Tag Archive for: Accountability

Accountability Without the Resentment

How Accountability Works

Accountability was an elusive leadership challenge for me. I toggled between harping on small problems while treating good performance as “just doing your job” and overindexing on positive reinforcement while ignoring small problems. The first approach undermined excellence, and the second created chronic low performers. I knew what to do: create accountability that continuously improved performance and promoted innovation, but I didn’t know how.

Ted Versus Alice

I love Apple TV’s show, Ted Lasso. Ted is a former American football coach who gets hired to coach a British men’s football team. This season, he’s coaching the Women’s Team. His leadership lessons are typically brilliant.

I think Ted missed a trick in this latest episode (spoiler alert). His assistant coach, Alice Chilton, feels she’s not getting the respect she’s due from the players and begins coming down hard on them. She criticizes even the smallest error sharply and makes the players do excessive laps when they push back.

Ted gives Alice one of his characteristic stories, this one about how he used to come on too strong when barbecuing meat. He learned to poke and prod less, and the meals turned out better. Alice gets it, but doesn’t seem to see herself in the story.

She comes down hard on the team at halftime during the next game. Afterward, Ted suspends Alice for the final game of the season. She’s shocked, angry, and probably a bit confused about what she did wrong.

What Could Ted Do Instead?

I learned after years of trial and error that your most productive accountability mindset is “it’s not me against you, it’s us against the problem.” When a problem occurred, I used to get all worked up and deliver a lecture. It corrected the immediate error, but created resentment and little improvement in overall performance.

Things improved with the new mindset and a simple, three-step process: 1) identify the problem, 2) note the impact, and 3) decide how to do it better next time. For something that involved poor judgment or negligence, I added a fourth step: how will you make it right?

Imagine Ted Lasso taking this approach with Alice.

Step 1. “Alice, I saw you berating the team at halftime, calling their performance shameful. Help me to understand where you are coming from on this.”

Step 2. “What’s the impact of this approach? … I see players demoralized and frustrated, which is damaging their performance. This isn’t like you. What else is going on?”

Step 3. “Let’s talk about better ways to correct player performance …”

Step 4. “Alice, those were damaging words you used. How will you make it right?”

Supportive Accountability

I call this approach Supportive Accountability, part of my 3-Discipline Leadership System®.

The beauty of the system is the how-to approach for the most challenging leadership tasks like accountability. You don’t get a bunch of theory or lectures on what to do; you get simple, repeatable, and teachable processes that create team-powered momentum, so you can go from fighting today’s fires to building tomorrow’s prosperity.

3-Discipline Leadership System® - blog on Accountability Without the Resentment

Empowering Oversight: How You Build a Culture That Wins Under Pressure

Here’s how you build a culture that wins under pressure.

Why did one of the most battle-hardened units of the Civil War—the Iron Brigade—earn a legendary reputation for winning under pressure? It wasn’t their appearance or casualties that made them famous. It was their ability to absorb pressure and keep moving forward. 

Their secret: Empowering Oversight that encouraged innovation and respect for standards.

What if your team could do the same? What if you could build a culture so resilient and focused that nothing—market volatility, unexpected crises, or overwhelming competition—could knock it off course?

The Iron Brigade’s secret wasn’t raw talent. It was something far more powerful: clear standards, enthusiastic buy-in, and supportive accountability that eliminated micromanagement and built disciplined initiative. And that’s an Empowering Oversight blueprint you can follow.

Every CEO wants a team like that—one that moves fast, executes brilliantly, and thrives under pressure. But resilience isn’t something you tell people to have. It’s something you build. And it starts with setting standards, gaining buy-in, and strengthening accountability.

Practical Application

A construction company had challenges gaining buy-in for their standards, which meant reports came in late, delaying decisions and putting projects off timelines. 

