Tag Archive for teamwork

6 Things the Best Leaders Know About Accountability

Mad fight of business people


If there are two words in the leadership and management arena that are more misunderstood and abused than accountability and coaching, I’d be interested in hearing them.

Coaching and accountability. Accountability and coaching. Like peas and carrots. Or maybe more like liver and onions. Heck, it may conjure sensations more akin to a colonoscopy, depending just how bad your experiences have been.

Coaching can go both ways, right? Sometimes it has a positive vibe to it, while other times, like when it’s framed as a “coaching session,” it can have a slightly more ominous tone. Like a punch to the soul perhaps.

Accountability, no matter how much we try to reframe it into something positive (which rightly understood, it is), still has a decidedly negative connotation for most of us.

The reason it’s like that is because most of us have experienced things that led us to attach negative emotions to those words. That’s kind of how our minds work. If we have a negative attitude about something, it’s because we have negative beliefs about that thing. And if we have negative beliefs about that thing, it’s usually because we’ve had experiences that have led to those beliefs. Make sense?

So our attitudes and beliefs about coaching and accountability have been shaped by experiences we’ve had with coaching and accountability. Many, though probably not all, of those experiences have likely been negative.

But here’s the thing — it doesn’t have to be this way. It really doesn’t.

Coaching and accountability are two very powerful tools that can and should have a decidedly positive impact on teams and organizations, but they can only do that if they’re conceptualized and practiced appropriately.

Here’s what the best leaders know about coaching and accountability:

1. Accountability is a shared thing between two or more people.

It’s not a one-way thing. The dynamic accompanying accountability changes dramatically if accountability goes both ways. The problem, of course, is that usually that’s not how it’s orchestrated. Typically, the one with the most positional power calls the “subordinate” into his/her larger, more luxurious office, where he/she then — and this is the phrase — “holds the ‘subordinate’ accountable.” That conversation is generally pretty one-sided, save for perhaps a couple patronizing questions.

That, my friends, is not accountability. That’s an assertion of power. A scolding. A corrective conversation. But it’s not what accountability should look like.

Accountability should be a shared thing. It’s two or more people holding each other accountable to agreed upon and committed to group goals and expectations. As it relates to a team, it’s the entire team, including the leader, holding each other accountable.

2. Coaching and accountability aren’t meant to be instruments of power.

Related to the above, coaching and accountability shouldn’t be thought of and/or used as instruments of power and control. Now don’t misunderstand what I’m saying. I understand the necessity of formal, corrective, disciplinary action from an HR perspective; but that’s not what we’re talking about here.

Too often, coaching and accountability are used as tools to assert dominance and/or control over “subordinates.” (Oh, how I hate that word.) Think about it. We (organizations) make people — human beings — walk into their bosses’ offices, heads down in shame, sit down, listen to their bosses’ monologues about all the ways they’ve messed up, nod in feigned agreement with their bosses, and then get up and go back to work. Oh, and “go team” and all that jazz. Hashtag sarcasm.

3. Coaching and accountability conversations should be conceptualized as opportunities to serve a teammate.

What if we wiped our mental whiteboards clean and started from the perspective that coaching and accountability were primarily about serving our teammates? What if that was the primary end? I bet those conversations would look and feel a whole lot different. And I bet they’d produce better and more sustainable results too. (In fact, I know from experience they do.)

4. Coaching and accountability conversations should be truly collaborative.

As I alluded to above, coaching and accountability ought to be collaborative. A coaching conversation, for example, ought not be a monologue given by the one with the most positional power. Rather, the conversation should feel more like…well…a conversation. If we truly view accountability as a shared thing, the conversation should feel shared too. It then becomes more of a dialogue between two teammates about what went wrong, what each of them thinks, what each of them could have done differently, and what each of them commits to do going forward. You see, that’s shared accountability. That’s mutual ownership. It’s collaborative and team-oriented.

5. Coaching and accountability should be primarily a team thing, not something owned exclusively by the manager.

I’ve said it elsewhere — and I go into it in much greater depth in one of the talks I give — but I don’t even see accountability on a team as being primarily or exclusively a manager’s responsibility. Now, it’s the leader’s responsibility to set the tone of vulnerability and create the context for this sort of group accountability, but then I think that the team itself can and should serve as the primary and first line of accountability for itself.

I think that rightly understood, a team that has learned to be vulnerable together and has committed together to living out a group of values and performing to certain standards — that team can and should hold each other accountable to live those values and perform to those standards. And when one or more of them fails to do so — which is obviously going to happen from time to time, since teams are full of flawed, imperfect, humans — one or more of the others should and likely will (if that vulnerability and trust has been established) come alongside their struggling teammates and help them get back on track so that not only can those teammates get back to performing to the level they all committed to, but then also can the team, together, perform at an optimum level, focused on team outcomes.

6. No leader/manager/boss/executive/CEO should be above accountability.

This a big one. Some leaders act like they’re above their teams. They behave as if no one has a right to call them out on their toxic behaviors and attitudes. Watch out for those leaders. It’s almost a certainty that those leaders are cultivating an unhealthy environment on their teams, and likely, by extension, the organization. And at some point you have to ask yourself, Why will those leaders often go to such great lengths — sometimes even including lying, deception, or any number of things — to avoid any real accountability for their actions and behaviors?

