3

Describe the Gap
How to Start an Accountability Conversation

I’M SORRY, BUT MY OSMOSIS IS BROKEN

You’ve picked out a broken commitment, decided to say something, and considered the six possible sources of influence behind it; now you are about to say something. Before you do that, let’s be clear. Almost nobody should be harboring the illusion that he or she has been groomed to solve touchy and complicated accountability challenges. Almost nobody has.

Here’s a typical supervisory training regime. A hardworking and competent employee is tapped on the shoulder on Friday afternoon (“Congratulations, you won the supervisory lottery!”) and promoted to a job that starts Monday morning. Any questions? And it’s not as if most employees have actually watched the way a leader deals with touchy issues or failed promises. That kind of thing happens behind closed doors.

Of course, business schools, the breeding ground for managers and vice presidents, rarely teach anything about face-to-face leadership. Most business school courses are about management and entrepreneurship, not leadership. Occasionally classes cover the way leaders should think but almost never what they should do. The curriculum certainly doesn’t cover accountability conversations. Professors and students routinely encounter violated expectations, but almost nobody teaches how to handle them.

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 conversation? 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 conversation.

EXACTLY WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

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 conversation 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 conversation 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 pull:

“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.

True to what we had learned about Melissa, Buford (the first hard-hat accountability expert we trailed) seemed far more like Mr. Rogers than Mr. T. Despite the fact that the facility appeared to have been prefabricated in hell, Buford’s style and demeanor could have fit easily into a white-collar boardroom. He acted far more like a schoolteacher than like the abusive leaders who surrounded him.

When we asked the plant manager why he thought Melissa and Buford were the best of the best, he repeated something we learned earlier. “It’s easy to find a leader who creates warm and lasting relationships but who struggles to get things done. It’s not much harder to find a no-nonsense, hard-hitting leader whom you might send in to put out a fire but who creates hard feelings. Consequently, when you find someone who can manage both people and production, you’ve got a real gem.”

How did these two skilled professionals solve problems while building relationships? How did they start an accountability conversation? We’re not sure how they came to have the same understanding, but it didn’t take us long to realize that the skilled leaders and parents we eventually studied had somehow managed to stumble onto the same exquisitely simple yet important principles.

DESCRIBE THE GAP

To ensure that you set the right tone during the first few seconds of any accounting, don’t shoot from the hip. Don’t charge into a situation, kick rears, take names, and let the chips fall where they may. Instead, carefully describe the gap. Here’s how:

Start with safety.

Share your path.

End with a question.

Start with Safety

When another person has let you down, start the conversation by simply describing the gap between what was expected and what was observed: “You said you were going to have your room cleaned before dinner. It’s nine o’clock, and it’s still not done.”

Don’t play games; merely describe the gap. Describing what was expected versus what was observed is clear and simple, and it helps you get off on the right foot.

For the most part, this is how you’ll begin an accountability conversation. However, if you have reason to believe that the other person will feel threatened or intimidated or insulted by the mere mention of the violated promise, you’ll need to take steps to ensure that he or she feels safe—no matter the infraction.

As we noted earlier, we watched skilled individuals talk about incompetence, mistrust, and even embezzling, and the conversations, though not always pleasant, ended successfully. Then we watched less skilled individuals raise something as trivial as arriving five minutes late to a meeting, and the conversation degenerated into a shouting match.

As we tried to understand these apparent contradictions, we finally realized what was happening.

Of course, the more controversial and touchy the issue is, the more challenging the conversation will be. Nevertheless, if you maintain a safe climate, others will hear and consider what you’re saying. They may not like it, but they’ll be able to absorb it. Make it safe for people, and they won’t need to go to silence or violence.

Let’s take a look at what it takes to create and maintain a safe climate, beyond simply describing the gap. Let’s examine how to open our mouths and talk about a violated expectation when we’re suspicious that the other person might become defensive or upset.

