Watch our new series to find out!

DEAD RIGHT: 3 Unintended Consequences of Overrelying on Your Positional Authority

As an executive advisor, I’ve heard many discussions about fostering an environment of radical transparency and candor. I’ve seen many leaders trying to apply these foundational concepts to their for-profit or nonprofit organizations.

But as well-meaning as these attempts were, they sometimes had the opposite effect and created greater dysfunction within the organization.

The authors and thought leaders who have brought these ideas to mainstream organizational life have done a great service to the rest of us, and this article is not a critique of their work.

In fact, after doing my own research, I have found these issues appropriately and expertly addressed. However, as wonderful as these ideas and principles are, they sometimes can hurt an organization and make matters worse, especially when they are not implemented correctly.

Here are three common pitfalls I’ve observed when well-meaning leaders encourage their teams to apply the concepts of transparency and candor without a proper plan.

Common Pitfall #1: Personal attacks are cloaked in radical transparency. The first common pitfall is pretty straightforward. I’m willing to bet you can think of at least one colleague that uses honesty and transparency to personally attack another colleague. For example, when a colleague throws someone else under the bus or lays blame where it doesn’t belong, only to turn around and say “somebody has to be honest here.”

I don’t share this example with an intent to discourage team conflict. In fact, the ability to navigate and ultimately leverage conflict for the organization’s good sets great leaders apart from other leaders.

But bear in mind that unhealthy conflict is always personal and unproductive. It leads to self-protection and less vulnerability instead of better results. Healthy conflict, on the other hand, is never personal. It is always about making sure that the organization’s mission is successful.

Common Pitfall #2: Pushback is perceived as dismissing another individual’s transparency. When it comes to transparent conversations, keep in mind that sometimes team members may perceive disagreement as a dismissal of their own opinion. While this is normal and the result of our own bias, it can also negatively impact the team. In fact, when an employee receives feedback that is more negative than their own self-perception, they are “44% more likely to drop the relationship with that colleague.”

This reaction can lead to conflict escalation or avoidance which results in team conversations and debates becoming shallower.

When as leaders we respond to pushback in a way that seeks to understand, we model values–like humility and curiosity–for our teams.

Common Pitfall #3: The leader is unwilling to put a stake in the ground. It’s not uncommon for teams to be stuck discussing the same conversation over and over again under the guise of trying to achieve a solution that pleases everybody.

But when a team repeatedly rehashes the same conversation, it’s a sign of a dysfunction within your organization.

When teams implement the principles of transparency, leaders must display the courage to move the team forward. Do away with hashing and rehashing the same conversation — it will not lead to greater success.

Instead, take a stand and place a stake in the ground so that you can finish that old conversation and lead your team into new territories. Once moving forward, there is no need to continually discuss the things of old.

Not sure what this might look like within your organization? Here are three telltale signs that as a leader you are not standing firm:

Dysfunction grows and silos strengthen

Your best people become more frustrated and look for the exit.

Your culture repels potential healthy team members.

When done right, implementing candor and transparency within your organization will bring many benefits — from exposing unhealthy behavior to increasing overall productivity, and improving your organization’s reputation. But if you’re not careful, it can lead to pushback, personal attacks disguised as transparency, and being stuck in the same old conversation.

If any of these signs seem familiar, contact us to start a conversation about how we can help.

Joyner Advising Group’s mission is to help forward-looking leaders create alignment.

Many managers and leaders dread having to hold people accountable. I’m fascinated by the number of work-arounds leaders create to bypass holding an employee accountable to widely agreed upon productivity targets or healthy rules of engagement.

I’ve advised and coached leaders who have spent upwards of a decade working around an employee or manager, sometimes developing woefully inefficient processes that frustrate and irritate dozens of other people. When they tell me about the situation, it is clear that they’ve simply accepted this as typical and okay.

It may be typical, but it is far from okay! Think for a moment about the wasted time and energy — not to mention the emotional toll on the leader caused by unnecessary stress and anxiety. Further, the longer the process continues, the more accommodations that have to be made.

Here are five keys to create and sustain a culture of healthy accountability based on my experience working with senior leaders and executives around the country. The power of these keys lies in the adaptive conversations that take place within your organization. Having your leaders wrestle with this information together is the secret sauce.

While this process was developed for a medium-sized client of my newly formed advising firm, the principles also work for smaller organizations (profit or not-for-profit) and large multinational corporations. These 5 keys are now the foundation of a dynamic workshop designed to help leaders create a culture of healthy accountability within their organizations.