  1. Begin with Clarity. We began with clarity, using the X so that Y by when format. This approach required the leadership to describe the desired outcomes (the “why”). If they could not do so in simple terms, the task was not worth doing. This approach reduced the volume of demands and created a common reference for the importance of the remaining ones. We co-created “pressure gauges” for standards to help people identify behaviors inside the desired green zone and those outside of it.
  1. Gain Buy-In. We discussed the three elements of buy-in and discovered that one element (self-interest) was missing consistently. People believed that following some of the standards made them worse off. Understanding this helped the leadership right-size the demands, shift some burdens off of project managers, and add support. Believing that the standards made them better off made commitment genuine.
  1. Strengthen Accountability. Managers routinely avoided giving feedback because the conversations felt awkward, uncomfortable, and adversarial. Inconsistency and backsliding resulted. I helped them reframe the conversations from criticism to support, so it was us against the problem instead of manager vs. employee.  

Results: The company has grown threefold in the past three years and is among the most admired in their region.

Final Thought

Empowering Oversight delivers high performance consistently. Whether on the battlefield or in the boardroom, the best organizations have clear standards, enthusiastic buy-in, and supportive accountability. 

How strong is your Empowering Oversight? Do your managers instill compliance (red zone), exemplify standards (amber zone), or gain compelling ownership from your employees so they enforce standards among each other (green zone)? 

I’m happy to discuss Empowering Oversight further in a free strategy call you can schedule today!

P.S. When you join me for The Leader’s Edge: Strategic Leadership at Antietam and Gettysburg on May 27-30, you’ll work with visual models like these that help you diagnose issues and coordinate action rapidly. 

The Right Mindset Is a Vital Foundation for Accountability

Discover how accountability tools like supportive criticism can strengthen relationships while addressing problems.

How do you frame your accountability conversations? Is it you versus your employee about a problem, or you and your employee versus the problem?

Friction, anxiety, and defensiveness result when the conversation is you versus your employee.

When it’s you and your employee versus the problem, you co-create solutions that get results.

Is Your Employee the Problem?

What if your employee is the problem?

This situation happens sometimes, which means you made a positioning or a hiring mistake. The employee is not the right fit for the role, so find them a new role or part ways amicably. You, your employees, and your company will be better off.

Once you have the “it’s us against the problem” mindset, you’ll find supportive criticism a powerful tool in your arsenal when you need to nip problems in the bud.

Let’s Have a Meaningful Conversation

Would you be interested in a meaningful conversation about closing the gap between your performance and potential? You and I will hop on a Zoom call. I’ll ask questions to see what I see and then share insights and ideas to help you accelerate your progress. Schedule a time that works for you.

The 3As Turn Information Into Transformation

Unlock the 3As and consistently turn information into transformation.

I was 600 miles into the 1,700-mile Fallen Hero Honor Ride, and my bottom was hurting badly. Since mile 300 or so, I had been sitting on bags of ice every night, popping Ibuprofen and Tylenol like candy, and wondering how I would power through the next 1,100 miles.

Quitting was not an option.

I was out of ideas. Should I get a more padded bicycle seat? Should I double up on bike shorts?

Fortunately, I had a cycling coach named Chuck Kyle who built my training program and provided expert advice. He even stopped by my Milwaukee home during a cycling trip to take a ride together.

I told Chuck about the pain and asked whether I should get a new saddle or start wearing more padding.

“Don’t do any of that,” he said, “Just angle your seat forward by 1mm and tell me how it feels.”

The following 1,100 miles felt like a dream. No more painkillers, no sitting on ice bags. A simple change made all of the difference.

I would never have come up with that solution on my own. The saddle was hitting a nerve, and the angle adjustment was enough to relieve the pressure.

A trusted advisor gives you the subtle adjustments you need to thrive.

I was strong enough and had the stamina to make the 1,700-mile journey, but I lacked Chuck’s deep professional expertise. He knew exactly what to do.

His example shows that information creates awareness but not transformation. No one ever learned to ride a bike solely by reading a book. You need the 3As: application, adjustment, and accountability.

