Accountability - Having the Difficult Conversations
Someone once said, “The absence of conflict is not harmony, it’s apathy”.
This is surely true when it comes to teams. One of the early and most comprehensive studies of high performing teams – The Wisdom of Teams, (Katzenbach and Smith) defines a team as -
“A small number of people with complementary skills, committed to a common purpose, performance goals and an approach to reaching those goals, for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.”
It’s a definition that can easily apply to a basketball team. When breaking the definition down -
Ø SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE
Ø COMPLEMENTARY SKILLS
Ø COMMITTED TO A COMMON PURPOSE
Ø WORK TOWARDS SPECIFIC GOALS
Ø AGREE ON A WORKING APPROACH
Ø ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE WORK AND EACH OTHER
Most would agree the most challenging variables for most high school teams are - committing to a common purpose (not all of the players want the same things) and holding each other accountable to the work required to reach your common purpose.
Finding a common purpose and committing to it is a subject covered under Becoming a Team - Common Purpose. Let’s take a look at accountability and the struggle to speak to one another if someone fails to keep their commitment to the team.
ACTIVITY: CREATE SCENARIOS
Ask the team and coaches to find a quiet space and write down typical scenarios that happened or could happen with the team – scenarios that describe an issue that has to be addressed. For example, “Irene is partying most weekend nights and comes to practice tired and unfocused”. Another example could be, “Maryann cares more about her points than winning.” Try to gather as many examples as you can.
Divide the team into triads and ask them to review the scenarios and agree on a priority order – the most important topics first. Bring the team back together and discuss the priorities submitted by the triads and have the team agree on a final list. Request a show of hands and ask the players, “Who is ready to discuss these priority topics?”
Chances are no one will raise their hands. If someone is willing to try ask them how they would begin the discussion. Either way use this time to segue into the following:
Harmony is over-rated. When we fight to maintain harmony we can ignore important issues that, if left unresolved, can tear teams apart. These discussions are not easy. It’s important that they are done in a way that, if at all possible, preserves the relationships that have formed within the team. That doesn’t mean we should shy away from the conversation. It means we should enter the conversation with good intentions.
There is no magic formula and no easy way through. You start with a little bit of courage, supported by your commitment to do the right thing – for the team and the people involved.
Even with courage and commitment it’s helpful to have technique.
WHERE DO I BEGIN?
Start with you – get yourself right first.
What are your intentions? Do you really want to work this out, or have you already written this person off? Leaders invest in their people – even when it is difficult.
Determine if –
Ø This the first time this has happened? Is it likely to happen again?
Ø This a pattern of behavior? It has happened before and been addressed before.
Ø This a pattern of behavior that has been addressed multiple times and is now a relationship issue – you no longer trust that the person is committed to changing her behavior.
Next, we need to look inward. There are some things that we all do that are not helpful. They happen in our heads – and we need to be aware of them.
Ø Check yourself on the Fundamental Attribution Error
Fundamental Attribution Error – explaining someone’s behavior by using personality traits that you perceive to be real instead of considering the impact of other situational factors that may be the real reason for the behavior – “she’s stupid, lazy, selfish, a jerk…...” It’s not always accurate. Try to catch yourself when you are saying “She is________.”
“Every time we have to do sprints she says her knee hurts so she doesn’t have to run. She’s lazy and a liar.”
Ø Check out your assumptions
Sometimes we take a little bit of information and take off with it. In our minds we attach all kinds of meaning to what we’ve heard or observed. Our conclusions are based on assumptions that may or may not be true. We start to climb the Ladder of Inference. The Ladder of Inference can describe the process we use, often unconsciously, to get from information to a decision or action. The information can be flawed or incomplete.
“I saw Cassie’s mom talking with the coach. I’ll bet she’s talking about Cassie’s playing time. If he listens to her someone will be losing playing time. It better not be me or I’ll be really pissed. Coach didn’t seem happy when she was done. I wonder what she told him. I hope Cassie didn’t tell her mom about the party we were at on Friday night. If the coach hears about that we’ll lose more than playing time. Practice is going to suck today. Coach will be in a really bad mood and that means lots of running. I have to find Jane so we can get our story right when coach asks us about the party.
Wait until I see Cassie. This is all her fault.”
To get your head in the right place ask yourself – What’s the Rest of the Story – the things you don’t know. Ask, what else could it be? It’s possible the discussion had nothing to do with you. Maybe Cassie’s mom was talking about snacks for an away game. Maybe he wasn’t unhappy about the discussion but was stressed because he was now running late for class. You don’t know. Hold on your assumptions until you can check them out in your conversation.
Balancing Inquiry and Advocacy (Chris Argyris)
The Ladder of Inference shows us how our beliefs, values, and assumptions influence the data we select and the meanings we add to it.
Advocacy is when we form an opinion or take a position based on known (partial?) information or data – we start climbing the ladder.
We can balance advocacy with Inquiry. When we inquire into how others have drawn conclusions, hold up our own assumptions for others to see - hear, look to understand how our actions affect others and openly seek to hear how and if others see things differently than we do, we can build “the rest of the story”, form a more complete hypothesis – and climb back down the ladder.
