Crucial Accountability: Tools for Resolving Violated Expectations, Broken Commitments, and Bad Behavior, Second Edition

When you create enough safety, you can talk to almost anyone about almost anything. As those who are masters of accountability move from thinking to talking, here’s how they create safety:

• They begin well. They know how to describe a performance gap in a way that makes it safe for others to talk about with them (Chapter 3, “Describe the Gap”).

• They know how to help others prioritize competing demands, and they know how to discipline when necessary (Chapter 4, “Make It Motivating”).

• They also know how to help others deal with ability barriers by jointly exploring solutions. They help others comply by making compliance easier. They understand the underlying principles of empowerment (Chapter 5, “Make It Easy”).

• Finally, they also know how to deal with unexpected problems or emotions that may come up during an accountability discussion (Chapter 6, “Stay Focused and Flexible”).

3 Describe the Gap How to Start an Accountability Crucial Conversation

Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you will ever regret.

— AMBROSE BIERCE

You’ve picked out a broken commitment, decided to say something, and considered the six possible sources of influence behind it; now you are about to say something. Before you do that, let’s be clear. Almost nobody should be harboring the illusion that he or she has been groomed to solve touchy and complicated accountability challenges. Almost nobody has.

Here’s a typical supervisory training regime. A hardworking and competent employee is tapped on the shoulder on Friday afternoon (“Congratulations, you won the supervisory lottery!”) and promoted to a job that starts Monday morning. Any questions? And it’s not as if most employees have actually watched the way a leader deals with touchy issues or failed promises. That kind of thing happens behind closed doors.

Of course, business schools, the breeding ground for managers and vice presidents, rarely teach anything about face-to-face leadership. Most business school courses are about management and entrepreneurship, not leadership. Occasionally classes cover the way leaders should think but almost never what they should do. The curriculum certainly doesn’t cover accountability discussions. Professors and students routinely encounter violated expectations, but almost nobody teaches how to handle them.

We don’t even want to think about the preparation the average parent receives. Heaven forbid that most of us should imitate the social skills of our own adult role models: “Thanks, Mom. I was afraid I was going to miss out on how to paralyze people with guilt, but you’ve taken time every single day to pass on an important lesson or two.”

Here’s the $64,000 question: How are people supposed to have picked up the ability to hold a simple goal-setting session, let alone tap-dance through a thorny accountability discussion? Through osmosis?

If your human interaction training has been as sketchy as everyone else’s, welcome to the club and be sure to pay close attention. We’re about to share the best practices of the positive deviants who know how to walk up to someone and hold an effective accountability discussion.

Before we dare to open our mouths, let’s make sure we’re thinking about the same topic. Exactly what is the topic of our upcoming conversation?

We’re stepping up to a:

violated expectation

a gap: a difference between what you expected and what actually happened. Gaps are typically thought of as:

Violated Promises, Broken Commitments, and Bad Behaviors

As far as this book is concerned, when we say “gap,” we mean serious, consequential, and complex deviations, something that might be hard or even risky to discuss. Anybody can sidle up to a cheerful and eager employee and discuss a minor infraction. You don’t need a book to take that kind of trivial action.

Instead, as we suggested earlier, we’ll be exploring challenges such as the following: What’s the best way to confront your boss for micromanaging you? How do you talk to a friend about backbiting? How do you tell a doctor she’s not doing her job? What does it take to discipline a violent employee? We call the topic of this book crucial accountability because the stakes are high. Handle things poorly, and you could lose a job, a friend, or a limb.

Know What Not to Do

We’ll start our exploration of ways to initiate an accountability discussion by sharing what we’ve learned not only from studying our positive deviants but also from observing people who had the guts to step up to a problem but then quickly failed. After all, knowing what not to do is half the battle.

Don’t Play Games

The first technique for starting an accountability discussion is the child of good intentions married to bad logic. It’s called sandwiching. You honestly believe that you have two equally poor options (and no other choices). You can stay quiet and keep the peace, or you can be honest and hurt someone’s feelings. So you use sandwiching in an earnest effort to be both nice and honest. To soften the violent blow, you first say something complimentary, next you bring up the problem, and then you close with something complimentary again. Here is an example.

“Hey, Bob, good-looking briefcase. By the way, do you know anything about the 10 grand missing from our retirement fund? Love the haircut.”

A close cousin to this circuitous technique takes the form of a surprise attack. A leader starts a conversation in a chatty tone, makes pleasant small talk, and then suddenly moves in for the kill.

The most unpleasant of these backhanded approaches is unadulterated entrapment — where one person lures the other into denying a problem, only to punish him or her for lying. It sounds something like this:

“How were things at school today?”

“Fine. Same old stuff.”

“Fine? The principal called and said you started a food fight in the cafeteria. Is that supposed to be fine?”

Most people despise these indirect techniques. They’re dishonest, manipulative, and insulting. They’re also quite common.

Don’t Play Charades

Rather than come right out and talk about a missed commitment, many people rely on nonverbal hints and subtle innuendo. They figure that’s faster and safer than actually talking about a problem. Some deal almost exclusively in hints. For instance, to make their point, they frown, smirk, or look concerned. When somebody’s late, they glance at their watches. This vague approach is fraught with risk. People may get the message, but what if they misinterpret the nonverbal hints? Besides, how are you supposed to document your actions?

“February 10, 2 p.m. Raised my right eyebrow three centimeters. Employee nodded knowingly and started back to work.”

Don’t Pass the Buck

Another bad way to begin an accountability discussion is rooted in the erroneous belief that you can play the role of good cop if only you can find a way to transform the person’s boss into the bad cop. Parents play the same game by bad-mouthing or blaming their mates. By being the “pleasant one,” they believe, they’re more likely to stay on civil terms with their direct reports or children. Here’s the kind of stunt they pull:

“I know you don’t want to work late, but the big guy says that if you don’t, we’ll write you up. If I had my way, we’d all go home early for the holiday weekend.”

This strategy is disloyal, dishonest, and ineffective. Anyone who wasn’t raised by wolves can see through it. Nothing undermines your authority more than blaming someone else for requesting what you would be asking for if you had any guts. If you repeat this mistake, it won’t be long before you’re seen as irrelevant — merely a messenger, and a cowardly one at that.

Don’t Play “Read My Mind”

If you scour the bookstores, eventually you may stumble across a few accountability texts that make the following suggestion: “Since people benefit from learning on their own, don’t come right out and tell them about the actual infraction that has you concerned. Instead, allow room for ‘self-discovery.’” Make the guilty person guess what’s on your mind. Here’s what this can look like:

“Well, Carmen, why do you think I called you in so bright and early this morning?”

“I don’t know. Is it because I crashed the company car?”

“Nope.”

“Hmmm, was it because I sabotaged the phone system?”

“Wrong again.”

“Is it because …”

This tactic is as irritating as it is ineffective. Despite good intentions, asking others to read your mind typically comes off as patronizing or manipulative.

Learn from Positive Deviants

For every person we watched play games and fail, we were privileged to observe a skilled parent, supervisor, or manager in action. These people were something to behold. When we first chose to tag along after top performers, we were surprised to see how similar their styles were, independent of the industry. We expected to find muted, even sensitive, behavior in high-tech firms, universities, and banks, but we anticipated something quite different in mines, foundries, and factories. We were wrong. Melissa, one of the effective frontline supervisors in the manufacturing facility that had lost most elements of accountability, found a way to be both honest and respectful and quickly became the most effective leader in the facility.

To be honest, when we first watched Melissa, we thought that her style was — how does one say it? — gender specific. So we asked if we could watch the other positive deviant — one of the plant’s rather large and scary male supervisors, but one who relied on interpersonal skills rather than threats, abuse, and intimidation.

True to what we had learned about Melissa, Buford (the first hard-hat accountability expert we trailed) seemed far more like Mr. Rogers than Mr. T. Despite the fact that the facility appeared to have been prefabricated in hell, Buford’s style and demeanor could have fit easily into a white-collar boardroom. He acted far more like a schoolteacher than like the abusive leaders who surrounded him.

When we asked the plant manager why he thought Melissa and Buford were the best of the best, he repeated something we learned earlier. “It’s easy to find a leader who creates warm and lasting relationships but who struggles to get things done. It’s not much harder to find a no-nonsense, hard-hitting leader whom you might send in to put out a fire but who creates hard feelings. Consequently, when you find someone who can manage both people and production, you’ve got a real gem.”

How did these two skilled professionals solve problems while building relationships? How did they start an accountability discussion? We’re not sure how they came to have the same understanding, but it didn’t take us long to realize that the skilled leaders and parents we eventually studied had somehow managed to stumble onto the same exquisitely simple yet important principles.

To ensure that you set the right tone during the first few seconds of any accounting, don’t shoot from the hip. Don’t charge into a situation, kick rears, take names, and let the chips fall where they may. Instead, carefully describe the gap. Here’s how:

• Start with safety.

• Share your path.

• End with a question.

Start with Safety

When another person has let you down, start the conversation by simply describing the gap between what was expected and what was observed: “You said you were going to have your room cleaned before dinner. It’s nine o’clock, and it’s still not done.”

Don’t play games; merely describe the gap. Describing what was expected versus what was observed is clear and simple, and it helps you get off on the right foot.

For the most part, this is how you’ll begin an accountability discussion. However, if you have reason to believe that the other person will feel threatened or intimidated or insulted by the mere mention of the violated promise, you’ll need to take steps to ensure that he or she feels safe — no matter the infraction.

As we noted earlier, we watched skilled individuals talk about incompetence, mistrust, and even embezzling, and the conversations, though not always pleasant, ended successfully. Then we watched less skilled individuals raise something as trivial as arriving five minutes late to a meeting, and the conversation degenerated into a shouting match.

As we tried to understand these apparent contradictions, we finally realized what was happening.

The Big Surprise

At the foundation of every successful accountability discussion lies safety. When others feel unsafe, you can’t talk about anything. But if you can create safety, you can talk with almost anyone about almost anything — even about failed promises.

Of course, the more controversial and touchy the issue is, the more challenging the conversation will be. Nevertheless, if you maintain a safe climate, others will hear and consider what you’re saying. They may not like it, but they’ll be able to absorb it. Make it safe for people, and they won’t need to go to silence or violence.

Let’s take a look at what it takes to create and maintain a safe climate, beyond simply describing the gap. Let’s examine how to open our mouths and talk about a violated expectation when we’re suspicious that the other person might become defensive or upset.

Watch for Signs That Safety Is at Risk

Let’s quickly review the basics of safety and then move to the task of making it safe, even when you’re dealing with a mammoth broken promise.

People feel unsafe when they believe one of two things:

1. You don’t respect them as human beings (you lack Mutual Respect).

2. You don’t care about their goals (you lack Mutual Purpose).

When others know that you value them as a person and care about their interests, they will give you an amazing amount of leeway. They’ll let you say almost anything. That’s why your four-year-old granddaughter can tell you you’re “fat” without offending you. You know that she loves and respects you and that her motives are pure. This, after all, is an innocent child. However, if what you say or how you say it causes others to conclude that you don’t respect them or that you have selfish and perverse motives, nothing you say will work. Here’s why.

As you talk to others about a gap in performance, a warning flag goes up in their minds. After all, this is a problem discussion. They immediately want to know one thing: Are they in trouble? Their boss, parent, loved one, or friend is bringing up an infraction, not inviting them to lunch. Are bad things going to happen? People assess their risk on the basis of two factors. Are bad things currently happening to them? Are bad things about to happen to them?

Mutual Respect

As you first describe the gap, if your tone of voice, facial expression, or words show disrespect, bad things are currently happening to the other person. You’re not respecting that person. You’re speaking in an uncivil tone. Your manner is discourteous. Your delivery is contemptuous. In short, you’ve held court in your head and found that person guilty, or so it feels to him or her.

Of course, this lack of respect is typically communicated subtly, not overtly. Sometimes it only takes a raised eyebrow. (On other occasions the word moron finds its way into the conversation.) In any case, the other person believes that you think he or she is incompetent, lazy, or worse. You have signaled that this conversation is going to end badly. After all, it’s certainly starting that way. It’s only natural that when others feel disrespected, they feel unsafe and resort to either silence or violence.

Mutual Purpose

Let’s look at safety problems that extend beyond the moment. If it becomes clear to others that your purpose is at odds with theirs, they’re likely to conclude that something bad is about to happen to them. You’re going to deal with an infraction, and if they’re harmed in the process, so be it. Your goal is to get what you want, and you aren’t even thinking about their goal. This doesn’t bode well for them. Even if you start the conversation respectfully, it’s only natural that if others feel that you are at cross-purposes, they’ll resort to silence or violence. They have to watch out for their interests.

At the very first sign of fear, you have to diagnose. Are others feeling disrespected? Or do they believe you’re at cross-purposes? Or both? Then you have to find a way to let others know that you respect them and that you’re not going to trample all over their wishes.

This can be hard to remember in the face of holding someone accountable. We typically care so much about the content of a conversation that we don’t think to watch for fear and restore safety. Nevertheless, it’s the only solution. We have to watch for signs that people are worried, stop saying what we’re saying, diagnose why people are fearful, step out of the original conversation, and then restore Mutual Respect, Mutual Purpose, or both. Here’s how to do that.

Maintain Mutual Respect

You’re about to suggest that the other person has violated an expectation, and this could easily imply that he or she was not motivated, was not able, or both; and nobody likes to be told that. And if the infraction is huge, say, infidelity or lying, isn’t the other person going to assume that you don’t respect him or her — almost by definition? What can you do to ensure that the other person doesn’t feel disrespected even though you’re about to talk about a high-stakes performance gap?

Remember to Tell the Rest of the Story

Obviously, everything we’ve talked about so far helps create safety. First, we avoid making others feel disrespected by not disrespecting them. If we see a problem, tell ourselves an ugly story, and then charge in with an accusation, the other person is going to feel disrespected. Even if we find others guilty in our heads and do our best to hide it, the verdict will show on our faces.

Show others respect by giving them the benefit of the doubt. Tell the rest of the story. Think of other people as rational, reasonable, and decent. This attitude eventually affects our demeanor, choice of words, and delivery and helps make the conversation safe for others. They can tell that even though we’ve spotted a potential problem, we’re speaking out of a position of respect.

Use Contrasting to Restore Mutual Respect

Sometimes thinking good thoughts is not enough. We’re pleasant as we begin to talk about a failed promise, but the other person hears the mention of a problem and immediately assumes that we do not respect him or her. A problem is a bad thing, the other person is connected to the problem, and therefore we must think he or she is bad. Despite our best efforts, others feel unsafe and go to silence or violence, and we haven’t even made it all the way through our first sentence.

Let’s add a skill to help us with our very first sentence. We’ll use it as a preemptive tool for stopping disrespect in its tracks. It’s called Contrasting. It’s the killer of the fundamental attribution error. Here’s how it works.

Before you start the conversation, anticipate how others might assume the worst. How might they feel disrespected? For instance, if you bring up a quality problem, the other person may believe that you think he or she is unskilled in general. If you address poor effort on a specific project, the other person may conclude that you believe he or she isn’t motivated or can’t be trusted, or perhaps you don’t like him or her or are about to take disciplinary action, and so on. You’ve noticed a problem, and the other person prepares for the worst before you can finish your thought.

To deal with these predictable misinterpretations, use Contrasting. First, imagine what others might erroneously conclude. Second, immediately explain that this is what you don’t mean. Third, as a Contrasting point, explain what you do mean. The important part is the “don’t” portion. It addresses misunderstandings that could put safety at risk. Once safety is protected or reestablished, the “do” part of the statement clarifies your real meaning or intent. Here’s what Contrasting sounds like when it is used up front to avoid feelings of disrespect:

“I don’t want you to think I’m unhappy with how we work together. Overall I’m very satisfied. I just want to talk about how we make decisions together.”

“I’m not saying that it was wrong of you to disagree with me in the meeting. We need to hear everyone’s view if we want to make the best choice. It’s just that I think the team heard your tone and words as attacking.”

“I know you tried your best to improve your grades. I’m satisfied with your effort. Please don’t hear me as being less than proud of your progress. I’d just like to share a few study ideas that might help you maintain your grades more easily.”

Contrasting plays a huge role in initially describing broken promises. The bigger the problem is, the more likely it is that the other person is going to feel disrespected. Consequently, many discussions of broken promises and bad behavior start with a preventive Contrasting statement. In fact, this is the skill that people are typically looking for when they pick up a book that deals with missed expectations, because it answers the question “How do I get the conversation started?”

If you suspect that the other person is going to feel offended or defensive, prepare the ground by explaining what you don’t and do mean.

Of course, you can also use Contrasting in the middle of a conversation when you suddenly become aware that the other person is feeling disrespected. You didn’t anticipate the reaction, but sure enough, he or she has found a way to feel disrespected:

“I’m sorry; I didn’t mean to imply that you were doing it on purpose. I believe you were unaware of the impact you were having. That’s why I wanted to bring it up in the first place.”

Establish Mutual Purpose

When an accountability discussion turns ugly, with greater intensity and speed than you ever imagined it could, it’s usually because others misunderstand not your content but your intent. You’re speaking respectfully. That part you got right. You merely want to deal with the performance gap in a way that keeps the relationship on solid footing. Unfortunately, the people you’re talking to think differently. They believe that the only reason you’re bringing up the infraction is that you’re out to humiliate them, make them do something they don’t want to do, overthrow their authority, or otherwise cause them pain and sorrow. They believe that bad things are about to happen to them. Once again, mental math comes into play.

