Think CPR
This acronym can help give direction to an accountability discussion as well as eliminate Groundhog Day. The first time an infraction occurs, talk about the content, what just happened: “You drank too much at the luncheon, became inebriated, started talking too loud, made fun of our clients, and embarrassed the company.” The content of a violated expectation typically deals with a single event — the here and now.
The next time the infraction occurs, talk pattern, what has been happening over time: “This is the second time this has occurred. You agreed it wouldn’t happen again, and I’m concerned that I can’t count on you to keep a promise.” Pattern issues acknowledge that problems have histories and that histories make a difference. Frequent and continued violations affect the other person’s predictability and eventually harm respect and trust.
Warning: It’s easy to miss the pattern and get sucked into debating content. For instance, your boss repeatedly leaves your agenda items to the end of the meeting — meaning that they typically get abbreviated or dropped altogether. You’ve spoken with her about it before. This time when you bring it up, she explains how full the agenda was and how you need to be more flexible about urgent issues. If you give in to that explanation, you’ve missed the point. Your concern is not today’s meeting (the content issue); it’s the long-standing pattern. Sometimes the pattern sneaks up on you, and a new issue arises. You point out the problem, and the other person begins to either rant or pout, something that’s starting to happen a lot in your conversations with him or her. It’s becoming a pattern. Accountability savants notice this pattern of behavior and find ways to address it before moving back to the original topic.
As the problem continues, talk about relationship, what’s happening to us. Relationship concerns are far bigger than either the content or the pattern. The issue is not that other people have repeatedly broken promises; it’s that the string of disappointments has caused you to lose trust in them: you’re beginning to doubt their competency and doubt their promises, and this is affecting the way you treat one another: “This is starting to put a strain on how we work together. I feel as if I have to nag you to keep you in line, and I don’t like doing that. I guess my fear is that I can’t trust you to keep the agreements you make.”
If your real concern is around the relationship and you discuss only the pattern of behavior, you’re likely to find yourself feeling dissatisfied with the outcome. Even worse, you’re likely to experience Groundhog Day: you’ll have the same conversation again later. To understand the various kinds of content, pattern, and relationship issues that routinely pop up during accountability discussions, consider the following two factors: consequences and intentions. Each provides a distinct method for first unbundling and then placing a priority on violated expectations.
Unbundling Consequences
Accountability issues are almost never contained in the behavior of the offender. They’re much more likely to be a function of what happens afterward. The problem lies in the consequences. For example, a staff specialist who works for you has promised to complete a financial analysis by noon. She miscalculates how long it will take and delivers the job to you three hours late.
The errant behavior, being late, is not the problem. What follows is. The fact that you might lose a client is what really bothers you. Or maybe it’s the fact that this is the third time this person has let you down and you’re beginning to wonder if you can count on her. Or perhaps it’s the fact that you now may have to watch this person more closely, costing you precious time and making her feel micromanaged. Each of these responses is a consequence of the original act and helps unbundle the problem.
When you want to clarify the focus of your accountability discussion, stop and ask yourself, “What are the consequences to me? To our relationship? To the task? To other stakeholders?” Analyzing the consequences helps you determine what is most important to discuss.
Intentions
Let’s move the analysis in another direction. A fellow you work with is causing you a problem. He cheerfully promised to format a report you created, and then, instead of giving it to you, he handed it directly to your boss. What was he thinking? Actually, you have a theory. You believe that his intentions were selfish (he was trying to take credit); at least, this is the conclusion you’ve drawn.
Let’s be clear about this. You’ve drawn this conclusion not as a thoughtless knee-jerk reaction, as is often the case, but as the result of mounting evidence. You’ve examined the action, you’ve weighed the particulars, and you are starting to believe the person’s intentions are indeed bad. When this happens, the behavior isn’t the problem, at least not the big one. What came before the person acted is the challenge here, at least in your mind. It’s the issue you ought to discuss. You have to talk about intentions.
The good news is that we address intentions all the time. Consider the father who was upset with his daughter for coming in late because she was punishing him for having grounded her. It wasn’t the fact that she had been late that made him upset — at least not totally — it was her perceived intention that was giving him fits: “She’s doing it on purpose just to cause me grief.” The realtor believed that the front desk clerk was intentionally playing on their friendship to get away with coming in late. Once again, it was her perceived intent that bothered him.
Whether the father and the realtor are correct in their assessments will remain unknown until they hold an accountability discussion and share their suspicions. Of course, deciding how they’ll confront such a delicate issue isn’t easy. These are invisible motives we’re talking about. We’re drawing conclusions about another person’s unseen intent. (We’ll discuss the common stories we tell ourselves in later chapters.) Nevertheless, the conclusions the two have drawn about others’ underlying intent has them bothered, and these are the issues they’ll need to talk about eventually.
Prioritizing
Ask What You Do and Don’t Want
As you begin to unbundle the component parts of a violated expectation — examining the precipitating intentions and the consequences — the list of component parts can grow so large that you may not know where to begin. What’s the “real” issue, or at least the most important one?
The best tool for choosing from the host of possible infractions is to ask what you really want and don’t want. And since you’re talking to another person, you ought to ask what you want for yourself, for the other person, and for the relationship. If you don’t think about all three of these essential aspects, one may take a backseat, and you won’t solve your most important issue.
Consider the case of the two second-grade girls. Most people struggle with what to say to Sarah’s mother until someone asks: “What do you want to have happen with Sarah? What don’t you want to have happen?” You do want Sarah to be disciplined. You don’t want to start a battle with her mother and make choices that limit Sarah’s educational options. You don’t want to send her to a new school just to show her mother who’s in charge.
As far as you yourself are concerned, you want to be able to hold Sarah accountable. Policy demands that you take action, and even if you could look the other way, you’d be giving tacit approval to a nasty behavior. You don’t want that. When it comes to the relationship, you want to be able to collaborate with Sarah’s mother to come up with the proper type of discipline. You don’t want the daughter to receive mixed messages. So what do you say? What is the problem you want to discuss? “I’m afraid we’re sending Sarah the wrong message when we argue over the form the discipline should take.”