The 3 C’s of Accountability
“It’s an accountability problem.” This is one of those diagnoses that sound definitive and inspire lots of nods around the conference table – right up there with “it’s a leadership issue,” and “it’s a communication problem.” But a diagnosis is no cure.
We believe that if we ask what “accountability” really means, when it’s present, when it’s missing, and why, then the answers will lead to a prescription. In conversations and seminars with leaders over many years we have come up with an operational definition of accountability that actually leads to a cure.
Accountability exists when these three elements exist:
1. Clear request from an authorized manager
2. Commitment from the subordinate to complete the assignment
3. Consequences for performance
Sounds simple enough, but each of the three elements can be difficult to deliver, which is why accountability can be elusive. So, a little more on each:
1. Clear request from an authorized manager
Often, we mistake our own redundancy for glistening lucidity. Or we mistake our audience’s apparent agreement (or fawning) for their genuine understanding.
One tech company’s CEO confided to us that he wanted to fire seven of his eight vice-presidents. He was serious. “They just don’t get it,” he complained, explaining that he couldn’t get them all pointed in the same direction.
But he had been talking in broad strokes – his request was not crystal clear. So we spent time with each VP, clarifying expected outcomes well enough to pass the bar-bet test. Their performance increased dramatically, and the CEO whittled his “firing list” down to one particular VP (probably a good pick).
Sometimes leaders give unclear direction because they have thought about something so much that, after a while, it seems intuitively obvious. It’s like when someone uses an acronym on you that you couldn’t possibly know, but that they use frequently. Or when a clerk is flummoxed that you don’t know a bureaucratic rule that she lives with daily.
And sometimes leaders give unclear direction because they are still unclear about what the destination will actually look like. The reasoning seems to be, “Let me think the big thoughts and you run along and figure out the details.” But there’s a difference between tactical details and precise direction; leaders shouldn’t have to figure out all the details of execution, but they should be able to spell out precisely the outcome they’re seeking.
Clarity rarely arises from dictate, but it can arise from dialog, which brings us to the next point.
2. Commitment from the subordinate to complete the assignment
A subordinate doesn’t need to agree with the brilliance of an assignment, but they do need to commit to do it. Two elements are critical to commitment: an opportunity for dialog and an answer to the question of why the assignment is important.
Except in rare instances such as military operations or medical emergencies, leaders can create the opportunity for dialog, even if it’s only a closing line to an email: “Please contact me directly if you have any questions or suggestions concerning this assignment.”
Through dialog comes understanding – for both parties. Sometimes the authorized manager gets smarter about what she’s requesting, or ought to be requesting, after talking with someone who actually does the work. And this opportunity to ask questions, clarify expectations, and offer ideas also implies mutual respect.
Dialog often leads to conveying why something is being requested, which is the second requisite for commitment. Knowing why gives people context for thinking about how best to approach their assignments and, perhaps more important, it gives their tasks meaning. “Do it because I told you,” works no better for grown-ups than for kids because it provides no context. In fact, we believe that it’s a leader’s moral duty to continually help his people see how their work fits into a bigger picture.
Part of meaningful context is that work should be a matter of consequence, both for the organization and for the individual. That takes us to the next point.
3. Consequences for performance
If you have ever sat in a meeting, made a clear request of one of the participants, received sincere commitment . . . and then NOTHING happened, the problem might have been an absence of performance consequences.
Your work likely fell into a queue behind other work on that person’s plate and, guess what? Your work (of no consequence) was continually displaced by other work (of consequence), until your work dropped off the plate. Work without consequences tends to be regarded as inconsequential.
This is one reason our first component of accountability specifies that the clear request must come from an authorized manager. (We inserted this critical word years ago at the suggestion of now-deceased management theorist Elliott Jaques). Managers who have been duly authorized can deliver performance consequences; for others, it’s harder.
Now, we hope that you don’t equate the word consequence with punishment, like one of our friends who thought it sounded like we wanted to take non-performers out back and shoot them. We don’t … at least, most of the time.
The word can have a positive connotation, too, as in rewards (Plus, it starts with a C.) Performance consequences can range from a private, “Thanks! That was good work,” to public praise, bonuses, promotions, and opportunities to do preferred work. But they can also include reprimands, negative performance appraisals, and firings. Research has shown that a 4:1 ratio of specific compliments to corrections maintains an optimal work environment. (We’re pretty sure there’s no research on taking non-performers out back and shooting them.)