Of course, once others allow vicious stories about your intent to romp freely inside their brains, they become angry, defensive, and emotionally charged. Blood rushes to their arms and legs so that they can be better equipped for the fight-or-flight reaction their bodies have been genetically designed for.

Within seconds they’re on their worst brain-starved behavior. Once this chemical transformation happens, there’s a good chance you’ll never get back on track. Anything you say carries with it the stench of evil intentions. And of course, since they are now dumbed down by adrenaline, their logical processes take a vacation, and nothing you say really matters.

You can’t let this happen. If you think others are likely to harbor bad thoughts about your intentions before you’ve even said a word, take a second preventive measure: establish Mutual Purpose.

Build common ground before you even mention a problem. Let others know that your intentions are pure — that your goal is to solve a performance gap and make things better for both of you. Start with what’s important to you and them — not just you. Establish Mutual Purpose.

Here’s an example:

“If it’s okay with you, I’d like to spend a couple of minutes talking about how we made that last decision. My goal is to come up with a method we’re both comfortable with.”

“I’d like to give you some feedback that I think would help you be more productive with your meetings.[Add Contrasting.] I don’t think this is a huge problem, but I do think that if you were to make a couple of small changes, things would run a lot more smoothly.”

Note: If your sole purpose is to make your life better while possibly making the other person’s life worse, who can blame others for becoming defensive? If there is a short-term cost associated with the change you’re calling for (and there usually is), think about how everyone will benefit over the long haul and then establish Mutual Purpose. For example:

“I’m concerned about a problem that is affecting all of us. If we don’t find a way to increase our output, we’ll cease to be competitive. Our customer is already researching alternative sources, and we’re at risk of being shut down.[Add Contrasting.] I don’t want to come up with a plan that is physically or mentally stressing, because we’ll have to live with it for years to come. I just want to develop a plan that leads to a more consistent and predictable effort.”

Ask for Permission

If the gap you’re about to address is traditionally off limits, particularly sensitive, or something a person in your position doesn’t normally discuss, ask for permission to discuss it. Be gracious. Don’t plunge into a delicate topic without first seeking permission. Asking permission is a powerful sign of respect and is particularly helpful if you’re speaking from a position of authority. It also helps allay people’s suspicion that your intentions toward them are malicious.

Speak in Private

This tip is both obvious and easy: always hold accountability discussions in private. No matter where you may encounter a gap, retire to your office or another secluded setting where you can talk one-on-one. Never conduct public performance reviews. Never discipline your children in front of their friends. Never confront your spouse in the middle of a dinner party. Never talk about friends, loved ones, direct reports, or bosses at the water cooler. Speak in private, one-to-one and face-to-face. Avoid the following common violations of this principle.

Inappropriate Humor

Don’t violate privacy by masking a public performance review with thoughtless humor, as in this example: “Well, look who just arrived. Forget how to find the meeting room, did you?”

For many people this is a hard habit to break. It takes years to learn how to craft the perfect public punitive remark: veiled enough to deny, clever enough to get a laugh, and pointed enough to be nasty. Nevertheless, drop the cutting sarcasm.

A Group Attack

Don’t deal with individual infractions in meetings or public gatherings by chastising the entire group. This cowardly tactic fails doubly. First, the guilty parties may miss the fact that they’re the target of your comments. Second, the innocent people resent the fact that they’re being thrown in with the guilty. Once again, accountability should be done in private, one-on-one.

Combining Safety Skills Let’s see how these safety skills can be combined to help form the first few phrases in an accountability discussion, particularly if the topic is touchy or the person you’re dealing with is in a position of power. How, for example, could you start with safety when conversing with a defensive boss?

Watching Wally

Let’s watch Wally, a skilled communicator, as he deals with a defensive chief executive officer who is about to torpedo a project that Wally has invested a year in launching. This text is taken from an actual interaction between a manager and the CEO of his company.

CEO: You mean to say that we’re going to spend three months gathering data? What a crock! I don’t want to gather more data; I want to do something.

Wally recognizes the boss’s outbreak for what it is. It is not a sign that the issue is off limits. He realizes that the boss is getting hot under the collar because safety is at risk. The boss needs to know that Wally cares about his interests and respects his position, so that’s exactly what Wally communicates.

WALLY: Let me be clear on something. I don’t want to waste any time or resources on something that adds no value. If gathering data is a waste, I will whack it from the plan in a heartbeat. I understand that you are facing a tough deadline, and at the end of this discussion I will do what you think needs to be done.

Now, with safety restored, Wally steps back into the issue at hand.

WALLY: With that said, I think there will be some negative consequences if we don’t gather more data. I’ll be happy to describe them, and then we can decide how to proceed.

At this point the CEO feels safe about where the conversation is going and asks to hear Wally’s concerns. At the conclusion the CEO agrees that data gathering is critical and willingly supports the next steps.

Share Your Path

Let’s look at the second step in describing a performance gap. We started with safety and will be doing our best to watch for fear throughout the discussion. When called for, we may start with a preemptive Contrasting statement or describe our common ground. Once the other person feels safe, it’s now time to describe the gap.

Common Mistakes

To get us started on the actual words we’ll choose, we’ll begin with one of our favorite research subjects, Bruno. He was among the first leaders the authors watched on the job. We selected Bruno not because he was great but because he consistently demonstrated (note the root of the word: demon) all that is bad and wrong. He taught us what not to do.

Don’t Keep Others in the Dark

It’s 10 minutes into the workday, and the authors are roaming the floor with Bruno as he meanders through a nest of cubicles teeming with technicians.

“Watch this,” Bruno fiendishly giggles as he approaches one of his direct reports. Bruno then circles the fellow like a vulture, shakes his head in disgust, mutters under his breath, and then flutters away.

The technician is clearly alarmed.

“Keep ’em on their toes,” Bruno declares. “That’s my motto.” True to his word, for four straight hours Bruno explains nothing in clear terms. He constantly prods people with ambiguous expressions such as “shape up,” “fix that,” “that could kill someone,” and the ever-popular “get a better attitude.”

Nobody understood this guy. His tactics were as manipulative as they were ineffective. Strangely enough, Bruno was purposely vague. He used ambiguity as a torture device. But that was Bruno. Most people don’t try to be vague; they’re merely inarticulate. Whatever the root cause, lack of clarity is accountability’s worst enemy. People can’t fix a gap if they don’t know the specific details of the infraction.

Back to the Model

To be crystal clear about the details we want to discuss, let’s return to the Path to Action model. It explains how humans move from observation to action.

Remember this diagram, which was first introduced in Chapter 2? The other person acts, you see something, you tell yourself a story about the other person’s motive, you feel, and then you act. Here’s the question: What details should you talk about? What part of the path should you share: the action, your conclusion, or your feeling? How do you share your path?

No Harsh Conclusions, Please

When we step up to an accountability discussion, we’re inclined to lead with judgments or stories. After all, our view of others’ intent often has us all riled up. As far as we’re concerned, their bad intent is the problem. Unfortunately, when we lead with our judgments, we get off on the wrong foot. It sounds something like this:

• “I can’t believe that you purposely made fun of me in that meeting!”

• “You don’t care about our family one tiny bit. Must you work every waking hour?”

• “You show no confidence. No wonder nobody trusts your opinion.”

When we share our harsh stories, others now know what we have concluded, but they don’t know what they have done. They can only guess at what we’re talking about. This strategy can be unclear, inaccurate, and costly.

Start with Facts

As a general rule, when you are sharing your path, it’s best to start with the facts: what you saw and heard. Don’t lead with your stories. If you do, people are likely to become defensive. Instead, describe what the person did.

• Stay external. Describe what’s happening outside your head (“You cut the person off in midsentence”) as opposed to what’s happening inside your head (“You’re rude”).

• Explain what, not why. Facts tell us what’s going on (“You spoke so quietly, it was hard to hear”). Conclusions tell us why we think it’s going on (“You’re afraid”).

• Gather facts. If others complain to you about their friends and coworkers, they’re likely to tell stories and leave out the facts: “He’s arrogant.” “She’s unreliable.” “Their team is selfish.” When this happens, probe for details. Ask them to share what they actually heard and saw.

Even when it comes to our own thinking, it’s often difficult to remember the original facts. Most of us have an experience (“You spoke nonstop about yourself and didn’t ask me a single question”), tell a story (“You’re egotistical”), generate a feeling (“I don’t like being around you”), and then forget the original experience. In some cases we may not even be aware of the other person’s subtle action that led to the feeling. Thus, we end up walking around with feelings and stories but are incapable of holding a successful accountability discussion because we lack the facts required to help others understand what we’re thinking.

Gathering the Facts Is the Homework Required for Holding an Accountability Discussion

Here’s the bottom line. Every time you share a vague and possibly inflammatory story instead of a fact, you’re betting that the other person won’t become defensive and can translate what you’re thinking into what he or she did. That’s a bad bet. Share the facts. Describe the observable details of what’s happening. Cut out the guesswork.

Tentatively Share Your Story

As we suggested earlier, sometimes a person’s behavior can be moderately annoying, and maybe that individual has even broken a promise, but what really has you distressed is the fact that you believe that his or her intent is less than noble. You’re trying not to make the fundamental attribution error, but facts are starting to pile up, and it’s hard to keep assuming the best. Keeping an open mind is one thing; being naive is another.

Remember the realtor who was upset at an employee not just because she was routinely late but because the realtor figured she was taking advantage of their friendship? We suggested that this was the right problem to discuss or at least the correct starting point. But how do you merely discuss the facts when it’s your story you want to talk about?

You don’t. You share your story as well. Of course, you don’t start there, but you don’t walk away from your story either. Start with the facts because they’re the least emotional and controversial element of the conversation and then tentatively share your story or conclusion. Make sure your language is free of absolutes. Trade “You said” for “I thought we agreed.” Swap “It’s clear” for “I was wondering if.” Here’s what this might sound like:

“Martha, I was wondering if we could talk about something that has me bothered. I’m not sure I’m correct in my thinking, so I thought I’d better check with you.”

“Sure, what’s the deal?”

“I’ve talked to you four different times about coming into work between 20 and 30 minutes late, and I’m beginning.…”

“Like I told you, it’s not always easy to make it on time.”

“I’m beginning to wonder if the fact that we’re friends and neighbors isn’t getting in the way.”

“How’s that?”

“Well, since we’re friends, it feels to me like you’re coming in late, knowing full well that it could be hard for me to hold you accountable. Do I have this right, or am I missing something here?”

Your conclusion could be dead wrong, but it is your conclusion that’s starting to eat at you, and now you’ve done your best to make it safe to talk about it. By taking the attitude that you could be wrong and using tentative language, you’re being fair.

Continually Watch for Safety Problems Warning:

Once you start to tell your story, no matter how tentative you are, there’s a chance the other person will become defensive. If, for example, you believe your teenage son has stolen money from you, regardless of how tentative you are, you’re likely to experience something like this:

YOU: Given that you’re the only one who’s been in the house in the last four hours and $200 is missing out of my wallet, it’s hard for me not to wonder if you took it.

SON: I can’t believe you’re calling me a thief! (Stomps out of room and slams door.)

To handle this level of defensiveness, first, recognize it for what it is: a threat to safety. The problem is not that the other person can’t handle the content you’re offering; it’s that he or she doesn’t feel safe with you discussing it. When you realize that the problem is one of safety, you’ll do the right thing: step out of the content and rebuild safety. Decide whether the problem is that the other person feels disrespected or believes your intentions are bad (or both). Then use the Contrasting skill we described earlier to relieve that person’s mind.

YOU: I’m not calling you a thief. I am trying to come up with explanations for what just happened. Can you see how I would wonder given the facts I just described? My intention here is not to accuse you but to find out what is really going on so I can solve this problem. Can we talk about it?

If you start to share your story and the other person becomes defensive, take away his or her fear. Step out of the content and restore safety.

End with a Question

You started the accountability discussion by doing your best to make it safe. You then shared your path in a way that continued to maintain safety. Now it’s time to bring your opening paragraph to a close, still maintaining safety. End with a simple diagnostic question: What happened? Make this an honest inquiry, not a veiled threat or an accusation such as “What’s wrong with you!”

As you finish off your description of the failed expectation, your goal should be to hear the other person’s point of view. If you’ve started with safety and presented detailed facts, the person responsible for the infraction should understand what the problem is and feel comfortable talking about the underlying cause and the eventual solution.

Don’t underestimate the importance of this sincere question. This is a pivotal moment in the conversation, one that will sustain the safety you’ve created. If you sincerely want to hear the other person’s point of view, you let him or her know that this is a dialogue, not a monologue. You help the other person understand that your goal is not to be right or to punish but to solve a problem and that all the information must be out in the open for that to occur. So end your opening statement with a sincere invitation for the other person to share even completely contrary opinions with you.

Finally, as the other person answers the question “What happened?” listen carefully.

Diagnose the root of the problem — which of the six sources of influence is at play? Is the person unmotivated? Is he or she unable? The solution to each alternative is quite different. You don’t want to try to motivate people who can’t do what you’ve asked, or enable people who don’t care. We’ll look at ways to deal with each of these problems in the next two chapters. For now, remember to listen for the underlying cause.

Avoid Groundhog Day

Let’s return to an element we referred to earlier. It’s an important enough issue that it deserves special and repeated attention. As you confront other people, they’re likely to want to reduce a performance gap to its simplest form, one that avoids most of what’s actually going on and sidesteps the lion’s share of accountability. They want to keep treating the problem, no matter how devilishly recurring, as if it were the first instance.

For example, a salesperson who reports to you has a history of promising discounts that cut too deeply into your profits. In short, she sells out profits to earn her commission. Last week you talked to her about this practice, and she agreed to follow the pricing guidelines. Five minutes ago you overheard her deep-discounting again. You step up to the problem:

“Louise, I thought we agreed that you wouldn’t sell the product below the standard pricing formula. I just overheard you promising a price that was clearly out of bounds. Did I miss something?”

Louise explains that she really needed this commission and was hoping that you would understand. Now what?

Moment of Truth

You’re now at a critical juncture. You have two problems, not one: (1) the price violation, or the content of the problem, and (2) a whole new problem: she didn’t live up to her commitment to you. Many people miss this important difference. Unfortunately, if you talk only about the price formula, you’re forced to relive the same problem. Savvy problem solvers know better. As new violations emerge, they step up to them:

“Let’s see if I understand. You agreed not to cut prices, but you wanted the commission, so you did so anyway. Is that right?”

This follow-on statement leads to a very different discussion. Instead of talking only about pricing, you’re now talking about failing to live up to a commitment. That is a far bigger issue.

Two Examples

To see how the skills we’ve covered work, here are a couple of examples of how they all come together. We’ll start with a simple example: A person who reports to you fails to show up at an important meeting, and you don’t think he missed it on purpose. You have told yourself no story. You invite him into your office, safely describe the gap, and end with a question.

“Chris, I noticed that you missed the meeting you had agreed to attend. I was wondering what happened. Did you run into a problem of some kind?”

And there you have it: a simple paragraph. You haven’t held court. You don’t have a story to tell. You take the other person to a private setting, describe the facts (what was expected versus what was observed), and end with a question. And now you’re listening to diagnose the underlying cause.

Let’s examine a tougher problem. You’re talking to your boss about what’s been happening in meetings. You think he or she may become defensive, so you start by creating safety. You establish Mutual Purpose and use Contrasting.

YOU: I’ve noticed myself withdrawing in the last couple of meetings. I know it bugs you when I don’t take the initiative, so I’ve thought about why I’m not doing that. Some of the things, I’ve realized, have to do with how you lead our meetings. I don’t want to be presumptuous or tell you how to run meetings, but I believe that if I could discuss this with you, it might help me perform better and would make the climate better for me too. Would that be okay?

BOSS: Okay, what’s bugging you?

Since you have told yourself a story about what your boss is doing, you share your path, starting with the facts and then tentatively sharing your conclusion.

YOU: Well, a couple of times in the meeting today when I’d start a comment, you’d raise your hand toward me and then start speaking before I’d finished. I don’t know if this is how you mean that, but to me it feels like you think my idea is stupid and it’s a way of shutting me down.

BOSS: Yeah, I guess I did do that, but you know, I just don’t want to pussyfoot around when I disagree with something. Do I have to?

The boss is feeling defensive, and so you step out of the content and build safety.

YOU: I don’t want you to feel like you have to pull punches with me at all. All I’m asking for is that you tell me you disagree in a way that doesn’t also sound like you don’t think I’m competent. [Contrast.] Is there something I’m doing in the meeting that is irritating you? Or am I not performing up to par and you have concerns about me? [End with a question.]

CHAPTER SUMMARY

Describe the Gap

We’ve finished working on ourselves and are now speaking for the first time. Our overall goal is to create and maintain safety. Rather than leading with unhealthy conclusions or making accusations (both make it unsafe for the other person), we simply describe the gap. That is, we share our view of what we expected as well as what we actually observed.

We often refer to such breaches as “violated expectations,” or “broken commitments.” To avoid the harsh conclusions that typically accompany words such as violated, or broken, we’ve chosen the more neutral term: gap.

When we think of a disappointment as a gap or difference rather than a purposeful violation, we’re likely to enter the conversation feeling curious as opposed to feeling disappointed or even angry. By first viewing and then explaining the differences between what was expected and what was observed, we turn the “hazardous half-minute” into a description of the facts (rather than a verbal assault) and show a willingness to learn (rather than a burning desire to accuse). By focusing on the gap, we transform the “hazardous half-minute” into a solid start.

