Accountability Leadership

How to Strengthen Productivity Through Sound Managerial Leadership

Gerald Kraines

• Publisher: Career Press
• Year: 2011
• ISBN:
  9781601634177
• Topic: Commerce
• Subtopic: Leadership

In Accountabililty Leadership, Gerald Kraines presents a radical and revisionist point of view in support of hierarchy and accountability as tools to boost organizational productivity. In his work consulting for major corporations throughout the country, Gerald Kraines consistently hears that 60% to 70% of any organization's potential effectiveness goes unrealized. If everyone in the organization were doing exactly what they were suppose to do and did so at full potential, imagine how much more effective companies could be!

Part I:
Leadership & Accountability

More than 70 percent of U.S. companies’ human potential is untapped and poorly aligned. What a waste for both shareholders and the people working within! Leadership is always about leveraging potential, and all managerial systems require accountability leadership. This book shows you what Accountability Leadership is and how to apply it successfully.

In Part I, we introduce accountability and the concept of LEAD:

• Leverage potential

• Engage commitment

• Align judgment

• Develop capability

In Part II, we explore the power of LEAD, and in Part III and Part IV, we examine its full and practical application.

Chapter 1
The Accountable Organization

Tim Hinkley,¹ a participant at one of the Accountability Leadership seminars I led recently, approached me during the Tuesday afternoon break. He was a senior manager in the software division of a company supporting heavy manufacturing industries. Tim had a problem, and his nervous grimace told me it was a bad one.

Tim’s department, market-and-systems development, identifies opportunities in the industries his company serves. His group also identifies the requirements—functions, specifications, operating platforms—of software products that can exploit those opportunities. On the same managerial level as Tim is the head of R&D, which is the department where software engineers develop the actual products. There is also a head of sales and service that brings the products to market and provides support.

Tim told me that the division CEO holds him accountable for developing and delivering software solutions for the sectors the company has targeted. However, the people who develop the software—the engineers in R&D—are not subordinate to Tim. They are instead subordinate to the head of R&D, who, like Tim, is subordinate to the division CEO.

Having heard this much, I found myself nodding in recognition. I had heard this story before. “I depend on the people in R&D,” continued Tim, “but I don’t have managerial control over them, and it’s almost impossible for me to get what I need from them.” Tim went on to point out that his department and R&D were driving each other to despair. “My people go to them with software requirements we identify in market surveys and careful onsite discussions with customers. And they think we’re hopeless bureaucrats out to stifle their creativity.”

Of course, Tim had shared his problem with the division CEO, who responded with, “Fix it!” On several occasions, the CEO had told Tim that it is his job to “deliver” R&D, and that “he’s accountable for getting those solutions to market.” Moreover, the CEO assured Tim that he totally supported him in his mission. Yet, on several occasions, he also told Tim and the head of R&D that they both “need to work this out between themselves.” Meanwhile, the R&D chief feared that he would lose his staff if he tried to hold them accountable for doing what Tim and his people were requesting. Everyone on his staff, he knew, had numerous employment alternatives.

Given the look on Tim’s face, he had not been able to “fix it,” nor had the CEO’s exhortations of support been of much help. However, Tim pointed out that after participating this far in the seminar, he had recognized his situation clearly for the first time. Tim was mired in a system of managerial abdication, bad hierarchy, and accountability gone awry. This is not to portray Tim as a victim destined for ruin. There are steps he could take to remedy, or at least ameliorate, the situation. But the CEO’s managerial approach within the current organizational structure was the main obstacle to Tim’s continued good mental health and ultimate success.

Systems Gone Awry

People in employment organizations work within managerial leadership systems and defined structures. Employees and managers apply—or fail to apply—their intelligence, judgment, skills, energy, and creativity within those systems and structures. Therefore, to restore or achieve high functionality, an organization’s systems and structures must be put in order. And they must be aligned with its strategy.

In a situation like the one in Tim’s division, it is not enough for the CEO to exercise charismatic leadership or to “empower” Tim or to encourage teamwork or to commit to the customer. As attractive as these one-dimensional measures are, such approaches typically generate short-term solutions and set people up for later failure. They are, in fact, simplistic approaches to the requirements of a complex work system.

In Tim’s situation, we have abdication by the CEO on at least four dimensions of good managerial leadership practice.

1. The CEO had failed to define the context within which his subordinates must operate.

2. He had failed to hold the head of R&D accountable for his people.

3. The CEO had failed to give Tim the authority needed to achieve the result he had been told he was accountable for achieving.

4. The CEO had created a structure where the ill-defined authorities and accountabilities made it difficult, at best, for market-and-systems development and R&D to work well together.

