Accountability conversations are the discussions we have when someone breaks a promise, violates a commitment, behaves badly, or fails to meet our expectations. These conversations are important because without them, our relationship with the other person could end up permanently damaged. Unfortunately, people tend to handle these conversations incorrectly—or not have them at all. In Crucial Accountability, communication and management experts Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, David Maxfield, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler explain how we can effectively have these conversations to solve the issues at hand while preserving our relationship with the other person.
Holding others accountable is a crucial skill because if we handle our issues incorrectly or not at all, we may experience negative consequences. If we neglect the issue and remain silent, we could permanently damage our relationship with the other person by developing toxic communication and passive-aggressive behaviors. If we bring up the issue and handle it improperly, we could risk offending the other person, thereby damaging our relationship and reputation with them. In either case, if we fail to bring up the issue or do so incorrectly, we allow the issue to continue and possibly get worse.
(Shortform note: In 12 Rules of Life, psychologist Jordan Peterson corroborates the authors’ argument that you must plan a crucial discussion to effectively execute it. He explains that if we communicate our interpersonal conflicts without planning ahead, we risk inciting emotional reactions from the other person such as resentment, jealousy, frustration, and even hatred. Like the authors of Crucial Accountability, Peterson notes that if we ignore an issue because we fear these emotional reactions, we may end up creating more negative consequences, such as building up negative emotions and allowing the issue to persist. Either way, these outcomes will damage our relationship with the other person.)
Consequently, the authors wrote Crucial Accountability to help bosses, employees, parents, friends, and others effectively handle these conversations. They have written several best-selling books on communication, performance, and leadership skills and have created a leadership training company, Crucial Learning, that offers supplemental courses. Overall, they refer to these fundamentals as “crucial skills.” Crucial Accountability hones in on one of these crucial skills—holding others accountable.
Crucial Accountability is a step-by-step guide that teaches us how to properly prepare for, execute, and follow up on our accountability conversations. As an added bonus, the authors discuss a few exceptional situations that may require a slightly different approach from the steps in their guide, and advise us on how to handle these situations.
The authors explain that to prepare for your discussion, you first need to identify the key issue at the root of the accountability grievance and then determine whether or not you should discuss it. You also need to avoid making assumptions by trying to see the issue from the other person’s perspective.
The first step to an accountability conversation is identifying the key issue and then determining whether or not it’s worth bringing up. The authors explain that accountability grievances usually come in bundles; instead of just one problem, there are often a whole host of issues that make up the grievance. However, there is usually one key issue at the root of the grievance—the underlying problem causing all the other issues. When the key issue is identified and solved, the other issues will likely be resolved as well.
If we don’t pinpoint the underlying problem, we could end up addressing the wrong issue or addressing too many issues at once, neither of which will solve the problem.
Avoid Gunnysacking
Sometimes when trying to identify the key issue, you’ll end up with more than one fundamental issue that’s bothering you. This may be because you’re actually dealing with several key issues that are independent of each other rather than linked to a single accountability grievance—in other words, an older set of issues that you’ve harbored over time.
Harboring small resentments over time is called gunnysacking and can severely damage or even end your relationship. To address this kind of problem, you’ll need to have multiple conversations so each individual key issue can be discussed and addressed.
The second step is deciding whether the issue is worth bringing up. The authors explain that sometimes, the issue we’re upset about doesn’t warrant an accountability conversation. They explain that the purpose of holding an accountability conversation should be to maintain a positive and productive relationship with the other person. If your intent for the conversation doesn’t match this definition, or having the discussion won’t achieve this goal, you should probably cope or get over the issue rather than bringing it up.
For example, if you want to have an accountability conversation because your adult daughter dyed her hair, this probably isn’t a valid issue—your intent for the discussion isn’t to improve your relationship or its productivity—rather, it’s to impose your worldview on her. And, the consequences of the discussion will neither improve your relationship nor resolve the problem—instead, it will probably make both of them worse.
How to Get Over an Unjustified Accountability Issue
In a situation where the accountability conversation isn’t justified, the authors instruct us to cope or get over the issue; however, they don’t specify how to do this. Experts explain that if we don’t address an issue but are still upset about it, it can seriously damage our relationship with the other person.
In Difficult Conversations, Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen explain that when we find ourselves in one of these situations, we can help get over the issue by:
Releasing the negative feelings we have about the situation, the other person, or ourselves.
Telling ourselves a different story to explain what happened. For example, your daughter isn’t irresponsible because she dyed her hair—rather she’s expressive, creative, and proud of her identity.
Accepting who we were when we got upset and who we are now, after the fact. We may not be able to control our initial reaction to a situation; however, after reflecting, we’re in a different mindset and can recognize that our previous impulses weren’t justified.
The authors argue, however, that more often than not, an accountability conversation is justified but people remain silent. The most common reasons people choose silence are:
Either way, the authors contend that none of these are valid reasons to remain silent. If you find yourself justifying silence with one of them, it probably means you need to speak up.
Why Staying Silent Can Destroy Your Relationship
The authors warn that staying silent can be devastating for our relationships. Some experts argue that harboring unresolved issues can cause contempt—feelings of resentment and a lack of respect for the other person—which psychologists recognize as a key factor in the destruction of relationships.
Thus, if we remain silent on an issue that should be addressed—even if we do so in an attempt to preserve a relationship—as the authors’ three reasons above generally indicate—we could unintentionally sabotage our relationship.
The third step is seeing the issue from the other person's point of view to avoid entering the conversation with negative assumptions. It’s human nature to make negative assumptions about why the other person did what they did and to not consider outside factors that might have impacted their decision. The authors explain that this is called the fundamental attribution error, which holds that when we’re the ones who make a mistake, we justify our actions in some way, but when another person messes up, we attribute the mistake to a flaw in their character.
(Shortform note: In A New Earth, Eckhart Tolle explains that the fundamental attribution error is a result of our ego. The ego constantly seeks to inflate our self image by deflating the image of others. When other people make mistakes and we automatically assume it’s because they are flawed, the assumption inflates our ego by making us feel better than them. By understanding why the fundamental attribution error happens, we can better avoid falling into its trap and more effectively see both sides of an issue.)
The authors then move from preparing for the conversation to having the conversation.
To effectively execute our discussion, we need to bring up the issue in a way that makes the other person feel safe, work with them to identify barriers and solutions, handle any new issues that arise during the conversation, and be aware of behaviors to avoid.
The fourth step is addressing the issue in a way that establishes mutual respect and a shared purpose with the other person. In other words, vocalize the issue while letting the other person know through your words, tone, and body language that you respect them and want to improve your relationship—which will benefit both parties.
To do this, explain the issue succinctly: Express your expectations and how the other person failed to meet them. Then, invite them to respond. Throughout the conversation, watch for signs that the other person is feeling unsafe and re-establish safety when necessary (either by clarifying your respect or shared purpose).
(Shortform note: If you fail to establish mutual respect, a shared purpose, or explain the issue succinctly, the other person is likely to feel overwhelmed and stifled. The most common reaction to these negative emotions is to stonewall—to tune the speaker out by ignoring them, acting busy, turning away, or engaging in obsessive behaviors. Stonewalling could permanently damage or end a relationship. You can avoid this consequence by following the authors’ suggestions: Be succinct, be respectful, and establish a mutual purpose.)
Once you’ve vocalized the issue, the fifth step is to address any barriers that might be preventing the other person from completing their task. The authors point to two kinds of barriers you need to consider: motivational barriers and ability-based barriers.
If you think the barrier is motivational, explain the negative consequences of the accountability issue to the other person. If they see why meeting your expectation is important, and what bad things might happen if they don't, they’re more likely to become intrinsically motivated to meet expectations long-term.
(Shortform note: In Drive, Daniel Pink seconds the authors’ argument, explaining that relaying negative consequences to the other person is the most effective strategy because it increases motivation. On the other hand, positive consequences, like rewards, decrease intrinsic motivation, quality of work, and creativity. So to most effectively motivate the other person to want to complete a task, explain to them the negative consequences that will happen if they fail to do so.)
If you think the barrier is ability-based, do your best to make the task possible and easy for the other person. Work with them to identify whether the root cause of the ability barrier is personal, social, or structural. Once we have this information, we can determine the best strategy to remove the barrier.
If the ability barrier is personal, the other person lacks the internal resources to complete the task, such as knowledge, skill, or experience. If the ability barrier is social, the other person is unable to complete the task because of another person—they may be waiting for someone to pass on resources necessary to complete the job. If the ability barrier is structural, the other person is unable to complete the task due to an environmental factor, such as a distracting or uncomfortable work environment.
(Shortform note: You may have difficulty identifying an ability barrier if the other person is resistant to exposing their or others’ shortcomings or simply doesn't know what the barrier is. Luckily, even if the other person refuses to or can’t explicitly state what the barrier is, psychologists explain that we can identify the root cause by focusing on the phrases they use to describe the issue. Phrases such as “I’m trying,” “I don’t understand,” and “I thought” indicate that the root barrier is internal or personal. Phrases like “I’m waiting for,” “I’m stuck at this step,” “I need,” or “I don’t have enough time” can indicate that the root barrier is external—either social or structural.)
The authors encourage you to involve the other person in this process because the other person is closest to the issue and will be best able to identify the barriers and figure out how to solve them. Furthermore, when you actively involve the other person in the process, they’ll be more motivated to follow through.
(Shortform note: Experts agree that the best way to solve conflict is by collaborating with the other person to identify solutions. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model Instrument explains that a collaborator is someone who approaches conflict by being both assertive and cooperative, and by working with others to identify problems and solutions. Many psychologists agree that this is the ideal strategy because it indicates that the initiator has a high concern for both self and others, allowing all parties to get what they want while minimizing negative feelings.)
The sixth step, the authors explain, is to deal with new, urgent issues that may arise during our conversation. When new, urgent issues arise, such as the other person lying or expressing a different problem, they need to be dealt with immediately.
To deal with emerging issues:
Once you've gone through these steps, you can return to the original discussion.
In Thanks for the Feedback, Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen explain that sometimes when an urgent issue arises, you should finish the original discussion and schedule a later time to discuss the new issue rather than addressing it immediately. This is because sometimes, the other person might bring up a new issue as a distraction tactic to avoid accountability. Stone and Heen call this practice switchtracking. They warn that if you pivot the conversation to this new issue, you may end up derailing the conversation and falling into the other person’s trap—to prevent you from holding them accountable. When this happens, Stone and Heen recommend that you:
Verbally acknowledge that there are two separate issues at hand.
Acknowledge that both issues need to be addressed.
Set aside a separate time to talk about the new issue after you’ve finished the original discussion.
Now that we know how to effectively have an accountability conversation and handle emerging issues, the seventh step is to look at some behaviors we should avoid. The authors explain that the following list of behaviors should be avoided at all costs r to maintain a safe environment, preserve our relationship with the other person, and effectively solve the problem:
1. Don’t propose solutions until you’ve listened to what the other person has to say—they’re closer to the issue than you and probably have insights that you don't.
(Shortform note: Experts explain that when we enter a conversation with the belief that we fully understand the problem and how to solve it, it becomes difficult to truly listen to the other person and sends the message that we don’t think they’re capable of solving the issue.)
2. Don’t propose solutions and then ask their opinions—this can bias their response and stifle their good ideas and genuine input.
(Shortform note: This practice is called asking with leading questions: questions that lead or persuade the other person to give a certain response. When you ask a leading question, it's unlikely that you’ll receive the other person’s genuine, unbiased response. Avoid this if you truly want to hear the other person’s opinions and the best possible solutions.)