The 3As: Application, Adjustment, and Accountability

First, you have to apply what you learned. Chuck provided skill transfer in the training plan, nutritional advice, and preparation, but I had to apply his advice to benefit from it. 

How often have you heard someone struggling with a leadership skill say, “I know that,” but they aren’t doing it? People believe what they see, not what you claim to intend.

Application, as my bicycle seat example painfully illustrates, is not sufficient. Some generalized advice works well, but you must often adjust to get the right fit. Just like you adjust the bicycle to the rider, you adjust the practices to the leader. 

Finally, you need accountability to improve performance and prevent backsliding. Chuck monitored my training reports, and our monthly calls kept me on track and helped us fine-tune the program, so I continued getting better.

Did you ever notice that the best performers, athletes, business owners, actors, etc., have advisors to support them with application, adjustment, and accountability? 

Lone wolves starve, and there’s no merit badge for figuring out everything on your own. That approach wastes time and energy in trial and error while increasing the risk of failure. You still have to run the race – no one can do that for you. 

Your support network accelerates, not diminishes, your success.

Take your time to find advisors who are the right fit for you. I’d be delighted to have a meaningful conversation to discuss how to close the gap between your performance and potential and help you find the right advisor to support your journey to new heights. 

The Tufts Lacrosse Workout Debacle

Tufts lacrosse workout debacle shows why you should ignore Navy SEAL hype.

Twelve players from the Tufts lacrosse team, last year’s NCAA Division III champs, were reportedly hospitalized after enduring a voluntary workout led by a Navy SEAL. I hope they fully recover and Tufts and others learn from such malpractice.

The successful raid to kill Al Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in 2011 kicked off an irrational Navy SEAL exuberance. Legions of books written by former SEALs purported to show leaders how to lead like a Navy special operator and turn their employees into elite, mission-focused warriors. 

It’s mostly glib hype.

I’ve worked with Navy SEALs and other special operations forces in combat. Most are terrific professionals, some are chest-thumping goofballs, and others are somewhere in between. The leadership practices that work for them can backfire in business.

Here’s why.

Many Navy SEAL aphorisms are grounded in training for the high-stakes world of combat. Despite the cringe-worthy use of misleading military metaphors popular in management literature, you’re in business, not war, so what may work in battle can be counterproductive.   

Common Navy SEAL Aphorisms That Often Don’t Work in Business

My chatbot helped me identify some common Navy SEAL aphorisms that often don’t work in business (and frequently serve as cloaking devices for poor leadership practices in the military):

1. “Failure is not an option.”

  • Why it doesn’t work in business: failure is often critical to growth, learning, and innovation. Businesses thrive by iterating on failures, experimenting, and adapting to mistakes. The mindset of avoiding failure at all costs stifles creativity and risk-taking, leading to stagnation.
  • It doesn’t work well in the military, either. This mentality leads to risk avoidance, which impedes innovation and critical thinking. The enemy always has something to say about success and failure, so doubling down on something that’s not working usually means more casualties.  

2. “Embrace the suck.”

  • Why it doesn’t work in business: This phrase is about enduring tough conditions and pushing through adversity. While persistence is important in business, ignoring systemic problems or burnout isn’t sustainable. Leaders who focus solely on grit without addressing underlying issues risk demoralizing their teams and fostering toxic work environments.
  • It doesn’t work well in the military, either. This saying is often used to justify poor planning and lousy training. Leaders should intentionally and intelligently ramp up the training difficulty, which builds stamina and creativity (as long as you avoid #1 above). Resilience means you bounce forward from adversity.

3. “Move fast, shoot straight.”

  • Why it doesn’t work in business: In combat, quick, decisive action is essential. In business, however, rapid decisions without careful consideration can lead to costly mistakes. Strategy, planning, and consultation with stakeholders are necessary for sustainable success. Fast execution without thoughtful alignment often backfires in a corporate environment. 
  • It doesn’t work well in the military, either. Sometimes, you need to slow down to gain buy-in and bring others along. Shoot straight, sure, but first, engage your brain before pulling the trigger. Not every problem requires a “kinetic” solution. Besides, physics dictates that you will shoot straight (taking gravity into account). Aiming properly is the key.

