"How Do I Hold My Team Accountable & Give Harsh Feedback w/o Becoming The Bad Guy & Ruining Morale?"

All right, Dave, how do I hold my team accountable and give harsh feedback without becoming the bad guy and ruining morale?

Yes, this, this question of accountability comes up a lot. Um, like a lot of leaders I work with, they're, they're sort of confused about how to create accountability and like a, what I would probably call a conscious culture. It's like most of the models that they have is when there's been accountability, there's been a lot of blame and shame. And so, most people think there's, whether they're conscious or not, they sort of think the choices are high accountability with lots of sort of negative morale, blame, shame, you know, um, or low accountability and everyone feels good. And obviously, you know, neither of those are great options, but the good news is there is a, a middle path, um, which is accountability without blame and shame. And, um, you know, this is something I've learned from the Conscious Leadership Group, um, that— well, in part um, that most people do accountability from below the line, meaning they start with the premise that if the goals were not met, that's bad and wrong and a problem. And so they immediately go to, okay, well, who's to blame? And so then accountability does feel like, um, it inherently implies blame, right? Oh, you didn't achieve the goal, you did bad, you're in trouble, right? It's kind of like almost that like middle school, I got in trouble from the teacher feeling, which nobody likes, or high school, depending on when you got most trouble from the teachers. And then, you know, the leader doesn't like being the scolding teacher and the, you know, the team member doesn't like feeling like the student that got in trouble. I think that's just a metaphor that people have, you know, from growing up. So there's a few things I find in practice really helpful to, to do accountability from above the line, or to create accountability without blame and shame. One is separating out that counting from the response. So most people sort of lump it all together and that they assume if there's accountability, there's something negative that's likely gonna happen, right? And, you know, anytime someone didn't do what they said they would do, you know, imply something bad and, you know, blame. But the accounting process can be a very neutral process, like just the facts, ma'am, right? What did we say we would do and what happened? Like, they're all just facts at that level. So, okay, you know, let's say it's a sales team, you know, well, we said we were gonna hit $4 million in, you know, quarterly revenue and we had $3.6. Like, those are just facts. So I challenge clients to be as neutral as possible around the accounting. Let's just take the accounting. Accounting is just— they're just the numbers. It's like what occurred? Or an engineering team, right? Okay, we said we would launch this feature and we still have 2 more weeks in development. We said we'd launch it by this date. Okay, that's just what is. So, I think it's really— I think when we conflate the accounting and the response, there's like a knee-jerk reaction that tends to be below the line, like, oh, this is bad that we didn't hit it. You know, the leader thinks it, the team member thinks it, or team members think it. So if you can really separate the accounting from the response, then it's like, okay, hold on, let's just take stock. Here's what we said we would do. Here's what occurred. Okay, great. Like, that's just what is. And then the question is, what's the appropriate response to that accounting? And, you know, in my view, the purpose of the response, the primary purpose is learning and improvement, right? It's, you know, it's growth and learning, right? It's not to assign blame. And sometimes, and this is a little nuance, sometimes the learning is this person is not in the right role. And so the conclusion is they need a new role, or I need to let them go from the company because they don't have the skills. Let's say it's like, you know, the third time in a row where they missed the target, and in your views, it was eminently achievable. The conclusion might be they're not the right person for this role or for my company, and I'm going to decide to let them go. But interestingly, you could do all of that without any blame. Like, you don't blame them. They're not— it's not like, oh, they're, they're a bad person, they should have done it differently. It's, it's just a— just about being grounded in, in the facts and the reality of, okay, they seem to not be able to do it, so do I, you know, do I coach them? Do I give them feedback? Is there, um, something