3. Don’t enter the conversation with a solution in mind and then try and get the other person to guess what you’re thinking—if you ask the other person for their ideas disingenuously when you already have a solution in mind, you come off as disrespectful and manipulative.
(Shortform note: Some experts describe this type of questioning as “GWOMMing,” or making others “Guess What's On My Mind.” This can cause the other person to perceive you as disingenuous or dishonest, and they might hold back their feedback or become resentful.)
4. Don’t cut things short—the more dialogue there is between you and the other person, the more likely you are to understand the issue and develop an effective solution.
(Shortform note: Experts suggest that we can have a successful and rewarding conversation by making sure the conversation is 50/50, using effective and active listening skills, engaging in reciprocal disclosure (when they relate a personal fact, relate one back to them), remaining positive, waiting for the other person to pause before responding, and inviting them to respond when you’re done.)
5. Don’t turn consequences into threats—there’s a big difference between explaining the natural consequences of someone’s behavior and threatening them with the consequences. Remember that your goal is to inform them of things they might not have known, not to scare them into submission.
(Shortform note: Experts explain that threatening the other person is ultimately a play for power that occurs when we fear our requests won’t be met. These threats can cause hurt and resentment within the relationship that can take weeks or months to heal. Psychologists recommend that when we feel tempted to make threats, this is an indication that we need to take a time-out from the conversation to cool down and finish the discussion at a later time.)
6. Don’t make the conversation unnecessarily long—once the other person has complied, there’s no need to continue explaining consequences and dragging out the issue.
(Shortform note: Experts explain that one of the reasons we keep talking when the conversation should end is because we’re hearing rather than listening. When we’re hearing the other person, we’re not fully absorbing what they’re saying because we’re so caught up in our own thoughts that we don’t realize when the other person has understood our point and complied. To stop talking once the other person has complied, turn up your active listening skills.)
With the details of how to initiate and execute the conversation down, the last step is to effectively follow up on our chosen solution.
First, we need to explain to the other person what needs to get done by identifying specifically who does what by when. Don’t leave any of these tactics up for interpretation or you may be disappointed with the results.
(Shortform note: Experts second the authors’ argument here, explaining that the three things necessary for an employee to effectively complete a task are clear goals, detailed parameters, and accurate deadlines. No matter how self-sufficient, responsible, or hard-working someone is, they can’t effectively meet expectations without certain structures and boundaries.)
Next, we need to determine the intensity, frequency, and type of follow-up. How soon and often will you check on results? Who will initiate the check-in? Does it need to be during a private meeting or a routine interaction? The authors explain that there are a few factors to consider when making these decisions: how reliable the person is, how experienced they are in the area, how difficult the task is, and how crucial the task is.
(Shortform note: The authors explain that our follow-up will depend on the person and the circumstances—we want to give them as much responsibility as they can handle so we don’t become micromanagers. However, micromanagers usually don’t realize that they’re micromanaging because of their subconscious lack of trust in other people’s abilities. Experts explain that you might be a micromanager if you do the following: You don’t like delegating difficult tasks because you’ll do it best, you require employees to check in before making decisions, you’re rarely satisfied with deliverables, you find yourself constantly making changes to others’ work, and you’re obsessed with efficiency and knowing who’s working and when.)
Accountability conversations are the crucial and complicated discussions we have when someone breaks a promise, violates a commitment, behaves badly, or otherwise fails to meet our expectations. If we don't manage these conversations effectively, our personal and professional relationships can suffer and even collapse. Crucial Accountability was written to address these problems, offering a step-by-step guide that teaches people how to effectively plan, execute, and follow up on accountability discussions so they can maintain healthy relationships and effective organizations.
Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, David Maxfield, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler are the founders of Crucial Learning, a company dedicated to creating best-selling books and courses focused on improving people’s communication, performance, and leadership skills. For over 30 years, the authors have been working together to help individuals and organizations, and have worked with more than 300 of the Fortune 500 companies. In addition to co-writing Crucial Accountability, the authors also worked together on three other national best-sellers: Crucial Conversations, Change Anything, and Influencer. In 2007, the authors won the Ernst & Young Entrepreneurs of the Year award for their work with Crucial Learning.
Connect with the authors:
Crucial Accountability was published in 2013 by McGraw Hill Education and is the second edition of the original title Crucial Confrontations, first published in 2004. The book is part of Crucial Learning’s two-book series and follows Crucial Conversations, published in 2002. Crucial Conversations, the first book in the series, provides readers with tools and techniques to handle stressful conversations (referred to by the authors as “crucial conversations”). One of the types of crucial conversations addressed in the book is the accountability conversation. Because accountability is so crucial for healthy relationships and effective organizations, the authors chose to go in-depth on this topic in the second book of the series, Crucial Accountability.
While Crucial Accountability followed Crucial Conversations, as well as a few other communication-based self-help books like Emotional Intelligence (1995) and Difficult Conversations (1999), it was revolutionary for its time in that it was one of the first books to put scientific research into an easily accessible, readable, and applicable text. Before 1995, the majority of interpersonal communication research was published in scholarly journals, making it difficult for the average person to access, let alone understand and apply.
The Crucial Learning series was at the forefront of the boom of communication-based self-help books. The book’s predecessors Emotional Intelligence and Difficult Conversations respectively explain that we should learn to control our emotions and detail how to do this in different types of difficult conversations. The Crucial Learning series builds upon these insights by providing new and groundbreaking research—the authors assert that humans tend to handle these situations improperly by default, and the result of this inability can ruin our relationships.
Furthermore, Crucial Conversations adds to the list of hard conversations from Difficult Conversations, goes into more depth on why we mishandle them, and explores what we can do instead. Crucial Accountability goes into the most detail yet, delving into the topic even further by focusing on a specific kind of crucial skill that hasn’t yet been discussed in a self-help book: holding others accountable for their behavioral failures. The authors explain why holding others accountable is vitally important to our relationships and organizations, why people fail to do this, and how we can effectively master the skill. Furthermore, the authors base their claims on years of their own research gathered from observing and interviewing leaders across a wide range of organizations.
While communication-based self-help books were few and far between before Crucial Accountability, the genre took off after the book’s release in 2004.
Crucial Accountability rose to the No. 8 spot on the New York Times Business best-seller list, No. 6 on the Wall Street Journal best-seller list, No. 1 on Amazon’s Business List, No. 1 on 800-CEO-READ, and won “Book of the Year” from Soundview Executive Book Summaries.
The book was one of the first to convey scientific research in terms that were easily understandable and applicable to the general public. Nearly 1 million copies have been sold thus far, and due to the rapid success of the Crucial Learning series, the authors turned both Crucial Conversations and Crucial Accountability into a hands-on learning course offered both virtually and in person with live teachers. The course has been adopted by Fortune 500 companies and individuals alike.
Since the publication of Crucial Accountability, the demand for communication-focused self-help books has boomed. Best-selling books like Creating the Accountable Organization (2006) by Mark Samuel, The Dialectical Behavior Therapy Skills Workbook (2007) by Matthew McKay, Just Listen (2009) by Mark Goulston, Never Split the Difference (2016) by Chris Voss and Tahl Raz, Principles (2017) by Ray Dalio, and many more all built upon the insights of the book.
Crucial Accountability was well received and praised by critical reviewers like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, numerous Fortune 500 companies, and best-selling authors like Steven Covey of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.
Many people appreciated the book’s advice on common mistakes people make, why they make these mistakes, how to avoid them, and what to do instead.
On the other hand, a number of reviewers critiqued the book’s organization and structure. They noted that although the data was great, it was difficult to follow the arguments because they were masked by too much fluff and story-telling. Furthermore, the book tends to jump from idea to idea rather than completing an argument before moving on to the next one. These comments were a consensus among critics and the general public alike.
The chapter-by-chapter organization of Crucial Accountability is straightforward: Each chapter maps out one of the steps needed to have an effective accountability conversation. As a whole, the chapters are categorized into three parts: what to do before an accountability conversation, what to do during the conversation, and what to do after.
The authors make their arguments by supporting them with primary research and examples. At the start of each chapter, the authors clearly state their argument and then use a story to convey their point.
However, their arguments are sometimes buried within chapters, making it difficult to understand what the authors want us to do and when. They tend to meander back and forth from one suggestion to the next while referencing examples, research, and suggestions of what not to do. While this information is all helpful in proving their point and illustrating their suggestions, it distracts from the logical flow of information and makes it difficult at times to pinpoint their advice on what to do.
We’ve followed the book’s general organization in outlining the sequential steps detailing how to have an accountability discussion, as this is the most logical way to convey the information.
In doing so, however, we’ve isolated the authors’ recommendations from the examples and discussions that sometimes make it difficult to understand their advice. We include examples where they help in understanding the concept, and we reorganized slightly throughout to group similar concepts: For example, we pulled out all the authors’ recommendations of what not to do and put them in their own section (Part 7).
Throughout the guide, we include commentary that links the author’s arguments and suggestions to widely accepted theories in interpersonal communication, management, and psychology, such as John Gottman’s “Four Horsemen of a Relational Apocalypse,” the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument’s five styles of conflict management, and other widely accepted concepts like “gunnysacking” and “I” language.
Accountability conversations are the crucial and complicated discussions we have when someone breaks a promise, behaves badly, or otherwise fails to meet our expectations. When these situations arise, we are forced to decide whether or not to address the issue. We make this decision by drawing up a cost-benefit analysis in our head—is the effort of bringing up the affront worth the possible consequences?
Most people choose to remain silent after doing this mental math due to the underlying fear that speaking up will damage their relationship with the people involved—even if it means perpetuating and worsening the issue. However, management and communication experts Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, David Maxfield, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler argue that if we learn to effectively hold accountability conversations, we can achieve our desired outcome and improve our relationship with the other person.
Accordingly, Crucial Accountability is a step-by-step guide that teaches people how to plan, execute, and follow up on accountability discussions to maintain healthy relationships and effective organizations.
(Shortform note: Experts explain that we often choose silence over speaking up because this is what we learned from our parents during childhood—our communication skills, both good and bad, are largely formed by observing others communicate when we’re young. To unlearn poor communication skills, we need to consciously learn to effectively address issues like accountability. This is the purpose of Crucial Accountability.)
The authors deem accountability conversations crucial because they’re high-stakes conversations where opinions differ and emotions run high. Consequently, handling these situations poorly could spell disaster. If we fail to plan out the accountability discussion and don’t approach it properly, we might:
If we follow any of these paths, we’re unlikely to effectively resolve the problem and might create additional problems, such as harming our reputation or damaging our relationship with the other person.
In addition, the authors caution that if we try to avoid these potential consequences by simply ignoring the issue and not confronting the other person, we might end up acting out our feelings unknowingly and creating more problems than we started with.
To prevent these adverse effects, the authors outline the steps required to have an effective accountability conversation. First, they discuss how to identify the key issue to address and how to see the issue from the other person’s perspective. Next, they walk us through how to maintain a safe environment while initiating the discussion, and how to involve the other person in identifying solutions. Finally, they explain how to close the conversation and follow up on the chosen solution. The authors also include a final section to address outlying situations where the typical process may not work, and advise us on how to handle these.
The Importance of Planning Difficult Conversations
Experts in the field of business management, communication, and psychology all argue the same point: You need to plan out a difficult conversation before initiating it to ensure a successful outcome. In 12 Rules for Life, psychologist Jordan Peterson corroborates the authors’ argument that you must plan a crucial discussion to effectively execute it. He explains that if we communicate our interpersonal conflicts without planning ahead, we risk inciting emotional reactions from the other person such as resentment, jealousy, frustration, and even hatred.
