Companies exist to scale a customer promise (value proposition) to achieve their mission. An unwavering sense of accountability to that promise drives teams to do what 'must be done’ versus doing what is convenient, familiar, or easy. There are many pressure points for unlocking greater accountability through a company:

Clearly defined and communicated operating plan.
Hiring the right people and for the right roles.
Meeting cadence and structure.
Performance evaluations.
Management training.
Incentive structures.

The list goes on.

This post focuses on driving accountability through 1:1 communications— a common cultural practice top teams have. We do this because it is also a simple, practical way to change the operating tone from:

Doing “stuff” → Getting the right things done in time
Making sloppy promises with inconsistent delivery → Honoring commitments through impeccable agreements
Being busy → Busy achieving

Top teams treat accountability like a game and pattern this mindset into their teams— they win together, learn together, and fail forward together. In this post, we share a simple communication model so you can drive accountability when:

You communicate with others in your team.
You respond to communications.
You provide corrective feedback for sloppy communications.
Other team members communicate with you and others.

The model is first-principles based so that you can repurpose it appropriately for specific communication media— email, Slack, SMS, Asana, for example— and in your voice.

I: The Working Premise for Accountability Through 1:1 Communication

Review the following working premises for accountability through communication to gain the most benefit from this post. We don't ask you to believe or agree with the following statements - take it 'as if’ they are true so that you can gain the most benefit from this simple communication model.

Communication is a multi-directional street— it works best when everyone is intentional, helpful, and clear with their communication.
Accountability is a functional mode of operation within which people in a company 1) Feel intrinsically motivated to achieve a specific set of goals and 2) Take full responsibility for achieving them. You want people to be as accountable for the goal as they are for the necessary actions.
‘Enforcing’ accountability is an illusion— you must inspire it. You can’t force people to do anything against their will. You can strongly encourage and discourage certain behaviors using communication.
Communication is most useful when it is behaviorally specific so that the recipient can picture what you mean. By using sensory-rich descriptions in your communications, recipients are less likely to rely on stories and subjective interpretations to understand what you mean.

II: All Comms Lead to Achievement

Whenever sending any communication piece to anybody— it is important to clarify which category of communication it fits into:

For Your Information (FYI): This could be for sharing context or potentially helpful intel.
Request for Action (RFA): When you need quick feedback, someone to own a specific action and outcome to be closed by a specific date or have a question answered.

Top operators place one of the above in the subject line of their email or at the header of their communication pieces. Example:

Subject Line: Action by 12PM PST Tomorrow: Sales Win-Rate Dropped 10% this Month
We need to know why our sales win rate dropped 10% this month and what you will do to bring it back to 80%+ (and keep it there) before next month's close.
We can't afford sales efficiency to slip as we aim to fundraise in the next quarter in a very tough financial climate. If we fail to raise, then we have to consider cutting headcount.
Please provide a diagnosis and a proposed corrective plan by 12PM PST tomorrow.

This is an example of a top-down communication piece. Notice that the communication piece encourages accountability using the following attributes:

Clearly defined measure for what is considered a success (WHAT)
Clear link to key goals (WHY)
The appropriate owner (WHO)
Time-bound (WHEN)
Strong sense of consequence whether + or - (CAUSE & EFFECT)

In the example above, the above attributes are present:

What: 80%+ win rate with diagnosis and plan to achieve that.
Why: fundraising success.
When: 12PM PST the following day.
Who: recipient.
Consequence: cutting headcount (-).

If any of the above are ambiguous or unrealistic, a culture of accountability necessitates that the receiver makes an effort to clarify and manage up. It is inappropriate for the recipient to blame inaction or ineffective action on the sender.

Top executives always want things done yesterday— a sense of urgency and speed is part of their nature by necessity. When managing up, you must educate and advocate for better ways within the company's interest. In the most recent example, the recipient can respond with a request for a change to the timeline versus missing the deadline of 12PM PST the next day:

Subject Line: Re: Action by 12PM PST Tomorrow: Request for 1-Day Extension
Request for a 1-Day extension to close this action. Currently helping close two major competitive enterprise deals which account for 30% of quota tomorrow— 90% chance we win both. I would rather take an extra day to close these before switching gears to diagnosis and correction.
Please confirm.

In top operating teams, every individual takes responsibility for holding each other accountable for accountable-driving communications. The more a team tolerates sloppy commitments— the sloppier the team gets with honoring their commitments. When key attributes of accountability are absent, unclear, or inappropriate— it is just as much the recipient's responsibility to challenge, clarify, or reframe them. Here is a list of other ways a recipient can respond to unclear attributes:

WHAT:
- Ask for behavioral specificity— what specifically do you mean by X?
- Ask for measurable indicators of success— how will we know when we have achieved X?
- Disagree with the task and suggest a better, more functional way to achieve and own the goal.
- Voice disagreement and commit anyway (especially if it is the CEO's or C-Suite's request).
- Request for additional resources to complete the task.
WHY:
- Disagree with the importance of the task and suggest an alternative.
- Ask for context behind the request for action.
WHO:
- Suggest a more appropriate owner and why.
- Request for additional people resources.
- Commit and suggest a more appropriate owner for future requests of this kind.
WHEN:
- Push back on the deadline with clear reasoning based on consequences to other important/urgent company priorities.

III: Yours to Action By The End of the Week :)

Your mission: implement the 1:1 communication standard by the close of business this week. That every communication piece you use in a 1:1 context has the five attributes of accountability, specifically:

Clearly defined measure for what is considered a success (WHAT)
Clear link to key goals (WHY)
The appropriate owner (WHO)
Time-bound (WHEN)
Strong sense of consequence whether + or - (CAUSE & EFFECT)

You are to provide corrective feedback or push-back for every communication piece you receive (or review) that doesn't possess all necessary attributes.

The consequences of implementing accountability-driving communications sooner than later:

You can gain greater trust in your team to complete what they commit to achieving.
Experience a decreased need for micromanagement.
Avoid the miserable experience of chronically explaining your team’s misses to the board.

If what we suggest is unclear, please get in touch with us on our relevant social media channels so we can help set you up for success!