Clarifying confidence vs accountability

Dear Bob …

So here I am on day three of having agreed to demonstrate to the owner of the company that leadership can exist within our organization, if he allows it to.

An uphill battle with a reluctant boss.

I have grappled with accountability vs. confidence (“Confidence or accountability – pick one,” Keep the Joint Running, 1/30/2006), and I have found myself betwixt the two.

In your column you said, “The universe imposes consequences for bad choices” – I couldn’t agree more. I also believe in the other side: that the universe generates positive consequences for good choices.

So here is my confusion:

In one sentence, you say that imposing artificial consequences is part of the “accountability” management style, bad for managing “adults”.

In another sentence, you say bonuses to the top performers, and pink slips for the poor performers, are better ways to use consequences to drive behavior. Seems you are upgrading your consequences (some positive consequences, some bad consequences), but accountability still exists: the person you “unhire” better have known it was coming (if you don’t like lawsuits), and the person should have known because their performance was being measured against a standard you set. Even of that standard is, “take responsibility for your work”, you would have to take time, as a manager, to show the employee how their behaviors/actions/decisions do not fit this standard. It all sounds like accountability to me.

In other words, I am starting to question if “choose one” is possible.

– Lacking complete confidence in confidence

Dear Lacking …

To a large extent it’s a matter of attitude and communication. “I’m holding you accountable” strongly suggests punishment for failure. Providing financial rewards commensurate with each employee’s contribution to the company’s success communicates what you value.

There’s no question that when you have to terminate an employee for non-performance, you have an obligation – ethical even more than legal – to let employees know what you expect, and to let each employee know how well he/she is performing. I still think there’s a huge difference between saying, “Here’s what it takes to succeed around here, and we value and compensate for success,” and “Here’s what happens to employees who fail.” The difference is that the former is encouraging, builds confidence, and uses three of the primary motivators (approval, exclusivity and greed) while the latter is discouraging, causes employees to second-guess themselves, and motivates through just one of the primary motivators: Fear, the one that causes employees to work hard while keeping their heads down, avoiding all risks.

In both situations, employees who aren’t succeeding at what they’re doing will have to find something else to do. One way to look at the difference is that in one case it’s imposed as an artificial consequence, while in the other it’s viewed as nothing more than the natural consequence of working in a meritocracy.

– Bob