Like the authors of Crucial Accountability, Peterson notes that if we ignore an issue because we fear these emotional reactions, we might create more negative consequences, such as building up negative emotions towards the other person or allowing the issue to persist. Either way, these outcomes will damage our relationship with the other person.
The authors argue that the effectiveness of an accountability conversation largely depends on the preparation we do ahead of time. To prepare for your accountability conversation, you must identify and fully understand the key issue that underpins the problem. Then, you must decide whether or not the issue is worth addressing. In Part 1, we'll explore how the authors recommend you approach each of these steps.
Accountability grievances often come in bundles, so that instead of just one problem, there are a whole host of issues that make up the grievance as a whole. However, there is usually one key issue at the root of the grievance—the underlying problem causing all the other issues.
The authors argue that when you identify and target the key issue, you’ll likely resolve the remaining issues as well. However, if you fail to identify the key issue, you risk either pursuing the wrong issue or trying to address too many issues at once, neither of which will result in a positive outcome.
Gunnysacking
Sometimes, when trying to identify your key issue, you’ll find that you end up with more than one fundamental issue that’s bothering you. This may be because you’re actually dealing with several key issues, which are independent of each other, rather than linked to a single accountability grievance—in other words, a set of longstanding issues that have built up over time because you haven’t addressed or resolved them.
Harboring small resentments over time and neglecting to address them is called gunnysacking. Gunnysacking is considered by psychologists and communication specialists to be one of the main relationship killers. If we fail to address the issues within our gunny sack, we will eventually experience a “last-straw” situation which will result in an emotional explosion where all the issues will spill out at once. This can greatly damage the relationship.
So, if addressing the key issue doesn’t resolve the bundle, consider that you might be gunnysacking and may need to hold multiple accountability conversations to completely resolve your bundle.
To effectively examine the problem so that you can boil it down to a concisely stated key issue, the authors recommend asking yourself the following questions:
When determining the key issue to center your discussion around, the frequency of the behavior in question can indicate what you should focus on.
Do the Authors Make Artificial Distinctions Between Types of Issues?
While the authors make a distinction between specifics (“content”) issues, pattern issues, and relationship issues, the three are often interconnected and tend to ultimately boil down to a relationship issue at the core. For example, even if you identify the issue as a pattern problem, your discussion is still going to focus on how the pattern is affecting your relationship. Furthermore, specifics issues are also frequently indicative of a relationship issue—while you might not like the specifics of the behavior, the reason you don’t like it is likely because of what it indicates about your relationship.
Experts explain that when you get upset with another person over little things, like when they always leave the cap off the toothpaste (pattern issue) or put an empty container back in the fridge (specifics issue), the small issue itself might not be what’s making you upset. Instead, you’re probably upset about a problem within the relationship that these smaller issues indicate, like partner negligence or their lack of respect for your wishes.
The authors contend that the key issue is often one of two things: either the consequences of the other person’s behavior or your perception of their intent.
To figure out which it might be, consider that what’s really bothering you is not the person’s actions themselves, but the consequences those actions have on you and others involved.
Alternatively, it may be the other person’s intent that’s bothering you, or at least what you think is their intent.
Sorting out which aspect of the behavior is ultimately bothering you will help you figure out how to steer your accountability conversation.
Differentiating Between Consequences and Intent
Experts explain that determining whether the key issue is about consequences or intent can be a confusing and high-stakes decision. Sometimes you might focus on the other person’s intent, when in reality, the other person intended well but didn’t understand the consequences of their actions. For example, maybe they told a joke that they thought was funny but was actually offensive, without intending to offend. In this scenario, you may have misunderstood their intent because your own insecurities or sensitivities led you to take offense to the situation.
As a result, the other person might be shocked and offended to discover that you assumed the worst of them. So, not only can it be hard to truly identify when the issue is with ill intent, but choosing to bring up this assumption puts the relationship at risk as well. Psychologists recommend asking the following questions to help better differentiate between consequences and intent so we can avoid jeopardizing the relationship with false accusations.
How else can I understand what happened and why?
Might the other person have meant well but been unaware of how this would make me feel?
Do they possibly have a different definition of right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable?
Might I feel hurt due to my own insecurities and sensitivities, and not because the other person was trying to hurt or disregard me?
The authors write that you can further narrow down the key issue by considering your ultimate goal: What do you want to happen and what don’t you want to happen?
Use your dos and don'ts to determine what’s most important to you and if solving one issue might also resolve the others. In the above example, your dos and don’ts point to the fact that you should probably first address the recurrence of the tardiness issue and discuss the consequences that you’ve been facing as a result. If the issue persists after this discussion, then you can address the negative impacts that it’s starting to have on your relationship.
Don’t Let Revenge Be One of Your “Dos”
Experts explain that when considering our dos and don'ts, people often prioritize their desire for revenge over their desire to solve the issue. In fact, it’s human nature to do so—behavior specialists explain that when we’re harmed or threatened by others, our primal instinct is to exact revenge, and this clouds our rational judgment on how to handle the issue.
When we feel the red-hot desire for revenge swell within us, experts explain that we should acknowledge the feeling, and then simply let it go. As the authors explain, the only way to effectively handle an accountability issue is to address it—exacting revenge will give you temporary gratification but will leave the problem unresolved and ultimately damage the relationship.
After identifying the key issue, the authors explain that we must determine whether or not the issue is worth addressing. In some situations, like when there are clearly broken rules, promises, and commitments, it’s easy to recognize that we need to speak up. In other situations, like when someone breaks an unspoken rule, it can be difficult to determine the right course of action.
When we find ourselves in one of these situations, we often choose not to speak up because we want to avoid negative backlash. However, the authors explain that when people choose silence over speaking up, it’s often because they either downplay the costs of silence, exaggerate the risks of speaking up, or consider themselves helpless.
In the following sections, we will explore how to recognize when you’re making invalid excuses to remain silent, and when it’s actually best not to address the issue.
Making Excuses for Silence
In addition to the excuses mentioned above, experts explain that people commonly make the following excuses to avoid conflict. If you find yourself thinking any of the following, you should probably start planning your accountability discussion.
I’m not upset about it anymore, so it probably doesn’t matter: Just because the intense emotions have passed doesn’t mean they won’t crop up again next time the infraction occurs.
I have other, more urgent priorities that need my attention: Conflict doesn’t have to be urgent to poison your relationship or its productivity. Letting the issue fester will just make it worse.
It’s not my problem to solve their issues: If the issues occur within your relationship, or within an environment that you’re in charge of (for example if you’re the manager or parent) then it’s your problem too.
I don’t really care enough about this relationship to go out of my way to fix it: If you truly don’t care about the relationship, then there are bigger decisions that need to be made. You either need to leave the relationship or permanently leave the environment where the relationship exists (such as your workplace). If you’re not willing to do this, then this isn’t a valid excuse.
The authors explain that when we choose to remain silent rather than address an issue, it’s often because we downplay the negative consequences of letting the issue stew. But, silence can lead to a number of bad outcomes, the first of which is that when we stay silent, the original accountability issue will likely persist and possibly get worse.
Furthermore, when we stifle our emotions through silence, we can unintentionally cause more problems. The authors explain that when we stifle our emotions, we think we’re suffering in silence, but how we really feel is leaking out through our body language, tone of voice, and passive-aggressive behaviors. These passive-aggressive behaviors cause new problems because when others pick up on them, they’ll likely become offended or uneasy. Consequently, they’re likely to behave badly toward you in return, which will continue or even exacerbate the original problem.
The Four Horsemen of a Relational Apocalypse
The authors use original research and insights throughout Crucial Accountability to explain how we can make problems worse by not properly addressing them, but it’s likely that their argument was inspired by John Gottman’s interpersonal communication theory, “The Four Horsemen of a Relational Apocalypse.” Gottman’s theory asserts that there are four primary toxic communication behaviors that lead to relationship termination—contempt, criticism, defensiveness, and stonewalling. This theory is the foundation of the majority of modern interpersonal communication research on relationship maintenance, which is the basis of Crucial Accountability.
The authors’ discussion adds to Gottman’s research by addressing each of the four horsemen in different places throughout Crucial Accountability—either encouraging the reader to avoid the behaviors or explaining how we might unintentionally cause the other person to engage in them.
In the section above, the authors explain that choosing silence over speaking up can result in passive-aggressive behaviors that leak out unintentionally, such as snarky comments, a rude tone of voice, or rolling your eyes. These behaviors indicate Gottman’s second horseman, contempt, which is a loss of respect for the other person that results from long-simmering, unspoken issues. Gottman makes the same argument as the authors: These contemptuous forms of communication can seriously damage relationships, but they can be avoided by effectively voicing our concerns instead of trying to stifle them.
The authors explain that people also may choose to remain silent because they exaggerate the risks of speaking up—that is, they imagine severe negative consequences that are unlikely to actually materialize. For example, people tend to think that if they bring up an issue, the other person will get angry, resent them or look down on them for speaking their minds.
When we focus on these possible negative outcomes, we often remain silent in order to avoid confrontation.
How to Avoid Exaggerating the Risks
The authors explain that people tend to choose silence because they imagine the worst-case scenario occurring—experts refer to this as catastrophizing. We do this because our brains categorize uncertainty as danger.
Psychologists recommend avoiding catastrophizing by first focusing on the present moment rather than the past or future, second considering the facts of the situation (like that the other person is rational and supportive), third thinking about the best and worst-case scenarios, and then finally rationalizing that the most likely situation is somewhere in the gray area between the two.
Once you’ve gone through this rationalization process, create a plan that will help you exact the outcome you desire. In the context of Crucial Accountability, that would be determining the key issue, whether or not to address it, cooling your emotions, and then following the steps later on in this guide that will lay out how to best execute the conversation.
The authors explain that a third reason why people choose silence is that they feel helpless, as if bringing up the problem won’t resolve it. This can be especially true when the problem involves difficult people or circumstances. If the people or circumstances seemingly make the problem unsolvable, why bother bringing it up?
People tend to fall into this belief because of failed accountability conversations in the past. If we’ve had past conversations where the other person was resistant or we failed to achieve the desired change, we’re likely to become discouraged, thinking the same outcome will happen every time.
The reality is that we’re not completely helpless when someone refuses to change. In fact, the authors contend that the other person’s inflexibility is likely the result of our ineffective communication. For example, you may have brought up the conversation in a way that made the other person aggressive, or failed to plan the discussion and identify the correct key issue.
Ultimately, the authors argue that we always have the ability to effectively handle accountability issues. With effective communication, we have much more control over the situation and the other person than most people think. Consequently, feeling helpless is never a sufficient reason to put off having an accountability conversation.
(Shortform note: The authors explain that people tend to consider themselves helpless due to past failed accountability conversations—psychologists call this phenomenon learned helplessness. This mindset often arises due to situations from our childhood. For example, if your parents responded aggressively or ignored you every time you expressed a concern or a desire for change, you will likely enter adulthood with the belief that you are incapable of enacting changes or solving problems in your relationships.)
The authors assert that sometimes, what we perceive as serious accountability issues aren’t actually worth bringing up. Sometimes, what you think is a justified accountability discussion might actually be an unnecessary complaint.
To determine whether or not you’re jumping the gun, consider (1) your intent for the conversation and (2) the consequences the conversation will have on your relationship with the other person.
Your intent should be to maintain a positive and productive relationship with the other person. If your intent for the conversation doesn’t match this definition, or you expect that the consequences of having the discussion won’t achieve this goal, you probably shouldn’t bring up the issue.
