Question: How do I hold someone accountable without damaging the relationship?

Answer: When reading the above question, somebody may be forgiven for assuming that negative accountability (censure and discipline) is being referred to. Of course, the risk of a damaged relationship arising is greater when negative accountability is applied, but it is possible that damage to a leader/report relationship may occur when positive accountability (praise, recognition, and reward) is applied. This may well be the case if the report regards this positive accountability as insincere.

Unfortunately, there is no absolute guarantee that holding a person accountable (whether positively or negatively) will not damage the mutual relationship. The fundamental reason is that no one has control over others’ actions or reactions.

Another caution is to acknowledge that accountability decisions are seldom free of a subjective element. For good reason, leaders are encouraged to listen to their consciences before taking accountability action. In the process, two rational leaders may not always reach the same conclusions.

The above caveats aside, if leaders follow sound leadership principles, it is possible to apply both negative and positive accountability whilst retaining sound inter-personal relationships. A well-conducted accountability action is likely to enhance relationships.

The application of accountability does not take place in a vacuum. We need to consider the nature of the pre-existing relationship and how the leader executes the specific accountability action.

Establishing A Leadership Relationship Which Is Legitimate

Legitimate Leadership emerges when a leaders prioritise the care and growth of those who report to them. This is achieved when they provide their reports with the required means (which, importantly, will include standards) and abilities required to perform according to the standard. This is followed by consistently and fairly holding their reports accountable for meeting or exceeding standards.

If the above is practiced consistently over time, it will elicit gratitude from reports. This gratitude translates into their willingness to perform the work required by the leader and to accept the accountability measures the leader imposes on them.

Once the above relationship of trust is established, reports may be inclined to forgive their leader for occasional deviations from the ideal. In the absence of trust, however, reports may be inclined to criticise every action taken by the leader. This implies that accountability will be accepted grudgingly and is likely to lead to further deterioration in relationships.

Applying The Specific Accountability Action In A Manner Which Is Legitimate

• Only once people have the means and ability can they be held accountable. This is a prerequisite for the application of legitimate accountability. It implies that the leader has conducted a thorough leadership diagnostic and has introspected about what is right (the conscience factor). This diagnostic will establish why the deviation from the standard occurred and will inform the nature of the accountability measure. Examples of this include applying discipline for deliberate, malevolent actions, applying censure for non-repetitive carelessness, applying recognition for sustained performance according to standard, and applying reward for significantly exceeding standards.
• People are held accountable for what they have control over. This will need to be preceded by clarification of their accountabilities and the related standards. If this is done properly, people will be held accountable for their contributions – rather than results – and for their own actions, not for anyone else’s.
• When there has been a negative deviation from standard, only the responsible person or persons are held accountable. Importantly, other people are not subjected to additional controls, which may convey the message that they are not trusted. Leaders need to be mindful that displaying a lack of trust is likely to undermine the trust which their people have in them, thus damaging relationships.

When accountability is practised without prejudice or favour and when people see that deliberate malevolence is punished, carelessness is censured, carefulness is recognised, and exceptional contribution is rewarded, then the risk of damaging relationships by applying accountability is exponentially reduced. Bearing this in mind, leaders should not be deterred from applying accountability when appropriate, even if there is a small chance of negatively impacting a relationship. This is by far preferable to allowing a cancer of non-accountability to take root, thereby damaging relationships across the whole team.