4. “Two is one, one is none.”

  • Why it doesn’t work in business: This saying emphasizes redundancy, particularly in gear and equipment for survival. While redundancy has its place in business (e.g., backup plans, multiple suppliers), over-redundancy can result in inefficiency and waste. Do you need two CFOs? Wise leaders have some redundancies and lots of contingencies.
  • It doesn’t work well in the military, either. The special operations forces can often afford two of everything; most conventional units cannot. You must seize opportunities in combat when they materialize and not wait for perfect conditions. 

5. “Get comfortable being uncomfortable.”

  • Why it doesn’t work in business: While discomfort can drive personal growth, businesses are built on creating environments where people can thrive, not just survive. Constantly pushing employees to be uncomfortable without giving them tools to succeed or support can lead to burnout, high turnover, and decreased productivity.
  • It doesn’t work well in the military for the same reasons. You must be intelligent and intentional when pushing the limits and when you need to institutionalize systems and processes so you do routine things routinely to a high standard.

6. “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.”

  • Why it doesn’t work in business: While it’s true that flexibility is important, this phrase can lead to a defeatist attitude toward planning. In business, solid strategic planning, forecasting, and scenario analysis are crucial to navigating volatility. Successful businesses balance flexibility with detailed preparation, rather than adopting a “plans are useless” mentality.
  • It doesn’t work well in the military, either. Plans are useless, Eisenhower said, but planning is everything. Planning alerts you to risks and opportunities and develops contingencies to address them. No plan = poor execution; rigidly adhering to a plan = no agility.

7. “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.”

  • Why it doesn’t work in business: This mentality can shut down valuable input and collaboration. Effective leadership often means facilitating dialogue, encouraging creativity, and building consensus. Telling people to “get out of the way” can alienate team members and suppress diverse perspectives, which are critical for innovation.
  • It doesn’t work well in the military, either. This saying is often a camouflage net hiding poor leadership practices. The more you build trust by describing the why in peacetime and gaining buy-in, the more people will follow you in urgent, life-threatening situations like close combat.

Summary of Key Issues with These Aphorisms in Business

Interdisciplinary study is vital for growth, so business leaders should learn from various sources, including the military and history. Discernment is vital to avoid implementing bravado instead of sound advice.

When we go to battlefields like Antietam and Gettysburg for breakthrough experiences, I help you discern the most valuable insights that support your business. Are you ready for a breakthrough experience with other high-character, high-performing leaders like you? Let’s discuss it over Zoom and see if it’s the right fit.

Improve Performance with Supportive Criticism

Here’s how supportive criticism can transform your team’s success.

Accountability’s purpose is to improve future performance. The results are readily apparent: employees meet standards, work together well, increase productivity, manage conflict, and delight customers, among other advantages.

It’s challenging to get right. There’s a good chance your subordinate leaders fall into one of two camps that undermine accountability. 

Is this topic important to you? Read on to find a fresh approach to accountability that improves future performance without awkwardness.

The 2 Unhealthy Common Approaches

Some leaders opt for the authoritarian style reminiscent of George C. Scott’s portrayal of General George S. Patton, Jr., in Patton: you make people fear you more than they fear failure, you make enormous demands, accept no excuses, chew people out, and rake them over the coals for past mistakes. 

That approach worked poorly for the real Patton, who Eisenhower fired for assaulting his own soldiers in Sicily. Patton learned his lesson, and his legendary victories after D-Day were attributable, in part, to better accountability practices. 

Others take the so-called servant leader approach, reducing their demands on employees by taking more of the burden themselves, avoiding confrontation, letting people set their own standards, and picking up the slack because they believe every failure or shortfall is their fault. 

Authoritarians have significant challenges with employee dissatisfaction and turnover, while servant leaders have burnout. Neither approach improves future performance.

