(For some quick, impactful suggestions on how to get the most out of these weekly reflections, click here)
In these reflections, I like to explore the A-side and the B-side, in other words dualities. Last week was on inspiration. This week I am reflecting on the other side of the leadership coin: Accountability.
I like to describe 4 “accountability” archetypes using fruit (this builds on an analogy I learned from a mentor). As with all models, this is a simplification but it is a useful one:
1. Blueberry: Soft outside, soft inside These are inspirational leaders who motivate and rally the team but when the team falls short, the “nice guy” syndrome kicks in. They avoid the hard conversation. They make excuses for the team. They basically just get squished (like a blueberry) when dealing with underperformance.
2. Coconut: Hard outside, soft inside. These are the leaders that are all bark, no bite. They may get upset or even yell when individuals on their team are not delivering. But…they fail to enact true accountability aside from their visible anger. They also can be inconsistent in the way they hold others accountable, treating it more as a moment of punishment than as an ongoing way to operate. Despite the tough façade, they can still struggle to have the fortitude to make the tough calls on underperformers.
3. Apple: Hard outside, hard inside. This is the “whip cracker.” The image of a drill sergeant or old-school NFL coach comes to mind. While this may be perceived as high accountability, this model also falls short. Leaders with this style often fail to get to the root of the issue that is causing underperformance. They underinvest in listening and asking questions, and tend not to ask what support the underperformer needs to turn things around.
4. Peach: Soft outside, hard inside. These leaders start from a place of caring and understanding. At the same time, they are firm when it comes to dealing with underperformance. They practice radical candor and believe that really caring about someone means not letting them off the hook when they miss the mark. For these leaders, accountability has five components: 1) setting clear expectations, 2) getting commitment from the team on those expectations, 3) making sure team has the resources they need to deliver on expectations, 4) measuring performance against those expectations and 5) giving constructive feedback when they fall short of expectations. When there is a mismatch of capability and expectations of the role, they compassionately and quickly make the tough call to remove them from the role and ideally help them find a role better suited to the individual’s skillset.
Some questions I reflected on this week:
1. Which is the accountability model I tend toward the most? (Blueberry, Coconut, Apple, Peach)
2. How does that tendency affect those I lead and/or collaborate with?
3. What’s an area where I can practice being more of “Peach” this week? This month?
Gotta be more peachy🍑; I believe in my people; I believe they have the same basic convictions I have and that they want to do the right thing; I love to inspire and call higher by my own example. I dislike when leaders do not trust their people and use sarcasm as a means to motivate. One of the greatest, most effective leaders I’ve ever served under was—and is— masterful at motivation and inspiration. THAT is who I wish to imitate. Great article, Sean. Thank you 🙏🏽
This was a very insightful piece and super helpful for illustrating my leadership shortcomings! Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts!