How to Hold People Accountable Without Being Controlling?

Dear Critical Skills,

As a manager in my institution, I resist controlling, interventionism (micromanagement) at all costs; I don't want to be managed like that, so I don't want to manage like that. However, this can sometimes be abused and that doesn't make me feel very good.

With love,

Dr. Nezaket

Dear Dr. Kindness,

In answering your question, I want to extend it to other situations. I don't think people want to micromanage or be micromanaged anywhere. Micromanagement is not something that appeals even in tense environments like airport towers, nuclear power plants or emergency rooms. It's not something that people want to experience at home with their spouses and children. "Take out the garbage. Did you put a new garbage bag? Did you close the trash can lid? Did you lock the door?" All these things are like nagging. It absolutely minimizes autonomy and initiative. And as you point out, it also minimizes collegial solidarity and other forms of positive relationships.

On the other hand, especially in high-risk situations or where there is a track record of performance issues, managers or leaders don't want to say, "I don't want to micromanage, so I'm just going to rely on your performance and come back to me when it's right for you."

So what can be done to hold people accountable without micromanaging? Here are a few suggestions.

Great performance starts with clear expectations. When setting expectations with individuals or groups, agree early on not only what the desired outcomes are, but also how you will talk about issues or problems that arise. Talk about how you mutually define accountability process, governance and micromanagement.

So it could be something like, "We agreed that the proposal will be sent to me for review next Tuesday at noon. Can we talk for a few minutes about what each of us should do if we encounter problems or obstacles?" In this conversation, you can talk about what the other person can do to let you know in advance if there are likely to be delays or if they need additional information. You can also agree on how you will track progress.

At the end of this conversation, you should both feel comfortable and clear about the results and the process you will use to ensure accountability. Ask specific questions such as "Do you feel good about the process?" and "Are you comfortable with our plan for accountability?" These questions allow you to ensure that our intention is to get results, not micromanage. To emphasize this point, you need agreements about how you are holding others accountable. How comfortable do you feel with the frequency and form of supervision? How comfortable is the other person? The balance will be struck by the dialogue you have up front.

Look at your story. Often, people tell themselves that if they confront someone, the other person will see it as micromanagement. This can be a bad choice; it can mean that you have to make a choice where you only have two bad choices, to confront or not to confront, and it can feel like a "down with the beard and up with the mustache". For example, "If I confront people, they see me as 'getting on their case'; if I don't confront them, I'm allowing bad consequences to happen."

In fact, there is often a third and better alternative; you can face the accountability issue itself AND you are not micromanaging. So you mentally force yourself to find out what is causing the accountability issue. "How do I confront this issue so that I can achieve the results I want AND prevent the other person from thinking that I'm micromanaging them? In fact, the question is, how can I deal with performance issues AND strengthen our relationship at the same time?"

Of course, such questions help you focus on what you really want for yourself, for the other person and for the relationship. You don't have to make constrained choices between performance and your relationship. . . you can have both.

Define the expectation gap. If you need to discuss a performance issue, you can create the safe environment for a useful discussion by defining the expectation gap. Describe what you agreed on and then what you observed and how it differed from your expectations. The expectation gap between these two is what you will talk about. If you can start the first 30 seconds well, the rest is usually easy. Make sure you start with facts, not emotions or conclusions. Start with a factual observation, not an accusation.

ACCOUNTABILITY TRAINING

When you can do this well, you send a message that says, "I noticed this and I want to know what happened - I am not biased towards you or the issue." Also, when you have an agreement in advance about how the accountability conversations will take place, there are no surprises. When there are no surprises and there is a very safe environment, having conversations about performance is not seen as micromanagement.

I hope these three points will help you. And again, I hope that both you and other readers can see how they can apply them in a university, in a manufacturing plant or other businesses, or at home.

Best wishes,

Spring

OTHER CONTENT ON THIS TOPIC

WEBINAR: The Problem of Workplace Accountability and 3 Competencies to Overcome it

Video: How to Create an Accountable Culture

Blog: How Managers Can Hold People Accountable

Blog: What Giving Autonomy Gives Employees