Once we’ve described the gap, we listen carefully to see which branch of the model we’ll pursue. Is the problem due to motivation, ability, or both?

• In this chapter we explored the first words out of our mouth. Our goal has been to make it safer to deal with problems by mastering the critical first moments of an accountability discussion. We’ve suggested the following:

  Start with safety.

  Share your path.

  End with a question.

• We’ve written a lot about a little. You don’t want to start off on the wrong foot.

Author Video: David Maxfield in “The Law of the Hog”

To watch this and other videos, visit http://www.vitalsmarts.com/bookresources.

What’s Next?

The other person is about to explain why he or she let you down. This means that you have to know what to do if the other person isn’t motivated or isn’t able or maybe both. This will take more than a well-crafted sentence or two.

4 Make It Motivating How to Help Others Want to Take Action

Here’s my theory of motivation: If you grab someone by the ear and take off running, their body generally follows.

Let’s take a look at where we are in the problem-solving process. Myra, an employee who works for you, failed to complete an important quality check. You observed the gap, decided to deal with it, and tried to determine the right problem to discuss. Since this was the first infraction, you’ve decided to talk about the content: she didn’t complete the quality check. You admire Myra, and so it is easy to impute good motive. Now you describe the gap. After your brief and effective problem description, Myra responds.

The way Myra responds to your description of the gap will determine what you do next. She determines your path, not you. You’ll learn where you’re going by diagnosing the underlying cause of the problem. Is it a matter of motivation, ability, or both? If Myra says, “I couldn’t do the procedure you asked for,” you’ll need to figure out why. Which of the three ability forces is coming into play? If Myra replies, “Come on. What’s the big deal? It’s a stupid little quality check. I don’t really have to do it, do I?” you’re staring at a motivation problem. Which of the motivational forces is at work here?

Knowing how to bring to the surface and resolve all the underlying causes requires a great deal of skill. If you miss a single ability barrier, the other person won’t be able to cooperate. If you misinterpret the underlying motivational block, you’ll be pushing the wrong buttons. You’ll also have to choke back the desire to pull out the big guns to motivate (it’s so fast and easy) or pull out your big ideas to enable (it’s so fast and easy). Both methods are tempting, and both will be wrong.

We begin our journey into the land of multiple causes with a warning: it’s about to get complicated. We also offer a promise: if you follow the best practices of those who routinely step up to accountability discussions and handle them well, you too will succeed.

After hemming and hawing for a few seconds, Myra explains that she really didn’t want to do the job and asks, “What’s the big deal? Is it really worth the effort?” From this particular response, we’ll conclude that she’s not motivated. Other signs that a person isn’t motivated include the following: “I had more important things to do.” “It wasn’t my idea to switch jobs.” “If you think I’m going to work on something that isn’t on my performance review, you’re wrong.” All point to underlying motive. All imply “I chose not to do it.”

How do we make it motivating for Myra? How do you reach into other people’s psyches regardless of their power or position or, better still, regardless of your power or position and motivate them to do what they promised to do?

Hint: Your power doesn’t matter all that much. In fact, in many cases the more you think you need power to influence others’ motivation, the less likely you are to do it well. Stick with us, and you’ll see why.

When someone lets you down and does so willfully and with full knowledge of what he or she is doing, you want to deal with the selfish blighter. For instance, remember what your high school boyfriend once did to you? He didn’t forget to pick you up for your prom date, nor did he come down with a debilitating disease. He simply changed his mind at the last minute. And then, guess what? He said nothing to you, roared by your house in his candy-apple-red Mustang, and then whooped it up with the little hussy who moved in from California while you sat on your front porch clutching a wilted boutonniere.

When it comes to motivating others, these are the thoughtless curs we have in mind. We think of people who have purposely violated a promise and as a result have given us a figurative kick in the gut. Do you know why they cause us grief? Because they don’t care. They don’t share our wants and needs. They don’t walk in our moccasins. When you think about it, isn’t that what life comes down to? If we could find a way to get our friends, our family, our coworkers, and especially our boss to climb into our heads, share our dreams, and want what we want, wouldn’t life be one great big chocolate croissant?

Motivation with a Capital M

When others willfully break a promise, particularly when they cause us loads of grief, we want so desperately to motivate the guilty parties that the whole concept of motivation takes on mythical proportions. We think of motivation with a capital M: arm-flailing speeches echoing through a coliseum with the crowd cheering. Or perhaps we envision motivation as the raw use of power delivered in a satisfying and vengeful strike to the ego. Or maybe we think of it as a tool bag chock-full of clever techniques, just underhanded enough to trick people into compliance but sincere-looking enough to maintain a patina of professionalism. And on a good day, maybe our best day, we think of motivation as the ever-popular “art of getting people to do what you want them to do because they want to do it.”

Of course, none of these views is particularly helpful. All lead to behaviors that eventually get us into trouble. Even the last cloyingly patronizing statement — we think it’s our job to get people to want what we want — is fraught with problems. It works only if we’re omniscient (what we want is always right).

At the heart of our twisted view of how to motivate others lies an accumulation of outdated methods and tortured thoughts, one piled upon another. We come to believe that good leaders propel people to action by blending two parts charisma, one part chutzpah, and a healthy dash of fear into a perfect motivational cocktail. And we’re wrong.

With time and constant exposure to these unhealthy influence theories, here’s what eventually happens to our thinking.

What’s with Those Kids?

The apartment you live in comes with a reserved parking space conveniently located right in front of the building’s entrance. Unfortunately, the tenants in the apartment above you have three — count them, three — teenage children, each with a car. They appear to take joy in parking in your place. Each time they compel you to station your vehicle blocks away, you’re forced to schlepp yourself over hill and dale through an unrelenting Seattle-style drizzle while you make a mental note to send a generous donation to the National Association to Outlaw Teenagers.

You once talked to both the parents and the adolescents about the problem. You were on your best behavior. You spared no charm, plucked the old heartstrings, and sure enough, they expressed their deepest and most sincere sorrow. It was rather touching. They then respected your parking spot for a full 12 hours, after which they continued with their old tricks. Apparently they were sorry you spoke to them, not sorry that they were causing you problems.

At this point you’re fully aware of your options. You know that if you threaten your neighbors, they might come around. But you don’t want to be that kind of person. You’re bigger than that. So you back off, buy a larger umbrella, and take satisfaction in the knowledge that although you may be drenched and aching, you have not yet mutated into that crotchety old curmudgeon you vowed never to become. Just because you despise these cretins, it doesn’t mean you need to be unpleasant about it.

This kind of thinking leads to a false dichotomy. You believe that when it gets right down to it, you must either put up with the current problem or motivate the kids through power and threats; those are the only two options. (Once again, our math is messed up.) And since you don’t want to become threatening and abusive, your monklike vow of silence isn’t a sellout; it’s the moral thing to do.

However, if circumstances demand a more forceful approach, you take comfort in the knowledge that the end will justify the means. After all, it is your parking space, and it’s not your fault that the bozos you’re dealing with respond only to fear. As long as you believe that the principal motivating force behind all behavior is fear, you have a built-in excuse for going to either silence or violence.

Contrary to popular myth, you don’t have to wield power or provoke fear to be an effective motivator. In fact, it’s better if we don’t think of ourselves as larger-than-life figures burdened with the challenge of bringing the nearly dead back to life through various inspiring techniques. That kind of flawed thinking is exactly what gets us into trouble.

Consider Melissa, a manager and positive deviant in the large midwestern manufacturing facility we referenced earlier. Weighing about 105 pounds, Melissa was far too small to intimidate anyone, and rarely, if ever, did she use her formal authority or position power. Yet she was extraordinarily influential, singled out by many as being the most effective manager in the facility. In fact, the amount of power you have has little to do with how well you motivate others. We have watched people with almost no authority motivate their bosses’ bosses.

Motivation, it turns out, is actually rather boring. It has little to do with clout or charisma. In fact, motivation is about expectations, information, and communication.

Expectations Change Everything

Let’s start our more accurate, if less flamboyant, description of motivation with a simple truism: people are always motivated. To say that someone isn’t motivated is patently wrong. As long as people are moving their muscles, they’re motivated to do something. Second, motivation is brain driven. People choose their behavior. Third, motivation is influenced by a nearly infinite number of sources from both within and without.

Here’s how the human brain and the surrounding world combine to propel individual behavior. Human beings anticipate. When deciding what to do, they look to the future and ask, “What will this particular behavior yield?” When they choose one action over another, it’s because they’re betting that that action will generate the best result. Since any action yields a combination of results, some good and some bad, it’s the expected sum total of the consequence bundle that drives behavior. If you want people to act in another way, you have to let them know how a different behavior would yield a better consequence bundle.

Here’s what motivation comes down to: change others’ view of the consequence bundle, and their behavior will follow.

How do you help people to change their view of the consequence bundle — to understand that their existing view is either inaccurate or incomplete?

One thing is for certain: three of the more popular methods — charisma, power, and perks — don’t work very well. They all have the potential to change people’s view, and so they all have the potential to change people’s behavior. Unfortunately, relying on these heavy-handed methods can be dangerous and rarely sustains behavior over the long run. Yet these methods remain enormously popular. In fact, they hold a nearly sacred place in the leadership lexicon. Let’s consider each method in turn.

Don’t Rely on Charisma

It’s time to kill a myth. To be an effective motivator, you don’t have to be awe inspiring. Everyday acts of motivation are almost always subtle, rarely elicit awe, and never make the papers. Nevertheless, the myth of charisma continues to thrive. Books, television programs, and movies positively ooze with scenes that are designed to make audiences gasp with admiration. For example, in the cold war drama Crimson Tide, we find a naval officer played by Denzel Washington giving a “big speech” to a young radioman on whose skill and attention hangs the fate of the world.

The poor fellow has to get the submarine’s radio up and running to learn if the vessel should launch its missiles. If he fails, the captain will be forced to launch the sub’s nuclear arms blindly, cause the enemy to retaliate, and eventually destroy the world — even though it may not be necessary. (“Sorry. My bad!”)

In the real world the poor fellow probably would collapse from the pressure. In fact, the stress would be so debilitating that a smart leader would be doing everything in his or her power to provide support. But screenwriters are human too. They make the fundamental attribution error by creating a radioman who doesn’t need support. He needs to be inspired. Apparently, he hasn’t repaired the radio yet because he has something he’d rather do than save the world from total destruction.

Denzel delivers a really hot speech. After the tear-jerking performance, the radioman turns to his coworker and tells him to stop messing around so that they can prevent a nuclear holocaust instead of playing video games or whatever it is they’re doing.

Denzel gives the speech, the radioman is appropriately inspired, and, yes, the audience breaks into applause. Charisma makes for good drama; however, it has precious little to do with real leadership. Rest assured that you don’t have to be charismatic to be influential.

Don’t Use Power

Let’s move on to the next big mistake. Raw power, painfully applied, may move bodies, it may even get people to act in new ways, but it rarely moves hearts and minds. Hearts and minds are changed through expanded understanding and new realizations. The flagrant and abusive use of authority, in contrast, guarantees little more than short-term bitter compliance.

This simple idea would never have made these pages if not for the fact that parents and leaders alike routinely turn to power as their first tool for motivating others. Without putting it in so many words, they believe that it’s easiest to change people’s thinking about the existing consequence bundle by administering new and painful consequences of their own. It’s a simple enough concept and is very easy to implement. Here’s what it sounds like:

• “If you don’t finish the project on time, you’re fired!”

• “If you talk back to me like that again, you’re grounded until the end of the summer!”

The Reason We Intuitively Rely on Force

Earlier we suggested that we often take a dispositional rather than a situational view of others. If others cause us a great deal of pain, we believe they must be bad to the core. The worse the impact others have on us, the worse our assumptions about their character. We think they’re inherently selfish. They may even take joy in our suffering. They’re at best indifferent. And here’s where it gets sticky: We believe that others are capable only of being selfish. It’s in their genes. It’s their disposition. It’s not a choice; it’s a calling.

When it comes to influence strategies, the implication of this dispositional view of people should be obvious. Individuals aren’t going to change their personalities through patience and long suffering on our part. They’re not going to change their proverbial spots after we give them an inspiring pep talk. In fact, they aren’t going to change their inherent and immutable personalities because of anything we say. They can’t.

And now for a leap in logic that would break any Evel Knievel record: since we’re dealing with deep-seated personality flaws, we have to use threats. Remember those teenagers who took your parking space? Oh yeah, they’ll pay.

Warning: You’re About to Do Something Stupid

What does all this chest beating come down to? Let’s take it as a warning. The more we feel the need to apply force, the greater is the evidence that our own thoughts are the problem. To quote Seinfeld’s George Costanza, “It’s not them, it’s us.”

Of course, it starts with them when they aren’t motivated. We try and try, and nothing works. And then we become angry. We convince ourselves that we need to use power to solve the problem, and we enjoy doing it. That’s because we’re thinking with our dumbed-down, adrenaline-fed lizard brains.

Warning lights should go off every time we feel compelled to reach into our bag of influence tools and pull out a hammer: if we don’t catch ourselves before it’s too late, we’ll pay.

The Cost of Force

Force Kills Relationships

Every time we decide to use our power to influence others, particularly if we’re gleeful and hasty, we damage the relationship. We move from enjoying a healthy partnership based on trust and Mutual Respect to establishing a police state that requires constant monitoring.

Every time we compel people to bend to our will, it creates a desolate and lonely work environment. Gone is Mutual Respect and the camaraderie it engenders. Gone are the simple pleasantries associated with rubbing shoulders with colleagues who admire and pull for each other. Gone is the sense that we’re laboring together to overcome common barriers.

It’s a horrible thing we do when we decide to unleash our power as a method of motivating others. When we do, our relationship with others is forever changed. We move from respected partner to feared enforcer. And then we pay.

Force Motivates Resistance

When we quickly move to use force to influence change, people intuitively understand that we do that because we believe they have bad motives. We don’t respect them. In addition, it communicates that we care only about our goals, not theirs. In other words, it destroys safety. And when safety disappears, people immediately become defensive. Eventually they resist our ideas out of principle. Every time we leave the room, we wonder if they’ll actually do what we’ve asked. By destroying safety, the hasty use of force ensures that force will be needed to solve the problem and that a healthy accountability discussion won’t work.

Force Doesn’t Last

Back in the mid-1930s, Kurt Lewin, along with several of his colleagues, conducted a fascinating study that forever put to rest the notion that exercising one’s power yields lasting results. The researchers randomly assigned leaders to one of three leadership styles: authoritarian, hands-off, and democratic. The subjects then used their assigned styles to lead a production team. As expected, the authoritarian (power-based) style produced the highest results when the leader was in the room. Also as expected, force yielded the lowest results once the leader left the room.[10] When people produce solely out of fear, once the fear is removed, so is the motivation to continue to follow orders.

Be Careful with Perks

Now for the last of the common motivational errors: the hasty use of extrinsic rewards to motivate what should already be intrinsically motivating. Many parents have learned not to make this mistake through their failed attempts to reward actions that should be rewarding in and of themselves.

For example, if you want your children to read or, better still, love to read, what’s the best way to lure them away from their electronic devices? More than a few parents have chosen to pay their kids to read. The theory is that if you pay them, they’ll read, and if they read, they’ll learn to love reading. Unfortunately, extrinsic rewards often kill intrinsic satisfaction. These children learn to read for money, not for the love of reading. Then the minute the cash is removed, they’re off books.

Similarly, if you continually use special perks to encourage people to do what should be a routine part of their jobs, in effect “perfuming” the consequence bundle, you could be undermining or even destroying the satisfaction that comes from doing the job. It also takes attention away from the legitimate reasons for the work. When extrinsic rewards are applied to routine behavior, they confuse purpose. Special rewards should be reserved for special performance.

The problem with power, perks, and charisma is not that they never work or never should be used. The problem is that people turn to them too quickly, and there are almost always better methods. For instance, savvy parents and influential leaders use their ability to teach. They intuitively instruct by using part of the model we developed in Chapter 2.

Explore Natural Consequences

When you watch people who have been singled out by their bosses, peers, and loved ones as the best at handling accountability discussions (those highly valued positive deviants we introduced earlier), it should be no surprise to learn that they change people’s hearts by changing their minds.

Savvy leaders recognize that they could propel people to action by using their leadership authority or offering perks. They also know that within the three domains of personal, social, and structural, there are other factors that are far better motivators, that propel action without the leader pulling strings or making threats.

What are these compelling factors? They are the natural consequences associated with any behavior. For example, if you don’t manage your diabetes well, you are likely to face amputations later in life. That’s a natural consequence. If you fail to follow up on commitments, you create extra stress for your boss, who has to guess what will get done. That’s a natural consequence. If you make sarcastic and cutting comments when your spouse isn’t feeling amorous, she will withdraw and feel less spontaneous affection for you despite what your lizard brain is telling you. That’s a natural consequence.

All our actions put into play a chain of events that affects anywhere from one person to millions of other people. This sequence of events makes up the consequence bundle. Among these consequences, there is a subset of “natural” consequences that exist independently of the intervention of an authority figure. These methods require no force, no chutzpah, and no charisma. No parent has to wag a finger; no boss has to write up a disciplinary action. Natural consequences are always present and always serve as a potential source of motivation.