What’s Wrong with How They Provide Feedback

The feedback sandwich is a common approach between the two: you try to soften the impact by saying something positive about the person, providing “constructive criticism,” and ending on a high note with more affirmation. 

This exchange between Henry and his boss, Mary (not their real names), is a typical example.

Henry, I appreciate your work here. I want to give you some feedback. You are not anticipating needs very well, and we always seem to scramble at the last minute, especially before major events and board meetings. You are supposed to go on two weeks of vacation in three days and have yet to frame the read-ahead due two weeks after you return. What you have in the shared folder is poorly formatted and not acceptable. Overall, though, you are doing great work.

What do you think about this exchange? Chances are very high that you’ve either given or received this type of feedback. 

Mary used the session to unburden her frustrations and felt better about it by sandwiching the criticism with praise.

Henry was demoralized. He concluded that Mary believes him incompetent and wants to get rid of him. He’s frustrated because Mary hasn’t set clear expectations, and their recent exchange hasn’t given him any ways to improve his performance. Just because you tell people what they are doing wrong does not mean what right looks like is apparent to them. The empty praise on either end seems disingenuous and reinforces his belief that you want to fire him.

The sins of the past focus is the biggest shortcoming of so-called constructive criticism. 

Yet, sometimes, you must highlight what went wrong with past performance to illustrate the impact and contrast it with standard-meeting performance.

How do you thread that needle?

Supportive Criticism: A 5-Step Process

Here’s a different approach, which I’m calling supportive criticism. It’s a five-step process.

  1. Note the shortfall and express confidence, “Waiting until the last minute to prepare the meeting document impedes coordination and performance. My standards for a read-ahead are very high, and I know you can meet them.”
  2. Discuss the impact: “We are inadequately prepared for the meeting because we’re making constant last-minute changes, the late read-ahead and formatting errors undermine our credibility, and we’re not getting the decisions we need from the board.”
  3. Here’s how to do it better next time.
  4. Here’s what I’m going to do to help you be successful.
  5. What does ideal support look like?

Here’s how a supportive criticism conversation could go.

Henry, I want to discuss the recent board read-ahead documents because they do not meet our quality and timeliness standards, and I am confident you can meet them (1). 

When the read-ahead is late and poorly formatted, we look unprofessional and don’t set the meeting up for success. We have to give people extra time to read the document, which reduces the discussion and coordination, and we have to punt too many decisions later, which slows our ability to get things done (2).

Next time, I’d like to see a final read-ahead copy two weeks before the meeting so we can do a final quality check, get the material in front of the board on time, and conduct pre-coordination on the key decisions (3). 

I recognize I need to do a better job of setting you up to be successful. To improve clarity, I will use the “X so that Y by when” format so you know what needs to be done, the results and outcomes I’m looking for, and the deadline. Second, let’s coordinate two check-ins beforehand so you can raise questions, show progress, and identify areas where you need additional support (4). Third, you take on a tremendous amount of work, so I want to use our weekly check-ins to ensure we’re aligned on priorities and that I’m not overloading you. What else does ideal support for you look like (5)?

Do you feel the difference in the two approaches? If you were Henry, which one would inspire you? 

Supportive criticism shows Henry what’s short of the mark, how he can do it better, and how you will help him be successful (without doing it for him like many “servant leaders” would do). 

Try this approach on for size, and let me know how it’s working for you.

I write these articles to give you the tools and action steps that get results. Although we had several leadership classes in the military, the vast majority focused on theories and principles. They all sounded good, but I often stumbled without the conscious processes to implement them. 

To help you avoid my errors, I provide you with tools (like Supportive Criticism) that turn theory into practical application. The more value you gain for free, the more likely you are to discuss ways to accelerate your success. Your commitment to getting good at getting better makes you the kind of person who’s a joy to support.

Do you want to discuss supportive criticism approaches further? Book a call.

The Two Questions That Improve Your Upstream Thinking

Explore the importance of upstream thinking in navigating crises and anticipating future challenges.