The CEO’s only solution is to become more actively involved in getting Tim and the head of R&D to work together. That’s because as it stands, the CEO, in effect, is saying, “Tim, I want you to compensate for my abdication of my leadership accountabilities and for my failure to properly define accountabilities and authorities.” That is a task that no subordinate should be asked to take on for his manager.

Does it surprise you to learn that situations similar to Tim’s exist in countless business organizations today? As I said, I’ve seen it all before.

Accountability You Can Count On

Let’s examine the current view of accountability among people working in organizations today. My own informal, but extensive, survey reveals that most people hold a decidedly negative attitude toward accountability. Perhaps that is your attitude as well.

What comes to your mind when you hear the word accountability?

If it’s something along the lines of “Who gets the blame?” or “being called on the carpet” or “getting set up as the fall guy,” then you’re like most people. When I ask business audiences how accountability feels, most people say “uncomfortable” or “painful.” When I ask if they would welcome accountability, most say, “No, thank you…at least, not the way it’s practiced in my company.”

Why has accountability, which is merely a principle of sound managerial practice, gotten such a bad rap?

Senior managers often invoke accountability as a way of getting things done that they themselves don’t know how to get done in the existing less-thanperfect systems and structures. These managers tell people, “You’re accountable!” and expect that somehow things will get done. Sometimes this questionable tactic actually works. After all, when their boss says, “Just get it done!” many people can, through sheer willpower and long hours, overcome managerial abdication, systemic dysfunctionality, and structural flaws. But the wear and tear burns people out and suboptimizes the whole.

Holding people accountable after casually tossing a goal or task to them—without setting the context, securing the necessary resources, and providing the proper structure—is destructive. It generates negative emotions and behaviors. It also generates the widespread negative response to the proper and requisite notion of accountability.

As a first step in rehabilitating accountability, I give you the following useful definition of the concept:

Accountability is the obligation of an employee to deliver all elements of the value that he or she is being compensated for delivering, as well as the obligation to deliver on specific output commitments with no surprises.

Obviously, employers are also accountable for delivering certain elements of value (most obviously, compensation and proper working conditions), and we’ll look at those as well. For the moment, however, let’s stay on the employee’s side of the desk.

Employee accountability becomes clear by comparing the role of an employee with that of an independent contractor.

A contractor is accountable for delivering a measurable, usually quantifiable, product, service, or result. Repair the roof. Install a phone system. Collect past due accounts. In the process, it is the contractor’s absolute right to make a profit—ethically, but at your expense—as long as you receive the value you requested. And a contractor is on the hook to deliver the agreed-upon output, no matter what. If a contractor comes back to you and says, “Gee, I figured wrong on my time and materials. Now I can’t make a profit,” you get to say, “That is too bad, and I am sorry, but we have an agreement and we’re sticking with it.” The motto for the contractor is, “No excuses.” A contractor is left on his own to work within his own process to secure resources, generate efficiencies, and produce results. Your only concern is the result. The contractor has to figure out how to do it profitably.

An employee, on the other hand, has no right to make a profit at the employer’s expense. Instead, an employee is accountable for increasing the employer’s profit. Although the contractor is concerned only with improving his process, the employee cannot just do his job while ignoring other company processes. The employee is accountable for delivering value consistent with the total requirements of his role. In return, employees do have the right to be compensated at a level consistent with the value they contribute. They also typically receive training, development, and benefits. Employees expect this of employers.

Like contractors, employees are accountable for delivering fixed, measurable, defined results. Increase sales by 15 percent. Hit all production targets and the specified quality standards. Control costs within budget. And like contractors, employees are on the hook to deliver unless they can convince their employer beforehand that it’s not going to be possible or desirable to deliver. The employee’s motto must be, “No surprises.” If the employer (via the accountable manager) agrees to change the requirements, the employee is now off the hook for the old ones and on the hook for the newly defined ones.

“Keep Your Word” and “Earn Your Keep”

The term “accountability” in a managerial system refers to obligations, some of which are fixed and some of which are relative. Fixed accountabilities comprise the employee’s obligations to deliver outputs and to use resources and processes precisely as specified by the employer. Fixed accountabilities are necessary to keep processes in control and can be summarized in two distinct categories:

1. Commitment. Employees must fulfill the output commitments exactly, in terms of quantity, quality, and time parameters, as defined in their assignments, projects, services, and other deliverables—unless the manager agrees to adjust them. Under no circumstances can the employee surprise his manager at the due date with changes.

2. Adherence. Employees must simultaneously observe and work within defined resource constraints, that is, the rules and limits established by policies, procedures, contracts, and other managerial guidelines, as well as by law.

When employees give their word, they must “keep their word, no surprises!” And, when they understand the established boundaries within which they must work, they must “adhere to limits, no forgiveness!”

