PDF Summary:Crucial Accountability, by Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, et al.

When we’re in a relationship with someone who has broken a promise, violated a commitment, behaved badly, or otherwise failed to meet our expectations, we’re forced to decide whether to bring up the issue and risk making our relationship worse or suffer in silence and let the issue continue. Luckily, communication and management experts Patterson, Grenny, Maxfield, McMillan, and Switzler explain that if we properly prepare for, execute, and follow up on our accountability conversation, we can solve our issues while improving our relationships.

This guide explores the steps necessary to effectively solve accountability issues and provides insights from other fundamental theories of interpersonal communication, management, and psychology. We’ll learn how to discuss the right issue, control our emotions, address sticky topics, and effectively follow up on our chosen solution, ultimately putting an end to accountability issues and steering our relationships in a positive and productive direction.

(continued)...

Executing the Accountability Conversation

The authors then move from preparing for the conversation to having the conversation.

To effectively execute our discussion, we need to bring up the issue in a way that makes the other person feel safe, work with them to identify barriers and solutions, handle any new issues that arise during the conversation, and be aware of behaviors to avoid.

Establishing Mutual Respect and Shared Purpose

The fourth step is addressing the issue in a way that establishes mutual respect and a shared purpose with the other person. In other words, vocalize the issue while letting the other person know through your words, tone, and body language that you respect them and want to improve your relationship—which will benefit both parties.

To do this, explain the issue succinctly: Express your expectations and how the other person failed to meet them. Then, invite them to respond. Throughout the conversation, watch for signs that the other person is feeling unsafe and re-establish safety when necessary (either by clarifying your respect or shared purpose).

(Shortform note: If you fail to establish mutual respect, a shared purpose, or explain the issue succinctly, the other person is likely to feel overwhelmed and stifled. The most common reaction to these negative emotions is to stonewall—to tune the speaker out by ignoring them, acting busy, turning away, or engaging in obsessive behaviors. Stonewalling could permanently damage or end a relationship. You can avoid this consequence by following the authors’ suggestions: Be succinct, be respectful, and establish a mutual purpose.)

Addressing Motivational and Ability-Based Barriers

Once you’ve vocalized the issue, the fifth step is to address any barriers that might be preventing the other person from completing their task. The authors point to two kinds of barriers you need to consider: motivational barriers and ability-based barriers.

If you think the barrier is motivational, explain the negative consequences of the accountability issue to the other person. If they see why meeting your expectation is important, and what bad things might happen if they don't, they’re more likely to become intrinsically motivated to meet expectations long-term.

(Shortform note: In Drive, Daniel Pink seconds the authors’ argument, explaining that relaying negative consequences to the other person is the most effective strategy because it increases motivation. On the other hand, positive consequences, like rewards, decrease intrinsic motivation, quality of work, and creativity. So to most effectively motivate the other person to want to complete a task, explain to them the negative consequences that will happen if they fail to do so.)

If you think the barrier is ability-based, do your best to make the task possible and easy for the other person. Work with them to identify whether the root cause of the ability barrier is personal, social, or structural. Once we have this information, we can determine the best strategy to remove the barrier.

If the ability barrier is personal, the other person lacks the internal resources to complete the task, such as knowledge, skill, or experience. If the ability barrier is social, the other person is unable to complete the task because of another person—they may be waiting for someone to pass on resources necessary to complete the job. If the ability barrier is structural, the other person is unable to complete the task due to an environmental factor, such as a distracting or uncomfortable work environment.

(Shortform note: You may have difficulty identifying an ability barrier if the other person is resistant to exposing their or others’ shortcomings or simply doesn't know what the barrier is. Luckily, even if the other person refuses to or can’t explicitly state what the barrier is, psychologists explain that we can identify the root cause by focusing on the phrases they use to describe the issue. Phrases such as “I’m trying,” “I don’t understand,” and “I thought” indicate that the root barrier is internal or personal. Phrases like “I’m waiting for,” “I’m stuck at this step,” “I need,” or “I don’t have enough time” can indicate that the root barrier is external—either social or structural.)

The authors encourage you to involve the other person in this process because the other person is closest to the issue and will be best able to identify the barriers and figure out how to solve them. Furthermore, when you actively involve the other person in the process, they’ll be more motivated to follow through.

(Shortform note: Experts agree that the best way to solve conflict is by collaborating with the other person to identify solutions. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model Instrument explains that a collaborator is someone who approaches conflict by being both assertive and cooperative, and by working with others to identify problems and solutions. Many psychologists agree that this is the ideal strategy because it indicates that the initiator has a high concern for both self and others, allowing all parties to get what they want while minimizing negative feelings.)

Handling New Issues That Arise

The sixth step, the authors explain, is to deal with new, urgent issues that may arise during our conversation. When new, urgent issues arise, such as the other person lying or expressing a different problem, they need to be dealt with immediately.

To deal with emerging issues:

1. Bookmark the conversation by acknowledging the new issue.
2. Identify the problem. In doing so, refrain from making assumptions and try to see the other person’s perspective.
3. Describe the gap between your expectations and the reality of the situation. (If the other person brought up a new issue, explain what you understand about their expectations and what you did to break them.)
4. Seek a commitment that the issue won’t happen again.