Of course, not all natural consequences motivate people equally. Here is an example:

“When you cut Jimmy off in midsentence, it hurt his feelings.”

“Good, I don’t like him anyway.”

Consequences provide the force behind all behavioral choices, and so savvy influencers motivate others by completing a consequence search: they explain natural consequences until they hit upon one or more that the other person values. As you start your own consequence search, your job is to find a way to make the invisible visible while maintaining healthy dialogue.

Make the Invisible Visible

When it comes to exploring natural consequences, your primary responsibility is to help others see consequences they aren’t seeing (or remembering) on their own. That happens because many of the outcomes associated with a particular behavior are long term or occur out of sight. Your job is to help make the invisible visible. Here are six methods for doing that.

Link to Existing Values

As you consider all the consequences you could discuss with another person, turn your attention to that person’s core values. What does he or she care about the most? This will be your point of greatest leverage. Then help the other person see how his or her values will be better supported through the course you are proposing. If you have created enough safety, you can talk frankly about any value issues. Let’s look at an example of speaking with a spouse who has had two bypass surgeries and continues to gorge:

“Dear, I honestly believe that if your eating habits don’t change, you won’t raise our children; I will. Do you have the same concern? What do you think?”

Here you’re trying to deal with your loved one’s eating habits, and rather than nagging or attacking, you’re linking to his or her core value of being around to help raise the kids.

Connect Short-Term Benefits with Long-Term Pain

Show how the short-term enjoyment the person currently is experiencing is inextricably connected to longer-term problems. This is essentially the central task of parenting:

“If you continue to watch television and don’t do your homework, you’ll get bad grades, you won’t get into a good school, you won’t get a good job, you won’t make lots of money, and you’ll never drive your own Porsche.”

You might not use this whole list (you’re piling on), but this is at least part of the map you’re carrying in your head and the map you’d like your child to share eventually, except maybe the part about the fancy car.

This method of clarifying long-term or distant negative consequences is also applied at work dozens of times a day:

“I’m sure it’s a hassle to double-check appointments when you enter them on my calendar, but our current error rate is so high that the assistants of the other vice presidents are calling me to ask for confirmation. I worry that your reputation here is going to be hurt if we can’t solve this.”

Place the Focus on Long-Term Benefits

This is the other half of parenting. It’s also the single best predictor of lifelong success. If a person can suffer a little now — delaying gratification in order to serve a longer-term goal — life gets better (think dieting, weight training, studying, etc.).

If you doubt this premise, consider a study conducted over a matter of decades. A researcher put a marshmallow in front of individual children and told them that they would get another one if they didn’t eat the first one while the researcher stepped out. As the researchers tracked these children over the years, they found that those who had waited for the researchers to return did far better in life than those who ate the confection right away, and in almost every domain.[11] To help people stay the course, take the focus off the short-term challenge by placing it on the long-term benefit:

“I know that putting up with some of the kids’ messiness is really hard for you. I also believe that your relationship with them is at risk if you can’t learn to let some of the smaller things go.”

Introduce the Hidden Victims

This is perhaps the most widely used method of explaining consequences. You describe the unintended and often invisible effects an action is having on others. At work, leaders carefully and clearly explain the consequences to the company’s various stakeholders:

“Here’s what your failure to comply is doing to other employees, to the customer, to the shareowners, to the boss, and so forth.”

At home, parents explain what’s happening to other family members:

“Louisa, I know your little brother gets on your nerves a lot. But did you know that when you made fun of his weight, he sat in his room and cried for the rest of the evening? I know your goal was to get him to stop following you around and not to hurt him so deeply. Is that right?”

Hold Up a Mirror

To help introduce the social implications of a particular action, describe how a person’s action is being viewed by others. “It’s starting to look like you don’t care about the team’s results.” Remember, when it comes to the way we’re coming across, we all live on the wrong side of our eyeballs. Help others gain a view from the other side.

Connect to Existing Rewards

This is typically not the best starting place, but eventually you may want to talk about rewards. Help others see how living up to an expectation advances their careers, enhances their influence, puts more money in the bank, or reduces their risks:

“You’ve mentioned wanting to be the art director. In my view you will be much more successful in that position — and more likely to get it — if you have a solid working relationship with both the editing staff and the video team.”

Stay in the Conversation

Remember, as you’re doing your best to make consequences more visible, keep talking. Keep the information flowing honestly and freely in both directions.

Don’t Turn Consequences into Threats

There’s a fine line between sharing natural consequences and threatening others. Well, in most cases it’s not that fine a line. If your motives are wrong, sharing becomes threatening. If your motive is to punish or if you’re taking pleasure in describing the awful things that will happen if someone’s obnoxious behavior continues, you’re making threats. Your motive must be to solve the problem in a way that benefits both of you. Anything less than that will provoke silence or violence, not gain willing compliance.

The challenge increases when your motives are right but the other person mistakes your description of natural consequences for a threat. “When you fail to complete your assignments on time, we start giving you less relevant assignments to protect ourselves from failure” can sound like a personal attack or a job threat.

If the other person believes that he or she is in trouble, perhaps because of previous experience with other bosses, your best behavior may seem manipulative regardless of your skill or demeanor. If you notice that others appear nervous, step out of the conversation and restore safety by explaining your positive intentions. Explain that your goal is to solve an important problem. You simply want to share the consequences of what they’re doing and then ask them for their view on the matter. When they start hearing natural consequences as threats, you should recognize the situation as a safety problem and restore safety.

Listen to Others’ View of Natural Consequences

When it comes to other people’s roles, you should be listening as they explain their view of the consequences. They may be aware of consequences you know little or nothing about: “Yeah, we can do it the way you want, but it’ll blow up our lawn mower.”

Your view of what should be done may change in the process of jointly discussing consequences. In the end, you may be convinced that they shouldn’t do what you originally asked.

Stop When You Reach Compliance

As you help others see consequences they didn’t realize existed, explain those consequences only until you believe others will comply. Your job isn’t to keep piling on information. It is to share consequences until the other person understands the overall effect and shares your view of what needs to be done. Don’t sell past the close.

Match Methods to Circumstances

Let’s look at the final element of making a task motivating. It has to do with the circumstances you’re facing. Sometimes the person you’re talking to is simply unaware of the consequences associated with his or her actions. Sometimes you yourself don’t understand why the other person isn’t motivated. Or perhaps the person is partially motivated but the task just hasn’t made it to the top of his or her priority list. Maybe the other person’s openly resisting your efforts. Let’s learn to match method to circumstance.

When You’re Teaching

The methods for explaining natural consequences that we’ve just examined are easy to apply when we’re first informing people about the reason behind a specific action. Employees want to know why they have to produce products and deliver services by using certain methods — particularly if what you’re asking isn’t going to be easy. What they really want to know is whether it’s actually worth the effort. As we suggested earlier, individuals who are good at accountability are teachers, and much of their teaching is about the consequences to varying stakeholders: “Here’s why it’s worth it.” They make the invisible visible by whatever means will work.

When it comes to parenting, the younger the child, the greater the need to teach the child the relationship between behavior and outcome. Newborns do not understand consequences. Almost everything a parent does during the early stages of child rearing is to protect a child from invisible bad consequences and then to teach. As children grow older, methods change and resistance increases, at least until age 14, when your offspring actually know everything and you don’t have to teach them anymore. Of course, when they turn 21, they become ignorant again.

When You’re Jointly Exploring

This circumstance comes up more often than you might imagine. The other person isn’t exactly motivated, and neither of you is quite sure why. Perhaps the other person knows why but isn’t saying. In either case, you can’t figure out why the other person isn’t motivated, and you’ll need to examine the impact that personal, social, and structural factors are having on the individual to determine which ones are making the task undesirable.

The idea here is to examine each source of influence with simple questions: “Is the job hard to do?” “Is it repetitive, boring, uncomfortable (and so on)? Is that why you don’t want to do it?” “Are others encouraging you not to do it?” “Is the task at odds with what the other person is getting rewarded for?”

The goal of exploring consequences is to bring to the surface the issues that make the task undesirable. If it’s not immediately clear, this could take some work. Once you’re both aware of the factors that are at play, decide if you still want the other person to continue (you may change your mind). If you decide that the task still makes sense, use any combination of the methods we’ve described for making the consequences visible.

When Priorities Differ

What if the other person has different priorities? It’s not that people don’t want to do the task; it’s just not at the top of their list. Priorities can differ for several reasons. Maybe other tasks came up out of nowhere, or perhaps that person enjoys doing other jobs more. Maybe the people who have let you down have forgotten what they were supposed to do or, more likely, why they were supposed to do it. Here’s a big one: perhaps they were hoping that nobody would care if they dropped that part of the job. They eliminated it and watched to see what would happen.

Whatever the reason, people know what to do but choose something else. Let’s be honest: more often than not, they already know what the consequences will be. Under these circumstances, explaining why certain parts of the job are necessary can sound quite different from routine instruction. You’re now doing your best to remind people without haranguing them. Consider the following:

“Are you sure that I need to explain safety procedures to everyone walking in here? Some of the visitors have been here before.”

“Remember when we had that discussion a couple of months back about government regulations? If people get hurt, they can sue us if we haven’t talked to them every time. I know it can seem redundant, but it’s the law.”

Reminding people is the tactic you take with hardworking, reliable individuals who are caught in a priority battle.

When Others Resist

Let’s consider a more challenging case. Individuals are openly resisting your efforts. They really don’t want to fulfill their promise, they need to be convinced, and you need to be careful not to create resistance. That means that you’ll need to know how to explain why something has to be done without jumping straight to power or discipline. Now what?

This is the discussion people have in mind when they say that those they work and live with are hard to motivate: “Others fight me at every turn.” Fortunately, the basic principle is the same: explain natural consequences until the person genuinely agrees to comply. In this case it’s a delicate search. You keep searching for consequences until you find one the other person values. Here are examples:

“Come on. I have better things to do than get my expense reports in the day I get back.”

“We’ve found that the longer people drag it out, the less accurate their reports are. They often forget small expenses, and it costs them money” (consequences to the employee).

“I’ve got a good memory.”

“It also causes trouble for the people in accounting. They have their own deadlines and goals. If we wait too long, it throws them off” (consequences to coworkers).

“Big deal. Let them suffer once in a while. I’m the one on the road half my life.”

“When you don’t get your bills in, we don’t bill our clients as quickly. Last year we figure late billing cost the company over $200,000” (consequences to shareholders).

“We made a bazillion dollars last year.”

“When you drag out your reports for a couple of weeks, I get a call, and I have to track you down and hold these kinds of conversations. It’s not how I want to spend my time” (consequences to the boss).

“Hmmm. I didn’t realize I was making more work for you. Sorry. From now on I’ll put a reminder in my calendar, and it’ll keep me on track.”

This type of lengthy consequence search calls for both patience and skill. The person really doesn’t want do what you’re asking, and it takes a genuine search to come up with something that motivates him or her. You have to search because not every consequence matters to everyone. In this example the employee didn’t care about anything until the boss talked about how it was inconveniencing him (which, by the way, implies the use of power).

When to Use Discipline

Despite your best efforts, sometimes you still have to start down the path of discipline. Perhaps the other person has done something that requires immediate action. Maybe your son crossed the line from resisting your efforts to being disrespectful and insulting. Maybe you’ve explained consequences, and the other person isn’t going to do what you ask no matter what you say.

Perhaps you’ve had multiple conversations — describing content, pattern, and relationship — but the employee is still violating every agreement you make. It’s time to change tactics. It’s time to move away from natural consequences and start imposing consequences of your own (discipline). As you start down this precarious path, keep the following in mind.

Know the Mechanics

Every organization has its own discipline steps and policies. Study them carefully. If you fail to follow procedure, your efforts may be thrown out when they are reviewed, undermining your credibility. Families should create their own clear disciplinary steps as well. If they do not, everything comes as a surprise.

Partner with People in Authority

If you’re in a situation in which you don’t know the person’s total history and details, explain why the action was wrong, state that you’re going to move to discipline, and say that you’ll get back to him or her later. Then check with specialists to learn what the actual steps should be. Otherwise you may suggest that you’re going to send the person home without pay and then find out that he or she was only due for a warning. You’ll have to eat your words. The home version of this should be obvious: parents must be unified in their actions.

Be Appropriately Somber

Discipline isn’t something you impose with a sense of pleasure regardless of what the other person may have done. Keep the tone serious and speak about what has to be done, not what you now get to do. This is not a time for a smug in-your-face celebration. You’re moving from leading or partnering to policing, and that’s hardly a victory.

Explain the Next Step

As you explain what will happen as a result of the infraction, cover what will happen if the person does the same thing again. Explaining the next level of consequences informs and motivates. It also helps eliminate surprises: “Nobody said I was going to be fired!”

Be Consistent

Don’t play favorites. If you’re working with an employee who gives you fits at every turn, you can’t discipline that person for something you wouldn’t discipline everyone for simply as a means of getting even. When discipline falls under review, the first thing third parties examine is equity. Did the person get fair treatment? Don’t single people out.

Don’t Back Off Under Pressure

Once you’ve started the process, stick to it. Follow the steps and don’t be dissuaded simply because the person puts up a fight. If discipline is called for, stay the course. If you waffle, you’ll gain a reputation for making hollow threats.

When Power Fails, Be Candid About Coping

Let’s look at one final issue. What if you’ve explained the natural consequences associated with an action but others still aren’t motivated and you can’t or shouldn’t impose consequences to increase their motivation? Let’s say your boss realizes he should stop yelling at you and others but says the following: “I know it’s wrong, I know it frustrates people, but I’m high-strung and under a lot of pressure, and it’s just going to happen sometimes!” Now what? You’re not likely to impose consequences on your boss.

Or let’s say your business partner has been unreliable in getting assignments in on time, and after a lengthy discussion you still believe it’s likely she’ll get them in late. What do you do?

Agree on a Work-Around

When you’ve decided not to administer discipline as a way of compelling someone to change his or her actions, develop a coping strategy and then candidly share it. That way, as the other person observes and experiences the consequences of the work-around, he or she can choose to act differently to avoid the pain, waste, and inefficiency you’ve talked about.

For instance, from this point on you will not give your unreliable partner “critical-path” assignments. She may not be happy about this choice because she wants to be involved with the hottest assignments. Nevertheless, at least she understands why you’re doing what you’re doing.

With an emotionally explosive boss who refuses to change, you might suggest that when he blows off steam, you’ll eventually withdraw, allow time for him to calm down, and then return for a healthier and more complete discussion. You might also share that you are likely to be reluctant to challenge some of his more vigorous arguments. You’ll do your best to be candid, but his defensive actions will continue to make that difficult for you. By being candid about your coping strategy, you empower your boss to choose whether he wants this consequence bundle.

This point is so important that we want to expand it a bit. For people to behave badly over the long haul, we have to do two things. First, we have to avoid accountability discussions. By doing that, we avoid helping others see the consequences of their behavior. If we don’t alter their expectations, why should they change what they do? Second, we create a work-around that enables others to continue doing what they’re doing, unaware and guilt free. For example, our boss never returns calls, and so we secretly assign someone to do it for her. A doctor is incompetent, and so we discreetly schedule complicated surgeries for when he’s off shift. Our dad is grumpy and abusive, and so we buy him his own wide-screen TV and build him a den.

The reason others aren’t motivated to change is often because of us. We’re conspirators. Either we misuse power and mobilize others’ resistance, or we withhold honest feedback and then take great pains to create clever and secret work-arounds that continue to keep others blind to the consequences they’re causing.

Even if you don’t have the power to impose your will on an unwilling person, you can avoid being part of the problem by being candid about your coping strategy.

Let’s assume you’ve been able to make it motivating. You jointly discussed consequences, you chose not to back off, and the other person has agreed to comply. The conversation is winding down. But you’re not through. You have to do one more thing to ensure that you haven’t wasted your time. Coming to an agreement is one thing; deciding what’s going to happen from this point on requires one more step.

As you wrap up the conversation, make a plan. Decide who will do what and by when. Then set a follow-up time in which you can check to see how things are going. (We’ll examine how to do this in Chapter 7.)

Let’s take a look at how discussing natural consequences applies to a difficult example.

He Hates My Kids

This is both Gary and Kali’s second marriage. She has two children from her previous marriage, ages 15 and 20. When Kali and Gary first met, he was very interested in her children. They’ve now been married four years, and his interest is waning. In fact, he’s almost always surly with them and has taken to calling them names. They feel like strangers in the house, and Kali is beginning to think she’ll have to choose between Gary and her children.

What makes this problem particularly hard to solve is the fact that he doesn’t want to talk about it. When Kali tries to discuss their relationship, he accuses her of being unreasonable and storms out of the room. What can she say? One thing is for certain — the first few seconds will be critical. Kali has about 30 seconds to do two things: she has to help Gary want to talk to her, and she has to make it safe so that he’ll talk to her constructively. Let’s watch her in action. Gary is doing e-mail in the den alone. The kids aren’t around, and so they’re likely to have an hour or so without interruptions.

KALI: “I think the kids and I are making life unpleasant for you. It appears to be getting worse and not better.” (Make it safe: She maintains respect and clarifies her purpose.)

“I want to find an hour when we can discuss this. And I believe that if we do, we could get back some of the feeling we shared until about a year ago.” (She provides more safety and Mutual Purpose.)

“If we don’t talk, I don’t think we’ll be able to continue in the same way.” (She makes the invisible visible, sharing natural consequences that Gary cares about.)