Watch for Signs That Safety Is at Risk

Let’s quickly review the basics of safety and then move to the task of making it safe, even when you’re dealing with a mammoth broken promise.

People feel unsafe when they believe one of two things:

1. You don’t respect them as human beings (you lack Mutual Respect).

2. You don’t care about their goals (you lack Mutual Purpose).

When others know that you value them as a person and care about their interests, they will give you an amazing amount of leeway. They’ll let you say almost anything. That’s why your four-year-old granddaughter can tell you you’re “fat” without offending you. You know that she loves and respects you and that her motives are pure. This, after all, is an innocent child. However, if what you say or how you say it causes others to conclude that you don’t respect them or that you have selfish and perverse motives, nothing you say will work. Here’s why.

As you talk to others about a gap in performance, a warning flag goes up in their minds. After all, this is a problem discussion. They immediately want to know one thing: Are they in trouble? Their boss, parent, loved one, or friend is bringing up an infraction, not inviting them to lunch. Are bad things going to happen? People assess their risk on the basis of two factors. Are bad things currently happening to them? Are bad things about to happen to them?

Mutual Respect

As you first describe the gap, if your tone of voice, facial expression, or words show disrespect, bad things are currently happening to the other person. You’re not respecting that person. You’re speaking in an uncivil tone. Your manner is discourteous. Your delivery is contemptuous. In short, you’ve held court in your head and found that person guilty, or so it feels to him or her.

Of course, this lack of respect is typically communicated subtly, not overtly. Sometimes it only takes a raised eyebrow. (On other occasions the word moron finds its way into the conversation.) In any case, the other person believes that you think he or she is incompetent, lazy, or worse. You have signaled that this conversation is going to end badly. After all, it’s certainly starting that way. It’s only natural that when others feel disrespected, they feel unsafe and resort to either silence or violence.

Mutual Purpose

Let’s look at safety problems that extend beyond the moment. If it becomes clear to others that your purpose is at odds with theirs, they’re likely to conclude that something bad is about to happen to them. You’re going to deal with an infraction, and if they’re harmed in the process, so be it. Your goal is to get what you want, and you aren’t even thinking about their goal. This doesn’t bode well for them. Even if you start the conversation respectfully, it’s only natural that if others feel that you are at cross-purposes, they’ll resort to silence or violence. They have to watch out for their interests.

This can be hard to remember in the face of holding someone accountable. We typically care so much about the content of a conversation that we don’t think to watch for fear and restore safety. Nevertheless, it’s the only solution. We have to watch for signs that people are worried, stop saying what we’re saying, diagnose why people are fearful, step out of the original conversation, and then restore Mutual Respect, Mutual Purpose, or both. Here’s how to do that.

Maintain Mutual Respect

You’re about to suggest that the other person has violated an expectation, and this could easily imply that he or she was not motivated, was not able, or both; and nobody likes to be told that. And if the infraction is huge, say, infidelity or lying, isn’t the other person going to assume that you don’t respect him or her—almost by definition? What can you do to ensure that the other person doesn’t feel disrespected even though you’re about to talk about a high-stakes performance gap?

Remember to Tell the Rest of the Story

Obviously, everything we’ve talked about so far helps create safety. First, we avoid making others feel disrespected by not disrespecting them. If we see a problem, tell ourselves an ugly story, and then charge in with an accusation, the other person is going to feel disrespected. Even if we find others guilty in our heads and do our best to hide it, the verdict will show on our faces.

Show others respect by giving them the benefit of the doubt. Tell the rest of the story. Think of other people as rational, reasonable, and decent. This attitude eventually affects our demeanor, choice of words, and delivery and helps make the conversation safe for others. They can tell that even though we’ve spotted a potential problem, we’re speaking out of a position of respect.