How to Let Go When the Issue Isn’t Justified
The authors argue that sometimes what we think is an accountability issue isn’t actually justified, and instead, we need to simply expand our comfort zone; however, they don’t offer advice on how exactly to do this. If we’re not justified in bringing the issue up but are still upset by it, we could end up damaging our relationship with the other person by unintentionally acting out our feelings (as we discussed earlier in this section). In Difficult Conversations, Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen explain that when we find ourselves in one of these situations, we can help get over the issue by:
Releasing the negative feelings we have about the situation, the other person, or ourselves.
Telling ourselves a different story to explain what happened. For example, your daughter isn’t irresponsible because she dyed her hair, rather she’s expressive, creative, and proud of her identity.
Accepting who we were when we got upset and who we are now, after the fact. Being upset by the situation may have been a reaction we couldn’t control; however, after reflecting, we’re in a different mindset and can recognize that our previous impulses weren’t justified.
The authors assert that in order to have an effective accountability discussion, we must first consider the other person’s side of the story. Otherwise, we’re likely to charge into the conversation with unfair assumptions that will cause us to handle the situation poorly.
When someone fails to meet our expectations, the authors explain that the following process subconsciously unfolds in our heads:
First, we see and hear what the person did. Second, we tell ourselves a story (make assumptions) about why they did it. Third, we develop a feeling based on the story we imagined. And fourth, we act based on that feeling.
Unfortunately, because the stories we tell ourselves are typically negative stories, we tend to then handle the situation poorly by either acting aggressively or avoiding the issue altogether. Either way, these approaches create more problems and solve nothing.
In this part, we'll learn why we make these assumptions, and what to do instead.
Past Experiences and Present Assumptions
In Difficult Conversations, Stone, Patton, and Heen echo the authors’ idea that we tell ourselves stories and explain that these stories can be impacted by two factors: (1) our past experiences and (2) the rules we learned about how things should or shouldn’t be done. In sum, our past experiences cause us to form our own set of rules regarding what’s right and what’s wrong.
It’s important to note, however, that these rights and wrongs are subjective. The other person has different past experiences than us, therefore their rights and wrongs are probably a little different than ours. Consequently, they make the same assertion as the authors of Crucial Accountability: we can’t make an accurate judgment of someone’s ethics or character by simply observing their behavior.
The authors explain that the reason why we automatically assume the worst about another person's actions is because of the fundamental attribution error. The fundamental attribution error states that when other people make mistakes or act out, we assume that they do so because of their character. Contrastingly, when we make a mistake or act out, we attribute our actions to outside factors.
In other words, when we make a mistake, we are quick to consider all the factors that led us to that decision; however, when others fail to meet our expectations, we immediately assume the worst of them personally.
When we enter a conversation seeing the other person negatively, it’s extremely difficult to keep the discussion professional, under control, and heading toward a satisfactory solution.
(Shortform note: In A New Earth, Ekhart Tolle argues that the fundamental attribution error exists because of our ego. Tolle defines ego as the part of our mind that seeks to inflate our self-image, particularly by deflating the image of others. The ego compels us to view other people’s behavior negatively, which is why we attribute their mistakes to a flaw in character. We do this because seeing the other person as “less than” makes us feel “more than,” and consequently inflates our ego. Tolle asserts that the more we become aware of our ego-driven behaviors, like the fundamental attribution error, the easier it is to avoid them and recognize the egoic behaviors of others.)
To avoid making the fundamental attribution error, we must try to see all the possible reasons why the other person broke our expectations. The authors assert that there are two primary reasons why people fail to meet expectations: They are either unmotivated or unable.
They further explain that both motivation and ability are influenced by three factors:
Thus, to understand all possible reasons why the other person let us down, we must consider the personal, social, and structural factors that could have impacted their motivation and ability.
(Shortform note: In this section, the authors warn us not to enter a conversation with mistaken assumptions. In The Four Agreements, Don Miguel Ruiz similarly cautions against making wrong assumptions and explains how they can lead to a cycle of conflict: Assumptions lead to misunderstandings, which cause us to be offended, at which point we lash back, which creates more negativity and leads the other person to treat us badly again. Thus, when we make negative assumptions, we can both damage our relationship with the other person and leave the original issue unsolved.)
When considering the personal, social, and structural factors that could impact the other person’s motivation, the authors suggest asking the following questions:
When considering personal motivation, ask: Is this person intrinsically motivated to complete the task, keep the promise, or uphold the commitment they made to us? Do they enjoy this action, or is this action taxing for them? However, the authors caution that only considering personal factors is the root cause of fundamental attribution error.
(Shortform note: Psychologists explain that intrinsic motivation is motivation that’s driven by internal rewards, like meeting a personal goal. Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, is driven by the desire for external rewards, like money or gratification, or the fear of consequences.)
When considering social motivation, ask: Could the other person’s motivation be influenced by anyone else? Consider the impact of friends, family, customers, bosses, or coworkers. Were they peer pressured to put a task off or asked by someone to put another task first? Finally, consider your role in the social formula—is it possible that the way you made your request to this person came across as rude, and that’s why they did not follow through?
Peer Pressure Among Adults
While most people think the forces of peer pressure largely disappear once we grow up, psychologists note that this is far from accurate. In fact, our friends and family have a huge impact on the decisions we make. So, how can we free ourselves from the grips of peer pressure?
Reflect on your core values. If your actions or behaviors don’t represent these values, change them.
Be assertive with peers by using “I” phrases such as “I want,” or “I think.”
Develop relationships with a wide demographic of people.
Seek advice from people who affirm your values.
When considering structural factors, ask: How might external elements like money, data, work space, equipment, or even temperature be impacting the person's motivation? Are they being underpaid for the job being asked? Is it difficult for them to acquire the time or resources necessary to complete the task? Is there a more financially motivating task that they’re choosing to complete first?
(Shortform note: Experts second the authors’ argument that external factors of the work environment like lighting, temperature, air quality, and noise can impact motivation. They note specifically that open open-plan offices, temperatures above 25℃, and frequent noises like phones, keyboards, and copiers, can dramatically decrease motivation and productivity in employees.)
The second part in completing the story is considering whether or not the other person was able to keep their promise or uphold their commitment.
When considering personal ability, ask: Did the other person have the mental and physical ability to complete what was necessary? To complete the story, we need to consider that maybe this person tried to live up to their commitment but ran into a barrier.
(Shortform note: A common personal ability barrier that often gets overlooked in the workplace is anxiety. Experts note that many people who suffer from anxiety have “high functioning anxiety” which means that their anxiety usually helps them accomplish tasks, but can become detrimental in certain scenarios. For example, someone with high functioning anxiety might get sick but be too afraid to call in, and instead, their work performance will be impacted and no one will understand why. Signs you can look for that may indicate that someone has high functioning anxiety are being a people pleaser, nervous chatter, nervous habits like biting their lip or fingernails, overthinking, getting “lost” in a project and losing track of time, and procrastination after long period of high productivity.)
When considering social ability, ask: Who else might be involved in successfully upholding the commitment or completing the task? Is it possible that they’re waiting on someone else to deliver tools, information, or permission before they can complete their commitment to you?
(Shortform note: In an article written for Psychology Today, co-author of Crucial Accountability, Kerry Patterson, explains that social ability barriers are an extremely common occurrence in the workplace, with 93% of employees reporting that they work with people who don’t pull their weight. Surprisingly, only 10% of these employees report having actually held the slacker accountable. So when considering social ability barriers, keep in mind how prevalent this issue is and how few employees actually manage the issue themselves.)
When considering structural factors, ask: Are the materials easily accessible? Is the environment conducive to completing what’s required? Structural factors can make or break a commitment, sometimes leaving the outcome out of the other person’s hands.
Valid and Invalid Structural Barriers
The authors don’t explore where to draw the line between valid structural barriers and barriers that the other person could’ve worked around, but didn’t. What if they didn’t want to complete a task and named a barrier as an excuse? Such a scenario would entirely change the key issue, making it either a motivational barrier or a matter of intent, and would consequently change how you approach the discussion and solution.
For example, if a person comes up against a barrier that prevents them from doing their job and they don’t inform their supervisor of the problem in a timely manner, the real barrier might be motivational. In that case, we’d have more long-term success addressing their lack of motivation or reluctance to take initiative rather than the ability barrier that prevented them from completing that specific task.
When someone breaks a promise or otherwise fails to meet our expectations, we’re quick to become angry and blame the other person’s character for their bad behavior. In reality, the other person might not have broken the promise because they don’t care about you, but because something was preventing them.
Consider an accountability issue you’re currently dealing with. Think about how upset it makes you. Using these negative emotions as fuel, what are your immediate assumptions about why this person failed to meet your expectations?
Now, imagine that the other person is the most honest, trustworthy, and upstanding person you know. Why might this amazing person have failed to meet your expectations? What personal, social, or structural factors might have impacted their motivation or ability to meet your expectations?
Based on your last response, do you think your initial emotional assumption about the person’s behavior was fair or unfair? Does this change how you feel about the other person and the accountability issue? If so, how?
The authors assert that the first step in initiating an accountability conversation is creating a safe space. To do this, you’ll need to establish both mutual respect, so the other person doesn't feel you’re belittling them, and a feeling of a shared purpose, so they understand that you’re working toward a common goal rather than trying to point out their faults.
The authors explain that to begin your conversation with mutual respect and a shared purpose, you must explain the issue succinctly and respectfully. If we fail to do this, we could risk overwhelming the other person with information, compromising their feeling of safety.
To accomplish this:
When you approach the conversation by laying out the facts, expressing your feelings, and asking for their perspective, you lay out the issue succinctly while letting the other person know that you’re not accusing them, rather informing them of the problem you’re facing and asking to work together to solve it, benefiting both of you in the long run.
(Shortform note: In Difficult Conversations, Stone, Patton, and Heen recommend a similar approach to bring up the issue while maintaining a safe environment. While they essentially recommend taking the same steps, they combine the first two steps from Crucial Accountability into one, recommending that you lay out the facts and explain how the situation impacted you in the same statement. They add that you can most effectively do this by taking a third-party stance—in other words, focus on the facts and consequences and avoid emotional explanations. Their next step lines up with the third step presented by the authors: Invite the other person to respond.)
The Second of the Four Horsemen: Stonewalling
If we fail to heed the authors’ advice in this section, we might cause the other person to fall prey to another of the “four horsemen” of Gottman’s theory: stonewalling. Gottman explains that stonewalling is when the listener becomes overwhelmed and tunes the speaker out by ignoring, acting busy, turning away, or engaging in obsessive behaviors, ultimately building a wall between themselves and the other person. He adds that stonewalling is a common reaction when a person feels overwhelmed—as they might if we don’t explain our problem clearly and succinctly as outlined above.
Stonewalling is a dangerous behavior for relationships because it ultimately closes off communication between two people and indicates that the listener has checked out of the conversation—and possibly the relationship. When one person checks out of the relationship by stonewalling, the other is likely to check out soon after, and relationships can’t exist without open communication.
The authors explain that sometimes we may unintentionally say or do something that makes the other person sense a lack of mutual respect or shared purpose. When this occurs, we must be able to identify the issue and re-establish safety immediately.
To ensure that safety is maintained throughout the conversation, the authors explain that we must continually monitor the other person’s perception of mutual respect and shared purpose by looking for indications that they’re feeling anxious or defensive.
In the below sections, we’ll discuss how to re-establish mutual respect and shared purpose when we sense they’re in jeopardy.