I posted on this topic after the attempt on former President Trump’s life at a Pennsylvania rally, and other failures in anticipatory (upstream) thinking keep hitting the news. The fallout at Delta Air Lines after the abortive CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm, update and the Trump campaign’s flailing after President Biden dropped out of the race are among the latest examples of failures to think ahead. Vice President Harris’ deft exploitation of Biden’s withdrawal shows the power of anticipatory thinking.

To CrowdStrike’s credit, the CEO took responsibility for the error and began corrective and remedial action. Most airlines recovered quickly, but Delta struggled to right the ship over a week later and plans to sue CrowdStrike. 

Meanwhile, the Democratic party’s ouster of President Biden from the 2024 race was a slow-motion strike that anyone could see coming after his disastrous June 27th debate. The only ones who seemed surprised were Biden’s inner circle and the entire Trump campaign, both high on their own supply.    

The Trump campaign assumed the most advantageous future—that a deteriorating Biden would stay in the race and stumble to defeat. Wrongfooted by Biden’s ouster and the rapid coronation of Vice President Harris, the Trump campaign remains unable to adapt. 

Vice President Harris, meanwhile, anticipated and exploited the opportunity created by Biden’s withdrawal, rapidly consolidating support for her candidacy. Had she been content with reactive thinking, she would likely have faced a bruising primary.

Anticipatory Thinking Begins with Two Questions: What If and How Would

“What if” prompts people to consider alternative scenarios. What if this update contains a bug? What if our systems go down for several hours? What if Biden steps aside? 

“How would” encourages people to think about the actions to take in the alternative scenarios. How would we prevent a bad update from damaging our customers and reputation, for example, might have prompted more vigorous testing from CrowdStrike (preventive action). 

How would we motivate companies to switch, on the other hand, might nudge Apple to “promoting action” that highlights most viruses are built for PCs and not Macs, and “exploiting action” that subtly invites people frustrated by the abortive update to switch systems.

How would we adjust our strategy if Biden steps down and Vice President Harris replaces him should have been a conversation within Team Trump. 

Holding an upstream or anticipatory discussion quarterly using what if and how would helps you prevent problems from arising, prepare contingencies if they do (like getting the proper insurance and building resilience in your systems), promote ways to increase market share, and exploit fleeting opportunities.
Would you like someone to facilitate this discussion? Getting outside support for these discussions can boost their effectiveness, and I’d be delighted to help you think through the best approach for your company. Book a call.

The Bear Shows the Lingering Impact of Toxic Behavior

Toxic behavior in leadership doesn’t build resilience; instead, it undermines it.

Leaders face stressful situations more often than we’d like. You have a deadline to meet, a supplier is late, a customer is unhappy, or something outside your control affects your business. 

When you are under pressure or facing a crisis, do you find yourself reflecting on your supportive leaders or bullies?

There’s a good chance you think about the bullies because you associate them with duress. The bullies, in fact, most likely justified their behavior by saying that they helped you perform under challenging circumstances. 

It’s total B.S. 

I’ve been bullied by peers and seniors, and those memories haunt me occasionally. I accepted the narrative that such experiences “toughened me up,” and regrettably, I passed along some bullying as a sophomore at West Point. I was wrong, and I’ve been fighting bullying ever since.   

Watching The Bear helped me put these experiences into perspective.

The Bear is a TV show about how a Chicago restaurant transformed from The Beef to The Bear and how the chefs evolved. 

My wife got me into cooking several years ago, and I even have a few signature dishes like cedar plank salmon and a Tuscan sausage meal. 

I find most reality TV cooking shows too often promoting toxic chef motifs as if any creative genius must be a deranged sociopath.

The Bear is different. 

Carmy is the main character and lead chef. He took over the sandwich shop after his brother’s death by suicide and is transforming it into a high-end restaurant.

Carmy had three excellent mentors as he trained and developed as a chef and one bully. His memories of the positive role models center on their encouragement and how they developed his skills. The bully gives him verbal abuse.

