What does having a team or organizational value of “Healthy Accountability” (as an example) actually mean? What are the observable behaviors that – when we see them in action – lead us to say “Yes, these are what constitute healthy accountability in real life”? And what specific distinctions, tools and practices are most helpful and beneficial for those seeking to learn and sustain those behavioral norms?
In my work, these 3 “levels” have increasingly been part of the conversations leaders are having in order to intentionally create and sustain whatever particular organizational culture they desire. And to me, the purposeful and intentional creation and stewardship of workplace culture is simply required in order to sustain organizational success in our world today.
I believe leaders may be understood to be conversational architects and conversational engines. In the paragraphs that follow, I’m happy to share with you some of the most important conversations leaders I work with are having, and how they address the 3 levels of:
o Declared values (here, we will work with Healthy Accountability)
o Behavioral norms
o Distinctions, practices and tools
Because my experience is this: until and unless we can give people specific new distinctions, practices and tools that they can employ in undertaking specific new behaviors… it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to realize the benefits desired by declaring the values in the first place!
Most of us who’ve worked inside organizations awhile understand the role and function of declared values / core values / aspirational values as elements of intentional culture-building. And at the same time, virtually all of us have also experienced situations in which the meaning of a particular declared value for person A in job type B having personal and work background C is absolutely different from that of person X in job type Y having personal and work background Z. What does Respect actually mean, in real life, in day to day situations? How many different meanings are there for Collaboration, and how does it actually play out in specific situations involving co-workers in this department vs. that department? And what are we really talking about when we say we are committed to creating and sustaining a culture of Healthy Accountability?
Behavioral Norms
The example I’m sharing involves a declared value of Healthy Accountability, but this 3-level approach may be employed with any value deemed to be important by leadership. So with this as a starting point, two of the “next level” behavioral norms that I’ve found to be wonderfully supportive here are:
o We are rigorous and clear in how we make commitments with each other (on the front end); and
o We manage 100% (not necessarily keep 100%) of the commitments we make (on the back end)
So at this level we can say that by adopting these two behavioral norms – which are more specific and involve more specific types of actions and interactions – we are moving away from the abstract and toward the observable. We can say that practicing and sustaining these behaviors over time = embodying the value of Healthy Accountability. In other words, when we see people behaving in these ways we are seeing our version of the value of Healthy Accountability being “lived” in the organization.
So now we turn our attention to the next level: What do we mean by being rigorous and clear? What new distinctions, practices and tools are we to use in order to achieve this rigor and clarity? What do we mean by managing commitments, and what new distinctions, practices and tools are needed in order for us to manage 100% of our commitments?
An aside – I have a confession to make: early in my career, I knew there was something called organizational culture and I thought “magical leaders” could shape it… and the rest of us? I don’t know how to do it! I viewed culture as this fuzzy and nebulous “cloud” that somehow permeated and enveloped the organization and that wizard-like leaders were able to orchestrate… but for the rest of us mere mortals, the ability to be intentional and successful in this area was an unreachable goal.
Now I know how to do it! Give me some new distinctions, tools and practices, then go about 1) building shared understanding of these new distinctions, practices and tools… talk about them, teach them and model them… followed by 2) building shared commitment to practice, to use the new tools, over time.
I’ve come to believe that this sort of work isn’t that different than learning lacrosse, or soccer, or any new sport. We begin with a new shared vocabulary, and move on to a new set of practices and tools based on the new shared vocabulary. And we practice. These are competencies, not character attributes! We simply need commitment to practice within a supportive community or team.
The Impact and Importance of Distinctions
I’ve used the term distinctions here, and I want to clarify a bit as I’m using it in a particular way. Let’s start with some of my all-time favorite claims and observations:
o With language, we make visible that which was previously invisible.
o We see with our eyes, but we observe through our distinctions.
o New distinctions in a particular domain = new power, new capacity for effective action, in that domain.
Let’s explore these claims, as they are related and “build” on one another.
Let’s say on Monday I go outside at night and look up at the night sky. It’s clear and I see a bunch of stars. That’s what I see… a bunch of stars. Then on Tuesday I meet with my friend who’s also an amateur astronomer and she says “Chalmers, some of those aren’t stars… they’re actually planets, and they have a different reddish or yellowish hue. And some of those are what we call nebulae, which have a fuzzy halo-like circle around them that apparently is left over from a massive explosion millions of years ago. And some of those are man-made satellites, and they may be seen to track ever-so-slowly across the night sky.”
