January 2008         

 

ACCOUNTABILITY, ONCE AGAIN

By Tony Mulkern

                                 

            Internet traffic can tell you a lot about what is on people’s minds.  In the past seven months, for example, our May 2007 Executive Compass article Accountability: Commitment or Lip Service? has generated 90% of the clicks to our web site, and the subject is the basis for over 90,000 searches in which our web address has come up, far in excess of some 16 other possible topics. Clearly, accountability is a subject of major concern.

 

            Based upon the obviously wide interest in this topic, I recently have held discussions with a number of clients around the question: why do they believe it is so difficult to establish accountability and to make it stick?  The present article describes the findings from numerous such discussions, along with analysis and recommendations.  While we do not purport that the findings are scientific, nonetheless, they represent an interesting cross section of industries, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and we believe that any entrepreneurial CEO or executive will resonant with many of them.  As always, honoring confidentiality is a top priority, and no names or identifying details are included.

              

           Everyone we spoke with agrees that it is critically important for top team members to commit to specific results and that there be consequences for success or failure.  Another common thread of these discussions is that both executives and their subordinates tend to avoid or ignore accountability for a number of reasons—all of which can be classified as sets of fears.  There are four categories of things which people seem to fear:

 

  • Self perception, in the event of failure
  • Opinions of others
  • Constraints upon freedom, spontaneity, flexibility and creativity
  • Other consequences of failure.

         

Brief explanations follow.

  • Self perception.  This is not merely a matter of being embarrassed or ashamed when they fail to deliver.  For many executives, such failures are seen as endangering their greatest personal asset—their self-confidence and belief in their capacity to master any situation.  They tend to tread carefully before putting this at risk.
  • Opinions of Others.   What is at play here is more than a  fear of reduced esteem from others if failure occurs.  It is also the fear of being seen as a “snitch” or engaged in one-upmanship when one holds other accountable.  Playing organizational politics well is critical to career success, and making enemies is not the way to do it.  Additionally, failure to keep commitments can be seen as a sign that one has outgrown the job.  To the extent that one is held rigorously accountable, there can be a felt loss of status.  It is as though one is no longer valued for judgment and leadership.  Rather one is seen as defined in terms of specific tasks and deadlines, like any mid-level or lower-level employee.
  • Constraints.  This fear takes many forms.  The first is that all our colleagues will become a hive of busy bodies constantly buzzing around to see that we do what we said we would.  But additionally, there is the sense that over-reliance on commitments is incompatible with the flexibility regarding changing priorities that executives must have.  Where is the room for creativity and independent thinking when everyone is focused on the numbers and the calendar?  Lastly, there is the fear that commitments accepted and honored will be expected in every greater number and weight, until one’s daily routine and entire life is overwhelmed by them.
  • Consequences.  Here we  have a key ingredient of accountability that, pardon the cliché, “let’s face it,” many executives would rather avoid.  It means you may miss a bonus, raise, or promotion.  It is easier if you have developed a great relationship with the CEO and these things are decided in a more subjective manner.  There is sometimes also a legitimate concern that the criteria of success may be too mechanically decided.  So what if I missed all my objectives for the year, if in the process I landed the biggest client we ever had or saved our biggest customer from going to the competition?  Shouldn’t unplanned achievements of this magnitude also count?

          

         Altogether, these fears can amount to a formidable set of barriers to changing to an environment of greater accountability.  The first step is to recognize and discuss them openly. As an executive coach, I have the privilege of hearing executives share their deepest aspirations, concerns, and fears.  It is difficult for most executives, however, to admit to their colleagues that they have any fears at all, much less around their own performance or the CEO’s ability to manage accountability well.