Under stress, when individuals disagree, or in other challenging situations people tend to move more to advocacy – defending their position – and away from inquiry. We tune out other opinions and lock in on our own opinions. Be aware of this tendency. Focusing on a balance of inquiry and advocacy can lead to a more accurate assessment of the root causes of a problem, a better hypothesis and better, more relevant strategies for improvement.
Resist Avoidance
I had a mentor, John Pinkard, who said, SEE WHAT YOU SEE. DON’T PRETENT YOU DIDN’T SEE WHAT YOU SAW. You know what you saw or heard and you know what’s right. Don’t pretend you didn’t see it or hear it or that you don’t know the right thing to do.
We can come up with a number of reasons to delay or avoid the difficult conversation – It’s not that important, It won’t happen again, She didn’t mean to do it…….Don’t sit on your feelings or avoid what you know – this never leads to a good outcome. When you avoid addressing the issues feelings remain unresolved. They can buildup. Don’t let your anger get to the level of your fear.
YOUR ANGER HAS REACHED THE LEVEL OF YOUR FEAR
You have been silent, fearful of speaking up. Maybe it’s because you are uncomfortable with conflict, maybe you are afraid of your own reaction (anger?) when your input is rejected. There could be many reasons but in the end you have not spoken. The problems do not go away. Over time your frustration grows to the point that your anger is now more prominent than your fear of speaking up. At some point you blow up and speak to the things you did not speak to earlier – of course you do it poorly and alienate those who you need to hear you. If you are speaking in anger to a teammate the interaction could be considered abusive - and therefore destructive.
People don’t deserve to be abused – physically or emotionally. It’s not good for them. Studies have shown that abusive leadership styles don’t hold up over time. Acting in anger never earns you points. It takes the spotlight off the original problem and puts it on you at a time when you are on your worst behavior.
So, you determined if the issue was a single event, a pattern of behavior or a relationship issue. Your intentions are good – you want this conversation to go well for everybody. You then checked yourself for the Fundamental Attribution Error and avoided climbing the Ladder of Inference. You have decided to have the difficult conversation.
HOW DO YOU HAVE A DIFFICULT CONVERSATION?
Be direct and respectful – don’t play games.
The first, and most important thing you do is Make it Safe. Safe for the person you’re addressing. If your intentions are good, you care about them. Show it.
If someone in authority, like a coach or a team captain approaches you to talk about a serious topic you too will climb the Ladder of Inference. Your mind might start to take you to places that are not good. You may wonder, “Am I in trouble?” “What did I do now?” “They are always down on me.” Often when people feel threatened (feel unsafe) they get defensive. When people get defensive it is difficult to have a productive conversation. A leader will do everything possible to make sure the person feels safe and does not become defensive.
You might start with – “ Maryann, you are a very important part of our team. The skills you bring to each game are a big part of our success. I’m looking forward to having you as a part of our team for the next two years.” This statement affirms Maryann’s value to the team and speaks to her future on the team. Any thoughts about the conversation leading to Maryann’s worse fears have been countered by the opening statement. It lets Maryann know she is safe.
Note: Monitor for safety throughout the conversation. If you see signs that Maryann is not feeling safe (lack of eye contact, anger, not responsive), stop and re-affirm your safety message.
ACTIVITY:
Refer back to the prioritized scenarios submitted by the team. Ask each team member to write a safety statement for each scenario. Review and discuss the scenario safety statements.
Once safety has been established you can move on to the issue at hand. The next step is -
Describe the Gap – the gap is the difference between what Maryann committed to do and what she is actually doing.
When describing the gap start with the facts. Use the Situation Behavior Impact model developed by the Center for Creative Leadership. The model’s techniques help you stay humble and avoid making judgements and personalizing.
Describe the situation (where it happened and when it happened) “In the 4th quarter with about 2 minutes left in the game, we were up by four points and had the ball …..”
Describe the behavior (what the person did – good or bad) “You drove into the lane and took a shot even though you were double teamed. You missed the shot and we lost possession.”
Describe the impact. Use “I” statements to describe how their actions affected you and others. “By missing a shot while double teamed you gave the other team another possession and we were not able to run more time off the clock. Then they scored to make it a two-point game putting a lot more pressure on all of us. When you did that I felt like we were not playing together like a team.
I felt like your points were more important than winning the game.
End with a question – Next to the safety statement this is the second most important action. It is here where you make it clear that this is an open conversation. You acknowledge that you may not know the whole story and you want to hear her thoughts. You ask her to comment. “How do you see it?” or, “Am I missing something?”
Listen with an open mind. There are times when it really is something other than what we thought (remember the Fundamental Attribution Error). As an example, suppose you were discussing a turnover against a trapping press and you tell her she didn’t execute her role in the press break. When asked to comment she reminds you that she was sick when the press break was taught. That puts a whole different spin on the conversation.
As Maryann responds to the lack of teamwork issue above listen carefully to the responses. “I can’t” – indicates an ability issue; “I won’t” – indicates a motivation issue.