Once you've gone through these steps, you can return to the original discussion.

In Thanks for the Feedback, Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen explain that sometimes when an urgent issue arises, you should finish the original discussion and schedule a later time to discuss the new issue rather than addressing it immediately. This is because sometimes, the other person might bring up a new issue as a distraction tactic to avoid accountability. Stone and Heen call this practice switchtracking. They warn that if you pivot the conversation to this new issue, you may end up derailing the conversation and falling into the other person’s trap—to prevent you from holding them accountable. When this happens, Stone and Heen recommend that you:

• Verbally acknowledge that there are two separate issues at hand.

• Acknowledge that both issues need to be addressed.

• Set aside a separate time to talk about the new issue after you’ve finished the original discussion.

What NOT to Do While Discussing Accountability

Now that we know how to effectively have an accountability conversation and handle emerging issues, the seventh step is to look at some behaviors we should avoid. The authors explain that the following list of behaviors should be avoided at all costs r to maintain a safe environment, preserve our relationship with the other person, and effectively solve the problem:

1. Don’t propose solutions until you’ve listened to what the other person has to say—they’re closer to the issue than you and probably have insights that you don't.

(Shortform note: Experts explain that when we enter a conversation with the belief that we fully understand the problem and how to solve it, it becomes difficult to truly listen to the other person and sends the message that we don’t think they’re capable of solving the issue.)

2. Don’t propose solutions and then ask their opinions—this can bias their response and stifle their good ideas and genuine input.

(Shortform note: This practice is called asking with leading questions: questions that lead or persuade the other person to give a certain response. When you ask a leading question, it's unlikely that you’ll receive the other person’s genuine, unbiased response. Avoid this if you truly want to hear the other person’s opinions and the best possible solutions.)

3. Don’t enter the conversation with a solution in mind and then try and get the other person to guess what you’re thinking—if you ask the other person for their ideas disingenuously when you already have a solution in mind, you come off as disrespectful and manipulative.

(Shortform note: Some experts describe this type of questioning as “GWOMMing,” or making others “Guess What's On My Mind.” This can cause the other person to perceive you as disingenuous or dishonest, and they might hold back their feedback or become resentful.)

4. Don’t cut things short—the more dialogue there is between you and the other person, the more likely you are to understand the issue and develop an effective solution.

(Shortform note: Experts suggest that we can have a successful and rewarding conversation by making sure the conversation is 50/50, using effective and active listening skills, engaging in reciprocal disclosure (when they relate a personal fact, relate one back to them), remaining positive, waiting for the other person to pause before responding, and inviting them to respond when you’re done.)

5. Don’t turn consequences into threats—there’s a big difference between explaining the natural consequences of someone’s behavior and threatening them with the consequences. Remember that your goal is to inform them of things they might not have known, not to scare them into submission.

(Shortform note: Experts explain that threatening the other person is ultimately a play for power that occurs when we fear our requests won’t be met. These threats can cause hurt and resentment within the relationship that can take weeks or months to heal. Psychologists recommend that when we feel tempted to make threats, this is an indication that we need to take a time-out from the conversation to cool down and finish the discussion at a later time.)

6. Don’t make the conversation unnecessarily long—once the other person has complied, there’s no need to continue explaining consequences and dragging out the issue.

(Shortform note: Experts explain that one of the reasons we keep talking when the conversation should end is because we’re hearing rather than listening. When we’re hearing the other person, we’re not fully absorbing what they’re saying because we’re so caught up in our own thoughts that we don’t realize when the other person has understood our point and complied. To stop talking once the other person has complied, turn up your active listening skills.)

Following Up

With the details of how to initiate and execute the conversation down, the last step is to effectively follow up on our chosen solution.

First, we need to explain to the other person what needs to get done by identifying specifically who does what by when. Don’t leave any of these tactics up for interpretation or you may be disappointed with the results.

(Shortform note: Experts second the authors’ argument here, explaining that the three things necessary for an employee to effectively complete a task are clear goals, detailed parameters, and accurate deadlines. No matter how self-sufficient, responsible, or hard-working someone is, they can’t effectively meet expectations without certain structures and boundaries.)

Next, we need to determine the intensity, frequency, and type of follow-up. How soon and often will you check on results? Who will initiate the check-in? Does it need to be during a private meeting or a routine interaction? The authors explain that there are a few factors to consider when making these decisions: how reliable the person is, how experienced they are in the area, how difficult the task is, and how crucial the task is.

(Shortform note: The authors explain that our follow-up will depend on the person and the circumstances—we want to give them as much responsibility as they can handle so we don’t become micromanagers. However, micromanagers usually don’t realize that they’re micromanaging because of their subconscious lack of trust in other people’s abilities. Experts explain that you might be a micromanager if you do the following: You don’t like delegating difficult tasks because you’ll do it best, you require employees to check in before making decisions, you’re rarely satisfied with deliverables, you find yourself constantly making changes to others’ work, and you’re obsessed with efficiency and knowing who’s working and when.)