The best leaders humbly and eagerly embrace group accountability and look forward to learning and growing from it. Rather than avoiding it or bristling at it, they invite it.

So what’s the bottom line? The bottom line is that coaching and accountability should be thought of differently. The foundational principle to keep in mind is that accountability, rightly understood, is a shared thing among a group of people, including the leader. If a leader and team can embrace that sort of accountability, it can dramatically transform and improve the team’s dynamic and performance.


Team Not On Board? Check These 4 Things.



“The whole team’s not on board.”

It’s a common refrain in organizations. Perhaps you’ve even said it yourself, either out loud or in your mind.

But why does it happen? And as a leader, what can you do about it?

It’s not unusual for teams or organizations to struggle with changes, projects, and/or initiatives; and the reasons for those struggles can be varied. However, there are some things we can think through that may help us move forward in a more unified way.

1. What, specifically, is the team not on board with? In other words, does the team know specifically what’s expected of them? Sometimes, organizations provide general, aspirational statements, which are fine; but they fail to provide the specifics of what it looks like for folks within the organization to live that out every day. In that case, it may be that what’s being perceived as folks not being on board is simply a case of them not knowing exactly what it is they’re supposed to be doing.

2. Is it a case of lack of alignment with the organization’s identity and values? Values are a big deal, and it’s important that organizations get them right. Sometimes, if organizations’ values are too vague or general, it will be nearly impossible to get the whole team on board with any sort of coherent behavioral expectations because they’re not prescribed and described with any specificity in the values. Thus, folks aren’t on board because there’s nothing identifiable for them to be on board with. However, if an organization has solid, concrete values that are unique to them and describe their identity and behavioral expectations, you have a sort of guidepost or standard against which folks can be held more objectively accountable.

3. Is it a leadership issue? Sometimes, folks have been beaten down by poor or even abusive leadership. I’ve seen this happen, and it’s not pretty. It’s vital that organizations and boards take a look at leaders and managers from the CEO all the way down and see if they’re living and leading in ways that jive with the organization’s values and leadership expectations. I’d highly recommend embracing servant leadership ideals as the standard, or else you could end up with some pretty toxic leadership.

4. How does the organization understand accountability? When it comes to being on board as a team, accountability is going to be huge. Accountability has its roots in real-deal trust, healthy conflict around ideas, and group commitment. If a team is human and vulnerable with each other, it builds a legit trust. That trust allows them to speak with each other openly, even disagreeing with other passionately about ideas and strategies. However, since that trust is in place, after those honest discussions have taken place, real commitment can happen. The team can lock arms and move forward together. And because of that group commitment, a functioning team will hold each other accountable (notice I said the team will hold each other accountable — I didn’t say the manager has to hold everyone accountable) for being on board.

So if your team’s not on board with something, consider these four things. Any that I missed? Feel free to add them below!

5 Reasons Your Employees are Lying to You



Newsflash #1: Your team lies to you sometimes. Maybe a lot of the time.

Newsflash #2: It’s at least partly your fault.

Newsflash #3: If you deny the possibility of #2 above, you may as well stop reading now.

If you’re still reading, I’m going to assume (yes, I know what they say about assuming) that you’re at least tentatively OK with the above assumptions. So what are those reasons? Why do folks sometimes lie to their managers and/or executives? Why might they lie to you?

1. They don’t trust you.

At least not really.

2. They feel like you’re always talking to them, not with them.

When you talk to your team rather than with them, it’s pretty clear to them that you’re not really all that interested in their feedback. So when you ask if they agree with what you’ve said to them, don’t be surprised when they all nod and smile. And further still, don’t for a moment believe that that means they’re actually agreeing with what you’ve said.

3. They’ve learned — somehow, some way — that being candid, especially with difficult truths, can lead to them (1) being the targets of your passive-aggressive behavior, (2) being labeled or (3) maybe even something worse.

People pick up on this crap really quickly. You may think your passive-aggressive nonsense is so subtle they won’t notice it. But you’d be wrong. You may think they don’t know they’ve been labeled. But they probably do. People are going to talk about the experiences they’ve had with you, and you can be sure that word will get around if people don’t feel like talking candidly with you is beneficial.

4. You say you’re “open to candid feedback,” and yet they can tell that you’d like to strangle the messenger who delivers the aforementioned candid feedback.

We’ve all got triggers, right? Things that really burn your bacon [or insert your preferred colloquialism for being annoyed here]. It’s important to have enough self-awareness to understand what sorts of things set you off. At the same time, just because someone presents information in such a way that you’d dump cayenne pepper in your eyes if you thought it’d make them stop talking; that doesn’t mean that the actual content of what they’re saying isn’t legit. And if people providing feedback get the sense that you’re considering the cayenne pepper, do you really feel like they’re going to tell you the hard truth?

5. They have reason to suspect you won’t do anything with the information you get.

This happens all the time with those organizational surveys. Some organizations do a great job with the info they get. They use it as just one of many ways they get feedback from their team, and they act on the information they receive. That, in turn, makes employees more apt to provide it. See how that works?

So what do we do? Well, we realize that if our teams feel compelled to be less than entirely forthcoming with us, we have an opportunity to build trust within the team. We must embrace humility, fight for greater self-awareness, and find ways to continue using our leadership as a vehicle to serve our teams.