As you continue to work through the conversation an ability issue can be resolved with training and practice. A motivation issue is more difficult to work through.
Plan to be Better
Once you hear from Maryann you have the “rest of the story”. Her response may or may not change your view of the issue. If, after describing the gap and hearing Maryann’s response, you feel there are areas for improvement, plan with Maryann to be better.
The plan should address the root causes of the issue – not symptoms. Work with Maryann to get to the root cause(s). A technique called the 5 WHYS can help.
For example, you may ask Maryann, “Why did you force the shot when we agreed to focus on time and score?” Maryann might say, “I thought I had a chance to make a layup”. You ask, “Why was making a layup more important than running time off the clock and keeping possession?” She responds, “I didn’t score much and felt like I wasn’t doing my part”. You say, “Why did you think scoring was the only way to do your part?” Maryann says, “The only ones who get their name in the Democrat (newspaper) are the high scorers.” Again you ask, ‘Why was that so important to you?” Maryann says, “The coach who is recruiting me from State checks the box score after every game. She won’t want me if I don’t score points.”
By drilling down you get closer to the root cause – the real motivation behind the action. This is the issue you want to focus on improving. If early on Maryann said, “I thought I had a clear path to the basket and didn’t recognize the help defender in time. I panicked and threw up a bad shot”, you have a different solution path. The issue you are trying to fix might be more about training than a selfish attitude. Make sure your efforts go towards uncovering the root cause of the issue.
With the root cause identified, plan with Maryann to improve. In the scenario above Maryann showed that she is not aligned with the team’s common purpose (playing and sacrificing for each other and the benefit of the team). Her efforts are focused on getting recruited to play in college. The plan needs to re-focus Maryann on the team’s common purpose – an agreement she made earlier in the season and failed to keep.
Plan strategies together and be clear on Who will do What and When. As a leader, and someone who cares about Maryann, you need to be involved and support Maryann in her efforts.
Schedule a follow up meeting to check in and see how she is doing. Don’t leave this open – schedule the date and time before ending the conversation.
SIDE NOTES:
Avoid fear tactics – Fear only produces short term results - if that. Your aim is to change the person’s behavior. You want them to invest in that change, not just comply with your directive.
Discipline only when necessary. In business many organizations follow a “progressive discipline” model. Basically, this model says the first offense is handled in a discussion, a second offense includes a written warning detailing possible future actions if not resolved. A third offense brings heavier consequence – including suspensions or termination. It is a useful model intended to assure a fair process for employees.
Some people can beat themselves up over their failure to perform to the team’s standards. They feel really bad. When that happens, I am hopeful that the problem will not be repeated and I see no need to pile on. For me discipline is used to get the person’s attention when other methods have failed. Like the difficult conversation, it has to be well intentioned. I do it because I care about the person and have not been able to get through to the person. I tried talking it through (a single event). I tried reviewing the previous conversation and warning about future consequences (a pattern of events). Now I no longer trust that they will respond and I am being clear that action - including termination - will follow if there is no change (a relationship issue - broken trust). When you cannot trust a person, the relationship is toxic and often irreparable. If I care I'll let them know clearly, that they are in trouble and need to take action - for their own good.
There comes a time when you can be working harder at keeping that person in work (or on the team) than they are. When that happens, it is time to move on for the benefit of the team.
ACTIVITY:
Bring out the scenarios you collected and prioritized earlier. Assign people to review the scenarios and role play the situation. One person will play the role of the leader and another will role play the part of the team member who has not followed through on her commitment to the team. Add others to play other roles as necessary.
Have everyone script out the interaction, using their checklist. Have then write down their safety statement, the script for the Situation Behavior Impact, the question they will ask to invite the person to add the rest of the story etc.
Those not role playing observe and assess the role players’ use of the model above. They are to look for evidence of each step in the process and complete the form below.
OBSERVERS: Watch and listen. Using the checklist determine -
Did they identify the action as an event, pattern, or relationship?
Did they address the fundamental attribution error?
Did they consider the Ladder of Inference?
Was there a statement made to make the person feel safe?
Did they describe the gap – the difference between what we committed to do and what we actually did – or are doing?
Did you hear Situation Behavior Impact?
Was the gap statement supported by facts?
Did it sound like a personal attack or an objective description of a behavior?
Did they end with a question – seeking clarification or input?
Did they balance inquiry and advocacy to check out their assumptions?
What was the rest of the story?
Did you see the issue as an ability issue or a motivation issue?
Did the response change the conversation – add new information or was it just excuses?
Was there a plan? Did it cover Who will do what and when? Will there be follow up?
SOURCES:
Dream Teams, Working Together Without Falling Apart, Shane Snow
Wisdom of Teams, Katzenbach and Smith
The 5 Dysfunctions of a Team, Lencioni
Crucial Accountability, Patterson, Grenny, Maxfield. Mc Millan and Swizler
Radical Candor, Scott
The Best Team Wins, the New Science of High Performance, Gostick and Elton
Contact Us
You can reach us at
bpeterman24@gmail.com
Or call us at