This article first appeared in the June, 2005 edition of the Jacksonville Business Journal
The difference between a championship sports team and the second place team is rarely based on talent. On any given day either team can beat the other.
So what creates a championship team? The difference for a winning team is how they approach the game. For a winning team only one thing matters: winning the game. In other teams, we may see great players working for their own success, but not necessarily for the best team results. They believe that if their individual performance statistics are excellent they will be able to negotiate their own best rewards.
Accountability creates the difference between good and championship performance. Individuals who are accountable for their own area of responsibility will do what is required of them. Individuals who are accountable for the collective result - even for those parts beyond their personal responsibility - will focus on achieving the collective result. The three legged stool brings collective responsibility, accountability and consequences together.
The Business Dilemma
This simple yet profound truth is directly applicable to business, even though it is rarely applied.
Most senior teams will state that they all share the common goal of total company success. Yet, sales only wants to be accountable for sales; service wants to be held accountable only for service, etc. This results in a number of talented and committed individuals working at cross-purposes to each other while they continue to believe they are working toward a common goal.
Structural Conflict
Internal conflict exists in every organization. Cost and customer service pressures often push against each other. Sales and profitability pressures push against each other. Manufacturing throughput and quality controls push against each other. New product development and short term profitability push against each other. These conflicts are inherent in organizational life and help create the balance that optimizes business results. As long as each person is held responsible for a part of the solution, that individual will seek the best results for his individual area.
Some people applaud that condition. They believe if everyone is seeking to create the greatest result for their own area of responsibility, then the "top of the organization" can balance the conflicting interests to get the best results. No one is accountable for the whole except the "top of the organization."
An Alternative
The alternative is to hold a group of individuals collectively responsible and accountable for a set of results, even though each of them only has personal responsibility and authority for their portion.
This concept is typically met with great initial resistance. People do not want to be held accountable for someone else's performance. They only want to be accountable for their scope and authority. But when collective accountability is fully implemented, the results can be dramatic.
Two Examples
One example is a company in which a group of selected managers were brought together and assigned collective accountability for the operational performance of their business. Individually, they represented sales, service, operations and finance. Traditionally, they had each been held responsible for their own areas. The collective accountability was twofold. First, these individuals were still individually responsible for their own functional areas. Secondly, they were now held collectively accountable for the monthly operational business results. It was their job to make the day-to-day balancing decisions to optimize the business using their collective functional authority. The results were astounding. Conflicts that were previously escalated up to senior management vanished. Customer satisfaction increased dramatically. Capacity and throughput increased. And so did profitability!
The second example is in large project management, such as design-build projects. Large projects in this industry typically have an initial concept and design phase; an engineering phase; a construction phase; completion and handover to the customer; and follow-up service. In many companies a project manager works with each of the organizations that provides its part of the project. When problems arise each part points fingers at someone else. Each group accepts responsibility for its own area, but accountability for the entire project rests only with the project manager. Breakthroughs can occur in this model when an integrated team is pulled together that represents the entire project and this team is then held accountable for the completed project.
Consequences Are Essential
This model only works if the third leg of the stool - consequences - is part of the equation. The team is held collectively accountable and bears the fruits of its common labor. Everyone shares in the rewards...or not.
At the end of every Superbowl all the members of one team receive a Superbowl ring. None of the members of the other team get one. It doesn't matter who played well or who didn't. Responsibility and accountability were shared by all and the consequences were applied to all. When businesses apply these concepts they often achieve the same championship results.
|
