When Did Accountability Become Passé?

From customers’ and suppliers’ viewpoint, Company X is fast growing, exciting, and high-energy. Inside, though,Diamantini & Domeniconi and designed by Tak Cheung  it’s a tornado. Fighting fires, arguing over who committed to what, why it didn’t happen, and noticing things that fell through the cracks in just enough time is normal.

How can this happen when they have weekly departmental meetings, keep track of action items, and post projects and timelines everywhere? Easily! There is no accountability. They don’t hold each other accountable for commitments. They’ve seen what happens when you fail, and it isn’t pretty, which undermines individual commitment. Requesters frequently change their minds, reprioritize, or create new, more urgent projects without ever really closing the loop on the old ones.

The Bell Labs culture I grew up in had a strong sense of accountability. When you’re working on things that literally change the world, it’s easy to be committed to something bigger than yourself. The “Labs” culture meant failure was a viable option. Success was discovery and application, not climbing a corporate ladder. At AT&T, the culture was the opposite. While I was privileged to have great management, the majority of AT&T focused on the bottom line. Failure was not an option. When I left AT&T and started working with many companies, I realized this culture was more the norm, not Bell Labs. That’s why I believe culture creates (at least?) two reasons for people’s struggle with accountability.

First is the fear of failure. Even before kindergarten, we’re taught failure is bad. What if we can’t do it or do it right or something goes wrong? So, we whittle down the scope, involve others so blame can be shared, make resource requests we know won’t fly, or let our fear hold us back from really creative solutions.

Since “failure is not an option” is still the modus operandi in most organizations and the odds of success are never certain, accepting accountability can be very risky. What if I can’t deliver? What if the people I need to work with won’t make the time or collaborate? What if factors I can’t control impede or inhibit success? Will I get a poor performance appraisal? Will I lose prestige, status, or my promotion? If there is a downturn, am I going to get cut? Unfortunately, these are natural, normal responses to accountability.

Accountability means putting our word and reputation on the line. Someone is counting on us — and we should care that someone is counting on us. If failure’s not an option, that can feel like too much of responsibility — or a liability — to take on.

The second problem is a lack of commitment on either or both sides. Either we don’t believe the request is important enough to make us change our priorities, or we don’t trust the “asker” to keep his end of the commitment. If the requester keeps changing his mind, his priorities or timelines, then it’s tough to accept accountability for the outcome. Trade-offs have to be made which means sacrifice — of time, priorities, perhaps things we are passionate about. Accountability works both ways, and if one party isn’t really committed, it can undermine the entire project.

Realities of 21st century business make accountability even more daunting. In the “old” days, a commitment’s path to success was fairly clear, linear, defined and prescriptive: follow this framework or process, and you’ll get there. Today, the path is usually messy, ambiguous, paradoxical, and maybe unknown. We may need to create our own frameworks and processes. It’s a discovery, not a prescriptive process, with many ways to get where we’re going, not “a” way to succeed. Success itself has changed; it used to be via a tangible output, a new product or service, a “thing” based more on what was probable than possible. Success today can be both tangible and intangible, like new learnings, viewpoints, networks, or opportunities, where we look for what is not just probable, but possible.

So, how do we help our cultures, ourselves, our people overcome the fear of failure and commit in a uncertain world? I have a few suggestions based on my experience in both accountable, and unaccountable, company cultures:

• Communicate¹⁰⁰. Communicate why the request is important to the organization, to both of you, and how it’s fulfillment will make a difference. What may seem trivial to us may be profound to someone else. To commit, we need to believe in something bigger than just ourselves or the organization, such as the mission and purpose of the organization. That is how we start changing behavior and making new habits.
• Make sure that you’re present to support the request and remove or mitigate obstacles. Meet regularly to identify potential challenges and opportunities before they become a major problem.
• Re-prioritize responsibilities and tasks to allow the person or team to complete the request. Don’t just add on. Not everything is urgent and important. Seriously, show your commitment to the request you’ve made. If it’s not worth re-prioritizing, then it isn’t worth asking.
• Create ways to eliminate or minimize the stigma of failure. Focus on what’s been learned and how that applies, watch how you react to and treat the person, how you discuss it with others affected by the result and how you let it impact that person’s future success in the organization. Even if you can’t change the organization’s performance management process, your own personal demeanor and handling has an enormous impact.

I’ve also started to experiment with using the classic virtues to help improve accountability, but don’t have enough data’ to posit it as a suggestion above yet (though it can’t hurt).

Accountability is important on so many levels — professionally and personally. Let’s create the environment where it’s easier to have it be the norm than not.

Originally published in Harvard Business Review

Sustaining Collaboration - Part II: The Journey Continues

In Part I of how Menasha Packaging started a culture of collaboration back in the early 1990’s, Jeff discussed the need forcollaboration on the plant floor and how the training and cultural process developed, including the first year of formal training.  We know continue with the 2^nd year.

Jeff: The second year focused on applying basic manufacturing principles to each person’s workstation.  Workflow systems and processes were changed.  Additionally, machine-centered teams from the first year became cross-functional, focused at a higher level.  The teams initiated this themselves, without being asked to do so.  Each team had to provide quarterly reports to the Steering Committee on their progress.

The Steering Committee members rotated annually, with the exception of the GM and Union President.  People actually started asking to be on the committee, some because of a passion for collaboration and some to derail the process.  Both types were included and after a while, the naysayers saw the benefits of the approach and helped bring other naysayers along! In fact, one person who refused to participate in the first year was eagerly involved by the 3^rd year, even engaging those who were still skeptical and challenging to become part of the process.