The fixed employee accountabilities—the results, deliverables, rules, and limits associated with a position—are the most obvious and often the only ones managers focus on. However, all employees also have relative accountabilities. These have to do with adding the elements of value that are required by the role the employee occupies. Relative accountabilities include the following four categories:

1. Reach. Employees are expected to add as much value as they possibly can in their roles by signing on for ambitious, yet achievable targets, rather than hanging back or committing to “low-ball” goals.

2. Fit for purpose. Employees must continually strive to ensure the optimal means of designing and producing the resulting output, in order to fully support the purpose for which it was intended.

3. Stewardship. Employees must manage company funds and all other resources efficiently, exercising additional stewardship by seeking ways to continuously improve and conserve those resources.

4. Teamwork. Employees must recognize that it is the concerted effort by and between everyone to contribute fully to an optimized process that generates optimal value in an organization, rather than isolated individual efforts to maximize personal output. Therefore, an employee must, at all times, adjust to accommodate other people’s work across the organization to maximize the total organizational outcome—even if her job becomes more difficult.

When each of these components of creating value is understood, employees must then be held accountable for “earning their keep!”

Many managers do a poor job of defining, explaining, and gaining commitment to fixed accountabilities with their subordinates and holding them to those commitments. Even more fail to explain relative accountabilities (if indeed those managers are aware of them by any name) and to assess their subordinates’ effectiveness in delivering on them. How then can it be fair to hold employees accountable for “keeping their word” and “earning their keep”?

There are, as you know, managers who over-budget expenses so they’ll look good next year. There are salespeople who sell customers more than they need, just so they’ll reach their sales quota this year. There are operating personnel who overpay for materials because it’s easier than shopping around. All of them, and employees like them, are failing to fulfill their relative accountabilities. Clearly articulated relative accountabilities—those which every employee has relative to the rest of the company and to the requirements of their own roles—are the antidote to the pursuit of narrow goals, wasted resources, and lack of team play that renders so many employees, and their companies, ineffective.

A word of caution: Improper use of “output-based” incentive pay often diminishes employees’ focus on relative accountabilities. Pay-for-performance often amounts to a bribe. It subtly changes the employer-employee relationship by shifting the employee’s attention from improving the company’s profitability to improving his own. As a result, potentially valuable employees become hybrid subcontractors who direct their energies toward gaming the system rather than toward optimizing it.

Far from being about blame and reprisals and childish fears of “getting caught,” accountability should focus on the adult matters of expectations, commitments, obligations, and adding value. This is not far from the sentiment that the English historian Thomas Carlyle first expressed in 1843, “A fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work.”

QQT/R = A Crystal-Clear Assignment

The alphabetic expression QQT/R, developed by management scientist Elliott Jaques,² represents a small but powerful tool for clarifying fixed accountabilities. It is a reliable way for managers to define an assignment delegated to their subordinates.

In QQT/R:

Q₁ = Quantity

Q₂ = Quality

T = Time

R = Resources

(Note that the slash in QQT/R does not indicate arithmetic division. It merely separates the employees’ output accountabilities—quantity, quality, and time frame—from their resource/process adherence accountabilities—constraints and boundary conditions within which they must operate.)

Managers have two types of accountabilities: those of every employee and those unique to the managerial role. Chief among managerial accountabilities is to be clear with subordinates about what (the quantity and quality of output) they are expected to deliver and about the time they have to deliver it. Managers are also accountable for describing and providing the resources required by employees in order to deliver on their assignments.

When I ask employees how clear their managers are with them about what they are accountable for getting done, most will say, “Not very.” Even in manufacturing, QQT/R is not used rigorously enough. For instance, a supervisor may specify an increase in quantity but not the acceptable reduction in quality. Yet the basis of lean manufacturing, statistical process control, and just-in-time working requires unambiguous clarity about accountabilities and the interaction between quantity, quality, time, and resources.

Many managers assume their subordinates know what they are accountable for. However, these managers do not realize the tension they inadvertently cause by failing to be clear. Typically, a responsible subordinate will make his best guess at reading the boss’s mind, hoping to be in the right ballpark, or will “cover his bases” in case he guessed wrong. Then, a few months later when the manager receives a progress report, the manager will say, “That’s not at all what I wanted!” This causes unnecessary frustration, wasted energy, and distrust. Some managers even persist in a practice I call “managing by finding the rocks.” These managers put their peo...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Acknowledgments
• Contents
• Foreword
• Part I: Leadership and Accountability
• Part II: Creating Accountability
• Part III: Platforms of Accountability
• Part IV: Applications and Afterthoughts
• Bibliography
• Index
• About the Author
• Footnotes