What Does Two-Sided Accountability Entail?
Two-sided accountability is founded on the teamwork concepts embedded in hierarchical structure, especially as emphasized in the third-order accountability described in Table 7-1. At all times each person has dual responsibilities: first, to make sure that he or she performs assigned responsibilities, functions, and roles effectively; and second, to display initiative and support in helping others to effectively cover their functions, responsibilities, and roles.
Listening to what bosses say they do you'd think that these dual responsibilities were all but universally implemented today. And, everyone can point to a behavior that they think exemplifies an active commitment to staging for others to perform competently. However, if you examine what most bosses actually do, and listen to what subordinates say about what they are doing and not doing, you get a decidedly different perspective on what's mainstream practice in management today. And you'd think most bosses would know about this since we can't think of more than a handful of bosses who report to higher level bosses that they don't consider teamwork deficient.
To provide a picture of where words, deeds, and good intentions fall short, we describe four dimensions of managerial performance in which bosses have the opportunity to pass the practical test but where most fail to understand what is required. Consider what most well-intentioned bosses do and the two-sided accountable enhancements suggested. In our minds each of these dimensions is highly pertinent to affecting individual and team effectiveness.
Getting Informed
Bosses practicing one-sided accountability often put a good deal of effort into getting themselves informed. They ask questions, hold briefings, conduct reviews, and diligently monitor results. In fact, they generally attempt to solicit all points of view prior to making up their minds and stipulating action. However, if a boss were to practice two-sided accountability he or she would do appreciably more.
After getting briefed and making a decision, the boss would present his or her tentative “this is where I'm coming out” conclusions for discussion by the people whose perspectives he or she is drawing upon for a “what problems do you see?” conversation that allows “briefers” to respond to the boss's logic and state their reactions. Afterwards, with authority clearly defined, the boss would be free to decide and act any way he or she saw fit and those with differing opinions would have a basis for continuing the dialogue should ensuing events warrant further pressing of a reaction.
Informing Others
For most bosses, engaging in team play means getting subordinates the information required for them to competently perform their jobs. Once again, bosses who practice one-sided accountability will say they already do this based on front-end information sharing and perspective-setting discussions they hold when assigning a project or responsibility. Their beliefs are reinforced by the information updates they provide and the mid-course corrections they advance. But from where we sit the aforementioned schema is more tactical than strategic because the reference point for all data and perspectives shared is the problem framed and formatted for available resources as seen by the boss.
Practicing two-sided accountability entails giving subordinates a strategic perspective on their assignments and sufficient information about what is expected in the way of results. To be strategic, subordinates need to be present when a project is formulated or at least when key parameters for the project are initially discussed and mapped. To be strategic, oversight involves a “roll-up your sleeves” work session, not just a “Let me sell you on the logic of how we're going about this” presentation. To be strategic, the boss takes the role of learning what subordinates require to “get it right,” not just evaluating whether they have it “right,” the way that boss wants the work done.
When there's two-sided accountability, the boss' involvement doesn't stop with making sure that subordinates have the information he or she thinks is needed. It includes finding out what information subordinates want and helping them access it. With two-sided accountability, subordinates are accountable for producing results while bosses are accountable for making sure subordinates have what they need to get those results.
Conserving Time and Energy
Next on our list is the boss' utilization of human capital. Here the differences between bosses who practice one-sided and two-sided accountability are particularly obvious. One-sided-accountable bosses are wasteful of other people's time. They engage in self-indulgent acts such as scheduling meetings without giving serious consideration to subordinate commitments and schedules, creating inefficiencies that cascade down. Almost automatically they assume meetings to be at their office location regardless of the number of people who must transport themselves there. They have canned apologies for people they leave waiting in their outer office for an hour or more, re-reading the previous day's news. They assign projects that are considered wasted efforts by the people performing them, ignoring their futile complaints. The list of human effort wasted and opportunities lost is endless.
On the other hand, bosses who practice two-sided accountability are seriously interested in subordinate productivity. They align their self-interests with the total corporate effort by measuring efficiency and productivity in terms of total work unit progress and company results, making these their ego-gratifying accomplishments. They inquire about availability prior to making an assignment; they solicit the other person's viewpoint with a concern for conserving effort. When invoking urgency, they consider off-loading other number one priorities. They display an active interest in each individual's well-being and general morale. In short, they produce asset value by fostering personally rewarding, productive relationships between personnel and company efforts.
Respecting Individuality and Uniqueness
The last item on our boss-as-leader functions is knowledge of the needs of other people and acceptance of one's role in facilitating their pursuits. We're not just talking about what people lower down need to perform their assignments competently; we're talking about what drives them personally, professionally, and corporately—what they must realize to make their company affiliation personally meaningful. This is the “if you're going to be a leader, you need to know what the people you are leading think” mindset that everyone in a leadership position acknowledges. It's another way of putting inevitable subjectivity and win-win-win politics together, finding out what you need to know to grasp another's perspective and gain his or her enthusiastic participation by seeking outcomes consistent not only with your interests and the company's, but also with the other person's.
Aware of the value of knowing what's on the minds of people below them and how they see organizational events, people high up on the chart often sponsor a stream of activities. These include informal brown bag lunches for interactive discussions, periodic open-forums for discussion of controversial topics, encouraging direct reports to submit agenda topics for team meetings, regularly scheduled one-on-one supervisory meetings, and anonymous surveys and 360-degree feedback conducted by third parties, with new modalities on the drawing boards.
Unfortunately, most of these activities are carried out with one-sided accountability. Brown bag sessions intended to be responsive to employee concerns turn into sales sessions where giving the company line supplants listening to how individuals see things differently. Topics nominated for management meetings get “back of the line” treatment as the executive in charge arranges the agenda to ensure that his or her urgent issues are addressed prior to time running out. One-on-one meetings are held only when the boss has something to discuss. Human resources people take control of the open forums, using them to explain proposed changes in benefits and parking. Anonymous surveys are engaged defensively as recipients react as if the objective is to clean up the list rather than to hold focused discussions where perceptions are engaged and both participants explain. Three-hundred-and-sixty-degree feedback is helpful in belling the cat but not in changing underlying beliefs or developing relationships. The reaction is obvious; people stop participating. They protect themselves by quickly adopting a “been there, done that” attitude when coming attractions are announced.
Two-sided accountability changes all this. Personal effectiveness discussions are held face to face, not anonymously, with bosses asking during initial discussions, “What do you need from me in order to feel comfortable speaking honestly?” Recall that two-sided accountability incorporates the principle of inevitable subjectivity and the fact that underlying each person's company affiliation are desires to pursue life needs, maximize rewards and gains, and receive good value for sacrifices made. The boss' listening and learning is emphasized. Any meeting in which the boss does lots of talking is followed up with meetings devoted to inquiring, “What did you hear and where did you come out?” Two-sided accountability requires the boss to work on developing a capacity to live with the tension that comes from differences not reconciled. The modus operandi is power-sharing, not power-taking where the boss unilaterally frames the issue. Neither is it power-denying, where the boss uses the uniqueness of a subordinate's concern to discredit that individual's position.