Use Contrasting to Restore Mutual Respect

Sometimes thinking good thoughts is not enough. We’re pleasant as we begin to talk about a failed promise, but the other person hears the mention of a problem and immediately assumes that we do not respect him or her. A problem is a bad thing, the other person is connected to the problem, and therefore we must think he or she is bad. Despite our best efforts, others feel unsafe and go to silence or violence, and we haven’t even made it all the way through our first sentence.

Let’s add a skill to help us with our very first sentence. We’ll use it as a preemptive tool for stopping disrespect in its tracks. It’s called Contrasting. It’s the killer of the fundamental attribution error. Here’s how it works.

Before you start the conversation, anticipate how others might assume the worst. How might they feel disrespected? For instance, if you bring up a quality problem, the other person may believe that you think he or she is unskilled in general. If you address poor effort on a specific project, the other person may conclude that you believe he or she isn’t motivated or can’t be trusted, or perhaps you don’t like him or her or are about to take disciplinary action, and so on. You’ve noticed a problem, and the other person prepares for the worst before you can finish your thought.

To deal with these predictable misinterpretations, use Contrasting. First, imagine what others might erroneously conclude. Second, immediately explain that this is what you don’t mean. Third, as a Contrasting point, explain what you do mean. The important part is the “don’t” portion. It addresses misunderstandings that could put safety at risk. Once safety is protected or reestablished, the “do” part of the statement clarifies your real meaning or intent. Here’s what Contrasting sounds like when it is used up front to avoid feelings of disrespect:

“I don’t want you to think I’m unhappy with how we work together. Overall I’m very satisfied. I just want to talk about how we make decisions together.”

“I’m not saying that it was wrong of you to disagree with me in the meeting. We need to hear everyone’s view if we want to make the best choice. It’s just that I think the team heard your tone and words as attacking.”

“I know you tried your best to improve your grades. I’m satisfied with your effort. Please don’t hear me as being less than proud of your progress. I’d just like to share a few study ideas that might help you maintain your grades more easily.”

Contrasting plays a huge role in initially describing broken promises. The bigger the problem is, the more likely it is that the other person is going to feel disrespected. Consequently, many discussions of broken promises and bad behavior start with a preventive Contrasting statement. In fact, this is the skill that people are typically looking for when they pick up a book that deals with missed expectations, because it answers the question “How do I get the conversation started?”

Of course, you can also use Contrasting in the middle of a conversation when you suddenly become aware that the other person is feeling disrespected. You didn’t anticipate the reaction, but sure enough, he or she has found a way to feel disrespected:

“I’m sorry; I didn’t mean to imply that you were doing it on purpose. I believe you were unaware of the impact you were having. That’s why I wanted to bring it up in the first place.”

Establish Mutual Purpose

When an accountability conversation turns ugly, with greater intensity and speed than you ever imagined it could, it’s usually because others misunderstand not your content but your intent. You’re speaking respectfully. That part you got right. You merely want to deal with the performance gap in a way that keeps the relationship on solid footing. Unfortunately, the people you’re talking to think differently. They believe that the only reason you’re bringing up the infraction is that you’re out to humiliate them, make them do something they don’t want to do, overthrow their authority, or otherwise cause them pain and sorrow. They believe that bad things are about to happen to them. Once again, mental math comes into play.

Of course, once others allow vicious stories about your intent to romp freely inside their brains, they become angry, defensive, and emotionally charged. Blood rushes to their arms and legs so that they can be better equipped for the fight-or-flight reaction their bodies have been genetically designed for.

Within seconds they’re on their worst brain-starved behavior. Once this chemical transformation happens, there’s a good chance you’ll never get back on track. Anything you say carries with it the stench of evil intentions. And of course, since they are now dumbed down by adrenaline, their logical processes take a vacation, and nothing you say really matters.

You can’t let this happen. If you think others are likely to harbor bad thoughts about your intentions before you’ve even said a word, take a second preventive measure: establish Mutual Purpose.

Here’s an example:

“If it’s okay with you, I’d like to spend a couple of minutes talking about how we made that last decision. My goal is to come up with a method we’re both comfortable with.”