I then go outside on Tuesday night, look up at the same sky I looked at the night before… and what might I see? I might see nebulae, planets and satellites. Question: Where were the nebulae, planets and satellites for me the night before? Answer: They were invisible to me. They simply did not exist, for me.
Stars, planets, nebulae and satellites are distinctions in the domain of astronomy. And when we acquire new distinctions such as these, what we are able to see in the domain of astronomy dramatically expands! The distinctions live in language, they are linguistic distinctions. And yet they enable us to literally see what we didn’t and couldn’t see before… in whatever particular domain is involved.
Choose any domain: the domain of auto mechanics, the domain of forestry, the domain of volleyball, the domain of biology, the domains of accountability and workplace teamwork… new distinctions in these domains make us more powerful observers in these domains, seeing what we didn’t see before and thus able to do what we couldn’t do before.
Do you see the same thing that a professional auto mechanic sees when you’re both looking at the same car engine? The answer is no, unless you also happen to be an experienced auto mechanic and therefore possess many of the same distinctions as the mechanic! Do you see the same thing as a professional forester when the two of you are walking through the same forest? No, and this is because the forester possesses distinctions that you do not possess. It doesn’t make you “less than” in any way – it simply means that in the domain of forestry, the forester is more powerful than you are because he or she possesses distinctions that you do not and can see things that you do not… enabling him or her to take action that is literally unavailable to you.
The domains in which we will apply new distinctions, of course, won’t be astronomy or forestry or auto mechanics. Instead, our new distinctions will be in the domains of workplace accountability… teamwork… culture-building.
This, to me, is one of the most amazing attributes of language. It’s an almost magical way that language creates and generates new possibilities by making us more powerful observers, expanding what we are able to see, giving us a new “starting point” for intervening. And as one of my early teachers said: “You cannot intervene in a world that you do not see.”
So given that the 2 behavioral norms we are working with are:
o We are rigorous and clear in how we make commitments with each other (on the front end); and
o We manage 100% (not necessarily keep 100%) of the commitments we make (on the back end)
… what new distinctions do we need to give to people to enable them to be most successful in these new behaviors?
Distinctions to Support Being Rigorous and Clear on the Front End
Commitments are established when someone makes a request or an offer… and someone else responds and accepts that request or offer. And it’s interesting to notice that organizations may be understood as networks of nested commitments! Big ones and little ones, formal and informal, oral or written… at their most basic level, organizations get done what they get done by virtue of the ways people make and manage the nested, inter-connected “network” of commitments that is the actual driver of organizational outcomes.
Now, all requests are not created equal! Some requests are more effective than others in establishing clarity about what is required, when it’s required and other criteria that may be important for success. And not all responses are created equal, either. Some responses provide excellent clarity and shared understanding about where we stand now and what we can expect to happen next, while others absolutely do not.
The following are key distinctions – a shared vocabulary – to support us in bringing clarity and rigor to the “front end”… how we make commitments with each other. These “distinguish” effective requests from ineffective ones, as well as valid responses from invalid ones. Given that the results we are seeking are clarity, shared understanding and excellent coordination of action… being able to operate with these and notice when they are place and when they are not is key.
Elements of An Effective Request
o Committed speaker – Focused, present and not throwing a request over a shoulder as one is leaving the room. Someone who does whatever it takes to elicit a committed listener (see below)… or postpone the conversation.
o Committed listener – Focused, present, not multi-tasking, not watching TV. Actively able to listen and pay attention. Asking relevant questions, taking notes.
o Context and mood – Providing enough background, enough of the “why”, so the listener understands the “bigger picture” in which the request is being made. Any cares and concerns and commitments that the requestor has and is “coming from.” And the emotional space or flavor (urgency, calm, ambition, concern, frustration…) that’s most conducive to the shared meaning and outcome desired.
o Future action and conditions of satisfaction – What do you want me to do? And what are the actual, specific criteria, conditions and qualities that you need to see on the back end to enable you to say “I’m satisfied”?
o Timeframe – When exactly do you want this result delivered or achieved? Being specific. Does not include “… as soon as possible…” or “… whenever you can get around to it…” (unless, of course, you really don’t care when the result is delivered).
o Background of obviousness – The degree to which certain things are obvious to both of the people talking, making the inclusion of specific details not as necessary as in situations in which they don’t know each other very well and need to be more overt and explicit in order to reach shared understanding. This is why we don’t ask a brand new employee the same question in the same way as we do a grizzled 20-year veteran.
