We don’t even want to think about the preparation the average parent receives. Heaven forbid that most of us should imitate the social skills of our own adult role models: “Thanks, Mom. I was afraid I was going to miss out on how to paralyze people with guilt, but you’ve taken time every single day to pass on an important lesson or two.”
Here’s the $64,000 question: How are people supposed to have picked up the ability to hold a simple goal-setting session, let alone tap-dance through a thorny accountability discussion? Through osmosis?
If your human interaction training has been as sketchy as everyone else’s, welcome to the club and be sure to pay close attention. We’re about to share the best practices of the positive deviants who know how to walk up to someone and hold an effective accountability discussion.
Before we dare to open our mouths, let’s make sure we’re thinking about the same topic. Exactly what is the topic of our upcoming conversation?
We’re stepping up to a:
violated expectation
a gap: a difference between what you expected and what actually happened. Gaps are typically thought of as:
Violated Promises, Broken Commitments, and Bad Behaviors
As far as this book is concerned, when we say “gap,” we mean serious, consequential, and complex deviations, something that might be hard or even risky to discuss. Anybody can sidle up to a cheerful and eager employee and discuss a minor infraction. You don’t need a book to take that kind of trivial action.
Instead, as we suggested earlier, we’ll be exploring challenges such as the following: What’s the best way to confront your boss for micromanaging you? How do you talk to a friend about backbiting? How do you tell a doctor she’s not doing her job? What does it take to discipline a violent employee? We call the topic of this book crucial accountability because the stakes are high. Handle things poorly, and you could lose a job, a friend, or a limb.
Know What Not to Do
We’ll start our exploration of ways to initiate an accountability discussion by sharing what we’ve learned not only from studying our positive deviants but also from observing people who had the guts to step up to a problem but then quickly failed. After all, knowing what not to do is half the battle.
Don’t Play Games
The first technique for starting an accountability discussion is the child of good intentions married to bad logic. It’s called sandwiching. You honestly believe that you have two equally poor options (and no other choices). You can stay quiet and keep the peace, or you can be honest and hurt someone’s feelings. So you use sandwiching in an earnest effort to be both nice and honest. To soften the violent blow, you first say something complimentary, next you bring up the problem, and then you close with something complimentary again. Here is an example.
“Hey, Bob, good-looking briefcase. By the way, do you know anything about the 10 grand missing from our retirement fund? Love the haircut.”
A close cousin to this circuitous technique takes the form of a surprise attack. A leader starts a conversation in a chatty tone, makes pleasant small talk, and then suddenly moves in for the kill.
The most unpleasant of these backhanded approaches is unadulterated entrapment — where one person lures the other into denying a problem, only to punish him or her for lying. It sounds something like this:
“How were things at school today?”
“Fine. Same old stuff.”
“Fine? The principal called and said you started a food fight in the cafeteria. Is that supposed to be fine?”
Most people despise these indirect techniques. They’re dishonest, manipulative, and insulting. They’re also quite common.
Don’t Play Charades
Rather than come right out and talk about a missed commitment, many people rely on nonverbal hints and subtle innuendo. They figure that’s faster and safer than actually talking about a problem. Some deal almost exclusively in hints. For instance, to make their point, they frown, smirk, or look concerned. When somebody’s late, they glance at their watches. This vague approach is fraught with risk. People may get the message, but what if they misinterpret the nonverbal hints? Besides, how are you supposed to document your actions?
“February 10, 2 p.m. Raised my right eyebrow three centimeters. Employee nodded knowingly and started back to work.”
Don’t Pass the Buck
Another bad way to begin an accountability discussion is rooted in the erroneous belief that you can play the role of good cop if only you can find a way to transform the person’s boss into the bad cop. Parents play the same game by bad-mouthing or blaming their mates. By being the “pleasant one,” they believe, they’re more likely to stay on civil terms with their direct reports or children. Here’s the kind of stunt they pulclass="underline"
“I know you don’t want to work late, but the big guy says that if you don’t, we’ll write you up. If I had my way, we’d all go home early for the holiday weekend.”
This strategy is disloyal, dishonest, and ineffective. Anyone who wasn’t raised by wolves can see through it. Nothing undermines your authority more than blaming someone else for requesting what you would be asking for if you had any guts. If you repeat this mistake, it won’t be long before you’re seen as irrelevant — merely a messenger, and a cowardly one at that.
Don’t Play “Read My Mind”
If you scour the bookstores, eventually you may stumble across a few accountability texts that make the following suggestion: “Since people benefit from learning on their own, don’t come right out and tell them about the actual infraction that has you concerned. Instead, allow room for ‘self-discovery.’” Make the guilty person guess what’s on your mind. Here’s what this can look like:
“Well, Carmen, why do you think I called you in so bright and early this morning?”
“I don’t know. Is it because I crashed the company car?”
“Nope.”
“Hmmm, was it because I sabotaged the phone system?”
“Wrong again.”
“Is it because …”
This tactic is as irritating as it is ineffective. Despite good intentions, asking others to read your mind typically comes off as patronizing or manipulative.
Learn from Positive Deviants
For every person we watched play games and fail, we were privileged to observe a skilled parent, supervisor, or manager in action. These people were something to behold. When we first chose to tag along after top performers, we were surprised to see how similar their styles were, independent of the industry. We expected to find muted, even sensitive, behavior in high-tech firms, universities, and banks, but we anticipated something quite different in mines, foundries, and factories. We were wrong. Melissa, one of the effective frontline supervisors in the manufacturing facility that had lost most elements of accountability, found a way to be both honest and respectful and quickly became the most effective leader in the facility.
To be honest, when we first watched Melissa, we thought that her style was — how does one say it? — gender specific. So we asked if we could watch the other positive deviant — one of the plant’s rather large and scary male supervisors, but one who relied on interpersonal skills rather than threats, abuse, and intimidation.