“I’d like to give you some feedback that I think would help you be more productive with your meetings.[Add Contrasting.] I don’t think this is a huge problem, but I do think that if you were to make a couple of small changes, things would run a lot more smoothly.”

Note: If your sole purpose is to make your life better while possibly making the other person’s life worse, who can blame others for becoming defensive? If there is a short-term cost associated with the change you’re calling for (and there usually is), think about how everyone will benefit over the long haul and then establish Mutual Purpose. For example:

“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 conversations 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 conversation, 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.”

When we share our harsh stories, others now know what we have concluded, but they don’t know what they have done. They can only guess at what we’re talking about. This strategy can be unclear, inaccurate, and costly.

Start with Facts

As a general rule, when you are sharing your path, it’s best to start with the facts: what you saw and heard. Don’t lead with your stories. If you do, people are likely to become defensive. Instead, describe what the person did.

Stay external. Describe what’s happening outside your head (“You cut the person off in midsentence”) as opposed to what’s happening inside your head (“You’re rude”).

Explain what, not why. Facts tell us what’s going on (“You spoke so quietly, it was hard to hear”). Conclusions tell us why we think it’s going on (“You’re afraid”).

Gather facts. If others complain to you about their friends and coworkers, they’re likely to tell stories and leave out the facts: “He’s arrogant.” “She’s unreliable.” “Their team is selfish.” When this happens, probe for details. Ask them to share what they actually heard and saw.

Even when it comes to our own thinking, it’s often difficult to remember the original facts. Most of us have an experience (“You spoke nonstop about yourself and didn’t ask me a single question”), tell a story (“You’re egotistical”), generate a feeling (“I don’t like being around you”), and then forget the original experience. In some cases we may not even be aware of the other person’s subtle action that led to the feeling. Thus, we end up walking around with feelings and stories but are incapable of holding a successful accountability conversation because we lack the facts required to help others understand what we’re thinking.

Gathering the Facts Is the Homework Required for Holding an Accountability Conversation

Tentatively Share Your Story

As we suggested earlier, sometimes a person’s behavior can be moderately annoying, and maybe that individual has even broken a promise, but what really has you distressed is the fact that you believe that his or her intent is less than noble. You’re trying not to make the fundamental attribution error, but facts are starting to pile up, and it’s hard to keep assuming the best. Keeping an open mind is one thing; being naive is another.

Remember the realtor who was upset at an employee not just because she was routinely late but because the realtor figured she was taking advantage of their friendship? We suggested that this was the right problem to discuss or at least the correct starting point. But how do you merely discuss the facts when it’s your story you want to talk about?

You don’t. You share your story as well. Of course, you don’t start there, but you don’t walk away from your story either. Start with the facts because they’re the least emotional and controversial element of the conversation and then tentatively share your story or conclusion. Make sure your language is free of absolutes. Trade “You said” for “I thought we agreed.” Swap “It’s clear” for “I was wondering if.” Here’s what this might sound like:

“Martha, I was wondering if we could talk about something that has me bothered. I’m not sure I’m correct in my thinking, so I thought I’d better check with you.”

“Sure, what’s the deal?”

“I’ve talked to you four different times about coming into work between 20 and 30 minutes late, and I’m beginning.…”

“Like I told you, it’s not always easy to make it on time.”

“I’m beginning to wonder if the fact that we’re friends and neighbors isn’t getting in the way.”

“How’s that?”

“Well, since we’re friends, it feels to me like you’re coming in late, knowing full well that it could be hard for me to hold you accountable. Do I have this right, or am I missing something here?”

Your conclusion could be dead wrong, but it is your conclusion that’s starting to eat at you, and now you’ve done your best to make it safe to talk about it. By taking the attitude that you could be wrong and using tentative language, you’re being fair.