(Shortform note: While the authors suggest monitoring safety by looking for indications that the other person is feeling anxious or defensive, they don’t specifically state what these indicators are. Psychologists explain that we can pick up on aggression or defensiveness by looking for behaviors like placing hands on hips, clenching fists, rolling eyes, repeating motions like tapping fingers or feet, or closing posture with crossed legs or arms. Behaviors that can indicate anxiety or discomfort are avoiding eye contact, rapid blinking, biting or pursing lips, and closed posture.)
The authors write that if you think the other person is feeling unsafe due to a perceived lack of respect, you can use a technique called contrasting. Contrasting is when we reassure the other person that their negative perception of our intent is inaccurate by contrasting it with what our (more positive) intent actually is.
To use contrasting, first try to understand why the other person might feel disrespected. Next, explain to them that this is not what you mean. Last, tie in the contrasting point by explaining what you do mean.
For example, if your business partner is habitually making decisions without you, they might assume that you’re bringing up the issue because you think they make bad decisions. You can use contrasting to put them at ease by saying: “I don’t want you to think I’m unhappy with the decisions you’ve made. They’re good decisions and I support them. But, I’d like to be more involved in the process to ensure we both agree on decisions before they’re executed.”
Using “I” Language
Experts explain that another way to establish mutual respect is by using “I” language. “I” language is when we focus the issue on our own emotions, feelings, and problems by using the pronoun “I.” Using “you” language, on the other hand, puts the focus of the discussion on the other person’s shortcomings and frames them as personally responsible for the issue. This can make them feel disrespected, embarrassed, or belittled.
An example of “you” language would be “you were supposed to hand in that project on Monday, and now you’re holding up the presentation.” This sounds like you’re blaming the other person and intentionally making them feel bad. Instead, we could phrase the same issue using “I” language: “I’m getting stressed that I don’t have that project yet. I’m going to have to reschedule the presentation if I don’t get it soon.” In the second example, you avoid blaming and accusing the other person while also owning your feelings and addressing your concerns. It’s an effective way to bring up the accountability issue while ensuring the other person feels respected rather than blamed.
The authors don’t specifically mention using “I” language, but their examples and discussions consistently use this technique. For example, contrasting models using “I” language by redirecting the conversation away from blaming or accusing the other person (which is what they think you’re doing) and back to focusing on your intent and perspective.
The authors explain that if the other person begins to feel like the purpose of the conversation is only serving you and that you’re not considering their best interests, they are likely to feel unsafe. They might think that you brought up the issue with ulterior motives: to embarrass them, force them into something they don’t want, take away their authority, or cause them distress.
To reestablish mutual purpose, clarify your intent: solving a problem that impacts both of you while maintaining a positive relationship.
(Shortform note: Establishing a mutual purpose or goal shouldn’t only become important when you’re having an accountability conversation. Establishing a mutual purpose in workplaces and personal relationships fosters productivity and can actually prevent accountability issues from occurring in the first place. In The Oz Principle, Craig Hickman, Roger Conners, and Tom Smith explain that when people within a company aren’t on the same page about shared goals, it can lead to a lack of focus and unity, likely resulting in accountability issues or at least a decrease in productivity. So, to avoid accountability issues in the first place, make sure everyone in your unit, whether it be your family or workplace, is working towards a clearly defined and acknowledged purpose or goal.)
The Third Horseman of the Apocalypse: Criticism
In this part, the authors emphasize the importance of starting your conversation by establishing mutual respect and a shared purpose, and by maintaining these throughout. This is because without a shared purpose of improving the relationship, we could easily let our heated emotions get the best of us and end up venting our complaints about the other person during the conversation. If this happens, we’re ultimately falling prey to Gottman’s third horseman of a relational apocalypse: criticism.
Criticism happens when, rather than entering the conversation with the goal of working together to better the relationship, our goal is self-serving—to make the other person feel bad for their actions and having wronged us. When we criticize the other person, there is no mutual purpose or respect involved.
As one of the Four Horsemen, criticism has the potential to end a relationship. To avoid criticizing the other person (and possibly causing relationship termination) be sure to enter the conversation with, and maintain, mutual respect and shared purpose—this will help you avoid falling into the realm of criticism.
Sometimes when we’re in the heat of a conversation, we miss signs that the other person might be feeling unsafe. In order to have an effective conversation, we need to be able to identify these signs and restore safety as quickly as possible.
Think about an accountability conversation you’ve had in the past that ended badly because the conversation lacked safety—the other person felt attacked or uncomfortable. What behaviors was the other person exhibiting that hinted that they felt unsafe?
Why do you think the other person felt unsafe? Was it due to a lack of mutual respect or a lack of mutual purpose? What indicators make you believe so?
Now that you’ve identified why the other person felt unsafe, what strategy could you have used to reestablish safety? What would you have said?
Before initiating the conversation, the authors explain that you must identify whether the other person failed to meet expectations due to a lack of motivation or a lack of ability. In this section, we’ll explore their advice on how to deal with motivational struggles.
The authors write that if someone fails to meet our expectations, we must explain to them the consequences because people make decisions based on the consequences they anticipate.
If the other person doesn’t anticipate negative outcomes for neglecting to meet expectations (for example, believing that nothing “bad” will happen and they can get away with it), then they’ll likely continue to not meet expectations. On the other hand, if they foresee negative consequences happening (for example, getting in trouble, letting people down, or depreciating their reputation) they’ll most likely choose to meet expectations to avoid these outcomes.
The authors note that people are more motivated to avoid negative outcomes than they are to pursue positive outcomes. They theorize that this happens because rewards create extrinsic motivation—the desire to do something in order to achieve an external reward—which can reduce a person’s intrinsic motivation—their desire to do something well because they believe it’s important or want to do it.
Consequently, the best way to motivate a person is to present the full range of consequences—in other words, why the task is important and why they should complete it.
Why Emphasizing Consequences Works More Than Emphasizing Rewards
In Drive, Daniel Pink seconds the authors’ argument that using rewards as motivation can decrease intrinsic motivation and in turn, high performance and creativity. However, Pink adds that in certain situations, rewards can be beneficial.
If you think using rewards would be helpful in your situation, Pink advises you only use extrinsic rewards for routine tasks. When we use rewards for routine tasks, it can motivate people without the negative consequences discussed above because routine tasks don’t usually require creativity or high-quality performance.
Additionally, if you offer a reward, you might actually provide intrinsic motivation to complete routine tasks because it will give the other person something to look forward to, or in other words, another reason to complete the task aside from it being mandatory.
The authors lay out the most motivating ways to discuss consequences below:
Connect the consequences to the other person’s values. To motivate the other person to want to do what you're proposing, help them see how their own values will be supported in the process.
Connect the short-term reward to the long-term costs. Show the other person how the immediate enjoyment they are experiencing will inevitably lead to problems in the long term.
Focus on the long-term benefits. Remind the other person that while the commitment may be annoying right now, the long-term benefit will be worth it.
Introduce the other people involved. When people make accountability errors, they often forget to consider how their decisions impact other people involved. Remind them of the stakeholders involved and the consequences these people face as a result of their actions.
Bring up the social implications. Explain to the other person how their actions are being viewed by others. For example, if someone is constantly showing up late to meetings, you can let them know that this behavior is causing other team members to think that they don’t care about the project. They probably don’t want others to think they’re apathetic, so they’re likely to try and be on time.
Connect to rewards. Using rewards typically is not the best place to start when trying to create motivation; however, it may eventually pay off to remind the other person about the benefits of keeping their promise or upholding their commitment.
How to Determine Which Consequences to Focus on
In The Four Tendencies, Gretchen Rubin explains that people tend to fall into four categories based on how they respond to expectations. She writes that the category which the person falls into will determine what we should focus on when relaying the consequences.
The two most common categories that people fall into are Obligers (41%) and Questioners (24%). Obligers are motivated by external factors but not internal, whereas Questioners are the opposite—they’re only motivated by internal factors and their own judgment of whether or not something is really necessary. So, while all the above options that the authors recommend are motivating consequences, some will be more effective than others depending on the person.
If the person you’re having the issue with is someone who almost always meets external expectations, they’re probably an Obliger. In this case, you should probably focus on discussing the other people involved and the social implications of the failed expectation.
If the person you’re having the issue with is someone who tends to question authority and has strong personal values, they’re probably a Questioner. In this case, you should focus on connecting the consequences to their values, explaining the long-term costs and benefits, and connecting to rewards if necessary.
The authors write that if you’ve explained the consequences of the other person’s behavior but they still resist change or insist that meeting expectations isn’t necessary, it may be time to introduce discipline. To effectively discipline the other person, you must:
1) Know the procedure. Depending on the situation, it’s possible that there are certain procedures or rules that must be followed when disciplining someone else. Always check the rules and with the other people in authority before disciplining the other person, otherwise, your credibility could be undermined.
2) Act appropriately. Keep a somber tone—disciplining the other person is not something you should take pleasure or excitement in. Make sure the other person knows that you regret having to discipline them, but that it must be done.
3) Explain the next step. While you’re explaining the discipline they will face, be sure to include what will happen next if the person behaves this way again.
4) Be fair. Make sure that you are giving the same discipline and number of warnings to everyone in the group. If one person received two warnings and then a consequence, everyone should receive two warnings and then a consequence.
5) Hold your ground. Once you’ve delivered a consequence, don’t back down under pressure. If you retract your punishment, you will be known to make hollow promises and people won’t take you as seriously.
6) Share your coping strategy if you lack authority to discipline. If the other person is resisting but you lack the authority to discipline them, develop a coping strategy to the other person’s ill behavior and candidly share it. By candidly sharing your coping strategy to their misbehavior, you force the other person to observe the consequence of their actions.
Disciplining Your Child
In this part, the authors assert that while discipline is an option, it should be the last resort. For parents though, discipline is a much more common technique when kids misbehave or break known rules. In No-Drama Discipline, Daniel Siegel and Tina Bryson explain that the best way to effectively discipline children while maintaining a strong bond involves 3 steps:
Put yourself in the right frame of mind: As adults, our brains are more developed than children’s; children have a difficult time seeing things from others’ perspectives, and therefore we need to set our expectations for them accordingly while still holding them accountable for their behavior. This step aligns with the Crucial Accountability authors’ suggestions to know the procedure, act appropriately, be fair, and hold your ground. By following the authors’ recommendations, you allow yourself time to consider the factors that contributed to the child's behavior so you can be fair and act appropriately, as well as time to determine an effective consequence with your partner if you’re co-parenting.
Establish and reaffirm connection and understanding with your child: When you reaffirm your bond with your child, you make them feel safe and allow them to better process their emotions and think rationally. In doing this, you also let them know that you still love them and regret having to discipline them, but that it’s necessary to prevent the situation in the future. This step corresponds to the Crucial Accountability authors’ suggestion to act appropriately. Disciplining your child can be hard, but by acting appropriately as a parent—remaining firm yet loving—you can let your child know that you don’t enjoy disciplining them but that it’s necessary.
Redirect your child from negative behavior to more appropriate behavior: Point out why their original behavior was wrong and why the appropriate behavior is better. This step encompasses the authors’ suggestions to share your coping strategy (although you have the authority in this situation, you should still explain to the child why you’re disciplining them) and explain the next step (letting the child know what the right behavior is and that if they break the rules again they will be disciplined again).
By constructively disciplining your child in this way, they will effectively absorb the lesson while strengthening their bond with you and their communication skills.
If we’ve determined that the accountability issue is due to an ability barrier, the authors assert that we can help the other person overcome that obstacle by making our request both possible (by removing ability barriers) and easy (by removing extraneous or arduous steps).
We can accomplish this and enable the other person to meet expectations by:
We’ll explore each of these in the sections below.