GARY: “Is that a threat?” (He mistakes her last statement as emotional blackmail.)

KALI: “No, and I’m sorry if it sounded like one. I don’t want you to feel like I’m attacking you. I just want us to be able to talk openly about something I’m really concerned about.” (She steps out of the content and restores safety using Contrasting.)

“Let’s face it, you and I haven’t felt affectionate toward each other in months. I think it’s been bad for both of us. I think the problems are solvable, but not if we can’t talk about them.” (She shares natural consequences, links to existing values, takes the focus off short-term pain — a conversation — and focuses on long-term benefits.)

“The conversation doesn’t have to happen now, but I believe it must happen or the things that are wrong are just going to get worse. I fear that’s likely to end with us feeling like we’d be happier apart than together.” (She connects short-term benefits — avoiding the conversation — with long-term pain.)

“I hate that thought.” (She steps out of content and makes sure he doesn’t mistake the natural consequence for a threat.)

GARY: “Okay, I’ll try. But if this turns into you telling me how I can’t expect the kids to obey any rules and I just have to put up with their trashing the house, I’m gone.” (He’s moving to violence — making threats — because he doesn’t feel safe. He still suspects this will be a blaming conversation with him as the target. Kali recognizes the lack of safety and avoids reacting to his threat. Instead, she increases safety.)

KALI: “I know I’ve been doing a lot of that. And I’m sorry. I’ve been very defensive about the kids lately, and that’s come out as me blaming you and not listening to your concerns. I think if we can talk about all of this, we can work together better. Is now a good time?”

GARY: “It’s as good as any, I guess. Where do we start?”

Make It Motivating

We’ve carefully described the gap and are now listening to see if the problem is due to motivation or ability. In this chapter, we examined the motivational side of the model.

When the other person isn’t motivated, it’s our job to make the right behavior motivating.

• Consequences motivate. Motivation isn’t something you do to someone. People already want to do things. They’re motivated by the consequences they anticipate. And since any action leads to a variety of consequences, people act on the basis of the overall consequence bundle.

• Explore natural consequences. Begin by explaining natural consequences. Within a business context, this typically includes what’s happening to stakeholders. Stakeholders include other employees, customers, shareowners, communities, and regulatory agencies.

• Match method to circumstances. When people simply want to know, explain both what needs to be done and why. When dealing with someone who is pushing back, resist the temptation to jump to power. Search for consequences that matter to the other person.

• Finish well. Finally, wrap up the conversation by determining who does what and by when. Then set a follow-up time.

Additional Resources

Struggling to “make it motivating”? Refer to Appendix C, “When Thing Go Right,” for tips on motivating with praise. Also, visit http://www.vitalsmarts.com/bookresources and learn how you can submit your specific questions to the authors of Crucial Accountability.

What’s Next?

Let’s expand our skills to include the other half of our Six-Source Model. Let’s learn what to do when the other person is motivated but unable to act.

5 Make It Easy How to Make Keeping Commitments (Almost) Painless

Ability will never catch up with the demand for it.

— CONFUCIUS

It’s time to move to the ability side of our model. We’ll start with an example. Kyle, a political analyst who works for you, was supposed to write a position paper for an upcoming debate and have it on your desk by noon, but he didn’t. You call him in for a private discussion and describe the gap. He lets you know that he really wanted to do what he promised and says that it wasn’t his fault that he didn’t. The specialist who conducts the statistical analysis was hospitalized with a burst appendix, and she’s the only one who understands the data.

In any case, Kyle was prevented from doing what he agreed to do. And then he did exactly the right thing: He immediately called to let you know about the problem, but you were in a meeting across town. He left a message on your voice mail and then tried to track you down. In short, he wasn’t able to meet his commitment and did his best to let you know. This was definitely not a motivation problem.

Having just read the last chapter, you decide it would be a good idea to tell Kyle about the natural consequences of missing the deadline. You figure that he needs to know, so you share:

“Let me tell you something. If people ask the wrong questions at the debate, we’re going to look like a bunch of dopes because we don’t have the position paper.”

Kyle turns ashen, mumbles something about tracking down the specialist, and dashes off like a scared rabbit.

“Now he’s really motivated!” you think to yourself.

We hope you wouldn’t actually do this. Being the steely-eyed smart person you are, you would note that Kyle was motivated to do the job. Piling on more reasons for doing something he wasn’t able to do in the first place would be the wrong cure. Indeed, it would be cruel. Kyle needs help removing the barriers he’s facing, not a kick in the pants, and so that’s where we’ll turn. What does it take to help others remove any and all barriers they face? Better still, what can we do to make it easy, even painless, for others to complete their assignments?

Motivation and Ability Are Inextricably Linked

To learn how to enable others, let’s start by examining two of the more subtle aspects of motivation and ability. First, motivation and ability are linked at the hip. They aren’t separate entities. More often than not, they blend into one another. Here’s why. If something is hard to do — perhaps noxious and boring — it’s demotivating. Who really wants to muck out a horse stall? Or fill out expense reports? Or write a term paper?

Here’s our first question: If a job is difficult or revolting or tedious, does this constitute an ability problem or a motivation problem? The person is not able to do the task, at least not easily, and as a result is not motivated to do it. What are we looking at here?

By the purest definition, if individuals can do a job but are not doing it, it’s because they aren’t motivated. The metaphorical test that people often apply to this question is “If you held a gun to their head, could they do it?” If the answer is yes, they’re able but unmotivated.

This simplistic yet violent test doesn’t serve us well. If a job is truly impossible, it’s a clear-cut ability problem. That’s an easy call. For instance, Kyle tried his best to finish his project but was prevented from finishing on time. This had nothing to do with motivation. However, if a task is difficult, disgusting, or dreary, we need to think of the problem in a more complex way. It’s not pure ability. It is a composite problem with both motivational and capability components.

Here’s how the two elements come together. In the short run, if a task is undesirable but not impossible, we can crank up the pressure and get the job done. Over the long run, we want to find a way to remove some of the factors that make the job undesirable, or we’ll constantly be looking for ways to motivate people to do what they hate doing. And that’s never fun.

Motivation and Ability Can Be Confused

Here’s another concept to keep in mind. When diagnosing the cause, we have to be dead certain that we haven’t confused motivation and ability. As completely different as the two things are, people don’t always make it easy for us to tell whether they don’t want to do what’s been asked or can’t do it. In fact, we pretty much assume that if we ask nicely enough, people will tell us straight out whether they couldn’t complete an assignment, they wouldn’t, or both.

For instance, Wanda, a service-repair technician who works for you, doesn’t show up at a client’s office. You ask what happened, and she comes back with “I went there, but the doors were locked. I used my cell phone to check what was going on and got voice mail.”

It was a clear-cut ability problem. When you’re lucky, people come right out and tell you if a problem was due to motivation or ability.

Ambiguous Cause

But you’re not always that lucky. More often than you’d like, the other person (in this case, Wanda) comes back with something such as “You know; stuff came up.”

This response is just ambiguous enough to be dangerous. You need to probe for can’t or won’t. With this in mind, you ask, “Are you saying that you ran into a problem or that you didn’t want to do it?”

Wanda continues to baffle you by saying, “You know how it is. I just never got around to it.”

You probe one more time: “I’m not sure what you’re saying. Did you choose not to do it, or were you unable to do it?”

Complicated Cause

Finally Wanda fesses up. She tells you why, and as is often the case, it’s complicated: “I hate working for those guys. They look over my shoulder and complain the whole time. They give me the creeps. I was hoping if I didn’t show up, you’d schedule someone else.”

There you have it: she didn’t want to do it (for understandable reasons), shirked the job, didn’t let you know, left the client hanging, and was hoping that you’d reward her by sending someone else to the tough client. She chose not to do it (motivation), and as is often the case, she was not all that motivated because she was not all that able. She didn’t know how to deal with a tough client.

You’d probably start this conversation with the fact that she chose not to do the job, left the client high and dry, and hoped you’d somehow look the other way. That’s a serious infraction. You might eventually work with Wanda to help her get better at dealing with tough clients, but you’re not likely to start there. In any case, this problem, like most, is fairly complicated and requires a detailed diagnosis and multiple solutions. Without going into all the sources, you’re only going to be able to deal with a subset of the underlying causes.

Masked Cause

Believe it or not, sometimes people purposely hide the genuine source of a problem. If they fear that they’ll get in trouble for not being able or not wanting to do what’s been asked, they may stretch the truth to avoid new problems. For example, an attending physician asks a medical student to insert an intravenous line into the chest of a 75-year-old patient. The student isn’t quite sure how to do it, but when the doctor is called away to work on a cardiac arrest, the student says nothing. Instead, he attempts to insert the line and punctures the sac around the woman’s lung, and the patient later dies of related complications. A woman dies because the student is uncomfortable saying that he just might be unable to do what he’s been asked. (This actually happened.)

Perhaps the most common ability problem that people try to hide is their illiteracy (23 percent of the population is illiterate). Employees fear they’ll lose their jobs if they admit that they can’t read or do basic math. You ask, “John, how come you didn’t set up the new equipment?” John couldn’t read the directions, tried his best, and failed. He thinks he’ll be fired if you find out that he can’t read, and so he answers, “I hate doing that kind of stuff. It has all those fancy numbers and charts and things — not that I couldn’t do it if I wanted to.”

If you interpret this response to mean that John doesn’t like doing the task, you’ll want to explain the natural consequences: “John, we have two clients waiting on the job, and the longer you take getting the equipment up, the longer they’ll have to wait.”

This, of course, is a doomed conversation, because no matter how many consequences you explain, John is still stuck.

As strange as this may sound, it’s not uncommon to discover that employees who are being disciplined for excessive resistance or even insubordination are hiding the fact that they couldn’t do what they had been asked to do. They chose discipline over shame or, worse, what they believe is the possibility of being fired.

Probably the most common form of masking takes place when people cover up their lack of motivation with a bogus ability problem. This often occurs when a person figures the boss doesn’t really care what happens but then the boss shows up wanting to know why the job wasn’t done. Suddenly an ability block sounds better than saying, “I didn’t make it a priority.” Thus, people come up with whoppers like these:

“I would have been here for the early meeting, but my alarm didn’t go off.”

“I would have mowed the yard before your lawn party but was wondering if maybe I should cut it shorter than usual.”

It’s important to listen carefully to the answers to your diagnostic questions. When John states, “It’s got all those fancy numbers and charts and things — not that I couldn’t do it if I wanted to,” a careful person might continue probing about difficulty, making it safe for John to say that he has trouble with the directions.

In responding to bogus motivation problems, it’s common to give the person the benefit of the doubt the first time: “So what are you going to do to ensure that your alarm goes off next time?”

If excuses keep cropping up, you have to deal with the pattern as in this example:

“This is the third time you’ve run into some kind of problem. We’ve been patient, but the fact is, you have to make those early meetings.”

“The last five times I asked you to do a chore around the house, you agreed, I left on an errand, and then you came up with questions and didn’t do the job.”

Let’s say you’ve diagnosed the cause and the other person can complete the task, but it’s really horrible and tedious. Now what? It’s your job to help remove the barrier. It’s your job to help make it easy. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with this. In fact, some people take pride in their ability to inspire others to complete noxious or tedious tasks. In truth:

There is no great honor in being a leader or parent who is able to encourage people to continually achieve the nearly impossible. It can be gratifying to be an effective motivator, but the best leaders don’t simply inspire people to continue to do the gut-wrenching, mind-boggling, and noxious. They help people find ways to ease the gut-wrenching, simplify the mind-boggling, and nullify the noxious.

This is where accountability experts truly shine. They see themselves as facilitators, enablers, and supporters, not armed guards or cheerleaders. This self-image may go further in separating the best from the rest than does any skill they actually possess. Skilled individuals take pride in helping others make things easy. It’s part of their Golden Rule. It’s what they do.

Less skilled and more controlling folks have a different view of their role. They get people to do whatever it takes at whatever the cost and then brag about their leadership prowess. For them, making other people’s burdens less burdensome is a sign of weakness. The home version of this attitude isn’t any more attractive — for instance, getting your spouse to open up about a sensitive issue by piling on a truckload of guilt and manipulation. Why would anyone ever want to do such a thing? Because it’s a power trip and some people love power more than they love relationships or even results.

Believing that it’s praiseworthy to be able to compel people to complete tasks that are painful paints an intriguing yet counterintuitive picture of leadership. After all, human beings are forever finding ways to avoid pain and seek pleasure, not the other way around.

Distasteful tasks may be good for people at some level, and it’s true that employees are generally getting paid to do them; but if they’re normal human beings, they’re going to try to find a way to get out of dreadful jobs or at least make them easier. Don’t most of us use automatic garage door openers, punch TV remote-control buttons, and open cans with a special gadget of some kind? We don’t need any of these things, but they make life easier.

It’s important to make this distinction between necessity and convenience because we must be comfortable with the idea that it’s okay for people to want to find an easier, more convenient way to do a job.

Desiring to get out of hard and noxious work doesn’t reflect a character flaw; it’s what smart people do.

When your 12-year-old son goes to great pains to invent an automatic back scratcher or cons his friends into pushing him around the mall in a wheelchair, you can view him as either lazy or creative. And when someone who works for you runs into an ability barrier where the job is difficult but not impossible, you can apply your motivation tools to inspire him to keep his nose to the grindstone. Or you can find a way to make the task easier. Or you can do both.

For the remainder of this chapter, we’re going to look at how to make it easy for others. We already know how to motivate. And we’re going to take pride in the fact that we’re making it easy. It’s the smart thing to do.

Jointly Explore Barriers

Knowing what to do with an ability barrier is actually fairly simple: jointly explore the underlying ability blocks and remove them. That’s easy. In contrast, knowing how to remove those barriers requires our attention. That means we need to know if others can’t do something because of personal (they don’t have the skills or knowledge), social (friends, family, or coworkers are withholding information or material), or structural (the world around them is structured poorly) factors. But before we consider the ability side of our Six-Source Model, we’ll have to break years of bad habits.

Avoid Quick Advice

When we hear that someone faces an ability barrier, we habitually jump in with suggestions. We don’t even think about it. We’re experienced, and we understand how things work, and so when we see an ability challenge, we roll up our sleeves and fix things. It’s positively Pavlovian. We see a problem, and bing, the gate is up and our tongues are off and running.

When people come to you and explain that they’re at their wits’ end, it’s nearly guaranteed that you’re going to tell them what to do. After all, they’re asking you to tell them what to do. Nevertheless, jumping in with your answers isn’t always the smart move.

Should You Do It Yourself?

Let’s see how this problem plays itself out. A child brings you a broken toy, and you fix it, or at least you try. After all, the child either doesn’t know what to do or doesn’t have the skills or tools to do it, and so it’s obvious that you need to do the work. It’s the helpful thing to do. Or is it?

Resourceful people realize that when others face an ability block, you can either tell them outright what to do (if you know) or invite them to help come up with a solution: “What do you think it’ll take to fix this?” “Would you like to help me?” Savvy folks choose to work jointly through ability blocks. They fight their natural tendency to jump in with an answer and instead involve the other person. Here’s why.

Involvement Both Enables and Motivates

Enables

If you involve others in solving problems, two important things happen. First, you get to hear their ideas. People may not know exactly what to do, but they probably have a good idea about what doesn’t work. Actually, they may know exactly what to do but need materials or permission to do it. In any case, start ability discussions with a simple question: “You’ve been working on the problem. What do you think needs to be done?” Ask them for their ideas. Invite them to put their theories, thoughts, and feelings on the table. They’ll start to identify the barriers source by source.

When people aren’t completely certain about what to do or if it becomes clear that they don’t understand the situation fully, it’s perfectly legitimate to chime in with what you think might help. Of course, how you toss in ideas makes a big difference. Style counts. The feeling of the conversation should be one of partnering. You’re working together as intellectual equals, both of you throwing in your thoughts.

Motivates

There’s an important secondary benefit to involving others. When people are included in coming up with a potential solution, they’re more likely to be motivated to implement it, and that’s important. Consider the following formula:

Effectiveness = accuracy × commitment

Most problems have multiple solutions. The effectiveness of a solution depends on the accuracy of the chosen tactic. That’s obvious. It’s equally important that the person implementing the tactic believe in it. That’s where commitment comes into play.

A solution that is tactically inferior, but has the full commitment of those who implement it, may be more effective than one that is tactically superior but is resisted by those who have to make it work.

Let’s be clear about what we’re proposing. Many people argue that the reason for involving others is to trick them into thinking the ideas are their own so that they’ll work harder to implement them. We’re not suggesting that you manipulate people into thinking that your ideas are theirs. Involving others is not a cheap trick. We’re simply proposing that other people do have ideas, that getting them out in the open is to everyone’s advantage, and that when people are involved in the entire thought process, they see why things need to be done a certain way and are motivated to do it that way.

By involving others, you empower them. You provide them with both the means and the motive to overcome problems.

Start by Asking for Ideas

Involving people is better than merely telling people. But how should you do that? This is quite simple.

Start by asking other people for their ideas. They’re closest to the problem; start with their best thinking.

When we first trained people to deal with ability problems, it all seemed so simple. You ask others for their ideas, you get to hear their best thoughts, and they’re empowered. What could be easier? Who could possibly mess this up? As it turns out, there are several ways to go wrong. Here are the top three tactics to avoid.