Continually Watch for Safety Problems Warning:

Once you start to tell your story, no matter how tentative you are, there’s a chance the other person will become defensive. If, for example, you believe your teenage son has stolen money from you, regardless of how tentative you are, you’re likely to experience something like this:

YOU: Given that you’re the only one who’s been in the house in the last four hours and $200 is missing out of my wallet, it’s hard for me not to wonder if you took it.

SON: I can’t believe you’re calling me a thief! (Stomps out of room and slams door.)

To handle this level of defensiveness, first, recognize it for what it is: a threat to safety. The problem is not that the other person can’t handle the content you’re offering; it’s that he or she doesn’t feel safe with you discussing it. When you realize that the problem is one of safety, you’ll do the right thing: step out of the content and rebuild safety. Decide whether the problem is that the other person feels disrespected or believes your intentions are bad (or both). Then use the Contrasting skill we described earlier to relieve that person’s mind.

YOU: I’m not calling you a thief. I am trying to come up with explanations for what just happened. Can you see how I would wonder given the facts I just described? My intention here is not to accuse you but to find out what is really going on so I can solve this problem. Can we talk about it?

If you start to share your story and the other person becomes defensive, take away his or her fear. Step out of the content and restore safety.

End with a Question

You started the accountability conversation by doing your best to make it safe. You then shared your path in a way that continued to maintain safety. Now it’s time to bring your opening paragraph to a close, still maintaining safety. End with a simple diagnostic question: What happened? Make this an honest inquiry, not a veiled threat or an accusation such as “What’s wrong with you!”

As you finish off your description of the failed expectation, your goal should be to hear the other person’s point of view. If you’ve started with safety and presented detailed facts, the person responsible for the infraction should understand what the problem is and feel comfortable talking about the underlying cause and the eventual solution.

Don’t underestimate the importance of this sincere question. This is a pivotal moment in the conversation, one that will sustain the safety you’ve created. If you sincerely want to hear the other person’s point of view, you let him or her know that this is a dialogue, not a monologue. You help the other person understand that your goal is not to be right or to punish but to solve a problem and that all the information must be out in the open for that to occur. So end your opening statement with a sincere invitation for the other person to share even completely contrary opinions with you.

Finally, as the other person answers the question “What happened?” listen carefully.

Diagnose the root of the problem—which of the six sources of influence is at play? Is the person unmotivated? Is he or she unable? The solution to each alternative is quite different. You don’t want to try to motivate people who can’t do what you’ve asked, or enable people who don’t care. We’ll look at ways to deal with each of these problems in the next two chapters. For now, remember to listen for the underlying cause.

TIPS FOR TOUGH SITUATIONS

Avoid Groundhog Day

Let’s return to an element we referred to earlier. It’s an important enough issue that it deserves special and repeated attention. As you confront other people, they’re likely to want to reduce a performance gap to its simplest form, one that avoids most of what’s actually going on and sidesteps the lion’s share of accountability. They want to keep treating the problem, no matter how devilishly recurring, as if it were the first instance.

For example, a salesperson who reports to you has a history of promising discounts that cut too deeply into your profits. In short, she sells out profits to earn her commission. Last week you talked to her about this practice, and she agreed to follow the pricing guidelines. Five minutes ago you overheard her deep-discounting again. You step up to the problem:

“Louise, I thought we agreed that you wouldn’t sell the product below the standard pricing formula. I just overheard you promising a price that was clearly out of bounds. Did I miss something?”

Louise explains that she really needed this commission and was hoping that you would understand. Now what?

Moment of Truth

You’re now at a critical juncture. You have two problems, not one: (1) the price violation, or the content of the problem, and (2) a whole new problem: she didn’t live up to her commitment to you. Many people miss this important difference. Unfortunately, if you talk only about the price formula, you’re forced to relive the same problem. Savvy problem solvers know better. As new violations emerge, they step up to them:

“Let’s see if I understand. You agreed not to cut prices, but you wanted the commission, so you did so anyway. Is that right?”