The authors explain that there are three primary benefits of involving the other person in the process of identifying ability barriers:
To effectively involve the other person in the process of identifying barriers and creating solutions, genuinely ask them to share their ideas: “Since you’ve been spending time thinking and working on this problem, I value your opinion greatly. What do you think needs to be done to solve it?”
The Five Styles of Conflict Management
The author’s recommendation to collaborate embodies the most effective style of conflict management of the five styles outlined in the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model Instrument (TKI), a tool used by communication experts and human resource specialists worldwide to identify a person’s style of handling conflict.
A collaborator approaches conflict by being both assertive and cooperative, and by working with others to identify problems and solutions. Many psychologists agree that this is the ideal strategy because it indicates that the initiator has a high concern for both self and others, allowing all parties to get what they want while minimizing negative feelings.
The remaining conflict styles, in order from most to least effective according to the TKI are: compromising (indicating a medium concern for both self and others), accommodating (indicating a low concern for self and high concern for others), competing (indicating a high concern for self and low concern for others), and avoiding (indicating a low concern for self and low concern for other). When we choose silence over voicing our concerns, as the authors note often happens, we’re enacting the worst approach to conflict—avoiding.
However, inviting the other person to participate can be tricky when you either don’t have the authority to do so, or when you think it may make the other person feel unsafe.
The authors note that while asking the other person to brainstorm with you is pretty straightforward, it can be tricky when you don’t have the authority to require the other person to get involved.
If this is the case, ask permission: “Since we both agree that there’s an issue here, do you think it would be possible to talk about what might be causing the problem and how we can solve it? I’d like to come up with a solution, and I think you would have good ideas and valuable input.”
Gaining Authority
In The Practice of Adaptive Leadership, Ronald Heifetz argues that there are two types of authority, formal and informal. While your formal authority (aka your title or position) might not be enough to make you feel comfortable asking your superior to have a chat, your informal authority might give you a confidence boost and make your superior more likely to heartily agree to your suggestions. You can increase your informal authority in a few ways:
Use your formal authority (whatever it may be) to gain access to people with more authority. These people might be able to “lend” you authority.
Improve your relationship with others in your environment. This might give you more credibility and support from others.
Gain credibility by creating small successes over time. People will then be more willing to listen to your good ideas.
Help other people achieve their goals, even if they’re unrelated to you. Others will be more likely to support your endeavors in the future and you will gain social clout.
The authors advise that if you think the other person may feel uncomfortable getting involved, you can broach the topic by:
1) Introducing the discussion by asking if there’s anything you’re doing to cause the problem: “My ultimate goal is to solve the issue at hand. I’m especially interested in knowing if there’s anything I’m doing that contributes to the barrier you’re facing.”
2) Making it clear that you’re not trying to fix something that’s wrong with the other person, but instead trying to fix the issue. To do this, try starting with your best guess at the root issue: “I think we both agree that there’s some underlying cause that’s impacting your ability to complete this task. I’m not blaming you for this issue, but I think it would be helpful to explore it together to come up with the best solution. Is it possible that you’re missing some knowledge required to complete the project? If so, let’s talk about what we can do together to solve the problem.”
Another Use of “I” Language
When you’re trying to involve the other person but safety may be at risk, the authors recommend focusing on the problem and your role in it, rather than the other person. This is another situation where using “I” language can help achieve the authors’ recommendations. Focus on and take ownership of your own emotions and behaviors. If you use too much “you” language, the other person is likely to feel even more unsafe and become defensive. By keeping the focus of the discussion on the problem rather than the other person, you’ll lessen feelings of criticism or judgment.
This mirrors the authors’ earlier recommendations on how to establish mutual respect and shared purpose. In this way, the authors’ advice on how to set up a successful conversation can help you when you’re in the midst of the conversation as well.
The authors contend that the best way to solve an ability-based accountability issue is to work with the other person to identify the root cause.
Sometimes, the other person will be able to pinpoint the issue right away. For example, maybe the reason the employee couldn’t complete the article on time is that they were missing the data from the analyst.
Other times, the ability barrier might not be as obvious, or the other person might feel uncomfortable revealing it. In these situations, we need to analyze the personal, social, and structural barriers that could be impacting the other person’s ability; once all the possible barriers are on the table, we can work with the other person to identify the root barrier.
(Shortform note: When discussing ability barriers, psychologists note that the phrases used by the other person to explain the ability barrier can help us determine whether the root cause is an internal barrier (personal) or external barrier (social/structural). Phrases such as “I’m trying,” “I don’t understand,” and “I thought” indicate that the root barrier is internal, or personal. Phrases like “I’m waiting for,” “I’m stuck at this step,” “I need,” or “I don’t have enough time” can indicate that the root barrier is external—either social or structural.)
Personal barriers are the trickiest to discuss with the other person because people often mask their inabilities. To make the person feel comfortable discussing personal challenges, keep the conversation upbeat. Calmly ask if they feel comfortable doing the job and if they feel they have the skills and knowledge necessary for this particular task.
(Shortform note: In Emotional Intelligence 2.0, Travis Bradberry and Jean Greaves explain that relationship management in the workplace can make it much easier to discuss personal barriers with employees. They note that difficult conversations become easier when you have a positive relationship with employees because people are less likely to take things personally and more willing to open up to you when they know that you respect and support them.)
Consider how other people might be disabling the other person from completing the task or fulfilling the commitment. People might feel just as uncomfortable “ratting out” other people as they do exposing their personal shortcomings, so again, make it safe for them to do this. Be sure that you’re not implying the need to expose the guilty party, rather that this is about finding and removing barriers.
Toxic Employees
If the social barrier is a coworker who’s preventing the other person from completing their tasks, you might be dealing with what management experts call a toxic employee. Toxic employees exhibit bad behaviors that not only diminish their own work quality or efficiency but also rub off on others and prevent them from meeting expectations. When a leader is faced with this type of person, experts emphasize that they must hold them accountable for the sake of the work environment and all the employees therein.
Expert recommendations on how to confront these types of people closely mirror those in Crucial Accountability—identify the specifics of the issue (find the key issue), provide specific feedback (succinctly explain the issue), and explain the consequences (how the issue impacts you and others). Many add a few additional recommendations not mentioned in Crucial Accountability: Isolate the person until the problem is solved so they don’t impact the ability of others or spread their bad behaviors, and document their actions—both what they do well and don’t do well.
Structural factors usually cause the most invisible barriers, but they’re typically the easiest to discuss with the other person because they usually don’t reflect on a person’s character or relationships.
We tend not to notice or consider how elements of our environment could be barriers because we see them as rigid and unchangeable. As such, be sure to ask the other person about things like systems, policies, procedures, and work layouts—these could be the underlying factors of their inability.
Home Life as a Structural Barrier
In this section, the authors explain the importance of discussing structural ability barriers with the other person. However, the book’s discussion sticks to fairly obvious structural barriers like lack of tools or the work environment. It’s also important to consider that the other person’s home life may be causing a structural barrier.
It can be difficult to know how someone’s home life is impacting their ability to uphold commitments. If the other person has an abusive spouse or sick child, for example, this might impact their concentration throughout the day or their ability to remember deadlines. While this is something that most people will not openly discuss, we can look for signs that this might be the root cause by examining their behavior. Psychologists explain that the following behaviors are signs that someone may be struggling more than they let on:
Communicating less with friends/coworkers
Being less productive
Constantly tired or sleepy
Impaired judgment or reduced inhibitions
Neglecting hygiene or dressing differently (usually dressing down more frequently)
If you notice these patterns in the other person and think it may be time to discuss their home environment or mental health, you should
Choose an appropriate time and place where you can have an uninterrupted one-on-one conversation
Ask encouraging, non-judgemental questions that let the other person know you support them and want to help. Ex “is there anything going on at home that might be affecting your concentration or how you’re feeling? If so, I want you to know that you can talk to me and I will do what I can to support you without judgment.”
Be honest and straightforward, explain to the other person that you’ve noticed the above patterns and the accountability issue, and that you wonder if it might be because of issues at home.
Now that we’ve mastered the techniques to start an accountability discussion and have the skills to identify the root cause and solution, it’s time to move on to troubleshooting. What do we do if we’re having an accountability conversation and an entirely new infraction arises?
The authors explain that unexpected issues often arise in the midst of accountability conversations. When these new issues are more urgent (time sensitive, serious, emotional, or important to the other person) than the original problem, we must solve them before returning to the primary conversation.
It’s vital that you address new, urgent issues like these when they arise because if you ignore them, you’ll likely finish your conversation without finding an effective solution.
Urgent Issue or Distraction Tactic?
In Thanks for the Feedback, Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen explain that sometimes when an urgent issue arises, we need to finish the original discussion and schedule a later time to discuss the new issue rather than addressing it immediately. This is because sometimes, the other person will bring up a new issue as a distraction tactic to avoid accountability. They call this practice switchtracking, and warn that if we pivot the conversation to this new issue, we may end up derailing the conversation and falling into the other person’s trap—to prevent us from holding them accountable.
In this part, we’ll explore how to pivot the discussion to address the most urgent issue. Then, we’ll look at how to tackle what the authors explain are the two of the most common and dangerous issues that arise: the other person makes excuses, or they get emotional.
If you’ve decided that the new issue is more time sensitive or emotional, the authors recommend following these steps:
1) Bookmark where you’re at in the current conversation and announce that you need to change the topic: “Let’s return to the discussion about skipping practice later. Right now, I want to talk about what just happened.”
2) Follow the techniques talked about in chapter two to prepare for the discussion: Identify the problem you want to discuss, refrain from making assumptions about the other person’s intentions, and control your emotions by telling a more accurate story.
3) Describe the gap between your expectations and what happened, then ask why: “When I asked you why you skipped practice, you lied and told me you were there. Lying is both a violation of my trust and an infraction of family rules. Why would you lie rather than tell me the truth?”
4) Last, close the conversation by seeking a clear commitment from the other person: “So next time we have a situation that you’d rather not discuss with me, will you promise to be truthful so we can maintain trust in our relationship and solve the original problem in a healthy way?”
5) Assess safety and return to the original discussion if possible: If there is enough safety to continue the original discussion, then do so. If you sense that the other person is feeling unsafe and overwhelmed, refrain from piling on more problems and set a later time to finish the original discussion.
When to Pivot the Conversation and When to Stay on Course
In Thanks for the Feedback, Stone and Heen explain that when someone switchtracks, we shouldn’t pivot the discussion because even though the issue might be important to the other person, it’s a distraction tactic that will derail the conversation. Instead of fully pivoting the conversation as the authors recommend above, Stone and Heen recommend that you get back on track by:
Acknowledging that there are two different issues at hand. “I see where you’re coming from, but we’re talking about X right now and Y is a completely different topic.”
Acknowledging that both issues need to be addressed: “I understand that this is an important topic to you, and that we need to talk about both.
Outlining a way forward: “Let’s finish fully discussing the original topic, and then we can have a separate discussion about the issue you just brought up.”
The authors write that when the other person makes invalid excuses for their actions, it can quickly derail your conversation and prevent you from reaching a solution. If they try to do this, you must address the issue immediately—they’re more likely to repeat the behaviors if they’re left unaddressed, and you’re unlikely to trust the other person to follow through on a solution if you suspect they’ll make another excuse later on.
The “something came up” excuse is the most common invalid excuse and the primary killer of accountability. People use this technique to escape accountability for the incomplete task by pawning the blame off on an unexpected interference. For example, imagine your roommate didn’t complete their weekly share of the household chores for a third week in a row. When you confront them about the issue, they use the same “something came up” excuse as last week—this time, their mom wanted them to visit home.
