As a manager of a large team, I accept that the buck stops with me if things go wrong. But I have been criticised by colleagues for not holding some of my team members accountable when they fail to deliver. How can I make the staff realise they too are responsible for their actions as, if they fail, it has repercussions further down the line? At the same time I don't want to look like the guy that just blames everyone else when things go wrong. IP, Abu Dhabi
The balance between holding people to account and pointing the finger of blame is a challenge for many managers, especially those with large and varied teams. You’re mindful of how much to challenge and how much to support, treating people fairly and consistently, while realising that people and their contributions can be very different.
I have coached many managers who have received direct feedback from peers or their line manager stating that they are too soft with staff when they fail to deliver. Yet when subordinates give feedback they actually feel that same manager is a harsh taskmaster. Your position in the hierarchy and the motives of the feedback giver can often alter their experience and opinion of you.
To consistently drive performance, without looking like “that guy that who just blames others when things go wrong”, it’s extremely important your team is able to make the transition from personal responsibility to group accountability. While you have accountability for ensuring successful delivery, they too are responsible.
But not all employees are capable of understanding this. Some may want you to take a direct approach to managing them, while others need something different. Your challenge is to work out which it is.
If we take a traditional view of management, you should be trying to hold people to account. The title of “manager” itself implies “managing” those who cannot “manage” themselves. This involves having clear roles, measured performance, evaluating outcomes and providing reward and recognition if things go well – and holding people’s feet to the fire if things do not.
Now think about some of the leaders who have inspired you. The chances are that they allowed you to take ownership of your workload, making your own choices and taking a more collaborative approach. This type of leadership only happens in environments where there is challenge, collaboration, coaching and creative freedom: liberating for some, but confusing for others.
Think about this for a second. Which do you want to be? What your colleagues are really saying is your management style fits most of your team – but not everyone. But this doesn’t mean that coming down harder on underperformers will automatically help. There is no sense in using accountability as a control factor with people who simply don’t care or lack the capability or confidence.
This situation is as much about how you distribute praise with high performers as well as how you address poor performance. What colleagues who have raised this topic are using as a reference is their own mental textbook of “what good management looks like”. The thinking behind their criticisms will be much more related to how they have experienced management in the past and how they typically manage their own teams. You may be more comfortable with a strengths-based approach. Keeping high performers in your team happy with more public praise may be the quickest way to adjust others’ estimation of your management style, and could even inspire your more sluggish team members to greater heights.
Management and leadership requires you to hold on and then let go of the reins almost simultaneously, and it’s a tight balancing act. Some people will want to see you driving for results, whereas others will be more concerned with whether you are a fair, considerate and understanding boss. Cleverly positioning ownership and accountability as both a personal and collective choice gives your people the freedom to set their own boundaries, but accountability will almost always rest with you. Find a way to showcase the strengths of all your team members.
Alex Davda is a business psychologist and consultant at Ashridge Executive Education, Hult International Business School, and is based in the Middle East. Email him at business@thenational.ae for advice on any work issues.
business@thenational.ae
Follow The National's Business section on Twitter
