Redefine accountability as ownership not blame

Intro

Carpenters measure twice and cut once, and likewise, democratic discussion back and forth can facilitate better execution. Preparation prevents poor performance of course, but at some point a decision needs to be made and implemented.

In command-and-control organisations, there's too little consultation. I've seen this a lot in start-ups and SMEs with strong self-reliant founders. In democratic organisations, there can be too much. I've lived this growing up in big corporates, either public sector where there is no competition, or private sector where a cash cow brand makes it feel like there is no competition.

So how do you get the balance right?

What's the issue?

Command-and-controllers provide fast, clear decisions. The problem is that these may be sub-optimal because they're based on the knowledge, experience, opinions, biases and drivers dominated by only one person.

This culture is self-perpetuating because no-one dares challenge.

Democratic leaders on the other hand foster higher quality decisions. The problem is that the value of those decisions decreases with every day that they're not implemented, delayed by being endlessly discussed and talked around in circles and fine-tuned to the nth degree.

This culture is self-perpetuating because of an often-associated lack of accountability where the process is more important than the result, and failure to deliver is tolerated.

Consider this

1. In a world that's moving fast, you're always going to have to act before you're ready. For example, incomplete data collection, incomplete construction of every scenario, incomplete marshalling of resources. But, you need enough of each to head in the right direction at the right time, iterating (with more discussion and ideas and resources) as you go.

2. The longer you debate, the less time you have to implement. Either that or you'll miss the deadline, which matters whether you're culture penalises it or not. Maybe not today, but sooner or later (hint: increasingly sooner).

3. People over-think-and-talk and under-act for a couple of reasons: a) they're perfectionists, or b) they're politicians who've figured out there are no consequences for taking no action i.e. the only people who fail are those who do stuff.

4. Accountability is often associated with blame. 'I'm holding you accountable' has entirely negative connotations. But we're getting that wrong. Accountability is about ownership, and with that comes the authority and recognition that this is yours to deliver. That can - and should, in a healthy culture - rally support around you. (Btw, if you have accountability without authority, call me immediately on the red telephone).

5. As a leader, you should run a democracy right up until the point that you don't. Your job is to keep a strategic eye on the horizon, to give your team all the time and freedom to prepare for a decision, and then at the appropriate moment, to say 'enough'. If at that point there isn't consensus, you get the casting vote.

6. If you want people to step up and take accountability, the default should be to coach those who fail. Criticising them should be the exception, not the norm (but it should not be avoided either).

Try this

Give deadlines to people - not to whip them with, but to work backwards from. Then they can figure out how much time there is to make and implement the decision. It's a simple start towards creating a culture where accountability means ownership, not a target on your back.