DMS: Was there a significant aspect of this process that had the biggest impact?

Jeff: I can’t stress how important creating personal relationships were to changing the culture. When a project was completed, the Steering Committee took the team out to dinner.  After each training session, everyone went out to celebrate, eat and socialize.  Getting to know each other as individuals instead of “management” or “labor” increased trust, which increased collaboration.  In fact, for the first time, management was invited to personal employee celebrations, like birthday parties!  What surprised employees the most was that management actually showed up, that management cared enough about them to come to their party.  This made a huge positive difference. 

DMS: So, it’s 15-20 years later, how has the culture evolved since then? For instance, it seems that using HR in a unique way, as Jerry and you did, is still part of the culture.

Jeff: Today, team involvement and collaboration are simply the way things are done.  It is less formal than in the 1990’s because it has become integral to the culture.  Lean teams are everywhere.  Lean has even played a significant part in creating our innovation mindset.  Collaboration had become the norm; it was no longer unique, which is what we hoped would happen.  Today’s culture is terrific, everyone is on the same page and the union-management relationship is very strong.

DMS: So, as you look back, why did you do it this way?

Jeff:  Well, when Jerry had asked me to help, we knew teamwork was a core value for MPC.  It was obvious to us that collaboration was the best way to work – for culture and performance.  At the core, both management and the union leadership had the same value system.  We knew what we wanted life to be like at the plant, to empower employees, to let their voices be heard.  So, we created a path to get there.  We also knew that patience was going to be a critical virtue.  The employees would think this was a fad.  We had to prove this was real, it was for the long-term and we weren’t trying to break the unions.  Jerry and the union president’s commitment were paramount.  And, as I said before, developing personal relationships was vital.  The dinners, celebrations, recognitions, parties, even just hanging out together proved our credibility and authenticity.  It took time, but it changed, and we’ve been able to sustain it.

Sustaining Collaboration for Decades

Menasha Packaging Corp. (MPC) transformed its culture from a staid, old-line traditional industrial one into a 21^st Century innovation and collaboration one.  To some this may seem a dramatic change, but if you know anything about MPC, it all stems from its core values, sustained over 163 years and 7 generations.

I recently chatted with Jeff Krepline, Executive Director of Retail Integration Institute and National Sales at MPC.  Jeff shared a fascinating story of how, starting in 1993, MPC had recognized and embraced collaboration as significant to success.  While this may be an ‘old’ story (it’s almost 20 years old), it demonstrates the importance of sticking to your values and mission, through thick and thin.  The continuity and stability of MPC’s core values is a bulwark against market, industry and global cycles.

DMS: Jeff, why did the Neenah, WI complex’s management to ask you in to help?

Jeff:  The culture was good, but there was an ‘us v them’ tone in the complex, a union versus management mentality; nothing that would warrant a strike, but still not very collaborative.  The lack of collaboration meant less teamwork that stifled growth.  Neenah had just had some arbitration cases that caused division even within the union.   Neenah’s General Manager (GM), Jerry Hessel, knew that team-based manufacturing improved performance, so he felt he had to do something.  Jerry asked to help him.  I had recentlygraduated from college was new to MPC in corporate HR.   I proposed a 3-year training plan to improve the culture, starting with the basics: getting people on the floor to share ideas with people in the office.

We created a steering committee that made all the decisions on training for this initiative. The steering committee consisted of the GM and 2 floor management leaders (e.g., area manager, shift leader) and the union president along with 1 union officers and someone from the floor.  At the time, this was a very new concept.  The team met monthly and always went through the actual training that employees would go through.  Union leadership couldn’t say they didn’t know what was going on.  Despite the fact that management had training requirements in the union contract, one of the first employee groups refused to participate claiming the training wasn’t in the union handbook and the time of day for training conflicted with handbook rules.  To say the first year was a struggle and tense with the rank and file is an understatement.  Many employees hadn’t been in a classroom since high school and needed basic training in Business 101.

DMS: How did you structure the training, because this a rather radical approach?

Jeff:  I leveraged the concept of continuous improvement to structure training around specific work centers or machines instead of traditional cross-functional teams.  This made the training more natural, more like the actual work.  The teams were asked to reflect on the basics of how they worked and functioned, as well as on the direction of the company and the desired future they wanted to see.  Training was based on providing tools for ‘work’, like Lean (e.g., 5 Why’s). The teams reported to Union and Management leadership on what they felt and thought about their project, what they learned, the current state, the future desired state and finished by asking for approval to actually do the project.  We wanted the employees to have a safe environment to have their voices heard.

DMS: How did the 3-year plan evolve?

Jeff: The first year we focused on ‘low-hanging fruit’ – basic projects like tool cabinet organization, tool cleaning etc.  This empowered teams to improve their day-to-day life at work. We wanted to link business performance to the job on the floor.  We started with a very nice “Business Connection Dinner” between management and union leadership with their spouses early in the year.  Management reviewed the past year, discussed the upcoming year and personally thanked the spouses and significant others for the over-time their partners had given to the company and the difference it had made.   This helped them make the connection between business performance to the job on the floor to the sacrifices at home.  Employees and their spouses could ask questions about concerns and company direction.  To stress how much we cared about all employees, the invitations to dinner were addressed to them and their spouses and mailed to their homes. At dinner, recognition was given to top teams and Steering Committee members coming on/going off.  We also gave out prizes for various achievements.

To Be Continued...Part II:  Continuing the Journey 1994 - Today