Don’t Bias the Response

As we trained people with these materials over the years, many participants would try to involve the others in resolving an ability problem in the following way:

“So you haven’t been able to get in touch with the lawyers. Here’s an idea: drive over to their office and wait until they return. What do you think?”

People who choose this tactic understand only half of the concept of empowerment. As long as they give the other person a chance to disagree, they feel okay.

Unfortunately, when you’re speaking from a power base, offering up your idea first and then asking for the other person’s approval misses the mark. You’re likely to bias the other person. First, you’re filling his or her head with your idea, and this can cut off new thinking. Second, you may inadvertently be sending the message that your idea is what you really want, and so others are not about to disagree with you.

In the example just mentioned, the person is likely to say, “Perfect, I’ll drive across town.”

Ask other people for their thoughts; wait for them to share their best ideas, and then, if it is still necessary, chime in with your thoughts. For example, when you are speaking to your teenage son about not clearing two feet of snow from your driveway, he explains that the gas-powered snow thrower is jammed.

You ask, “What will it take to fix it?” You have an idea but wait to hear what he has to say. He explains that he ran over the Sunday paper and the machine ate it, and now its throat is jammed. From there he explains what it’ll take to clear it, what he’s doing, and how long it’ll take. You offer an idea about a better tool and a way to use it, and together you come up with a plan for what he’ll do.

Don’t Pretend to Involve Others

This mistake in involving other people in solving an ability barrier is propelled by two forces. First, you already have an idea and would prefer to implement it without involving others. Second, you believe that you now have to involve others because it’s the politically correct thing to do. Here’s what you come up with: you simply pretend to involve others by asking for their ideas, after which you subtly manipulate them to come around to your way of thinking.

As you might suspect, this technique comes off as glaringly manipulative. It looks more like sending a rat through a maze and periodically throwing it a pellet for making the correct turn than like engaging in a legitimate effort to involve another human being in removing an ability barrier. Here is an example:

“What do you think it’ll take to get these things out on time?” you ask.

“How about if we put more people on the job?” (You grimace and shake your head.)

“I guess I could work overtime myself.” (This time you frown deeply.)

“I don’t know. What if I leave out a few steps along the way?”

“What did you have in mind?” you inquire.

“We don’t have to shrink-wrap the materials. That’ll save a couple of hours.”

“No, not that. Maybe the paperwork.”

“I could leave out the billing until …”

“I was thinking of different paperwork,” you hint. “How about the environmental reports?”

“I love your idea. Delay the environmental stuff, and oh yeah, thanks for coming up with the perfect solution.”

People laugh when they watch a video of this script because this kind of thing happens all the time. Some parents practically have a doctorate in this technique:

“What would you like to have for dinner?” Mom asks.

“Mac and cheese!” the kids shout.

“I was thinking of something with more green in it.”

“Really old mac and cheese.”

“Funny. How about something with vegetables?” Mom continues.

“Mac and cheese with green beans.”

“Nope,” Mom says with a frown. “Too starchy.” And the endless search for what Mom really has in mind continues.

The problem with these interactions is not that the person in authority had an opinion. These people do have opinions, and they’re certainly allowed to share them or even give a unilateral command. That’s not the problem. The problem comes when this person attempts to pass off his or her opinions as an involvement opportunity. The sham ends up looking like a game of “read my mind” and is quite insulting.

Involve others in solving ability blocks only if you’re willing to listen to their suggestions.

Don’t Feel the Need to Have All the Answers

This mistake is the product of low confidence and a bad idea. Newly appointed leaders are often unwilling to ask their direct reports for their thoughts because these leaders believe that if they don’t appear to know everything about the job, they’ll look incompetent. In their view, asking for ideas isn’t a smart tactic; it’s a sign of weakness. When they are facing an employee with an ability problem, the newly appointed do their best to share their insights. The last thing they want to do is query an employee who not only reports to them but obviously needs help.

Of all the bad ideas circulating the grapevine, pretending that leaders must know everything is among the most ridiculous and harmful. Leaders earn their keep, not by knowing everything, but by knowing how to bring together the right combination of people (most of whom know a great deal more about certain topics than the leader will ever know) and propel them toward common objectives.

Confident leaders are very comfortable saying, “It beats me. Does anyone know the answer to that?” or “I don’t know, but I can find out.”

A couple’s version of not involving others takes an interesting turn. We’re often unwilling to approach a loved one with a high-stakes problem until we’ve come up with the exact solution we want. The uncertainty of approaching a conversation without a bulletproof plan can be terrifying. What if we can’t fix it all? What if there is no answer? What if our partner comes up with a really stupid answer? Thus, we think up everything in advance, precluding the other person’s genuine involvement.

Completing the conversation in one’s head — before one actually speaks — nullifies the whole purpose of an accountability discussion. The idea should be jointly to create shared solutions that serve your Mutual Purpose. If you feel compelled to prefabricate answers, consider this: you don’t have to make it all better. All you have to do is collaborate. As you develop shared solutions, well-handled accountability discussions become the glue of your relationship; they help you face and conquer common enemies. Don’t exclude your partner by developing a plan before you’ve even opened the conversation.

Parents struggle with the same issue. Should they hold true to the adage “Never let them see you sweat”? Obviously, kids need to know that adults are confident and in charge. They feel secure believing that grown-ups know what to do. So whatever you do, don’t ask them for their ideas. It’ll freak them out. Still, wouldn’t it be better if children learned early on that their parents may be trying their best but don’t always know everything?

Get over it. It’s okay to ask children for their ideas. They will eventually (say, by age seven) know more than you do about all things electronic. Take comfort in the knowledge that you don’t have to be omniscient or even “semiscient.” You’ve been around. You bring home the bacon and cook it. You’ve been potty-trained for years. Don’t worry. You already have enough power and credibility to guilt-trip your kids.

Look at the Six Sources of Influence

Let’s assume that after observing someone who has failed to live up to a promise, you carefully diagnose the situation. It’s clear that the other person is motivated but can’t do what he or she has been asked. You stop, pause long enough to stifle your ingrained impulse to jump in with your best and smartest recommendation, and say, “You’re closest to the problem. What do you think needs to be done?”

Having asked for the other person’s view, it’s time for us to return to our diagnostic tool. We need to think through jointly which of the potential sources is at play. We need to listen to the other person’s recommendations and then do our best to partner with that person in thinking through the root causes.

This can be tricky. When it comes to motivating others, any single source can overcome all the detractors. You may hate doing your job, your friends may make fun of you for doing it, and your family may offer no support whatsoever, but you need the money. You’re motivated. When it comes to motivation, one source is all it takes.

With ability, the opposite is true. Any single barrier can trump all the enabling forces. You know what to do and have the right materials to do it, but your coworker hasn’t done his or her part. You’re missing only one element, but you’re dead in the water. When it comes to ability, since a single factor can stop all the other forces in the universe that have joined together to make it possible to do what’s required, you’d better be good at exploring all possible detractors. Otherwise you could be minutes away from a severe disappointment. You, along with the other person, had better be good at exploring all the existing as well as all the potential ability barriers.

Brainstorm Ability Barriers

Let’s assume that the other person is willing to look at the various forces that are making it hard to do what’s required. But he or she is not completely aware of all the forces at play. The two of you will have to brainstorm the underlying causes. And if you want to do that, you need to be good at dealing with ability barriers that stem from personal, social, and structural factors.

Personal

Brainstorming personal ability issues can be tricky. As we suggested earlier, people often mask their inability. They’d rather point to other barriers than say they can’t do something, particularly if the task is a basic part of the job. Make it safe for the other person to talk about personal challenges. Calmly ask about his or her comfort with doing the job, knowledge levels, and other skill factors. Keep the conversation upbeat.

Social

The enabling or disabling role others play is typically easier to discuss. This is about what other people are or are not doing, and so it can be less threatening. Nevertheless, when the people you’re talking with worry about “ratting” on their colleagues, they may cover up for their friends by blaming other factors. Once again, make it safe to talk about colleagues and coworkers. Don’t use a “find-the-guilty” tone. This isn’t about blame or retribution; it’s about finding and removing ability barriers.

Structural

The role the physical world plays in the problem is generally the easiest to discuss. People willingly point fingers at the things the company is doing to make their life more difficult — if they remember to think about them. Remember, human beings often forget the role of things in preventing them from achieving what they want to do. People also accept the physical world around them as a given, something that can’t be changed: “Things have always been this way.” Kick-start people’s thinking. Ask about everything from systems, to work layout, to policies and procedures.

Three More Hints

As you jointly brainstorm ability barriers, don’t forget to ask yourself the following three questions as the discussion winds down.

• Will this person keep facing the problem? When you are removing ability blocks, you must ensure that the problem won’t keep resurfacing. Coming up with a one-time fix is hardly the preferred solution. For instance, the person doesn’t have the materials needed. Making a phone call to secure the material solves the immediate problem but doesn’t answer the question “Will this problem occur again, and why?”

• Will others have similar problems? This companion question explores the need for extending the solution to others. For example, a person doesn’t know how to do the job. The two of you come up with a development plan. Will others need a similar plan, or is the problem unique to that person?

• Have we identified all the root causes? The ultimate question, of course, is “Have you brought to the surface all the forces, fixing them once and for all?” For instance, the person needs to take a software course. Why didn’t the existing course help? The teacher was ineffective? Why was that? Japanese executives encourage leaders to ask why five times. We suggest that you probe until you’ve dealt with all the elements once and for all.

Advise Where Necessary

Our goal has been to collaborate with the other person in bringing to the surface and resolving ability blocks. We don’t want to rush into solutions too quickly or force our ideas onto others. Besides, as we’ve argued all along, the people closest to a problem are likely to see more barriers than anyone else can. Nevertheless, there are times when people do need help. They can’t see the barriers that have them stymied. In this case, it is our job to teach and advise, to point out stumbling blocks. In short, our job is to make invisible barriers more visible.

Think Physical Features

What kinds of barriers are most likely to remain a mystery to people? As we suggested earlier, most people have a hard time seeing organizational or environmental factors. The “things” around us are often static to the point of becoming invisible. Left to our own devices, we’d be the frog that boils to death in the pot because we miss the fact that the heat around us is increasing. We have a hard time noticing subtle forces such as the design of the environment, the availability of tools and technology, the chain of command, and policies and procedures.

For instance, your increasingly estranged relationship with your teenage son may be affected by the fact that he moved into the basement. Now the two of you bump into each other only in and around the vicinity of the refrigerator. Since you’re on a diet and he no longer frequents the family room, you hardly see each other anymore. Be sure the natural flow of the physical world supports your social goals. Think “things.” Help others see the impact of the physical world.

As far as work goes, it can be helpful to encourage people to identify the various bureaucratic forces that are preventing them from doing what needs to be done. With time and constant exposure, people start to accept rules, policies, and regulations as a given. They start treating them like commandments or laws of nature. Soon these highly constraining walls of bureaucracy become invisible.

Make them visible. Play the role of ignorant outsider. Keep asking, “Why can’t we do that?” If a policy is no longer relevant, find a way to do away with it. If a rule is excessively constraining, secure permission to release the constraint. Every time someone passes a new company rule, you can bet it’s in response to someone making a bad choice. Now everyone is restricted from ever making a choice:

“Listen up, folks. Roberta broke the law yesterday, so we’ll all be going to jail.”

Keep in mind that rules and policies don’t solve everything and that the ones you make in-house you can unmake.

If you really want to help people identify hidden barriers, attack the paperwork. Look at forms and signatures as targets for change. If people can’t complete their jobs on time because it takes seven signatures to get started, revisit why the signatures are required.

One company cut its response time in half by reviewing such a policy. The typical customer-service response couldn’t begin until seven people signed off on a form. This was the liberating idea: Typically, three of the people needed to give approval, but the other four only needed to be informed. Allowing employees to act after three signatures and then routing the form to the other four after the fact rocked their world.

By all means give people easy access to the information they need to make the right choices. Make sure that from the mass of data that’s out there, the right data are in front of the right people at the right time. For example, quit complaining that your daughter isn’t following her diabetes regimen if she’s cut off from the data (her various blood sugar levels and the consequences of each one) that would encourage her to do the right thing. You can harangue. You can beg. Or you can put numbers and charts in front of her.

Here’s another helpful tool. To help surface all sources of influence, ask, “If you ran this place, what would you do to solve this problem?” Asking people to assume the role of the big boss can be extremely liberating. Freed from the shackles of thinking from within their own fields of influence, they begin to look for ways to remove every company-made barrier.

In short, think hidden forces, think lots of forces, and keep at it until you’re satisfied that you’ve wrestled every single barrier to the ground.

As you finish an accountability discussion, there’s a danger that despite your efforts to surface all the causes behind an ability problem, you still have unfinished business. The person still might not be motivated. How could that happen? This typically occurs when you describe a problem and the person immediately identifies an ability barrier. People tend to point to an ability block because it’s less threatening — even when they may also have conflicting priorities.

That brings us to our point. The fact that people start by identifying an ability block doesn’t guarantee that once it’s removed, they’ll actually want to do what they’ve promised to do. Once you’ve finished identifying and removing ability barriers, check both sides of the model. Ask, “If I get the work-up to you by two o’clock, are you willing to do what it takes to finish the job by five, or is there something else I need to know?”

Checking both sides means that you end a discussion of ability by checking for motivation. Of course, it goes both ways. If a person starts with “Do you really want me to do that? It’s such a pain,” and you spend time explaining the natural consequences until he or she agrees to comply, there’s a chance the person may also be facing an ability barrier or two. Once the person has agreed to comply, check the other side. Check for ability problems: “It sounds like you’re willing to do this, but is there anything standing in your way? Is there anything else we need to deal with, or can I count on you having this to me by Tuesday at nine?”

Once you’ve dealt with motivation, check ability. If you start with ability, check motivation. Remember to check both sides.

Make It Safe for Others to Search

Let’s end our discussion of ability problems by considering a difficult case. You want to brainstorm root causes with another person but don’t have the authority to do so.

For instance, your boss promises to give you a hand with customers during peak hours, but he’s routinely unavailable when you need him. Are you really going to have to motivate your boss to live up to his promise? Is that what’s going on? One thing is certain: you want to get to the root cause. Does he dislike helping out because he doesn’t like working with hostile customers? Does he think the work is beneath him? Are other priorities more important? Has he forgotten how to do the job?

You don’t know what’s actually going on here. Your only goal is to talk to your boss, identify the real forces behind his not helping, and learn if he’s going to keep his commitment or if you’re going to have to find a way to live without his help. That means you have to encourage your boss to join with you as you brainstorm reasons he isn’t keeping his commitment. Or if you’re in a real hurry, you could just step in front of a moving train.

Ask for Permission

We’ve talked about this before. If you lack the authority to require another person to discuss root causes, you can do so only by permission. So ask for it. If you do have the authority, ask for it anyway: “Since we agree on the problem, could we take a few minutes to talk about what’s in the way of solving it? I’d like to be as helpful as I can in making it easy to avoid the problem in the future. Would that be okay?”

Ask for Feedback

Perhaps the most gracious way to open the door to a complete discussion of underlying causes is to ask if you are adding to the problem. When you take responsibility for your contribution, you make it safe for other people to do the same thing: “My goal is to solve the problem. I’m particularly interested in learning about anything I might be doing to contribute to the challenges you face.”

Prime the Pump

People often feel unsafe discussing root causes because they fear that any analysis will make them look weak or selfish. If they’re not able, that’s bad. If they’re not motivated, that may look worse. You need to change this view. Your job in leading a root-cause discussion is to let others know that you see them as people of worth who are currently unable to do what’s expected. This isn’t about fixing their character; it’s about a fixing a problem.

One of the best ways to assure others that you’re not going to get angry when you learn the root cause is to “prime the pump,” or take your best guess at possible causes, without looking stressed, miffed, or judgmental. This helps others start the flow of information by making it safe for them to speak honestly. Priming works only if you take your best guess in a way that tells the other person that you’re okay with him or her admitting to what you just described. Word choice, body language, and tone of voice make a huge difference. Consider the following question: “Is that too hard for you?”

Now read the line in a patronizing way. Next, do it in anger. To draw on your real talents, read the line with sarcasm. Finally, try to be respectful. Imagine that this is a person you care about and genuinely want to help. How does that affect your delivery?

When priming is done well, it provides others with real-time visible evidence that you’re not going to demean or criticize them for honestly discussing the real issues. In short, your success depends on whether you see other people as human beings or villains. If you’ve come to see others as people you want to help succeed, most of the time you’ll do just fine.

Make It Easy

We’ve carefully described the gap and are now listening to see if the problem is due to motivation or ability. In this chapter, we examined the ability side of the model. When the other person isn’t able, it’s our job to make it easy.

• When facing ability barriers, make impossible tasks possible and nasty tasks less nasty. In short, when others face ability barriers, make it easy.

• Jointly explore root causes. Take care to avoid jumping in with your own solutions. Empower others by allowing them to take part in diagnosing the real cause and coming up with workable solutions. Ask others for their ideas. Remember the all-important question “What do you think it’ll take?”

• When others can’t identify all the causes, jointly explore the underlying forces — include personal, social, and structural factors. Remember the model. When necessary, stimulate the brainstorming process by including your own view of what some of the barriers may be.

• Once you’re finished with surfacing and resolving ability barriers, check both sides. See if others are willing to do what’s required once you’ve taken steps to enable them. Just because they can do something, doesn’t mean they’re willing.

