In organizations where the idea of individual responsibility has taken root, an issue will arise such as product recalls, missed sales targets, or cost overruns. Each of these issues will prompt “unaffected”
departments to sit on the sidelines and rest quietly, relieved that a particular issue lies outside their realm of accountability and grateful they are not the one on the “critical path.” In an environment of joint accountability, however, everyone realizes that most issues extend beyond functional lines and require solutions that often necessitate wide-scale involvement. But how does joint accountability really work, and how do you manage it? How do you avoid getting dragged Below The Line when someone with whom you share accountability gets stuck in the victim cycle? The answers to these questions come from learning to hold other people as accountable for the desired outcome as you hold yourself.
tions.” In fact, many people have become experts at concocting ex- planations and victim stories. While doing so may provide an illusion of safety, that illusion can so easily be shattered by reality. Consider the following story.
A manufacturer of dishwashers and other home appliances ran two parallel assembly lines separated by a row of inventory handling of- fices and storage units. Each line functioned autonomously for the most part, and each developed its own unique operating culture. Under the leadership of the line supervisor, the workers on assembly line 1 became adept at quickly identifying a faulty subassembly from any one of the 20 workstations on the line. When someone identified a bad subassembly, the supervisor immediately confronted the operator responsible for the problem and, with everyone watching, embarrassed that person into correcting the problem and improving future perform- ance. Naturally, everyone else on the line, protected by an illusion of safety, would blame the erring operator for slowing them down. Over time, however, people began hiding their mistakes, hoping to remain sheltered from blame, and would not acknowledge an error even when confronted by the supervisor. As a result, production output had been declining and defective subassemblies and scrap had been increasing for several months.
Next door on assembly line 2, the workers had developed a markedly different kind of operating culture. When an operator made a mistake at a workstation, other workers would immediately offer assistance in solving the problem quickly and without a lot of discus- sion. Functioning as part of a team, each worker felt jointly account- able for the end result of assembling quality products on time. Free from the illusion of safety created by explanations and victim stories, the workers appreciated and helped one another, quickly identifying mistakes but never accusing one individual of hurting the group effort.
As a result, production on line 2 remained high, with defective sub- assemblies and scrap near zero.
The workers on assembly line 1 spent a lot of time Below The Line, denying their errors, blaming each other for mistakes, and generally walking and talking like victims. In contrast, the workers on assembly line 2 enjoyed their work, liked working with each other, felt fulfilled, and got great results. Organizational behaviorists could speak elo- quently about the many differences between these two work cultures, citing innumerable variables that explain the differences in results,
but we see one fundamental difference between the two: one practiced joint accountability, the other did not.
There is a widely used exercise called the Broken Squares Game, wherein teams of five people are asked to assemble five equal-sized squares, one in front of each person, from pieces of a puzzle. Each team member receives random pieces of the puzzle he or she must share with teammates to find the pieces needed to complete each of the five squares, but they can’t talk to each other. There is only one way to combine all the pieces into five separate squares. It’s not un- usual for a team member to complete his or her square and then sit back, arms folded, and wait for the other team members to “catch up.” The “safe” player usually becomes frustrated when the other members of the team can’t complete their own squares, without real- izing that the “safely” completed square must be disassembled because the other team members cannot complete their own squares until they break up the erroneously assembled square to obtain the pieces they need. Those who think they’ve safely done their job, in fact, pose a danger to the rest of the team. They miss the whole point of the exer- cise: each team member must accept accountability not only for put- ting his or her own square together, but also for helping the other team members put their squares together. They typically assume that the first team to complete all five squares wins; however, the rules state that the game doesn’t end until the last team puts their last square together. When it’s all over, the exercise shows that account- ability, in the organizational setting, is not fully defined until everyone understands that individual accountability includes an appreciation for joint accountability. In his best-selling book, “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” Stephen R. Covey observes:
On the maturity continuum, dependence is the paradigm of you - you take care of me; you come through for me; you didn’t come through; I blame you for the results.
Independence is the paradigm of I - I can do it; I am responsible;
I am self-reliant; I can choose.
Interdependence is the paradigm of we - we can do it; we can cooperate; we can combine our talents and abilities and create something greater together.
Dependent people need others to get what they want. Independ- ent people can get what they want through their own effort. In-
terdependent people combine their own efforts with the efforts of others to achieve their greatest success.
The most powerful working environments apply the principles of interdependence and joint accountability, the lessons of the Broken Squares Game, where people don’t fear accountability but teach and coach each other in order to win whatever game they’re playing.
While each individual accepts accountability for his or her own per- formance and results, each also knows that it takes teamwork and a sense of shared responsibility to achieve overall objectives. For people working in such environments, accountability works for them instead of against them. Yes, you still must account for your own mistakes, but you know such an accounting will drive toward a better future.
In such an environment, people spend less time and resources creating excuses and more time and resources uncovering problems, taking risks, and initiating positive action to solve problems. Learning re- places punishment, success replaces failure, and victimization gives way to accountability.