Follow-Up Is a Waste of Time

Have you heard the story about the supervisor who took a vacation? While he was gone, his employees pooled their fun money and bought a few lottery tickets.  They won the multi-million-dollar jackpot and split it equally.  When the supervisor returned and called his first staff meeting, they announced they were all resigning but staying on as full-time volunteers.  The supervisor knew he would get no additional employees for a very long time. How would he supervise a staff of independently wealthy full-time volunteers?

In the current era of labor shortages and employee engagement challenges, leaders everywhere are struggling, not with skill deficiencies, but with will deficiencies.  Worse than herding cats, it is like managing a volunteer group comprised only of retirees.  Frustrated with inaction, leaders often respond by badgering employees to complete their assigned tasks.  When that fails, some leaders raise the heat.  They may get momentary movement but lower morale in the process.  We need better ways to practice accountability.

"When we fail to set boundaries and hold people accountable, we feel used and mistreated," wrote best-selling author and popular TED talk speaker Brene Brown. "This is why we sometimes attack who they are, which is far more hurtful than addressing a behavior or a choice." So how can effective accountability assist leaders in developing a culture infused with trust?  Allow me to return to my teenage years to illustrate how accountability can build trust and produce desired results while making the leader's job far less antagonistic.

The Ray Bell Approach to Accountability

My dad was painfully shy and conflict-averse.  At sixteen, I was the total opposite. He hated conflict; I enjoyed heated confrontation. Calm conversations about my uncompleted chores typically escalated into chaotic hostilities.  Doors were loudly slammed, and decibel levels soared when I failed to get my most treasured expectation—the family car on Saturday night.  Our fights over my non-performance on assigned chores were quickly eroding any semblance of a father-son relationship. 

Then, the conflict completely stopped.  My dad realized he needed a new accountability approach.  

He decided to stop being a detention officer and let my performance (or non-performance) determine the consequence of my work. So each week my chores were discussed, and expectations clarified along with the clear consequences for good, poor, and non-performance.  Dad supplied helpful resources and then followed it with the most important part—he kept his promise and delivered on the consequence he had pledged.  

If I did chores in sync with our agreed-upon expectations, I got the family car on the weekend; if I did not, my performance communicated that I was choosing to stay home on Saturday night. No more uproar. Just clear expectations, fair consequences, helpful support, and assurance that consequences promised would be consequences delivered.  And the trust between Ray Bell and this rebellious teen blossomed.  

Like the "before" Ray Bell, leaders often dread the performance appraisal aspect of accountability because it too often turns into hurt feelings and smoldering hostility. However, following the example of the "after" Ray Bell can provide a method for leaders to help associates put discipline into their performance.  This accountability path has three essential parts: clear expectations for outcomes, candid feedback for growth, and fair consequences for good, poor, and non-performances.

Set Clear Expectations

Great leaders know they only get the best from associates if they expect the best. They also know that creating "buy-in" is vital to delivering the desired results. Associates who participate in the development of expectations have a much stronger commitment to achieving those expectations. While there are times leaders must determine expectations, involvement should be the rule and not the exception.  

Involvement includes conversations to gain agreement on the achievability of performance outcomes. For example, if associates have concerns about the reasonableness of expectations, these should be discussed to gain consensus on how results can better be achieved.  Expectations that remain "unreasonable" in the eyes of associates feed stress and breed a loss of commitment.  Likewise, expectation-setting requires communication of the rationale and importance of expected outcomes, leaving the "how" for the associate to discern.

Provide Candid Feedback for Growth

How do leaders give feedback that stimulates growth and energizes excellence?  Below are four steps guaranteed to improve the chances of associates gaining an understanding of what is needed to enhance their performance:

a) State the Rationale for Feedback.  Help associates gain a clear understanding of why feedback is being given. Lace communications with language that communicates: "I care about your effectiveness."

b) Create a Climate of Identification.  Avoid "should's" and "oughts."  Let facts guide your feedback rather than your opinion.  Keep the tone that of a thoughtful partner, not a controlling parent.

c) Recommend a "Cancel-out" Action. Think of a future action the opposite of the current ineffective practice that, if taken, could cancel out the old behavior.  Instead of focusing on what an employee should have done, help channel energy toward what can be done to be more effective.

d) Share Optimism and Communicate On-Going Support.  Leader optimism about the likelihood of improvement lends encouragement and support.  Communicate your willingness to be a resource to help the associate improve.  Be a facilitator, not a shepherd.

Deliver Fair Consequences for Performance

One of the underpinnings of accountability is consistently applied consequences for good and poor performance. Associates trust leaders when leaders are fair and consistent. Associates realize when results are less than expected, there should be consequences. They also presume there will be good consequences for good performance that exceeds expectations. When either fails to be delivered, trust between associate and leader is weakened. Remember, a vital part of partnering is promise-keeping. Always deliver on the consequences pledged. 

"Follow-up is a waste of time" is not intended to be a condemnation of all types of follow-ups. However, if you have communicated expectations, identified boundaries, articulated consequences, provided needed resources and growth-oriented feedback, your compulsion to follow-up is likely triggered by a sense that non-performance is about to occur and you need to rush in and make certain things get done.  

My dad recognized I did not need a hovering parent, reminding me to do what I already knew I needed to do. So let go and give your associates the freedom to succeed or fail.  Treat them like independently wealthy volunteers impervious to bribes or threats.  Supervise like you are a firm's senior partner, and your associates are all partners and co-owners.  Let partnership and trust be the foundation of your leadership and not authority and power.