Interestingly enough, performance consequences need not happen every time to be effective; only the possibility need happen every time to create accountability.
So, there you have it, our 3 C’s: Clarity, Commitment and Consequences. We believe that if you remember — and apply — them, you will find a cure to your organization’s accountability problems.
Thank you both for this timely article! I am working with a client and they are very focused on “accountability”. I always share the 3C’s and then help them identify examples and how it works in their organization.
Have you read Carl Larson’s book, When Teams Work Best? His research along with Frank’s surfaced clearly that when people are clear about the management practices, systems, processes, requests, etc. it drives confidence in others and confidence drives commitment. I think accountability is along those lines in helping people feel comfortable about understanding what they are suppose to do to succeed.
Thanks a bunch to you both. Bev O
Great comment, Bev!
Yes, we quote Larson in our classes and recommend both his (and Frank LaFasto’s) Teamwork:What must go right/what can go wrong (a classic!) and When teams work best. Those guys do great work!
Bill/Wendi – I still have my 3Cs coffee mug from your class and I’ve used this concept for years! Good to see you bring this up again as I see this is still a concept leaders and others do not understand is fundamental.
The “C’s the Day!” mug? That brings back memories. Very glad you’ve found the concept useful over the years. Thank you!
Excellent article, from which I intend to steal ideas. Here’s one in return: Even when managers communicate the outcomes fairly clearly, they do not make their priorities clear (Most often it is “Everything is Priority One” or priorities shift day to day depending on what the manager is most concerned about) With several companies, I’ve had success with priority lists posted physically or electronically, so the order of things doesn’t get hazy. If there is a change, everybody knows about it.
Okay, Al. That’s one we’ll steal from you. It’s excellent. Thank you!
Thanks for another great article. You put into words what I deal with on a daily basis.
I always stress to managers that dialog about assignments will save them time in the long run. I also suggest the wording of the initial request is important. If the manager says” I would like you to… “ that is not a direct request. Managers need to say point blank “This is your assignment. I need it completed by… Please come to me with any questions, I am here to help” The manager should be the leader.
Good comment about directness, John. And, yes, as we say in the article, dialog often clarifies the assignment for both parties. Often, the boss has no more than a vague idea what she wants done, and dialog work it out for both of them.
Hey, you need to know that this article hit the nail on the head. I have been pulling my hair out trying to get employees to get their jobs done.
So here is what was so great. The dialog you created in the article is exactly what I have been saying to myself and the frustrations I feel. You captured the language, situations and feelings exactly.
Well done and thank you for giving me a nice structure to getting more out of my workers.
Ray, you’re very welcome! But, you know, it’s fair to say that you AND your workers will be getting more out of each other with the three C’s.
Bill and Wendi,
Like the thoughts on clarity, commitment, and consequences… however, this addresses accountability from only one direction… subordinate to superior. I believe it should be more of a two way street… no discussion here for the manager’s accountability to his or her subordinate. Simple example would be to replace manager and subordinate in line 1 and 2. Having integrity… doing what you say you will makes this two way relationship accountable. Realize it is much more complicated than my simple rambling.
Nick Buechler
Colonel, US Army Retired
Nick, yes it is extremely complicated. A good (and smart) Canadian friend of ours, Michael Anderson, says that accountability is an “emergent phenomenon,” like consciousness, which is hard to define without referencing itself. That’s complicated!
While we believe there are deep obligations that the manager has to the subordinate (e.g., coach, give context, give feedback, etc.), we don’t happen to use the word “accountability” for that. Perhaps “responsibility” is the word. We follow Elliott Jaques’ dictum that a manager is accountable for her own output and that of her subordinates. That thinking implies of downward cascade of accountability.
It’s all definitional, I guess.
My sense is that this prescription may be more suitable for industry than DoD, and certainly less suitable for Navy. Although I agree that your three C’s are the ingredients of an environment in which both parties are equally…addressable, or responsible, or accountable…to one another, I don’t think it’s that way for us. In the world I live in, accountability is simply something a subordinate owes his/her senior and the system. It would be nice if the orders given were clear, but accountability exists in the absence of clarity. In fact, accountability exists even when the accountable individual has no knowledge of a bad deed under his/her authority and responsibility. And commitment isn’t an issue, it is a given.