Armed and equipped with these distinctions we can now see what we didn’t see before, be purposeful in ways we were not purposeful before and be more productive and effective on the front end of entering into a new commitment.
But the front end is not sufficient in itself. How do we respond to requests and how do we allow people to respond? We say there are 4 and only 4 valid responses, given that we are intending to end up with rigor and clarity after this conversation. These new distinctions are:
o Yes – The request is accepted and both parties move forward with this understanding.
o No – The request is not accepted. No new commitment is in place.
o Commit-to-Commit – “I understand your request but I need to check my other calendar. I will check and have a firm response to you by 5pm today.” Does not include “… I’ll get back to you later…”.
o Counter-Offer – “I can’t do 3 locations by September 1 but I can do 2… or I could do 3 by September 15. Will either of those be acceptable?”
Notice what responses are not included here:
o “I’ll try…”
o “I’ll do my best…”
o “I’m not sure…”
o “Perhaps…”
o A blank stare
New distinctions, new tools, new practices for rigor and clarity on the front end. A new vocabulary and a new ability to be “on the same page” in how we work together – how we coordinate action.
Distinctions to Support Managing 100% of the Commitments We Make
Let’s first distinguish managing commitments from keeping them. The claim is that nobody can keep 100% of the commitments he or she makes, exactly as he or she initially made them. Life inevitably will throw a curve ball at some point. But while we cannot keep 100% of our commitments, we claim that we absolutely can manage 100% of them!
Managing commitments is a conversational competency. It’s a new distinction and a new practice required for sustaining healthy accountability, and it includes the following:
If at any point during the Timeframe established in the commitment the performer realizes – for whatever reason – that he or she may not be able to keep the commitment as initially made, it is the performer’s job to let the requestor know immediately. No exceptions. The standard is to do this 100% of the time.
Another helpful distinction here is this: We manage commitments, not time. Time does what it does, always moving forward. Nobody I know has ever been able to stop the second hand or “manage” how fast it moves! This shift in perspective – distinguishing between managing commitments and managing time, and focusing on managing commitments – is aided by the new rigor and clarity provided by the “front end” distinctions and tools shared previously!
A final distinction for managing commitments effectively is the Responsible Complaint. A Responsible Complaint is not complaining or whining. It’s a “move” to make, a tool, a practice to employ in situations in which a promise was made but was not kept and/or not managed.
A first step in beginning to use Responsible Complaints is to talk about it, to introduce it as a new distinction, a new tool and a new practice.
Here, we agree ahead of time that if situations arise in which a commitment is made but not kept or not managed, we’ve given our colleagues and co-workers permission to go directly to one another in order to initiate a direct conversation about the status of the commitment and to either re-negotiate it to the parties’ mutual satisfaction… or revoke it cleanly.
A powerful culture question to ask in your organization is this: What’s become the norm around here when people do not keep or do not manage commitments? Sometimes the norm in these situations has become people bad-mouthing and trash-talking each other… negative gossip or “recreational character assassination.” In other cases the norm has become people sulking in silent resentment, and playing passive/aggressive “take-away” with each other. Neither of these practices, obviously, is consistent with a value of Healthy Accountability.
A final distinction that I’ve found to be particularly beneficial related to everything we’ve talked about so far is this: Promises broken are not at all the same as silent expectations unmet!
These are fundamentally different things, and operating with this distinction is radically different than operating without it. A responsible complaint is absolutely valid in situations in which a commitment was actually entered into and subsequently not kept or not managed. It has no place whatsoever in a situation in which person B didn’t magically fulfill person A’s unspoken expectation! Clearly distinguishing promises broken from silent expectations unmet is a foundational organizational, leadership and relationship competency.
Closing
It’s my hope that my sharing of this 3-level approach to intentional culture-building can be a beneficial addition to your leadership playbook. I look forward to hearing from you at any time should you want to discuss anything included here or in any of my books and programs… and remember: Never Stop Learning!
In gratitude
Chalmers