What’s Next?

Now it’s time to move on to the next problem. What happens if you’re in the middle of an accountability discussion and a whole new infraction emerges? Do you dare deal with it? Do you dare not? How can you stay both focused and flexible?

6 Stay Focused and Flexible What to Do When Others Get Sidetracked, Scream, or Sulk

I am a man of fixed and unbending principles, the first of which is to be flexible at all times.

— SENATOR EVERETT DIRKSEN

Up to this point we’ve created a map showing how to master an accountability discussion. It’s intended to describe key principles and skills, not fixed roads laid down on an unmovable terrain. This means that the principles and skills have to be woven into a workable script on the spot, as the conversation unfolds.

This on-the-spot creativity calls for an enormous amount of flexibility. After we describe the gap, we have to diagnose what’s happening. Are people failing to come through because of a motivation problem, or is it ability? Otherwise, we’re likely to charge in blindly and apply the wrong prefabricated fix: “I can’t believe that you came to our biggest meeting of the year a full 30 minutes late. … Oh, your mom’s funeral, huh?”

That was awkward.

It gets worse. Not only do we have to work unrehearsed and on the fly, but we have to be flexible enough to deal with new problems as they seem to appear out of nowhere. You’re talking about problem X, and problem Y emerges right there on the spot.

For instance, you’re talking to a coworker about doing his fair share of the workload, and he becomes angry. You’re chatting with your daughter about failing to practice the piano, and she lies to you. You’re talking to an employee about missing a deadline, and he becomes insubordinate. You’re talking to your unemployed husband about actively looking for work, and he tries to divert you from the problem by playing the martyr. Your head accountant clams up when you ask her why the end-of-month reports aren’t ready. Then she gets angry. All these situations present you with new, emergent problems.

As new problems emerge, we have to be focused enough not to get sidetracked. We can’t let every breeze blow us in a different direction. By the same token, we have to be flexible enough to step away from the current issue and deal with the new problems on the spot if necessary.

When a brand-new problem with a life of its own comes up in the middle of an accountability discussion, we have to make a decision. Do we step away from the current infraction (putting a bookmark in place so that we can get back to it later) and address the new problem? Or do we stay the course? This takes us back to the issue we addressed in Chapter 1: What is the right conversation? Now we’re introducing the idea that the right conversation can change before your eyes.

The answer to this new if question is simple. If the new, emergent problem is more serious, time sensitive, or emotional than the original one or if it’s important to the other person, you have to deal with it right there, on the spot. You can’t allow the new and more important issue to be at the mercy of the original violation.

For example, you can’t have your daughter lying to you. Lying is worse than missing practice. You can’t allow an employee to become insubordinate. If you don’t say something right away, you undermine your credibility. You can’t allow a person to fume and boil and pretend nothing is happening. It’ll only get worse.

The good news is that if you choose to move to the new and emergent topic, all the skills we’ve looked at so far are applicable. Of course, if you decide to deal with the new problem, you need to do so in a focused way. Don’t be tricked into getting sidetracked and don’t drift aimlessly from topic to topic. Carefully transition when you change your focus. In short, as new and emergent problems surface, do the following:

• Be flexible:

  Note new problems.

  Select the right problem: the original problem, the new one, or both.

  Resolve the new problem and return to the original issue.

• Be focused:

  Deal with problems one at a time.

  Consciously choose to deal with new issues; don’t allow them to be forced upon you.

To see how this works, let’s look at four different categories of new problems: there is a loss of safety, there is a loss of trust, a completely different issue becomes a problem, and explosive emotions take over. Each category requires the same basic skills, but each is different enough that it deserves careful and separate attention.

People Feel Unsafe

This is the most common emergent problem, and we talked about it earlier. You’re discussing a failed promise, and the other person becomes frightened and starts to pull away from the discussion or push too hard. Either response brings a healthy conversation to a screeching halt. Fear, and the resulting silence or violence, is the emergent problem.

If you don’t step out of the existing conversation and establish safety, you’re never going to resolve the issue at hand. So that’s what you do. You step out, create safety, and step back in. In this case you don’t need to acknowledge a change in topic because you aren’t changing topics. You’re simply dealing with the real problem, which is not the topic itself but the fact that the other person feels unsafe discussing it.

To restore safety, you point to your shared purpose. You assure the other person that you care about what he or she cares about. You use Contrasting to clarify the misunderstanding. You apologize when necessary. You make it safe. If you don’t, you’ll never be able to resolve the original issue.

For example, you’re talking to a coworker about not helping you out on a boring job. She agreed to lend a hand, but she took a phone call and then disappeared until you finished the noxious task. You describe the problem, tentatively sharing your path. You wonder if she purposely left and didn’t return until she knew that the dreadful job had been done. She immediately becomes offended, averts her eyes, and says in a hurt tone, “Are you saying I’m not a good friend? That I take advantage of you? Is that what you think of me?”

You respond by sharing your common purpose: “I was just hoping to come up with a way to ensure that we’re both working on the job we hate the most. Neither of us likes to do it.” Then you Contrast: “I didn’t mean to imply that you weren’t a good friend. I think you are. I just wanted to talk about the one job.” Then you apologize: “I’m sorry if it sounded like I was falsely accusing you. I’m just curious about why you left in the middle of a job when you knew I really wanted you to lend a hand.”

People Violate Your Trust

This is probably the most dangerous emergent problem, the number one killer of accountability, and the chief reason most people can’t hold others accountable without breaking out in hives. You ask a person who reports to you why he failed to attend the computer training class he had agreed to sit in on, and he explains that he would have been there but “something came up.”

Not knowing if this is code for a motivation problem or an ability problem, you ask him exactly what prevented him from keeping his promise. You’re thinking that if it wasn’t a meteorite crashing into his cubicle, you’re not going to be all that sympathetic. You know he hates computer training. However, he desperately needs it, and so you inconvenienced everyone else on the work team to schedule it around his needs. Now he’s telling you that something came up:

“Omar in payroll needed someone to run over to headquarters for him, and I was the only one who drove to work today. Everyone else came in on the subway.”

“And running an errand for Omar was more important than the training?” you ask.

“Of course! It was the payroll.”

“Well, yes, the payroll is important.”

The problem with what just happened is that you allowed this to become a conversation about choosing payroll over training. That’s not the big issue, at least not yet. It should be a conversation about trust. The other person made a promise and unilaterally decided to break it. This is a huge violation of trust and an insult to the relationship. To mask this breach of accountability, the other person focuses on the content (payroll versus training) rather than the relationship.

Is this a big deal? Almost nothing in a company, including the payroll, is more important than finding a way to fix the lack of accountability this scene depicts. The person failed to live up to a commitment, and nothing happened. Actually, he was allowed to ignore the real issue: the broken promise.

Something Came Up

Companies that continually allow things to come up without dealing with the breach of promise don’t survive very long. And while they are limping along, they’re horrible places to work. Nothing destroys trust more than casually giving assignments and then hoping against hope that people will deliver. You may like the fact that your boss doesn’t always follow up with you, giving you substantial freedom, but you hate it when others are equally loose and unpredictable. Heaven help the company that lets things come up.

In a similar vein, when family members allow one another to break promises and ignore the consequences, pain and suffering are just around the corner. When it comes to child rearing, arbitrary accountability is a big contributor to delinquency and insecurity. Giving family members the luxury of arbitrarily choosing which promises they’ll keep — turning life into a cafeteria of commitments in which people can keep one of this one but not one of those — drives people insane.

The Intersection of Flexibility and Focus

Let’s be realistic. Things do come up. In today’s tumultuous world, changes occur all the time, and if you can’t make mid-course corrections as new information pours in, your company will die. You have to be strong and flexible. You have to be able to bend but not break.

How can you be at once focused and flexible? It’s actually easy. At the heart of every workable accountability system, there is one simple sentence: “If something comes up, let me know as soon as you can.”

This sentence represents the marriage of flexibility and focus. In these 12 words, two seemingly contradictory elements form a perfect harmony: the yin and yang of accountability. Although the words are sparse, to speak them is to say:

“I want you to live up to your promise. Please don’t unilaterally break it. I want you to focus on getting the job done. At the same time, I realize that the world can change. Things come up. Many of these barriers will negate your existing promise. If something does come up, let me know as soon as possible so there are no surprises and so we can decide together how to handle the situation.”

Consider the following situations:

Sometimes the thing that comes up will affect motivation. For example, your son is on the way to take a makeup algebra test after school and his uncle stops him along the route and asks him to go to the movies. He’s been lonely since his divorce, and your son thinks he should go along. So he wants to change his priority. But not without talking to you. Together you should decide if your son should provide familial support or if he should take the makeup test, or maybe you can find a way to do both.

Sometimes the thing that comes up will affect ability. For instance, the air-conditioning unit breaks down, and the production manager thinks she should let everyone go home early even though she promised to finish a project. This may be the right solution, but she should first check with the major stakeholders (in this case, her boss) to see if this is the best solution for the situation. Maybe, based on the reasons for the deadline and the costs of missing it, it makes better business sense to pay the service experts overtime plus a surcharge to get the equipment fixed right away.

With a policy of “If something comes up, let me know as soon as you can,” we should expect pretty immediate communication. Thanks to modern technology, when we say, “Let’s talk as soon as you can,” we know that can be pretty fast. Between e-mail, voice mail, text messages, and cell phones, we are always no farther away from each other than the speed of light and the click of a button. To put this in perspective, you can track someone down in China about a hundred million times faster than Marco Polo.

The Foundation of Crucial Accountability

Let’s return to our friend who told us that he didn’t attend the computer class because something came up. What should we say to him? Naturally, the way we approach the failed promise will depend on our own private history of accountability. If our company promises are merely rough guidelines, include the possibility of a surprise, or are made with a wink, we’ve reaped what we’ve sown. There’s really not much we can say. In fact, in a huge number of companies (and families are no different), the following is true:

Results = no results + a good story

In institutions where accountability is shaky, people treat you as if you’ve succeeded as long as you have a good excuse or story. In this inventive culture, failure accompanied by a plausible excuse equals success. And we all know what the good story is: “Something came up.” It’s the catchall story. It keeps you from ever being held accountable — that is, if friends, family, bosses, and coworkers actually let you get away with it.

But you know better. You understand that an accountability discussion by definition deals with broken commitments, and if you don’t have to keep commitments, everything falls apart. You also know that things change, and so if there is a need to change, talk as soon as you can.

Therefore, when you first started working with your team, you spoke in great detail about the all-important sentence: “If something comes up, let me know as soon as you can.”

You explained how these few words, when honored, bring predictability into a turbulent world. You spoke eloquently about how this simple phrase emphasizes the importance of both the need for flexibility and the need for predictability. You talked about how it forms the very foundation of trust. And finally, when you first talked with your direct report about attending the computer class, you ended by reaffirming your stance. You said, “By the way, if something comes up, let me know as soon as you can.” And you meant it.

So what do you say to the fellow who thinks that as long as Omar in payroll asked him to do something important, he has been liberated from his original promise? What is the right conversation to have? The problem isn’t that he didn’t attend the class (that is a problem but not the problem); the problem is that he saw what he thought called for a change in the plan and changed it. Not only did he make the choice on his own, but he didn’t have the courtesy to call you. He left you completely out of the decision. That’s a trust problem.

Guess what: if you talk about the training issue and not about the trust problem, you’ll walk away dissatisfied and trusting the person even less, and you won’t even realize that you’ve had the wrong conversation. Of course, if you do talk about mistrust, the consequences of violating one’s word must be severe. You no longer know if the other person will honor his word. Predictability is shaky. You may have to monitor him more closely. You may have to follow up more frequently. You don’t want to do this, and he’s not going to like it. This is the new problem, and these are some of the attendant consequences.

Create a Bedrock of Trust

To establish a climate in which accountability discussions are built on a bedrock of trust, stay focused. Set clear and firm expectations. Stay flexible. End by stating, “If something comes up, let me know as soon as you can.” Finally, when you’re talking with someone who tries to excuse a missed assignment by saying that “something came up,” deal with this emergent problem — this violation of trust — as a new challenge. Never let it slide.

New Problems Sneak onto the Scene

Let’s look at another category of emergent problems. You’re talking about a failed expectation, and the other person, besides saying that something came up, does something that is actually worse than the original infraction.

For instance, you’re the only female member of your team at work. You’re talking to a coworker who somehow always seems to find a way to get out of the tasks nobody likes to do. You’ve agreed to share all jobs equally, there are four of you, and he works on the disagreeable assignments only about 10 percent of the time. This math isn’t working for you.

You decide to talk about your conclusion that he’s purposely skipping out of the unpopular jobs, knowing that you’ll start with the facts and then tentatively tell him what you and others are beginning to conclude. This actually goes fairly well. Then he says, “You know, I’m glad you brought up the issue. Women shouldn’t let guys like me walk all over them. In fact, I like women who are strong.”

You continue along the problem-solving path, trying to see if he’ll agree to take his fair share of the noxious tasks, and he adds, “Forceful women are a bit of a turn-on.”

He’s now leaning close to you and sort of leering. You don’t like leaning and leering, and you really don’t like the words turn on unless they refer to an electrical switch. So you tell him that, including the semifunny electrical switch line. You figure you’ll use humor to break the tension.

He comes back with “Exactly what are your turn-ons?”

Okay, that’s it. Given his insensitive persistence, you decide to step away from the fairness issue and confront the new problem. He is acting inappropriately, and you don’t like it. In fact, it feels like harassment. This is the problem you want to discuss. The behaviors, of course, include using sexual innuendo, leaning, and leering.

To deal with this tricky emergent problem, start by announcing the change in topic. It’s okay to change topics, but always clarify what you’re doing. Place a bookmark where you just were so that it will be easy to return to it later. If you don’t, you lose your place and sometimes forget that you changed topics: “I’d like to talk about what just happened.”

This stops the conversation dead in its tracks. Next, do everything you’ve learned so far. Pick the problem you want to discuss. Take charge of your harsh feelings by telling a story other than “He’s a filthy pig who needs to die a painful death.” What’s likely to be going on is that he thinks he’s flirting and it’s cute. He actually believes that. Bring your emotions under control by telling a more accurate story. Then describe the gap. Move from the content conversation to the relationship one (his disrespectful behavior): “You just made references to your ‘turn-ons,’ you moved so close to me that I felt uncomfortable, and your eyes were moving up and down my body. What’s going on here?”

Shocked that anyone would actually call him on something he’s been getting away with for years, he apologizes and says it won’t happen again.

You then close the discussion by seeking a clear commitment: “So I can count on you to treat me like a professional in the future?”

He quickly nods in agreement.

That was easy. No need for consequences. No need to analyze underlying ability blocks: “Sorry, I was raised by wild animals and am a bit of a social moron.” He agrees to back off, and your life just got better.

Now you face one more issue. Do you return to the original problem? You still haven’t resolved the job equity issue. This is something you have to decide in the moment. Sometimes, having dealt with a much larger problem, you decide to return to the original problem another time. Continuing now could seem like piling it on. Besides, in this case he may want to make a hasty exit to regain his dignity and composure. Naturally, if there is enough safety to continue, go ahead and finish what you started. Retrieve the bookmark and continue where you left off.

These steps can be applied to any new problem that emerges in the middle of an accountability discussion. Pull out of the original infraction, announce the change in topic, discuss the new infraction, bring it to a satisfactory resolution, and then decide whether you need to return to the original issue.

For instance, you’re talking to your seven-year-old daughter about not practicing the piano as she promised she would. She explains that she did practice. You were sitting at the piano folding clothes during the appointed time, and so you tell her that and end with “Since you weren’t here, how did you practice?” Your daughter bursts into tears because she’s been caught in a lie. You now have a new and bigger problem.

“I didn’t practice because I hate practicing at four o’clock every day,” she says. “That’s the best playtime, and I miss being with my friends.”

Now you know why she didn’t practice, but that’s no longer the problem you want to discuss. She lied. This is now a relationship conversation. Of course, she wants to talk about the inconvenient practice time (the content issue). That solves her problem. It also takes the focus off the bigger issue: she lied. Make sure to have the right conversation:

“I’d like to talk about what just happened.”

“What’s that?”

“When I asked you about your piano practice, you said that you did practice, but you didn’t.”

“That’s because everyone plays kickball in the cul-desac, and I love to play kickball.”

“What I’d like to talk about is not your practice time; we’ll get back to that later. [Place a bookmark.] I want to talk about the fact that you lied to me.” [Announce the new topic.]

Then you talk about lying. She says she’ll never ever do it again, but you fear that she doesn’t fully understand the consequence of her lying, and so you choose to explain what happens when you can no longer take her at her word. You treat this as a teaching moment, explain the natural consequences that result from lying, and work through the problem, and she apologizes. Then she wants to get back to the trouble with her piano practice time, which you resolve by moving it to a later hour.

Pull out, announce the change in topic, confront the new problem, work it through to a satisfactory resolution, and then decide whether you want to return to the original infraction. Of course, this can work only if you spot the new problem and then choose to deal with it. This can be difficult when you’re already trying to handle another problem, but that’s how the world of human interaction unfolds. New problems emerge all the time.

Sometimes you can experience three different emergent problems in a couple of minutes, and you have to decide which ones to confront. For instance, you’re talking with your husband, who is out of work and isn’t spending much time seeking employment. You make enough to support the two of you, and he’s starting to look far too comfortable staying at home and surfing the net. You’re from the school of thought that says that if you lose your old job, your new job is finding a job, and so you step up to that accountability conversation.