  • Solutions: Self-perception.  To overcome this fear, people need to be set up to win by setting realistic goals, and it needs to be clear that one important value of the organization is the ability of people to learn from mistakes and failures and to show the resilience to rise again and go on.  You expect success, and yet you nurture and encourage those who openly admit their mistakes, take their failures to heart, and accept support to rise above them.  It can do wonders to lead the way by admitting your own mistakes and maybe telling a story or two about some magnificent failures in your past that you learned from.
  • Solutions: Opinions of Others.  In a highly politicized environment or one of relatively closed communication, you may be tempted to become the only one who actively holds others accountable.  But there are a couple of ways you can resist this.  First, set the expectation that each person’s successes are to be enthusiastically celebrated by all.  Second, when you set interlinking objectives, as you should, each person’s success will depend upon others.  Do not accept as an excuse for failure that someone else failed to do his or her part.  Each person has the responsibility of actively enlisting the cooperation of everyone who is needed for his success.  In this way, mutual accountability-holding is inevitable. As for the loss of status through specific objectives, require that each person submit challenging objectives that require judgment, leadership, creativity, and innovation.  Make it clear that you are expecting more entrepreneurial spirit, not drudgery.
  • Solutions: Constraints.  First, no team member held accountable for challenging objectives has time to be a busy-body trying to catch others doing something wrong.  If a team member is not trusted, that needs to be addressed head on, and the team member retrained, redeployed, refitted with better resources, or replaced.  As for flexibility, we should all be constrained by the law, ethics, and company values, policies, and procedures.  Make it clear that within those constraints, how they achieve their objectives is entirely up to their creativity, leadership, judgment.  If they think some of the company’s ways of doing things are stupid, it is up to them to raise the issue or find a way around them.
  • Solutions: Consequences. Operating by accountability is, as they say, “not for sissies.”  If an executive wishes to establish a culture of accountability where there was none before, it is a good idea to assume that not all the same faces will be around the table at the same time next year. It may take a year or two of really enforcing the consequences—good and bad—before the new way of doing things is accepted as reality.  Because of this, many CEOs begin to seriously enforce accountability only after they get fed up with disappointment.   Remember that you get what you reward.  If people are consistently rewarded in the forms of raises, promotions, and bonuses for mediocre performance, then you are reinforcing that kind of behavior.  But why won’t they do what you ask them, if you are so generous and kind?  Go figure.  Its human nature, meaning it’s in accord with the findings of experimental and social psychology.  The leader’s task is to face it and handle it. 
  • How do you create effective incentives, anyhow?  One way is to devise a set of key results which are weighted in computing an annual bonus. Anything below an 80% on any one factor means it counts as zero in computing the bonus. For example, assume meeting deadlines is a part of a set of weighted factors for making bonuses and it counts as 20% of bonus.  If deadlines are met 80% of the time, this factor counts as 16% of bonus (.20 X .80 = .16).  Below 80% and the factor counts as zero. Likewise with all the other key results areas. Then the total for all key result areas is added.  Bonuses can be prorated, except that if the total for all areas is .75 or less, the bonus is zero. You plug in the weights and the percentages as they seem to fit your organization, but make the formula clear, and then stick to it.  Is there is still room for rewarding unforeseen accomplishments that may have been achieved at the expense of other objectives?  Of course.  In fact, management discretion can be one of the assigned weighted areas.

         One fear factor regarding constraints remains—that commitments might proliferate and eventually take over one’s life.  “The more I produce, the more they will expect of me.”  Certainly, each of us has other commitments that compete for time and sometimes supersede work.  In the past couple of decades, a lot of drivel has been written about life balance and so-called “workaholism.”  Yet according to recent research at Loyola and Northwestern Universities, those who put in 60 hours a week at work have happier home lives than those who work 40 or fewer hours per week!  They also report greater satisfaction with their jobs, which may also account for their greater work involvement and less stress when they arrive home.  According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 40% of male managers and 20% of female managers work at least 49 hours per week, numbers which in my experience are vastly understated for senior level executives and most professionals.

           In other words, there is no special psychological health value to 40 hours per week, a number arbitrarily set by the Federal government during the Great Depression as the point after which factory workers had to be paid overtime.  The point was to encourage more hiring in an economy of 25% unemployment.  Respect each person’s other commitments, but at the same time realize that they too can overtake one’s life.  Do not be afraid to remind the reluctant that while it may be the other commitments that make the work worthwhile, it is the work which provides the financial support for the rest.

            As for balance, the wisdom of Marcus Buckingham’s Now, Discover Your Strengths is that none of us is good at everything and we excel when we focus on the few things we can do best.  This means having one’s work organized around clearly recognized strengths, clear agreements with one’s spouse and family, managing carefully one’s time both at work and recreation, and essentially leading a highly disciplined life.  Success at the top is not for slackers or those committed to getting the most money for the least amount of work. 

          Finally, never forget that accountability and the commitment necessary for excellence only come in the context of a mission and vision that attract truly deep involvement.  It is the leader’s task to never tire of emphasizing these and to put in place the team that can be energized and held accountable around them.

 
 

****************************************************************

 

Readers' Comments--

              Tell us why you think accountability is so hard to establish.  Please e-mail your thoughts using our contact form.

Copyright, Mulkern Associates, 2008
 
 
   
 

 
Mulkern Associates is a privately held consulting firm of Anthony J. Mulkern