My friend interrupted me in mid-sentence. “Your question was painfully clear,” he said. “Last year, only six of our people received a ‘Needs Improvement’ rating.”

He went on to describe his organization as similar to Garrison Keeler’s mythical Lake Wobegone community where all the men are handsome, all the women are beautiful, and all the children are above average.

“We’re good with technology,” he said, “but we’re not at all good at the straight talk that’s necessary for consistently high performance. Sometimes we dance around or even ignore issues that cry out for attention.”

My friend’s assessment of his organization was right on target. And it underscored the common need (1) to define what accountability really means and then (2) to engage people in ways that win their hearts, minds and commitment.

Some of my clients address the matter with something called the Ladder of Accountability.

At the lowest rung on the ladder, people are simply “Unaware” or “Unconscious.” They don’t even know there’s a situation that needs attention.

The next rung on the ladder is the “Blame Others” level. Here’s where we see a lot of finger pointing. When something goes wrong, or fails to go right, people at this level are quick to censure their colleagues. This is the behavior we frequently see on “The Apprentice,” Donald Trump’s television show in which young professionals fight it out for a big job opportunity. Rather than fixing problems, most of the contestants invest their energy in fixing blame.      

Just above the “Blame Others” rung on the Ladder of Accountability are the “Personal Excuses” and “I Can’t” levels. The behavior we see here is sort of an adult version of “the dog ate my homework” syndrome. People talk themselves into believing, for a wide range of imaginative reasons, that they are simply unable to accomplish the task at hand. It’s never their fault, of course, because (they genuinely believe) they are controlled by circumstances.

Next we have the “Wait and Hope” level. Although waiting and hoping are better than blaming and making excuses, this is still a mind set that places the obligation for results on someone else. In fact, all of behaviors on these lower rungs on the Ladder of Accountability are victim behaviors. People who languish at these levels of performance (or non-performance) seem to believe that things happen to them.

So let’s consider the more productive rungs on the Ladder of Accountability.

At the “Acknowledge Reality” level, people at least have their heads out of the sand. They see the situation for what it is, sort the facts from the fiction, and accept the certainty that something needs to be changed.

An even higher rung on the ladder is the “Embrace It!” level. People operating at this level admit their own role in the problem, then accept ownership of the situation. People who psychologically “own” a problem are much more likely to solve it than people who merely acknowledge that a problem exists. The symptoms of psychological ownership are intense interest, passion, determination, and the persistent investment of energy. Psychological ownership reminds us of the old joke about ham and eggs. The chicken is merely involved, the pig is truly committed.

Just above the “Embrace It! level is the “Find a Solution!” rung on the Ladder of Accountability. Solutions are spawned by commitment to results.

And the highest rung on the Ladder of Accountability is the “Make It Happen!” level. People who operate at this level don’t just talk about results, they get results. Their commitment is relentless (I didn’t say ruthless, I said relentless.)

These “Make It Happen!” people sometimes make the hand-wringers uncomfortable. They not only tend to think outside the box, they often refuse to accept the notion that “the box” even exists. They don’t take no for an answer. They gain special satisfaction in solving problems that others regard as impossible or just too difficult. They’re worth their weight in gold because they know that things happen because of them, not to them. 

This is not to suggest that “Make It Happen!” people are renegades or organizational vigilantes. They not only feel accountable for results, they also feel accountability to their colleagues. Good “Make It Happen!” people are very big on mutual respect and mutual purpose.

Of course with mutual respect and mutual purpose comes a willingness to account for one’s own performance. This includes accepting responsibility for personal performance shortfalls as well as accepting credit for personal performance triumphs.

In an earlier column I talked about how top performers deliberately seek feedback, and not just the pat-on-the-back variety. (See ”Feedback: Breakfast of Champions”.)  

The notion of feedback highlights a key component of performance accountability: dialogue.