This follow-on statement leads to a very different discussion. Instead of talking only about pricing, you’re now talking about failing to live up to a commitment. That is a far bigger issue.

Two Examples

To see how the skills we’ve covered work, here are a couple of examples of how they all come together. We’ll start with a simple example: A person who reports to you fails to show up at an important meeting, and you don’t think he missed it on purpose. You have told yourself no story. You invite him into your office, safely describe the gap, and end with a question.

“Chris, I noticed that you missed the meeting you had agreed to attend. I was wondering what happened. Did you run into a problem of some kind?”

And there you have it: a simple paragraph. You haven’t held court. You don’t have a story to tell. You take the other person to a private setting, describe the facts (what was expected versus what was observed), and end with a question. And now you’re listening to diagnose the underlying cause.

Let’s examine a tougher problem. You’re talking to your boss about what’s been happening in meetings. You think he or she may become defensive, so you start by creating safety. You establish Mutual Purpose and use Contrasting.

YOU: I’ve noticed myself withdrawing in the last couple of meetings. I know it bugs you when I don’t take the initiative, so I’ve thought about why I’m not doing that. Some of the things, I’ve realized, have to do with how you lead our meetings. I don’t want to be presumptuous or tell you how to run meetings, but I believe that if I could discuss this with you, it might help me perform better and would make the climate better for me too. Would that be okay?

BOSS: Okay, what’s bugging you?

Since you have told yourself a story about what your boss is doing, you share your path, starting with the facts and then tentatively sharing your conclusion.

YOU: Well, a couple of times in the meeting today when I’d start a comment, you’d raise your hand toward me and then start speaking before I’d finished. I don’t know if this is how you mean that, but to me it feels like you think my idea is stupid and it’s a way of shutting me down.

BOSS: Yeah, I guess I did do that, but you know, I just don’t want to pussyfoot around when I disagree with something. Do I have to?

The boss is feeling defensive, and so you step out of the content and build safety.

YOU: I don’t want you to feel like you have to pull punches with me at all. All I’m asking for is that you tell me you disagree in a way that doesn’t also sound like you don’t think I’m competent. [Contrast.] Is there something I’m doing in the meeting that is irritating you? Or am I not performing up to par and you have concerns about me? [End with a question.]

CHAPTER SUMMARY

Describe the Gap

We’ve finished working on ourselves and are now speaking for the first time. Our overall goal is to create and maintain safety. Rather than leading with unhealthy conclusions or making accusations (both make it unsafe for the other person), we simply describe the gap. That is, we share our view of what we expected as well as what we actually observed.

We often refer to such breaches as “violated expectations,” or “broken commitments.” To avoid the harsh conclusions that typically accompany words such as violated, or broken, we’ve chosen the more neutral term: gap.

When we think of a disappointment as a gap or difference rather than a purposeful violation, we’re likely to enter the conversation feeling curious as opposed to feeling disappointed or even angry. By first viewing and then explaining the differences between what was expected and what was observed, we turn the “hazardous half-minute” into a description of the facts (rather than a verbal assault) and show a willingness to learn (rather than a burning desire to accuse). By focusing on the gap, we transform the “hazardous half-minute” into a solid start.

Once we’ve described the gap, we listen carefully to see which branch of the model we’ll pursue. Is the problem due to motivation, ability, or both?

In this chapter we explored the first words out of our mouth. Our goal has been to make it safer to deal with problems by mastering the critical first moments of an accountability conversation. We’ve suggested the following:

Start with safety.

Share your path.

End with a question.

We’ve written a lot about a little. You don’t want to start off on the wrong foot.

Author Video: David Maxfield in “The Law of the Hog”

To watch this and other videos, visit http://www.vitalsmarts.com/bookresources.

What’s Next?

The other person is about to explain why he or she let you down. This means that you have to know what to do if the other person isn’t motivated or isn’t able or maybe both. This will take more than a well-crafted sentence or two.