Under duress, Carmy’s flashbacks center on the bully and the horrible things he said, and his behavior in those situations often reflects those of his tormentor.

He’s sorry and apologizes afterward, but how remorseful can you be if the behavior continues?

Carmy confronts the tormentor, who claims his abuse turned the former into a great chef who can handle anything.

Carmy, I suspect we’ll see in Season 4, begins to realize that the three supportive mentors taught him to be a great chef and helped him develop his particular superpowers and signature dishes. He deployed these skills under the pressure of a live kitchen and in the face of torment.

Abuse might have tested his skills under duress, but they did not develop them. You go into stressful situations with the resilience you have – it’s revealed, not developed, in crisis.

Head-trash is the lasting impact of torment. 

The bullies don’t make you resilient; the supportive leaders and your response to them do. The bullying is not about you; it’s about them – their insecurities and power-tripping. You succeed despite the bullies, not because of them. The strength of your positive influences allows you to bounce forward from toxic situations.

If you’ve got head-trash from bullies, know that they had nothing to do with your resilience. They tested it, and you went forward. 

Perhaps you used the experience to strengthen your skills, but they were not some sort of awful crucible that made you better – the supportive people and your willingness to learn from them did that. You already had what you needed to deal with their B.S.

If you want to create a crucible to improve your direct reports, then provide them with constructive challenges by reducing the time available, limiting resources, providing new people, expanding responsibilities, etc. Help them get the most out of the experience by supporting their learning and skill development. Feeding forward is a super way to help people grow.

Want to further discuss strategies for preventing toxic behavior in your organization? Book a call.

The Hidden Accountability Tools Leaders Overlook

Stop Giving Up Your Best Accountability Tools.

“You shouldn’t reward people for simply doing their jobs,” the Deputy Chief said, “It’s like participation trophies – everyone gets one, so they’re meaningless.”

The Deputy is correct, but not for the reasons he assumes. 

Leaders tend to think of reward and punishment as their primary accountability tools. You reward people for extraordinary performance with bonuses, promotions, and other awards and punish or penalize them for gross standards violations.

This approach addresses only the extremes because the tools are finite and must be used sparingly.

Thus, you leave the critical middle ground—between substandard and subpar—unaddressed, where accountability makes the biggest difference.

Accountability means to be answerable to and for. You are answerable to your bosses, employees, peers, and partners. You are answerable for meeting standards. If used correctly, it’s your primary tool for improving future performance.

Between reward and punishment are two powerful tools in infinite supply: appreciation and correction. You use them to recognize to-standard and address sub-par.

People want to be seen and heard. When you recognize good performance with your appreciation, you encourage that person and everyone around them to repeat the behavior.

When you adjust sub-par behavior by focusing on how to do it better next time, you nip problems in the bud before they become bad habits that require penalties or punishment.

Use this approach:

  1. Appreciation.
    • Recognize the behavior: I saw you doing this; I noticed you doing that, etc.
    • Note the impact: Doing this has had these positive results/benefits/outcomes.
    • Express your appreciation for their contribution.
  2. Correction.
    • Recognize the behavior: I saw you doing this; I noticed you doing that, etc.
    • Note the impact: Doing this has had these consequences.
    • Discuss how to do it better next time. 

Your generous application of these tools will raise your company’s overall performance and attract and retain the right people who buy into your standards.

P.S. This tool is one of the many you will have in your arsenal when you take my trademarked programs: Becoming a WHY Leader®: Six Habits that Inspire People to Contribute their Best and Building an Inspiring Culture®. 

You get the biggest payoff when you use the programs with your direct reports so you are on the same page, can communicate better, and have a standard array of tools to address opportunities and challenges.

Your leader development program must prepare leaders for tomorrow’s challenges, not just today’s. Schedule a call to discuss positioning your subordinate leaders for success.

What Surgery Taught Me About Rule-Breaking

How often does rule-breaking occur in your business? Probably more than you’d care to admit.

