“I’m concerned about a problem that is affecting all of us. If we don’t find a way to increase our output, we’ll cease to be competitive. Our customer is already researching alternative sources, and we’re at risk of being shut down.[Add Contrasting.] I don’t want to come up with a plan that is physically or mentally stressing, because we’ll have to live with it for years to come. I just want to develop a plan that leads to a more consistent and predictable effort.”
Ask for Permission
If the gap you’re about to address is traditionally off limits, particularly sensitive, or something a person in your position doesn’t normally discuss, ask for permission to discuss it. Be gracious. Don’t plunge into a delicate topic without first seeking permission. Asking permission is a powerful sign of respect and is particularly helpful if you’re speaking from a position of authority. It also helps allay people’s suspicion that your intentions toward them are malicious.
Speak in Private
This tip is both obvious and easy: always hold accountability discussions in private. No matter where you may encounter a gap, retire to your office or another secluded setting where you can talk one-on-one. Never conduct public performance reviews. Never discipline your children in front of their friends. Never confront your spouse in the middle of a dinner party. Never talk about friends, loved ones, direct reports, or bosses at the water cooler. Speak in private, one-to-one and face-to-face. Avoid the following common violations of this principle.
Inappropriate Humor
Don’t violate privacy by masking a public performance review with thoughtless humor, as in this example: “Well, look who just arrived. Forget how to find the meeting room, did you?”
For many people this is a hard habit to break. It takes years to learn how to craft the perfect public punitive remark: veiled enough to deny, clever enough to get a laugh, and pointed enough to be nasty. Nevertheless, drop the cutting sarcasm.
A Group Attack
Don’t deal with individual infractions in meetings or public gatherings by chastising the entire group. This cowardly tactic fails doubly. First, the guilty parties may miss the fact that they’re the target of your comments. Second, the innocent people resent the fact that they’re being thrown in with the guilty. Once again, accountability should be done in private, one-on-one.
Combining Safety Skills Let’s see how these safety skills can be combined to help form the first few phrases in an accountability discussion, particularly if the topic is touchy or the person you’re dealing with is in a position of power. How, for example, could you start with safety when conversing with a defensive boss?
Watching Wally
Let’s watch Wally, a skilled communicator, as he deals with a defensive chief executive officer who is about to torpedo a project that Wally has invested a year in launching. This text is taken from an actual interaction between a manager and the CEO of his company.
CEO: You mean to say that we’re going to spend three months gathering data? What a crock! I don’t want to gather more data; I want to do something.
Wally recognizes the boss’s outbreak for what it is. It is not a sign that the issue is off limits. He realizes that the boss is getting hot under the collar because safety is at risk. The boss needs to know that Wally cares about his interests and respects his position, so that’s exactly what Wally communicates.
WALLY: Let me be clear on something. I don’t want to waste any time or resources on something that adds no value. If gathering data is a waste, I will whack it from the plan in a heartbeat. I understand that you are facing a tough deadline, and at the end of this discussion I will do what you think needs to be done.
Now, with safety restored, Wally steps back into the issue at hand.
WALLY: With that said, I think there will be some negative consequences if we don’t gather more data. I’ll be happy to describe them, and then we can decide how to proceed.
At this point the CEO feels safe about where the conversation is going and asks to hear Wally’s concerns. At the conclusion the CEO agrees that data gathering is critical and willingly supports the next steps.
Share Your Path
Let’s look at the second step in describing a performance gap. We started with safety and will be doing our best to watch for fear throughout the discussion. When called for, we may start with a preemptive Contrasting statement or describe our common ground. Once the other person feels safe, it’s now time to describe the gap.
Common Mistakes
To get us started on the actual words we’ll choose, we’ll begin with one of our favorite research subjects, Bruno. He was among the first leaders the authors watched on the job. We selected Bruno not because he was great but because he consistently demonstrated (note the root of the word: demon) all that is bad and wrong. He taught us what not to do.
Don’t Keep Others in the Dark
It’s 10 minutes into the workday, and the authors are roaming the floor with Bruno as he meanders through a nest of cubicles teeming with technicians.
“Watch this,” Bruno fiendishly giggles as he approaches one of his direct reports. Bruno then circles the fellow like a vulture, shakes his head in disgust, mutters under his breath, and then flutters away.
The technician is clearly alarmed.
“Keep ’em on their toes,” Bruno declares. “That’s my motto.” True to his word, for four straight hours Bruno explains nothing in clear terms. He constantly prods people with ambiguous expressions such as “shape up,” “fix that,” “that could kill someone,” and the ever-popular “get a better attitude.”
Nobody understood this guy. His tactics were as manipulative as they were ineffective. Strangely enough, Bruno was purposely vague. He used ambiguity as a torture device. But that was Bruno. Most people don’t try to be vague; they’re merely inarticulate. Whatever the root cause, lack of clarity is accountability’s worst enemy. People can’t fix a gap if they don’t know the specific details of the infraction.
Back to the Model
To be crystal clear about the details we want to discuss, let’s return to the Path to Action model. It explains how humans move from observation to action.
Remember this diagram, which was first introduced in Chapter 2? The other person acts, you see something, you tell yourself a story about the other person’s motive, you feel, and then you act. Here’s the question: What details should you talk about? What part of the path should you share: the action, your conclusion, or your feeling? How do you share your path?
No Harsh Conclusions, Please
When we step up to an accountability discussion, we’re inclined to lead with judgments or stories. After all, our view of others’ intent often has us all riled up. As far as we’re concerned, their bad intent is the problem. Unfortunately, when we lead with our judgments, we get off on the wrong foot. It sounds something like this:
• “I can’t believe that you purposely made fun of me in that meeting!”
• “You don’t care about our family one tiny bit. Must you work every waking hour?”
• “You show no confidence. No wonder nobody trusts your opinion.”