1. Recognize our Fundamentally Flawed View of Accountability. In organizational life we often create a false choice between compassion/empathy and healthy accountability. False choices are created for a number of reasons, but the primary one seems to be that viewing things in a binary fashion makes decisions easier.

There has to be a better way. Instead of viewing accountability as an expression lacking compassion, organizational leaders need to see it as a gift to be accepted from — and given to — others.

As I look back on my 20+ years in the workforce, the people who served me best were often the ones who challenged me and held me accountable to a high standard. At the time, it certainly did not feel great. Upon reflection, however, it is clear those were the people who helped me become the leader I am today. Here are a few simple questions that leaders can consider together:

 Why is it so difficult for us when we are held accountable by others?

What keeps us from holding others accountable when we know it is the right thing to do?

What excuses do we offer (ourselves and others) when we are unwilling to hold someone accountable to clearly defined expectations?

2. Understand the Playing Field. Every question or comment defines, in some way, the conversation’s playing field. This is the field upon which attitudes, ideas, frustrations, hurts, dreams and desires will compete.

Leaders regularly accept the playing field that is presented to them by stakeholders without consideration. Whether you are a parent or a manager, you know those times when you are 10 minutes into a conversation and you think, “Uh-oh. This isn’t going well. I thought I was just answering a simple question! How did we get to this point?!”

Some may think I’m too harsh or suggesting that all frustrated employees (or children) are nefariously looking for ways to undermine leadership. That is not my intent. Ask yourself this question: “when I am frustrated with a member of my family, do I tee up the conversation in a way that bolsters their argument or do I present information in a way that gives me a greater chance of winning?”

Right. Presenting our ideas so that they win the day is simply human nature. We do it. Others do it.

That’s why as leaders we have to lead with questions instead of simply reacting to a comment or question. When we react we are accepting the playing field as it has been defined. Questions help the leader determine the assumptions and beliefs that are driving the behavior and actions. Questions help the leader understand what is really behind the comment or the complaint.

Bottom line: in order to ask good, pertinent questions the leader must listen well.

         Think of a time when you received a negative comment or criticism. What was going on in you that led to a quick rebuttal or response? In other words, what kept you from listening well?

             Describe a scenario in which you reacted quickly and, in time, the playing field that you stepped on was not the one you anticipated.

3. Change the Playing Field (Learn to Reframe). Changing the playing field is only effective if the leader understands the current playing field being presented. In my work with organizations, I have found that the presenting issue is rarely the real, underlying issue. When a leader has the ability to reframe a challenge or topic, it helps others see the situation differently. The reframe often helps people focus on more important things, like values and principles.

With accountability, reframing should always lead to an individual’s ownership over their next step. Instead of making decisions for others, the leader requires the individual to make a decision within the bounds of the organization’s values, principles and strategies. The reframe is a critical element for success in this endeavor.

Describe a scenario where the presenting issue was not the real issue (Think about times that you have responded to the presenting concern and then the “concern” changed. This process often repeats until everyone is frustrated).

What is a helpful reframe?

4. Resist the Urge to Rescue. Throughout this process the leader will have many opportunities to lower the tension and “rescue” the individual they are holding accountable. I’ve coached many leaders who recognized a history of enabling others to persist in a state of “victimhood,” believing that they were, in fact, helping them. It rarely, if ever, turned out well for the individual or the organization.

The victim mentality (for further reading: 4 Essential Principles For Addressing Victim Mentality) is characterized by the blaming of others for one’s own failures or disappointing results. All of us have met people who regularly talk about how others (boss, spouse, children, friends, co-workers, employees) have done things to them and how others are responsible for their personal challenges and failures.

Sometimes we are those people. I have accepted a victim mentality in my own life that led to blaming others for my own disappointing results. This basic human tendency is why it is critical that in accountability our reframe always must lead to the individual’s ownership of their next step.

Describe a time when you took on a victim mentality. What was the result?

Describe a time you recently acted as a “rescuer.” What were you thinking and/or feeling when you decided to rescue? What was the outcome?

5. Create Clarity of Expectations. When an individual chooses to join in the forward-moving endeavor, it is critical in the moment to clarify expectations and next steps. Painting a picture of what accountability will look like moving forward will make it an easier path to walk. I encourage those I work with to have numerous planned touch-points in the first four weeks so that a new, healthier rhythm can be established.

These five steps are a beginning, and in no way exhaustive. What are some strategies that you utilize to hold employees accountable?

On the other hand, if you recognize an accountability avoidance behavior in your organization, let’s talk. Joyner Advising Group exists to help forward-looking leaders create alignment. To learn more, check us out here.