Having said that, I still think your approach makes good sense in ‘normal’ work settings…I just wouldn’t try it on a military audience.
Jim, the military is perhaps a special case and is certainly so in some settings. Granting that, we tried here here to operationally define accountability, and not use it synonymously with “responsibility,” “obligation,” “duty,” or other such hefty words. (And, we are using “accountability” in a rather hierarchical sense — see note above to Col. Buechler — that comports nicely with your comment that a boss is accountable for the bad deeds performed under him, regardless of his knowledge of them.)
We might have simply said, “These are three conditions that are necessary, but not sufficient, for a productive working relationship between manager and subordinate.” So, for example, if my boss is not clear about what he wants, then that does not let me off the hook at all; it just means that he is less likely to get what he wants, no matter how deeply felt my sense of fealty.
As for commitment being a given, don’t you find (at least among civilians and contractors) in DoD, that unquestioning commitment is somewhat variegated?
Thank you!
Sincerely
Dominic D. Faraci II.
You are most welcome, sir!
Well done, with one qualification. If management is a significant source of the ‘enablers’ for that subordinate to succeed in the expectation, and fails to do so, it can be 3Cing 24/7 yet true accountability will never be accomplished.
The executive does not have a good faith and valid expectation regardless of the clarity and consequences if he/she (unknowingly) withholds, sponsorship, resources, support and whatever else is critical to task achievement.
Agreed, John. We only mean to say that these three elements (which we operationally define as the existence of accountability) are necessary for a productive working relationship between manager and subordinate.
BUT, we agree that they aren’t the only conditions required — and you list some good ones.
Good article. I agree with Nick’s comments that accountability is a two-way street and that the leaders should be held to an even higher standard. It’s not always a task or direction that we should be accountable for carrying out… sometimes it is existing rules and procedures. I don’t think a lot of leaders and particularly mid-level supervisors do a good job of holding people accountable in terms of the third “C.” In other words, there aren’t always consequences for failure to do what is required or expected, for whatever reason. Sometimes it is fear of a grievance or union involvement and sometimes it is just weak supervision that doesn’t want anything to do with confrontation and potential conflict. The bad thing that results is less effective accomplishment of the work or mission and often mediocre performance. In the meantime, we are continually lowering the standards and increasing the sense of entitlement… but that’s a whole different subject.
Loren, we also observe plenty of that weak supervision you refer to. Makes me wonder if THOSE employees (the supervisors) are, in fact, being held accountable for the output of their own teams. If not, they can apparently afford to ignore lousy performance. Related point: I mentioned Carl Larson’s research in an earlier comment; he found that the best predictor of CONTINUED good team performance was how rapidly the boss dealt with poor performers.
Bill, Wendi,
Great article; although it would be easy to believe this doesn’t apply to the military, quite the opposite is true. Because military leaders enjoy the luxury of a largely dedicated, technically proficient, and loyal workforce, it would be easy to take the three C’s for granted, resulting in a marginally successful organization. Clarity of direction, commitment by those in the organization to that direction (REAL commitment, not just going through the motions), and consequences, both good and bad are essential to any successful organization, especially one in which consequences of error can result in much more than loss of money. The three C’s are much more than a tool for holding Navy leaders accountable for the actions of their subordinates; they are the life-blood of a healthy and successful team.
I have to agree with Merc (of course) – the 3C’s are very applicable for a military environment. Clarity of direction and consequences are somewhat obvious, but commitment is the principle challenge. No organization – even military – can successfully expect one-way transmission of mission. In the submarine force, we called it ‘watch team backup’ – an environment where every member of the watch team felt comfortable providing feedback – even responsibility for doing so – and a Commanding Officer (manager) who was receptive to such feedback, and did not discourage the exchange of opinions. In the 2001 collision of the USS GREENVILLE with the EHIME MARU, several watch standers were uncomfortable with the tactical picture, but their fear of speaking up (in this case – not wanting to embarrass the Skipper in front of dignitaries) resulted in tragic consequences. Failure to create an environment that supported the primary mission (safe operation of the ship rather than impressing dignitaries) resulted in a lack of commitment by the crew.
Thanks for the powerful example, Mark. You make the case well!