structurally that needs to be different, or are they just not the right person for the company or the role? And by the way, also a response could be, oh my God, you know, we hit 80% of goal and we didn't know that COVID was going to happen or that tariffs were going to happen. Like, I'm going to give you a raise and a promotion, right? Like, that's the reason why separating the accounting from the response is so important because it's so context-specific, right? Whether or not you achieved a goal that you set out, you know, 3 months earlier, let's say, you know, the, the, the fact of that, the appropriate response to that is wildly dependent on the circumstances. You know, maybe a couple, we lost some team members and yet the team still managed to achieve 80% with, you know, 60% of the team, right? So that's why I think it's so important to separate the accounting from the response because depending on the circumstances, the same exact facts could yield entirely different set of response that would be appropriate. 'Cause someone, you know, missing plan or missing a target doesn't necessarily mean that that's, you know, that they don't have the skill or the commitment. It could mean that, you know, some exogenous factors. So, Let's talk about responsibility for a second, because I think, I think people confuse responsibility with self-blame, or even with blame, right? Like, because I hear leaders be like, well, you missed goal, you need to take responsibility, but they really mean you need to take the blame. Yeah, like, this is bad and it's your fault. And I think at its best, responsibility means like trying to see as much as possible how you created the outcome being the way it was. So both the leader and the, you know, the team member— and when I say leader, I mean the one who's holding the team member accountable. So they might both be leaders, but like the, the senior leader who's holding the more, you know, junior in the hierarchy leader accountable for the results Also, I think, you know, at best takes their 100% responsibility. Well, how did I contribute to the team not hitting their goal, right? Maybe I failed to set expectations clearly. Maybe I didn't provide enough resources. Maybe I saw we were off goal and didn't say anything. So if everyone involved is trying to take as much responsibility as possible, again, not blame, not, bad or wrong, just, okay, how did we, you know, we said we wanted $4 million and we created $3.6. How did we create that? That's what maximizes learning. Because the more that you look and see how you created the results the way they are, the more you learn so that the next quarter or the next cycle, you're more likely to create the results you want. And I think the learning is in two ways. There's a learning about like performance and results. There's also a learning about integrity. Like if we want to be a team that consistently achieves the things we say or does the thing we say and we didn't, well, what do we learn about integrity? Maybe we learn that people are saying yes because they feel like they have to, or we have a culture that doesn't accept people pushing back. But if we want a higher integrity culture, we need to actually allow people or encourage people to say no if they don't think the goals are realistic and sort of, you know, have that dance between you as a leader trying to like demand their greatness and bring out their best, but also not pushing them to a point where they can't even believe it's possible, in which case, you know, that they're likely not going to achieve it. So yeah, there's sort of two ways, there's two parts of the reflection. One is, Like, did we agree on that goal or task in a way that was high integrity for everybody where, you know, the person saying yes really felt like they were actually committed to the thing and believed they could do it? And then, you know, what did we do along the way that enabled us or got in the way of us achieving it? So the broader point there is if, If you take blame out of the equation, people are much more interested in learning and taking responsibility than if they feel like, you know, any time they didn't do what they said they would do or didn't hit a target, they're going to be shamed and blamed. Then it actually creates an incentive to avoid accountability. And, you know, the other thing I'd say is I think it can be an uncomfortable conversation. Like a lot of leaders feel like they want to be liked and they want to be popular and they want to, you know, they want their team to feel good. And so they're scared that if they create accountability, it's like, you know, they won't be liked because, you know, they're being like the, you know, the demanding boss.

