Contrast this with what Paul says about his own use of deadlines:  “I have been highly successful in by cooperatively establishing timelines for projects.  Doing so has endeared me to my resources and I feel they are going the extra mile to meet the established deadlines.  I work at restraining the urges to push the “now” button so that when I do, I get a “now” response.”

There are times when, as Paul says, managers need to push the “now” button.  But it is possible to minimize its use.  One way to minimize its use is to plan. There is a popular saying that “Your failure to plan is not my emergency.”  Unfortunately, for people like Paul, the failure of a boss to plan does become their emergency.

Planning doesn’t have to be an elaborate process.  At a minimum it involves looking at the work that is due in the coming week(s) and making the appropriate requests in a timely manner.  One tool that can support managers in doing this planning is a weekly schedule in which they schedule not only meetings and appointments, but when work needs to be to them in order for them to meet their obligations.  Without some structure for reminding us of what is due and when, managers are left to their memories, which are not always reliable, and can result in suddenly remembering that something is needed “now”.

On the surface, habitually demanding things be done “now” might look like it works.  Deeper down, however, leaders and managers are contributing to the very things that undermine the productivity and performance they seek to achieve.  Leaders who are interested in building engaged, accountable, and reliable performers will reconsider this practice.

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.

Although there were a variety of answers, there were two underlying themes.  The first was how to motivate people to change.  The second was how to deal with people when they resist change.  It was all I could do to say “If you stop trying to motivate them, you might find they are more cooperative.”

Stop trying to motivate people!? Are you nuts Ford?  Isn’t motivation what leaders and managers are supposed to do?  How do you expect to get people to do what needs to be done if you don’t motivate them?

The answer to that question has two parts.  The first is by making good requests and getting good promises in return.  The second is by consistently following up on those requests and promises in order to build credibility, trust, and accountability.

In many cases, “motivation” has become the code word for convincing, either positively or negatively, people to do something we want done.  Such convincing may involve trying to inspire them, making them feel guilty or obligated, offering them some inducement, or threatening them.  But regardless of its form, convincing people (motivating them) has the effect of reducing people to victims.

How does it make them victims?  Because it says we are the cause of their behavior, not them.  They are doing what they are doing at the effect of “our” motivation.  It is tough to have others be accountable when we say we are the one motivating them – so they aren’t accountable for their behavior, we are.

Why not stop trying to motivate people and let them be accountable for their own motivation?  Make good requests in which you ask people to take actions or produce results by a specified due date, ensure they have the resources needed to do what is asked (this includes time and availability), and that they have an idea of how to accomplish what is being asked.  Let them know you are taking them at their word, ask if there is anything they need from you, and set a time to meet to discuss the outcome.  Then follow through true to your word.

Something happens when people realize their internal state (motivation) is not your responsibility, but is up to them.  They become more willing to engage with you as partners rather than someone you have to convince.

Myles Brand, who died September 16, 2009, was the former president of Indiana University and Oregon University.  Brand left the presidency of Oregon to become president of the NCAA, a job with no vote in university policy making and questionable influence, particularly regarding the internal, academic operations of universities.  While president of the NCAA, however, Brand was able to toughen guidelines for athletes and hold schools more accountable for the academic performance of their student athletes.  He did this through publicly released Academic Progress Rates (APRs).

The Academic Progress Rate is a metric used by the NCAA to measure the success of collegiate athletic teams in improving the academic progress of student-athletes. The maximum APR is 1,000 and teams who get less than 925 points – roughly equivalent to a 50% graduation rate – can be penalized with the loss of scholarships or postseason bans.  According to USA Today and NCAA News, APR’s will be calculated for each coach, beginning in 2011, making it possible for recruits and their parents to see how well students do academically under the coach.

APR’s create accountability in two ways: (1) the potential loss of team scholarships or bans for violating NCAA guidelines and, (2) the public knowledge of how well students do academically.  Once performance becomes public, the ensuing questions about that performance require that institutions account for how they stack up against other institutions.  This puts pressure on them to improve their performance, particularly if they have also lost scholarships or postseason bans.  Furthermore, institutions with low APR’s also risk the loss of potential recruits who are seeking academic success.  This puts added pressure on institutions to improve their performance in order to attract good athletes.

The lessons from the NCAA’s use of APR’s suggest that making performance public is one way to increase accountability where one does not have authority.  The NCAA has no authority over the academic policies of individual institutions.  However, through the use of APR’s they are able to make institutions accountable for the academic performance of student athletes.

Making performance public can get people agitated, but it is also a powerful way to increase accountability in the absence of authority.