Americans are avid rule-breakers. I think it’s in our DNA or the water or both. Many people came to America because they didn’t like their home country’s rules. Americans defy scolding self-appointed elites. Don’t tread on me.

We brought the Boston Tea Party, the Declaration of Independence, and a revolution that stirred other rule-breakers into action. During the Cold War, Soviet military officers feared the American military’s unpredictability: “The American military is so hard to understand because they have a doctrine, but they don’t follow it.”

Skepticism about OPR—Other People’s Rules—is pervasive and probably happens more often than you’d like in your business.

I had surgery recently to repair several nose injuries I suffered in the Army that impeded my breathing. (Cue the wisecracks about the lack of oxygen in my brain, which explains a lot.) 

A nurse called before the surgery, giving me all sorts of dos and don’ts: no eating, drinking, or smoking cigars after 9 p.m. the evening before, take a shower, do not apply facial or hair products, etc.

Which of these rules are really necessary? The nurses tend not to explain why, which invites people to push the boundaries. What happens if I take the last cigar puff at 10:30 pm (which I did)? What’s the magic behind fasting for 12 hours before surgery? Why isn’t it six or twenty-four? No water, seriously? Won’t dehydration undermine recovery? What happens if I resort to rule-breaking?

I woke up at 6:30 am, drank the 4 ounces of water left in a bottle, showered (out of respect for the surgeons and nurses), and otherwise maintained my fast.

After slipping on my hospital gown, the anesthesiologist arrived to let me know how they would put me under. He asked when I last had something to eat or drink. I had finished dinner at 7 pm yesterday and drank 4 ounces of water at 0630. 

The time was 8:30, and the doctor said, “Water takes about two hours to run through your system, so we are ok. Some people experience nausea under anesthesia, so we want to make sure your stomach is empty because you can die of suffocation if you vomit.” 

Now I get it. The doctor gave me vivid details on why patients should fast and for how long. If I ever have another surgery, I’ll be sure to stop eating 12 hours beforehand and not drink water two hours beforehand. 

I could deduce the logic behind most rules, but not all of them. People are more likely to skirt the rules when they don’t get the logic. Respect for the rules signals a healthy business, so you want people to follow your standards voluntarily. Buy–in makes accountability much more manageable.

Here’s how you can improve voluntary compliance with your standards:

  • Use the “X so that Y” formula to describe your standards. “Don’t drink water for two hours before your surgery so that you don’t choke on your own vomit from the anesthesia,” for example.
  • If you cannot describe a compelling Y for a given rule, you have good reason to discard or modify it. There’s no reason I couldn’t drink some water early that morning, even though the nurse said nothing after 9 pm. The rule seemed ludicrous, and it was. Resist the urge to add excessive safety buffers, or people will stop taking your rules seriously.
  • When it comes to adding or modifying standards, enlist the people most affected by them in co-creation. People tend not to design self-defeating rules, so that you will have automatic buy-in for co-created ones.
  • Encourage your employees to ask “why” about your standards, which is a good forcing function for you to ensure the Y part of “X so that Y” is compelling. 

When I started asking doctors and nurses the why behind their do’s and don’ts, I got better and more customized responses. 

The best leaders are humble about their rules. Just because you say a given rule is important does not mean people believe you, especially if you don’t obey the rule yourself. 

Make your rules explicit, make them count, and eliminate the ones that have outlived their usefulness.

If you are ready to take your culture to the next level, I have some excellent options. 

First, you can join my Building an Inspiring Culture® program in the self-directed or live-led versions. You’ll receive short, crisp videos, clear step-by-step processes, and implementation assignments to apply the lessons at work.

A workshop is a second option. In it, I will walk you through the tools that build an inspiring culture and help you apply them in ways that work for you and your business.

Finally, an off-site retreat can be a powerful experience for you and your team to strengthen trust, streamline communication, and create shared understanding. My clients love doing them outside at battlefields or national parks.