To address this issue, the authors suggest enforcing the following rule: “If something comes up, let me know as soon as possible.” When you enforce this rule, you acknowledge that sometimes unpredictable things happen but you also hold the other person accountable by making sure they inform you as soon as they think they might fail to uphold their commitment. Explain to the other person that this rule not only holds everyone involved accountable but also forms a foundation of trust in the relationship.
So next time your roommate has “something come up” that prevents them from completing their chores, ask them to text or call you before they leave the mess—not after. That way you can negotiate alternative arrangements such as adjusting the chores schedule.
Handling Excuses
Experts note that even if you establish an “if something comes up, let me know” rule, you may still run into problems if the other person continues to make repeated excuses—letting you know ahead of time doesn’t solve the issue of them not completing their tasks. If this happens, you may develop negative emotions towards them, leading to new relationship issues. So, if the “let me know” rule doesn’t stop the excuse-making, experts recommend that we can avoid harboring negative emotions by:
Considering whether or not the excuse is actually valid. Even though a chronic excuse maker might really push our buttons, we still need to do our do-diligence to make sure we’re not accusing them of making phony excuses when something valid actually happened. For example, maybe you forgot to ask them to complete the task or they’re dealing with a legitimate ability barrier.
Understanding where the excuse is coming from. Maybe the excuse isn’t actually due to an external factor (or ability barrier) but instead, the person just isn’t motivated to accomplish the task. Or maybe they’ve made an honest mistake that they’re afraid to admit to.
Recognize that we make excuses too. Most people have been in one of the above situations before, either not meeting expectations because we weren’t motivated or completely forgot. This doesn’t make us all villains.
Focus on being tolerant. If we get mad at the other person every time we have an accountability discussion with them due to their excuses, they’re going to start avoiding us altogether. Remember steps 2 and 3 and calm yourself down.
Help the other person maintain dignity. People make excuses when they feel threatened. To help them avoid this urge in the first place, show them respect.
The authors explain that the second most difficult emerging issue to deal with during an accountability discussion is when the other person reacts emotionally, expressing fear, sorrow, frustration, anger, and so on. When emotional reactions like these take us by surprise, we must proceed with caution. If not handled correctly, we might end up creating more problems than we started with.
Before addressing the emotional response, assess your own safety. If you think the other person could be a danger to you, remove yourself from the situation.
To handle the emotional response, we want to investigate why the person seems to be irrationally emotional. To do this, follow four steps:
1) Ask what the problem is. Start by genuinely asking what’s wrong. You might need to reassure the other person that you want to help so they feel comfortable enough to open up.
2) Vocalize that you’ve noticed a change in their behavior. Let the other person know that you can tell they are upset by directly stating the change in their behavior—“I noticed that you’re very quiet right now and you look quite sad.”
3) Paraphrase their response. When they open up and explain what’s bothering them, paraphrase their response to clarify understanding and to let them know you’re listening.
4) Encourage them to tell their story. Encourage the other person to tell their whole story by asking questions and providing reassurance. Take a guess at why they’re upset and ask if you’re correct. Reassure them that you won’t be upset, you just want to fix the issue so they feel better.
Once you’ve identified the issue that’s causing the emotional response, take the time to resolve it before continuing to the original discussion.
The Third Horseman of the Apocalypse: Defensiveness
In this section, the authors explain that one of the most common emergent issues is when the other person responds emotionally. When this happens, they might speak to us aggressively or turn the issue around by accusing us. Gottman calls this response defensiveness and classifies it as the third horseman of a relational apocalypse. If not handled swiftly and effectively, defensiveness could ultimately lead to relationship termination.
In addition to the author’s recommendations listed above on how to handle this response, Gottman suggests that after we hear the other person’s point of view, we acknowledge their feelings and take responsibility for our role in the problem. Furthermore, we should consider that the emergent issue might be caused by one of our behavioral blind spots—behaviors that we might be unconsciously enacting and therefore are unaware of.
By adding these final two steps to the Crucial Accountability authors’ recommendations on how to handle emotional responses, or defensiveness, we can solve the new emergent issue and safely return back to the original discussion while preserving our relationship with the other person.
When holding an accountability conversation, there’s always the possibility that a new and unexpected issue will arise. When this happens, we need to identify the issue at hand and respond appropriately.
Imagine that you’re having an accountability conversation with your coworker about them eating your food from the fridge. You lay out the facts, describe the gap between your expectations and what’s happening, and then invite the other person to share their story. When they respond, they inform you that it wasn’t them who ate your food, it was John. You know it wasn’t John because you saw John eating his own lunch. Your coworker is lying. How would you handle this situation?
Now that you’ve considered how to handle the situations, imagine what you would say to this coworker:
The authors stress the importance of understanding what not to do in an accountability conversation almost as much as what to do. Because we’ve likely grown up watching people handle accountability issues incorrectly, these learned behaviors slip out when we least expect them to. By understanding what not to do, we can recognize and halt these behaviors as soon as we see ourselves enacting them.
(Shortform note: The authors emphasize what not to do during accountability conversations because these bad behaviors are common practices for many people. Experts second this assertion, explaining that in order to develop better habits, we first need to identify what we’re doing wrong, which is the purpose of this section.)
The authors assert that we need to listen to the other person’s point of view in order to make accurate judgments and solutions. The issue is about the other person, therefore, they’re the ones who’ll have the most information about what went wrong and why.
Without hearing the other person’s perspective, you might be seeing the issue incorrectly or incompletely. For example, after hearing the other person’s side of the story, you might realize that their reaction was correct in that particular situation, even if they failed to meet expectations.
Ultimately, you need to speak to the other person to get the full picture and identify all the possible barriers. Then you can develop solutions.
(Shortform note: Experts second the author's argument here, explaining that when we enter a conversation with the belief that we fully understand the problem and how to solve it, it becomes difficult to truly listen to the other person and sends them the message that we don’t think they’re capable or valuable in solving the issue.)
The authors warn that when you’re brainstorming solutions, don’t bias the other person’s response by first proposing a solution and then asking what they think. When you start off the discussion with something like “to solve this problem I think that it’s best to do X. What do you think?” you’re preventing new, and possibly better, solutions to enter the conversation.
The authors explain that this strategy stifles the production of new and better ideas in two ways:
Instead, the authors advise that you ask open-ended questions that don’t assume the solution.
Don’t Use Leading Questions
This practice is called asking with leading questions: Leading questions are defined as questions that lead or persuade the other person to give a certain response.
These types of questions are banned from interrogations and research studies because of the effect they have on peoples’ responses. When you ask a leading question, it's unlikely that you’ll receive the other person’s genuine, unbiased response. So, as the authors recommend, if you truly want to receive the other person’s opinions and the best possible solutions, avoid asking for their ideas with leading questions.
The authors explain that if you already have a solution in mind, don’t disingenuously ask the other person for their opinion until they eventually guess what you’re thinking. Doing so is disrespectful and manipulative—humans can’t read minds, so don’t expect them to.
Instead, the authors advise entering the conversation with an open mind and hearing the other person’s recommendations before adding your input. You can have ideas about possible solutions, but don’t enter the conversation with the belief that you already have the best solution.
(Shortform note: Some experts describe this type of questioning as “GWOMMing,” or making others “Guess What's On My Mind.” They second the authors’ argument about why we should avoid this type of communication, explaining that the other person might perceive you as disingenuous or dishonest. They add that GWOMMing can also cause the other person to hold back their input or become resentful towards you.)
Keep the conversation flowing honestly and freely. The more information you have, the easier it is to pinpoint the underlying cause of the key issue. With this information, you can better pinpoint an effective solution.
How to Keep the Conversation Flowing
The authors recommend that we keep the conversation flowing in order to achieve the best solutions; however, they don’t provide guidelines on how to do this. Experts suggest that we can have a successful and rewarding conversation by:
Making sure the conversation is roughly 50/50. Make sure you’re not speaking too much and dominating the conversation, or too little and forcing the other person to come up with irrelevant things to say to avoid awkward silence.
Using effective and active listening. Make eye contact and use nonverbal cues like nodding to encourage their response. Ask questions and reflect on information with comments like “I understand how you feel” or “that must have been difficult.”
Using reciprocal disclosure. When the other person discloses something personal, try to disclose something equally as personal.
Be positive so that the other person knows you appreciate their time spent talking with you.
Regulating the flow of conversation by using pauses to speak up, and once you’ve made your point inviting the other person to respond.
The authors urge you to be aware of your motives when relaying natural consequences. If your intent is to threaten or intimidate the other person into doing what you want, they will likely react negatively.
(Shortform note: Experts explain that threatening the other person is ultimately a play for power that occurs when we fear our requests won’t be met. These threats can cause hurt and resentment within the relationship that can take weeks or months to heal. Psychologists recommend that when we feel tempted to make threats, this is an indication that we need to take a time-out from the conversation to cool down, and finish the discussion at a later time.)
When you believe you’ve reached a point where the other person understands the natural consequences and will comply, you can stop piling on more consequences. This may make the other person feel patronized, belittled, or discourage them from wanting to participate in future conversations.
(Shortform note: To avoid excessively talking when the conversation has reached a natural close, we should actively listen to the other person, absorbing everything they say before considering our response. Experts explain that one of the reasons why we keep talking when the conversation should end is because we’re hearing rather than listening. When we’re hearing the other person, we’re not fully absorbing what they’re saying because we’re so caught up in our own thoughts. Doing so can prevent us from realizing when the other person has understood our point and agreed. So, to stop talking once the other person has complied, turn up your active listening skills.)
During accountability conversations, there are a handful of common mistakes that people make which could negatively affect the outcome. Often, we don’t realize that we're making these mistakes because they happen unconsciously. By looking at our past failed conversations, we can identify what went wrong so we can avoid making the same mistake in the future.
Think about the last time you had an accountability conversation that didn’t end well—for example a sibling or partner blew off the agreed-upon solution or an employee became annoyed at you. Now consider the above mistakes. Did you do anything either consciously or unconsciously that caused the adverse consequences?
Now that you’ve identified what you might have done that resulted in the unsatisfactory outcome, reflect on other exchanges you’ve had in the past (consider not only accountability conversations but other exchanges such as making a request of someone or giving them feedback). Have you repeated this behavior in other contexts? What was the other person’s response to the behavior and what was the outcome of the exchange?
If you find that this is a repeated behavior that results in a negative outcome during exchanges with others, consider that it might exist in your blind spot. In other words, you might not realize that you’re doing it. Brainstorm some techniques or alternative behaviors that might help you avoid making the same mistakes in the future.
After you’ve successfully discussed the accountability issue and determined a solution, the authors recommend creating a plan of action and then following up to ensure that everyone follows the agreed-upon plan.
While this step seems pretty straightforward, don’t underestimate its importance; leaving the plan of action and follow-up vague could undermine the hard work and planning you put into preparing for the conversation and developing a solution.
The first part of creating a plan of action is identifying the specific tasks that need to be completed, who needs to do them, and when they need to be done. For example, if the agreement is that the other person will work on being more creative, you might say: “I want you to come up with three new ideas for how to market our product each week by noon on Friday.”
The authors especially emphasize the importance of being clear about who will complete each task. Avoid using vague statements like “let's come up with three new ideas.” Terms like “let’s” and “we” undermine accountability. If one person is required to complete the task, make it clear that they are the one responsible.
They also advise that you be specific when naming deadlines. Statements like “complete it by next week” or even “by the end of next week” are too vague. Set an exact date and time: “Please have it done by Friday at noon.” This removes any room for misinterpretation.