In Crucial Conversations, a best-selling book by four of my colleagues, dialogue is defined as the free flow of meaning between two or more people. Notice that the definition doesn’t mention agreement. It focuses on the free flow of meaning. My version of good performance may not square with yours. So if we are to work together productively, both of us must be comfortable enough to put our own meaning into the shared pool. Only then can we make each other smarter, concur on mutual purpose, and produce a result that satisfies us both. 

A “crucial conversation” is defined here as an interaction with high stakes, varied opinions, and at least the potential for strong emotion. What could fit that definition more closely than a conversation about someone’s performance?

All of this presupposes that people in successful accountability relationships (like managers and direct reports) must be able to talk with each other openly and honestly, early and often.

Of course for some people open and honest communication is a bit like having a baby: it’s easier to conceive than to deliver.

A set of five extremely helpful skills in Crucial Conversations is captured in a handy acronym: STATE My Path.

STATE stands for Share your facts, Tell your story, Ask for others’ paths, Talk tentatively, and Encourage testing.

In a conversation about someone’s performance, it’s always best to begin with the facts. And be very careful not to allow stories to masquerade as facts. Facts are observable and verifiable. Conclusions, attributions, and judgments are the feelings we have and the stories we tell ourselves about the facts.

Which is a better start?

“I’m fed up with you.” (feelings) 

“You’re totally irresponsible.” (story) 

“On the past seven projects you’ve missed your production
            deadline five times and exceeded budget on six. Each time you
            apologized and promised to do better with the next project.” (facts)  

Sharing your facts – first – is less controversial. Facts are less insulting because, well, facts are facts.

I’m not suggesting that crucial conversations about someone’s performance are necessarily easy. Sometimes they are quite uncomfortable. But not nearly as uncomfortable as the certainty of unresolved performance issues.

After you have briefly Shared your facts (don’t pile it on), Tell your story. Explain the conclusions and judgments you’ve drawn from the facts you just shared. This might be expressed as simply as “I’m beginning to wonder if you’re not as committed to our success as you had led me to believe, of if something else is going on.”

Asking for the other person’s path (how he got the results he’s now getting) can be as simple as saying “How do you see it?” This opens the door for the other person to put his meaning into the pool, to tell you how the world looks from his vantage point. This includes making it safe for the other person to share new ideas and to challenge your facts.

These first three skills are called the “What” skills. The “How” skills are Talk tentatively and Encourage testing.

Talking tentatively does not mean expressing false doubt, tip-toeing through issues, or sugarcoating your views. It merely means that you don’t try to ram your perspective down someone’s throat. “The only reasonable option …” is too forceful and usually not as effective as “I propose that you consider …” “You’re completely incompetent …” is likely to trigger a response very different from what you might get with “I’m wondering if a bit more coaching would be helpful.”

Encourage testing is the “how” skill of inviting others to challenge your own thinking. If your goal is to convince, compel, or control, you’ll likely do a good job of expressing your view but a lousy job of encouraging others to express theirs.

I heard one manager make a mockery of this skill when he said to his staff “I think any smart engineer can see that my approach is the right one, but, hey, if any of you want to challenge my way, take your best shot.” So much for dialogue.

When performance accountability is important – and when is it not? – a good place to start is with open dialogue about mutual purpose and mutual expectations.

What does great performance “look like” to you? What does it “look like” to the person to whom you’re delegating?

What are your mutual expectations on deliverables, timelines, budgets, and all the other parameters of the task?

Where, when, and how will the accountability sessions occur?  

Consistently effective managers and leaders find that it helps to be explicit about what kind of performance they stand for and what kind of performance they will not stand for. They recognize victim, villain, and helpless stories when they see them, and they disabuse their people of any notion that the blame game is acceptable.

Consistently effective managers and leaders are accountable for holding others accountable.

(To learn more about your own default tendencies during crucial conversations, click on Style Under Stress for a free self-assessment with instant results.)

NOTE: Click here to see The Kansas City Star's report on this column.

(Rodger Dean Duncan's LinkedIn Profile)