Boss.

But I think, yeah, I really like the term demand greatness. Like, I think that that is part of your job as a leader is to demand greatness. And what I think makes a big difference is upstream, if you create a clear agreement around integrity, like, hey, we want to be a team that delivers, that does what we say that we're going to do, then the accountability is more like an act of service. Like we're going to create accountability structures to support us to be in integrity as we're all committed to, as opposed to just a leader like, you said you would do this thing and you should do it. And, um, another nuance is often leaders will tell like team members, this is what I expect. And then, you know, the, the team doesn't hit the goal. And I find it's, it's actually way harder to hold people accountable for something you told them to do than for something they agreed to do. So, clear agreements upfront make accountability a lot easier and feel more like an act of service. Because if I say, "Okay, will you do that?" And you say, "Yes, I will." And then I'm saying, "Okay, did you do that thing you said you would do?" It's like I'm supporting you to be accountable and to be in integrity around your word, which is ultimately an act of service because people who live in integrity are more energized and more effective. And so, like, as an example, this is what I do with clients. Like, upfront, we create a really clear agreement around integrity. Um, specifically, we typically invoke this thing I learned from Conscious Leadership of like, 90% of the time— I call it 99-1— 90% of the time, um, you'll do what you say you'll do. 9% of the time As soon as you know you're not going to do what you said you would do, you renegotiate the agreement. And then the 1% of the time you don't do A or B, you clean up your broken agreement. Like, you acknowledge it. Hey, I broke my agreement, and we learned from it. And so I create this really clear agreement up front around integrity, and then, um, then I, you know, we start a session with, okay, did you do what you said you would do? And I find that accountability structure makes it more likely for them to do the thing they want to do. Just like if you want to start a workout routine and you have a buddy, like, you're much more likely to show up and start it. Or even if you just have an accountability partner that you're telling, okay, yeah, I did it today, I didn't do it today. Like, we're social beings, and so accountability is ultimately, um, an act of service if you're, if you have, if you're committed to integrity and you, you you, um, have a clear agreement around what you're going to do, and then you know there's going to be accountability— just knowing there's going to be accountability makes it more likely that you're going to do the thing. And so, um, it's meant to be an empowering, generative thing, not a punishing blame kind of thing.

I see. So what, what if you, as the leader, you're separating the facts from the response. But your team is like, you get the sense that your team is, is still has the meaning that, you know, say you didn't hit the goals or whatever, that there's some negative meaning associated with that. And you get the sense that they might be like trying to just tell you what they think you want to hear instead of just like actually inquiring into how they created that result? How would you go about that situation?

Yeah, it's funny, I have a lot of leaders who I'm, I'm teaching them conscious leadership, and then they ask me questions like that, and I'm like, well, are you teaching your team conscious leadership? And they're like, no. I'm like, well, do you see how valuable these tools are, like above and below the line? And like, yes. I'm like, well, what It's like a little like you're trying to like run a race with your legs tied. Like, I, you know, I recommend that if you think these distinctions are useful, you teach them to your team and then you can have a conversation like, hey guys, it seems like you're all below the line about this thing. Like, let's just see what we can learn from it so that we can, you know, be more effective next time. Like, in my view, the only once, you know, the path is done. So like, really the only useful thing about the past is to learn from it. If you use it as a whip to like make yourself feel better, like that's just a lose-lose. You've already missed the goal. Now you're all— now you're going to feel bad about it. And I find like shame is, you know, again, it's like dirty fuel. Like you could use it to try to motivate yourself. But I find that when teams blame and shame themselves, they actually learn less and don't— and don't become— don't improve as fast. As teams where they just genuinely are curious and take responsibility. So I would just call it out, you know, if I was a leader, I'd say, hey guys, hold on, it seems like there's a lot of blame here. You guys are blaming yourselves. Like, I'm just not interested in blame. I'm interested in us looking, what can we learn so that we can be more effective in the future? It reminds me, there was this old, this coach who's been around a long time named Marshall Goldsmith. He had this article called Feed Forward, Not Feedback, um, about giving feedback. And his point was like, if you're just focusing on the past and like what went wrong without the context of trying to get better in the future, it does feel more like blame. It can be— people can get more defensive. But if you, if you put it in the context of, hey, I want to give you some data or feedback that I think can help you be better in the future, that is a context that's much more empowering. So similarly, it's like, hey guys, let's look, let's do a retrospective so that we can get more effective in the future. So the point of it is about getting better in the future as opposed to just sort of like figuring out how we screwed up. And I think framing it that way is more likely to have people be more constructive. Um, by the way, the other thing I would just say, and it's probably topic for another, you know, content, is in general when a client says, hey, what do I do about this, I generally say, um, just tell your team that you're thinking and feeling that. I.e., like, communicate to reveal versus communicate to control. So in general, my response, well, what are your actual thoughts and feelings? Oh, My thought is that the team is, is receiving this negatively and blaming themselves. Well, you might say, hey, I'm having the thought that you guys are receiving this negatively and blaming yourself. And what I want is you just to learn as much as possible so that it's less likely to happen in the future. And so we get better.

I see. Yeah, good answer.

All right.

All right. I think we're good there. Awesome.