How to Hold IT Staff Accountable for Results

Guest blog by Bob Kantor, IT executive coach and author of Shatter Your Leadership Limits - Better Results in Less Time with Less Stress.

I. Set Clear and Viable Expectations

Step One is to set clear and viable expectations with whomever we want to be accountable for delivering results. Clarity is not simply a function of the message that we send or deliver. Clarity is also a function of how that message is received by the recipient. Setting clear expectations requires an in­teraction and a level of engagement that ensures shared understanding.

In setting clear expectations, we need to ensure we are not telling staff how to proceed, and are instead focusing on what results are needed.

Reaching agreement on the viability of the expectation is just as critical as setting the expectation, and is often skipped by managers. When we give someone an aggressive timeframe and don’t have an explicit discussion about their belief about the viability of that timeframe, there are times when they will deliver and meet those expectations. However, the level of commitment and the track record of delivery is certainly lower.

Best practices suggest that it is helpful to give the person whom we are holding accountable an opportunity to provide their best estimate as to the viability of the timing for the task at hand. We can then engage in conversation as to how we might change the estimate so that it is better aligns with the business requirements at hand. Performance and accountability are best arrived at when there is shared agreement around the viability of the request.

II. Create Compelling Consequences

The next step is to ensure that there are compelling conse­quences. Compelling consequences are not, by definition, always negative. It is perhaps even more important to establish compelling positive consequences.

All too often in today's work environment, with the tre­mendous pressure of expanded roles and responsibilities, we tend to focus entirely on avoidance of negative consequenc­es. This can be somewhat effective in the short term, but over the long term does not lead to the most vibrant and effective of work environments. We have to create compelling positive consequences for meeting or exceeding expectations, and clear negative consequences for not meeting expectations.

It's easy to identify a negative consequence of poor performance with ei­ther informal or formal warnings, and how that might impact end of the year performance evaluation, merit raise and/or bo­nus. The flip side of that are the positive consequences of formal performance reviews, as well as merit raises and bonuses.

The reality is that, a) those typically occur only once a year, and b) for many professionals in today's workplace, there is a limit as to how compelling the performance review and sal­ary review can be.

In today's fast-paced workplaces, all too often we don't recognize people with a simple thank you or ac­knowledgment of a job well done. This can be as simple as, "Thank you for going the extra mile," "Thank you for staying late," or "Thank you for seeing this through, even though it impacted your week­end."

For many of us, reward is also a function of recognition among our peers or our manager's Management. Having an ac­complishment or a success called out during a team meeting can be a compelling positive consequence.

Being given an opportunity to make a presentation at a meeting one or two levels up in the organization, or to attend an industry conference, can be positive consequences.

III. Talk About the Facts

Step three in the process is to hold ongoing conversa­tions based upon the facts, or empirical evidence. It is much more effective, when we are creating conditions of account­ability, to be able to refer to facts and figures that everyone can agree upon and acknowledge are true, rather than to rely upon subjective beliefs.

For example, you might say, "You didn't deliver the re­sult that I expected because I had to follow up too often with some of our key stakeholders." This is not as powerful or useful as, "You didn't meet my expectations. I was called in to six dif­ferent meetings by our sponsors because you were not effective­ly keeping them in the loop about issues and issue resolution." In creating conditions of accountability, it is usually much more effective to have such a conversation after a first incident, rather than waiting until the situation gets worse.

Another example of ongoing conversations based upon the facts would be, "I just got a phone call from our key stake­holder on your project. He has called a meeting this afternoon that I will attend, because he is concerned that you are not ad­dressing the issues and the challenges coming up in the project in an aggressive fashion. Let's talk about what's going on how you can address the situation differently."

Here's a quick review:

1. Set clear and viable expectations.
2. Create compelling consequences, both positive and negative.
3. Hold ongoing conversations based upon the facts.