Your husband responds by saying that it’s not his fault that the economy is so horrible. Then he starts playing on your emotions by explaining how awful he feels and saying that you should be more sympathetic to him because offshore workers have ruined his career.

When your husband was first laid off, he didn’t do much to find a new job, and so you jointly developed a plan in which he agreed to work at getting work. That included eight hours a day of looking, sending out résumés, filling out applications, and so forth. He’s not doing it, and that’s the broken promise you want to talk about. He obviously wants to talk about a whole lot of other things, not his broken promise. You step back to the original problem by returning to the notion that he’s supposed to be working at getting a job: That’s the gap you describe. Now he calls you a nag and asks you to get off his back.

At this point you have several issues you may want to address. To help select the right problem, let’s return to our CPR model. First, there’s the content: Is he going to look for work? That’s the original problem, and it’s a big deal to you. You’re not going to be easily sidetracked. Second, there’s the pattern: This is the third time you’ve had to bring up the issue. Third, there are several relationship issues: He’s playing with your emotions by asking for sympathy instead of talking about the violated promise. He’s trying to sidetrack you, and that feels manipulative. He’s labeling you as a nag and taking the focus off the original problem, and this feels insulting.

To help you choose from the CPR model which combination of these issues to deal with, you can apply the questions we asked in Chapter 1. When the turf is changing with each paragraph, it’s probably easiest to ask yourself, “What is it that I really want?” This will help you decide which issues to address.

Explosive Emotions Take Over

Now let’s take emergent problems to the final level. The other person goes to silence or violence and becomes quite emotional. This person isn’t merely pushing his or her argument too hard; he or she is becoming angry and abusive. Now what? You can’t use the standard methods for creating safety until the other person has calmed down. Let’s look at an example.

Going “Posthole”

You work as a manager for a small family-owned company that imports gardening implements from the Far East. You notice that Carl, a rather large, gruff fellow who works as your accountant, hasn’t finished a month-end report that you asked to have by the end of yesterday. You walk into Carl’s office and start an accountability discussion.

To make sure you don’t set a bad tone, you describe the gap: “Carl, I noticed that the monthly report wasn’t in my box this morning. Did you run into a problem?” Carl explains that he didn’t know that it really mattered; besides, he really hates doing it. You don’t leap to your power. Instead, you share a couple of natural consequences. Carl then states that he’ll get right on it. No big deal.

That’s how you expect the interaction to unfold. You act professionally, and your efforts pay off. However, there are exceptions. For instance, you carefully describe the problem, but Carl hasn’t read this book. Despite the fact that you have been the picture of professionalism, he becomes angry and says: “I’m your best employee, I miss one deadline, and you’re all over me. Leave me alone!”

Then he grabs a sales sample, a half-size posthole digger (one of your gardening products), and throws it at a file cabinet. Now what do you do?

What Is This Thing Called Anger?

To deal with a person who becomes emotional (this includes anger, frustration, fear, sorrow, etc.), we have to get to the source of all feelings. Let’s return to the Path to Action.

Once again, emotions don’t come from outer space. We create them ourselves. A person violates an expectation, we see it, and then we tell ourselves a story. The story then leads to a feeling.

To create a strong feeling, we tell a story that includes a strong value. For instance, a coworker lets you down on purpose. She disrespects you. Your boss double-checked your work because he doesn’t trust you. Jordan got the raise because the policy is unfair. Your neighbor drove too fast because she doesn’t care about your safety. These are sacred values. You become quite upset. Then, of course, your adrenaline kicks in, and it’s off to the world of strong feelings, weak mind.

We become righteously indignant only when others have tread on sacred ground.

If you want to deal with your own emotions, you have to deal with your own stories. You have to find a way to tell them differently, leading to a different feeling and different actions. But how do you deal with other people’s emotions? How do you affect their stories?

Take Carl. You ask him about a simple report, and he goes “posthole.” He’s one of your most level-headed employees. Obviously, there’s more going on here than meets the eye. Despite the fact that you started the conversation with a professional description of the problem, he wiggled out of it. He raised his voice, told you to leave him alone, and tossed an object at a file cabinet. Although you may not know exactly what to do, you figure that his hurling a sharp object can’t be a good sign.

You do know some things. First, Carl isn’t simply responding to your opening question. You’re picking up the conversation in the middle of a lengthy argument Carl has been making to himself. Second, Carl is not in a position to talk about the issue calmly and rationally. He’s feeling the effects of adrenaline. Third, to diffuse the anger you’ll have to get at Carl’s underlying story, and he’s the one who made it up, not you.

Dealing with Anger

First, Ensure Your Safety

Fortunately, Carl gave you the corporate, not the Neanderthal, version of a fight. He held thousands of years of genetic engineering in check by not attacking you. Then again, he did throw something at an innocent file cabinet. You figure that he was putting on a show and not out of control. You don’t believe that you’re in danger.

That is exactly what you should be determining. When other people become angry, there is always the chance that they will become violent. They’ve stepped over one line. Will they step over the next one? Fortunately, most bosses never face anything close to this form of danger at work, at least not from employees. People go to silence more than they go to violence. They complain to their loved ones. They play the martyr and despise you. They carp and seethe, but they don’t explode.

Nevertheless, there are exceptions. That’s why you must determine how dangerous the situation is. No listening skill or anger-reduction technique will overcome a person who is chasing you around the desk with a letter opener.

Don’t be a hero. If you think you’re in danger, leave. Remove yourself from the situation. Take flight; don’t fight. Then call the appropriate authorities. In most companies that’s security or human resources. Let your boss know what happened. Don’t even think about dealing with the danger yourself.

Second, Dissipate the Emotion

If you’re not in danger, go straight to the emotion; don’t deal with the argument per se. If someone came to you strung out on drugs, you wouldn’t dream of talking to that person about a work-related problem without first dealing with the chemical influence. It’s ludicrous to assume that you can have a rational argument with a person who is under the influence of mood-altering stimuli.

Anger creates a similarly inflated and abnormal reaction. Anger-based chemicals are legal, of course, but they prepare the body to spring into action, and that doesn’t mean talking politely. Therefore, don’t deal with the content of the argument until you’ve dealt with the emotion. The other person isn’t very likely to listen to you — or, for that matter, explain his or her own argument clearly and calmly — until the chemical surge has subsided. Any argument you make won’t be heard. Any suggestions you offer are likely to come across as an assault. Stifle your desire to jump into the content of the argument. Instead, dissipate the emotion.

But how? What does it take to douse internal fires that have been fueled by unhealthy stories?

Common but Not Good Practices

Dealing with anger nose to nose, so to speak, is tremendously hard, so hard that it’s almost impossible to find someone who does a good job of it. Here are three things not to do:

1. Don’t get hooked. Left to our natural tendencies, most of us respond to anger in kind. We get hooked. We become the very monsters we’re facing. But then again, why should we expect anything else? Someone who believes that a core value has been violated becomes angry. He or she hurls that anger in our faces, violating one or more of our core values. We become angry in response.

2. Don’t one-up. It’s hard to imagine that anyone would treat anger with smug indifference, but it happens:

An employee barks, “That’s the third time in a row accounting has screwed up my check!”

The boss strikes back with “Big deal. When I held your job, I had to walk six blocks to pick up my pay. There was a time when I didn’t get a red cent for almost two months, and that was over Christmas no less! You’ve got it easy.”

When other people become angry, they want first to talk about and then to resolve their problem, not yours. They certainly don’t want to be told that their problem can’t compete with your lengthy and impressive history of disappointments and disasters.

3. Don’t patronize. Acting holier than thou really doesn’t work, as this example shows:

One of your direct reports charges into your office and complains, “What was Larry trying to do in that meeting? He humiliated me in front of everyone!”

You come back with “Now, now. Quit throwing a childish tantrum. If you expect to talk to me, you’ll need to act like an adult.” Or you might say, “I can see you’re out of control. Here’s some money. Go get a cup of coffee and return when you’re under control.”

Telling people to calm down or grow up throws gas on the flames of violated values. They’re already fuming about being mistreated, and then you heap on more abuse. You patronize them. Your tone tells them that you think you’re superior. And as if this isn’t bad enough, you act as if you’re their confidant, giving them helpful advice.

Third, Explore the Other Person’s Path to Action

To see what we should do in the face of strong emotions, let’s return to our Path to Action.

Try to See More Than the Action

When someone becomes noticeably emotional, we see only the action that comes out at the end of their path. In fact, all we can ever see is anyone’s action or behavior. Everything else — feelings, stories, and observations — gets trapped inside.

Get to the Source

Because we can never see what’s going on inside other people’s heads, it’s important to help bring their thoughts and feelings into the open. This requires some skill on our part. We’ve seen the action; now it’s our job to retrace their Path to Action to whatever it was that ticked them off. We must move from the emotional outburst back to the feeling, the story, and the original observation. Therein lies the source of the emotion as well as the solution to the problem.

Use AMPP to Power Up Your Listening Skills

Next, we have to find a way to understand why others get emotional as well as let them know that we understand. We have four power listening tools to help us. We’ll use the acronym AMPP to help us recall them and as a reminder that they boost the power of our pathfinding skills. For those of you who are familiar with our previous book, Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High, this material should have a familiar ring.

AMPP reminds us that we can simply ask to get the conversation rolling, mirror to encourage, paraphrase for understanding, and prime to make it safe for the other person to open up.

Ask to Get Things Rolling

Sometimes others convey their strong emotions but say little or nothing about what’s going on. You can tell that they’re frustrated or upset or even angry, but they’re not opening up. For instance, your teenage son walks into the house, slams the door, and throws his books on the kitchen table. He looks pretty upset to you, but he doesn’t say a word. You start with a simple probe:

“What’s going on?”

He comes back with the classic “Nothin’!”

You ask him to join in a conversation: “No, really. I’d love to hear what happened.”

“I don’t want to talk about it.”

Maybe he really doesn’t want to talk. Maybe he does but has to be encouraged a little. He wants to know that you care enough to stick with it. The trouble is that both conditions start with the same signal: “I don’t want to talk about it.”

You ask him one more time by saying: “Honest, I’m all ears. I promise I’ll just listen. Sometimes that can help.”

“Well, this morning before science class …”

Mirror to Encourage

When you’re talking to emotionally charged people, you may want to do more than simply ask them to talk. You may want to bring in a bigger gun: mirroring.

Here’s how it works. Say Tom, one of your direct reports, sat glumly in a meeting, said nothing, and looked discouraged. Normally Tom is upbeat and contributes a lot to meetings. As the meeting ends, you find yourself alone with Tom, and so you start with a simple probe: “Are you feeling okay?”

In truth, he’s not. He’s upset and a little embarrassed. Over the last year Tom has put on 30 pounds, and people have taken to calling him “big guy.” You started the meeting by praising the “big guy” for his recent accomplishments. Your praise, wrapped in the negative label, hurt Tom’s feelings. However, when you ask him, he’s reluctant to say anything. After all, you are the boss and it’s sort of embarrassing. So he comes back with “Well, uh, I’m, uh … I’m feeling just fine.”

Only he says it in a tone of voice and with a body posture that communicate exactly the opposite. To encourage Tom to open up, you hold a mirror up to him; that is, you describe the inconsistency between what he just said and how he just said it: “You know, the way you said that makes me wonder if you are okay. You seem kind of, I don’t know, low-energy, maybe a bit glum. Are you sure you’re okay?”

What you’re trying to do, of course, is make it safe for Tom to talk. By holding up a mirror, you’re letting him know that you’re concerned and that his brush-off wasn’t taken at face value. Once again, you’re trying to open up a conversation, not compel Tom to spill his guts.

Paraphrase for Understanding

Sometimes you catch a break. Say an employee is upset, walks in, and dumps out her entire Path to Action in one fell swoop: “Boy, am I miffed. You can be so controlling. It drives me crazy. Yesterday I got another one of your follow-up notes. Do you have to monitor me by the hour? I feel like I’m being baby-sat!”

She has shared her feeling (miffed), her story (you control me too much because you don’t trust me: the violated value), and the fact that her feeling is based on either the note you sent her or your history of sending notes to check on how things are going.

With this much information on the table, it’s best to check to see if you understand what she said. Paraphrase; that is, put in your own words what you think she stated. But don’t parrot. Restating exactly what the other person said can be annoying and often sounds phony. Simply take your best guess at what the person just expressed:

“You’re upset because you think I overmanage you? I’m too controlling and send you too many notes — is that it?”

Paraphrasing serves two functions. First, it shows that you are listening and that you care. This alone often calms the other person down enough to allow a rational conversation. Second, it helps you see what you do and don’t understand.

“No, I don’t care about the notes,” she says. “It bugs me that you give me more notes than anyone else. Do you really think I’m the least competent person here?”

Ah, so it’s an issue of equity or respect (different core values).

“You think I give you more notes than others, that I don’t respect you?”

“Well, yeah. Yesterday you talked to Ken and then let him go without so much as a single follow-up. But with me.…”

Prime to Make It Safe

Sometimes it takes quite a bit to encourage other people to talk openly. They figure that speaking their minds is a bad idea. If they express their feelings openly, they’re likely to get into trouble.

You’ve invited and mirrored, but so far the other person has remained emotionally charged and mute. What next? Our final tool takes us right into the other person’s story. We prime: we add words to the conversation (much like putting water in a pump to get it flowing), hoping the other person will do the same thing. We do this by guessing what the other person may be thinking: “Are you upset because I did something unfair? I gave the promotion to Margie, and maybe you think that you’re more qualified or that I didn’t do a good job of making a choice. Is that it?”

The second half of this skill lies in how you guess the story. You’re trying to make it safe for others to share their thoughts. That means you have to express your best guess in a way that says, “Don’t worry; I’ll be okay with this discussion. I won’t become defensive or angry.” You do this, of course, by stating the story calmly and matter-of-factly.

Fourth, Take Action

Openly talking about the other person’s path puts us in a position to deal calmly with the issues that have surfaced. If we willingly talk about people’s thoughts and feelings without mocking, squelching, or attacking them, they are much more likely to calm down enough to both express their thoughts and listen to ours. Once we’ve uncovered the story and the action that led to it, we’re in a position to deal with the problem itself, and this is what we should do. We’re not listening for the sake of listening. Once again, we’re learning about how to carry on an accountability discussion, in this case how to listen actively not as an intellectual exercise but as a way to get to results.

Create a Safety Valve

Before we bring this chapter to a close, let’s look at one final issue. You approach your boss with a problem that he is causing, and he immediately becomes aggressive. You silently seethe because you were hoping he would help you resolve the problem, not shoot the messenger. Despite your best efforts to stifle the fuming volcano of hate and loathing that is overtaking your “employee of the month” persona (which at the awards banquet just last month won you a free week’s dry cleaning), your boss picks up on your hostile tone and warns you that you’re starting to “step across the line.”

You find his remarks duplicitous because his tone is always snippy and insulting, but in a thinly veiled sarcastic kind of way that he thinks is clever and you think places him in the top five in the pantheon of hypocrites. You’re at a crossroads. To paraphrase Woody Allen, one path leads to despair and utter hopelessness; the other, to total extinction. You can only pray that you have the wisdom to choose correctly.

Actually, you have a third choice. You can step back and buy yourself time. You can and should take a strategic delay: “You know what; I need to think about this in more detail. I’ll get back to you later.”

And with that short comment, you hotfoot it back to your office. This is not a retreat. It’s a strategic delay. This is not silence; you plan on returning. Once you’re ensconced in the safety of your office, you take a deep breath, regain control of your emotions, think about a new and better strategy for talking about the problem, and return another hour or day.

If your emotions are in control but you’re having trouble coming up with the right words, take a strategic delay. Think about what you’d like to say privately, safely, and slowly and then return later.

Finally, if your emotions are in control but you’re about to lose your temper, also take a strategic delay. Your grandmother was wrong when she counseled you on the eve of your wedding never to go to bed angry. When you’re angry, going to bed may be exactly the thing you need to do to dissipate your adrenaline, regain your brainpower, and prepare to return to the conversation.

Stay Focused and Flexible

In this chapter we examined how to stay focused and flexible. If fear is the emergent problem, step out of the original infraction, make it safe, and if appropriate, revisit the original problem — returning to the place you left off. If a new issue or problem emerges, choose what and if. If you decide to deal with the new problem, work through it by following the skills. Then, to ensure that you don’t get sidetracked, revisit the original problem — returning to the place you left off.

• When new problems emerge, remain flexible enough to deal with them — without getting sidetracked. Each time you step up to a new problem, it should be by choice not by accident. Choose; don’t meander.

• When people feel unsafe, step out of the conversation, create safety, and then return.

• When people don’t deliver on a promise because “something came up,” deal with this inadequate excuse. Others need to let you know that plans may be changing as soon as they can.

• When a worse problem emerges, step out of the original problem, leave a bookmark so you’ll know where to return, and then start over with the new problem. Once you’ve dealt with the emergent problem, return to the original issue.

• When others become upset, retrace their Path to Action to the original source. Talking about the facts helps dissipate the emotions and takes you to the place where you can resolve the problem.

What Next?

You’ve dealt with the emergent problem — you’ve returned to and solved the original problem — and now how do you make sure that you end well? Instead of abruptly halting or fading into oblivion, what can you do to ensure that the effort you’ve made to hold others accountable will lead to action? That’s what we’ll explore in the next chapter.