CHAPTER 20
What Have You Done for Me Lately? Loyalty Versus Accountability
I was running a coaching workshop for leaders in the middle at a Fortune 50 tech company when a leader raised his hand with a look of genuine concern on his face. We had been discussing recruiting and the importance of “building a bench”—the value of networking, researching, meeting top talent (even bringing them in for interviews), and always looking to add new and better talent to our teams. Most of the leaders nodded their heads in agreement at this concept, but the leader who raised his hand didn't like it at all.
“Nathan,” he said, “I understand the need for adding new talent to our teams when we have an opening. But if we are constantly recruiting new people, doesn't that tell our team that they are not important and that we are not loyal to them? I mean, shouldn't we be loyal to them if they are loyal to us?”
I had heard this complaint hundreds if not thousands of times when discussing this topic and was ready with my response: That depends first on how you define “loyal” and second on how each team member's behavior demonstrates loyalty and affects the success and health of the team.
“I don't know exactly how I define loyalty, but I want my team to know I am loyal to them, as I expect them to be loyal to me,” he replied.
It was exactly the kind of knee-jerk defending up/protecting down response I expected, so I pushed him a little: If being loyal to your people means that as long as they're succeeding and giving their best, we stay loyal to them? Then yes. But please notice I said “and” not “or.” The “and” matters, right? He nodded that he understood, but I wasn't sure he did: Okay, so what if you have a team member not meeting your expectations but has been with your team longer than anyone else at the company? Do you ignore that because they have earned your trust and loyalty?
“Maybe. I have some veterans that I don't expect to do the stuff my rookies do.”
This was not an unusual response. In Part 3: Serving and Coaching in Uncertain Times, I talked about a leader who said something similar when we discussed holding people to higher standards. In situations like these, I have learned the reason leaders in the middle don't do this has little to do with loyalty and more to do with fear of losing those veterans and having to replace them. (If that does happen, this is why they need to build a bench.) I hoped to make this leader see this as we continued our discussion from the stage:
So you expect your rookies to do important tasks and work that you don't make your veterans do. Let me ask you this, then: If the veterans did that work, would they and the team be more successful?
“Absolutely, but I don't want to micromanage them.”
None of this is about loyalty or micromanaging. Loyalty should be based on contribution, not tenure. By justifying it as not wanting to micromanage, you're just making an excuse for not coaching and demanding results from everyone regardless of their tenure. Only when people at any level are succeeding and giving their best—always looking to learn and get better—should they have and expect your loyalty.
What I was telling that leader in the audience and have told hundreds of leaders in the middle before and since is what you must understand right now: Giving your loyalty to people who are not serving you not only damages a team's culture, but also affects the success of those on the team who are giving their best and striving to get better. All because you failed to live by an essential leader in the middle principle: Don't confuse loyalty with doing your job and holding everyone accountable to exceeding expectations. Remember: Everyone is important, but no one is required.
Don't Be Loyal to a Fault
There are two types of people who leaders in the middle mistakenly give their loyalty to but whose behavior does not demonstrate loyalty. People they tend to protect, defend, and leave alone because they believe they are unchangeable, uncoachable, untouchable, or it's just too much of a pain in the ass to coach or deal with them:
- People giving their best but not succeeding or getting better.
- People succeeding but not giving their best or getting better.
If people are giving their best but not succeeding, it's actually disloyal to keep them in their positions. In fact, it's downright cruel. Coach them up or coach them out; find a place where their efforts will match their skills and success will match their best.
However, what if they are successful but not giving their best or their most, meaning they are successful in spite of themselves and their efforts? This is a bigger problem for leaders in the middle who must find out why. Is it that they are not being challenged? Feel entitled based on the success they have had after a long tenure at the company? The next stop on that bus is complacency. Before that happens, leaders in the middle must ask themselves why they're accepting less than the best from these people. It doesn't matter if people are achieving success greater than anyone else on the team. They're not achieving the results they should be achieving and being held accountable to that.
Yet chances are the leaders in the middle are not holding those people accountable. They're accepting those results. You know what message that sends the other team members? That their goal should be the same: Be good enough so the boss will not make us try as hard and will leave us alone. So why do we accept this behavior? The reason I shared with the leader in the audience that day is what I have found to be the (yes, the) truth about loyalty and accountability: Leaders in the middle use loyalty to benefit them when it is convenient and to avoid conflict and difficult conversations.
Stop Justifying Anyone's Lack of Activity—Including Yours!
In my entire career, I have never met a single leader in the middle who didn't recruit because it was disloyal to his or her team. Simply put, leaders don't recruit because it's disloyal. They don't do it because it's a pain in the ass and hard to do. But you must. As the coach of your team, your job is to build the best team possible and then keep winning, exceeding expectations for your boss and the company. That job includes making your team members better and adding better people when necessary. In sports, if a team wins a championship, that team does not rest on its laurels. When the celebration is over, the question becomes: Do we have the best players in the right positions to win again next year? They draft new players, and most veterans have to earn their jobs the next year. It doesn't matter if that player is the MVP star quarterback from the Super Bowl or the rookie looking to break out. Everyone is important, but no one is required unless they can help the team win again—including the coach!
The same is true in business. “Everyone is important, but no one is required” might sound harsh, but it teaches an essential lesson for leaders in the middle about balancing employee appreciation and employee accountability: It's not about making popular decisions; it's about making the right decisions for the team.
If leaders in the middle want to build thriving, winning cultures, they must serve their customers and bosses with the same vigor and commitment they expect of their employees. They must build the best team possible, which means coaching all their people up or out. They want those they coach to grow in their success every year and if they can't do that, then they want to move them out to somewhere they can.
Loyalty should not be confused with gratitude for a job well done. Leaders in the middle must always be grateful and appreciative for their teams. But loyalty is measured in mental and physical contribution by team members, not time served. We've all had employees who quit years ago but still come to work. Are they deserving of the same loyalty as our superstars? So often in business today, we expect to be judged by what we have done, but our true success and value is based on what we are doing today and keep doing consistently.
It might have once been true that you're only as good as your last success. But in today's world? You're only as good as your current, consistent, and potential future successes. It's “What have you done for me lately?” That mindset should be true for leaders in the middle because it is certainly true for those superstars serving them. They are being loyal to you by giving their best and striving to be better, but that is only as long as you are the best fit for their future. No one wants people to stay with them when an opportunity to be better lies elsewhere. That's how you end up with an employee who will eventually resent you and cares little about being accountable to anyone.
Leaders in the middle must stop being held captive by loyalty and justifying bad behavior to avoid conflict or accepting less than anyone's best. That's not serving up or coaching down. That's maintaining the status quo, which can be hard to break free from.
Serve Up/Coach Down Mindset: Loyalty Versus Accountability
The belief that everyone is important, but no one is required balances loyalty and accountability. It prevents leaders in the middle from being blinded by loyalty and compels them to coach all team members to be successful. That includes building a bench for future success. Leaders in the middle must understand their bosses' and organizations' direction and beliefs and coach those they lead to exceed expectations by giving their best and always getting better.
The wrong mindset fueled by poor coaching and an inability to serve up: I prioritize loyalty above all else! Even if people are succeeding without giving their best or are giving their best without much success, I should stand by them because they are delivering or at least trying to. We're doing fine. There's no need to change.
The correct mindset fueled by great coaching and an ability to serve up: I must mandate everyone I lead give their best, strive to get better, and understand that everyone is important, but no one is required. That includes me! We're all only as good as our current, consistent, and potential future successes.