Once it’s clear what needs to be done, who needs to do it, and when, check for understanding—ask if there are any questions about specifics such as quality, quantity, characteristics, or anything else the other person might be confused about.
(Shortform note: Experts second the authors’ argument here, explaining that the three things necessary for an employee to effectively complete a task are clear goals, detailed parameters, and accurate deadlines. No matter how self-sufficient, responsible, or hard-working someone is, they can’t effectively meet expectations without certain structures and boundaries.)
After determining the plan of action, the authors assert that you must determine when and how to follow up on the results. While you don't want to make the other person feel micromanaged, you also don’t want to take an entirely hands-off approach. To determine how soon after the conversation you need to follow up and the appropriate frequency and method, consider the following questions:
1) How important or risky is the task: If the task is very important or complicated, you should closely monitor the situation by following up soon after the discussion.
2) Can you trust that they will perform the task well? If the other person has not proved reliable or has little experience, you may need multiple follow-ups throughout the process to check on their progress.
However, if the other person has a fairly good track record or they’re experienced in the area, your follow-up approach can be less aggressive. Rather than planning an exclusive meeting, you can follow up during a routine interaction, for example. Furthermore, if the task is routine and the person is reliable, you can have them initiate the follow-up. For example: “when you’ve completed the outline for the project, send me a message and we’ll schedule a time to meet.”
How to Know if You’re Micromanaging
The author's recommendations in this section are aimed at effectively following up without micromanaging. However, even if we don’t intend to micromanage, we might not realize when we’re doing it. People who micromanage are likely to follow up on accountability issues too aggressively because regardless of how simple the task is or how trustworthy the other person is, they hold the underlying persistent belief that they’re the only ones who can complete the task perfectly.
Experts explain that the following behaviors are manifestations of this underlying belief and indicate that you might be a micromanager:
You don’t like to delegate work to other people because you do it best yourself.
You always ask employees to check with you before making a decision.
You prefer to be CC’d on every email.
You have a high employee turnover.
You’re rarely satisfied with deliverables.
Most of your employees have a hard time meeting deadlines.
You want everything done following rigid guidelines with no room for creativity.
You're constantly focused on the efficiency of employees and want to know what they’re working on and when.
You frequently re-do or majorly edit an employee's work.
You tend to think that employees rarely take initiative or be creative.
If you recognize yourself frequently enacting more than one or two of these behaviors, consider that you might not be accurately assessing the risk of the task at hand, the other person's responsibility, and their capability.
When you’ve finally finished the conversation, you must make a plan of action and set a time to follow up to ensure that commitments are followed through on. How you approach the follow-up, though, depends on the situation.
Think of a recent accountability problem you’re having with an employee, coworker, or someone in your personal life. How has this person been failing to meet your expectations? For example, maybe you’ve noticed lately that a coworker, who usually does a great job, has been overlooking details and thus adding to your responsibilities, as you’re the one who then has to catch these details.
What would your plan of action look like to solve the problem? Be sure to identify the who, what, and when of your plan.
Now consider how you might follow up on your action plan. Think about the factors discussed above—how reliable and experienced is the other person? What is their track-record on following through with commitments? How complicated is your request? Are there any deadlines involved?
While the steps laid out above are sufficient to solve most accountability issues, the authors note a few situations where extra steps or precautions may be necessary. The section below will discuss these novel situations and how to handle them.
When the other person is impossible to hold accountable because they either refuse to have an accountability discussion or refuse to change their ways, your options are unfortunately limited. When you’ve done your best to converse and it seems the situation is a lost cause, you have two options: endure or end the relationship.
Are You Dealing With a Narcissist?
People who refuse to be held accountable or to change their behaviors tend to have narcissistic tendencies and could even have narcissistic personality disorder—a condition that causes people to lack empathy for others and to struggle to see their own faults. Because narcissists are masters at making people like them, it can sometimes be hard to tell when you’re dealing with one. The traits below are common to narcissists and can help you determine whether you may be dealing with one, and might need to follow the advice in this section.
They monopolize conversations (talk over or interrupt others and dominate the topic).
They flaunt rule-breaking or going against social conventions.
They’re fixated on their appearance and always need to look good.
They tend to be an envious or jealous person.
They lack empathy and disregard others.
They have a deep need for praise.
They don’t take responsibility and blame others (this one might be obvious).
They’re terrified of being abandoned or left out.
Their view of reality seems much different from yours and others.
Enduring a relationship: When the issue isn’t big enough to end the relationship, we can learn to endure the issue by trying to see the other person’s story. This entails empathizing with the other person and coming to reasonable conclusions about their behavior.
(Shortform note: Experts note that in addition to the authors’ recommendations on how to cope, you should also know your triggers and avoid them when possible. If you do become triggered, take deep breaths and try to ground yourself in the present moment rather than your thoughts and emotions.)
Ending a Relationship: If you find that you cannot empathize with the other person and you remain upset over the issue, you’re not enduring but wallowing. Wallowing is when we remain in a situation but constantly complain, either internally or externally. In these situations, the authors say that you must end the relationship.
(Shortform note: Experts second the authors’ argument that persisting, unsolvable issues that cause distress warrant relationship termination. While it might be extremely difficult to end a relationship, experts explain that staying in a relationship where problems persist can be unhealthy for you and the other person, leading to paranoia, avoidance of intimacy, self-doubt, sense of doom, and cynicism. Further, the longer you stay in a toxic relationship, the more likely you are to carry these trauma symptoms into your next relationship.)
When you change the rules or break standard practice, you may be changing or contradicting previous accountability expectations—such as holding people accountable in a previously accountability-free environment. In this situation, it’s common for people to resist a change to their routine, especially when they don’t understand why the change is necessary.
(Shortform note: Psychologists explain that neurobiologically, humans resist change because it disrupts homeostasis, the state of steady chemical conditions within our brain. Our basal ganglia, a cluster of nerve cells in the primitive part of our brain, is responsible for wiring habits—automatic or routine behaviors. Enacting these routine behaviors releases feel-good chemicals. When we’re forced to change these routines, it disrupts the release of these chemicals that we normally get. Hence, we’re hard-wired to resist these changes and maintain a steady chemical balance.)
To get people on board with significant change:
Encouraging Others to Change
Many experts second the authors’ suggestions on how to effectively enact change within an organization. Some of their recommendations correspond to the Crucial Accountability authors’ ideas:
1. Activate peer pressure to mobilize the crowd. Having peer leaders serve as role models by being early adopters of the changes and calling out people who break the rules highly motivates others to meet expectations. This corresponds to the authors’ first suggestion above, to enlist influential people to help enact the change.
2. Tweak the situation. Explain the current practices and why they don’t work, then introduce the new practices and explain why they will be better. This combines steps two and four of the authors’ recommendations.
3. Paint a vivid picture. To get people to realize why the change is needed, paint a picture of the negative outcomes of current practices, and then how much better things will be once the change you’re proposing is enacted. The stories and images are powerful vehicles for change. This mirrors the authors’ third point above.
Other suggestions add on to the authors’ recommendations:
4. Embrace the power of one. Make sure you stick to one new rule or practice at a time. If people are overwhelmed by 5 new rules at once, they’re likely to either resist all of them or forget some of them.
5. Make it sticky. Make your proposed changes concrete and measurable so that people can meet expectations without having to guess if they’re doing things right.
6. Subtract distractions. One of the most effective ways to change behavior is to remove enablers, triggers, and barriers.
7. Link to carrots and sticks. While this shouldn’t be the first move, introducing punishment and rewards can be helpful.
Another difficult situation would be if you’re a person of authority and you’re asked to address an accountability issue that you didn’t witness firsthand. For example, an employee might complain about another employee talking down to coworkers.
The authors explain that if someone makes a complaint about another person, you must first observe the behavior yourself before approaching the other person. Without first observing the behavior with your own eyes, you’re unable to see the full picture. As the authors mentioned earlier, entering the conversation seeing only one perspective spells disaster.
In these cases, before having a discussion, put yourself in situations where you may be able to witness the problem behavior. Once you have witnessed the behavior yourself, then you can discuss it.
(Shortform note: The authors don’t address what happens if you can’t witness the accountability issue firsthand. If this is the case, experts recommend that you hold a mediation between the complaining and offending parties. In doing this, try to focus on the outcome (eliminating the issue or its underlying consequences), give each side an equal chance to share their perspective, and identify a plan that will resolve the issue.)
You might also run into trouble if you’re dealing with someone who thinks they excel in an area and you must tell them that they aren't meeting standards. In this situation, you run the risk of greatly damaging their self-esteem.
In this situation, prepare for the discussion by breaking the issue down into smaller parts: What smaller pieces can the person work on that will ultimately improve the issue as a whole? Rather than addressing the issue upfront, consider holding multiple conversations where you address a smaller issue each time. In the long run, the small improvements will fix the overall issue.
For example, if the other person is a terrible writer, don’t start with “your writing needs a lot of work to meet expectations.” Instead, break the big problem into smaller, workable pieces. First discuss improving sentence clarity, then once that has improved, work on grammar, and so on.
Breaking Down Big Requests
Experts second the authors’ argument that we can accomplish a major change (like helping an employee improve their writing skills) by breaking it down into smaller parts. To do this, we should:
Make sure we identify exactly what the end goal looks like and what it entails.
Determine the smaller parts of the whole. What individual things need to be accomplished before the overall goal can be met?
Create a logical order. Which part of the process makes the most sense to address first, second, third, and so on?
Create a timeline. Lay out exactly when you think each part of the process should be started and completed. While this might change once you get started, be sure to adjust your plan accordingly and stick to it.
Review the results once you think the goal has been met to ensure that all the important components you identified in the first step are there.
If you’re constantly having accountability conversations about the same issue and the other person never changes, you can start to feel like a nag. In this situation, you have two options:
1) If the issue is small, like your spouse leaving their shoes by the front door rather than putting them on the shelf, consider expanding your comfort zone. If the issue causes you a minor inconvenience but is something you can cope with, then do so.
2) If the issue is important to you, have another accountability conversation and really focus on the pattern of the problem.
(Shortform note: The authors recommend that if we feel like we’re nagging and can’t cope with the issue, we should alter the key issue of our next discussion to address the pattern of the behavior. While not discussed in this section of the book, we can further strengthen our key issue by tying in the impact of the pattern on our relationship with the other person, as the authors discuss in Part 1. If these attempts fail to solve the issue, we’re now falling into the first section of this Part, “Dealing with an Obstinate Person.” Based on the authors’ recommendations, if we can’t adjust our expectations and they can’t adjust their behavior, our only remaining option at this point would be to leave the relationship.)
If you’re in an authority position and only talk to the other person when you’re having an accountability conversation, it can be hard to enact effective solutions. For example, if you’re a manager who only speaks with a certain employee when they make a mistake, you might have difficulty getting that employee to change.
It can be hard to connect with another person in this situation because you might not know them well enough to see their side of things. Additionally, they might not take as well to constructive criticism if this is the only interaction they have with you.
In these circumstances you can do two things:
1) Make time to get to know the person. Schedule check-ins where you can build rapport and hear some of their own concerns
2) Praise the person when they do things well. This will help them see you in a more positive light.
(Shortform note: While building a personal connection with employees makes accountability conversations easier and more effective, psychologists note that this isn’t the only benefit; in fact, you should be forming a rapport with employees regardless of how it impacts accountability. In Radical Candor, Kim Scott explains that caring personally about employees and building a culture of sincere and helpful guidance boosts employee satisfaction at work as well as boosts the quality of deliverables in ways you couldn’t imagine.)