Shared Accountability

Creating a Culture Where Truth Reigns
Peter O'Donnell 

This article provided by the Engstrom Institute

As Arnold Cooper opened the letter from the foundation that funded Hope for the City's largest ministry initiative, he wondered, "What now?" He'd been waiting for this letter since a brief phone conversation with the foundation's director two days ago—a conversation devoid of the usual relaxed, friendly banter he'd come to expect from their infrequent contacts. All she said was that a letter was in the mail, and that she wanted a meeting with Arnold and his board chair as soon as possible. This couldn't be good news, yet Arnold had no idea what was coming.

His heart sank as he read of the foundation's decision to terminate funding after only two years of a proposed five-year project. While lacking in details, the letter cited three main reasons for the decision: failure to meet key deliverables, administrative and financial management shortcomings, and a perceived lack of open, honest communication concerning the project's growing list of problems.

Arnold angrily tossed the letter onto his desk and picked up the phone. When Dave Ferguson[2], director of ministry development, arrived, he was met with a rush of angry words: "How did this happen? Why wasn't I told about these problems? Who's responsible for this mess anyway? Why weren't you and the program managers on top of this? Isn't anybody accountable around here?"

Dave, taken aback by Arnold's outburst, could only sputter a few lame-sounding responses. "I had no idea. I'll find out who knew, and why they didn't solve these problems. We'll get to the bottom of this—we'll find out who's to blame."

Over the next few days, a disturbing picture emerged of an organization where no one seemed willing to own any of its problems. Front line staff complained that supervisors never had time to talk about the difficulties they faced, much less listen to feedback that certain promised deliverables were going to be late or sub-par. Supervisors complained about being given their "marching orders from on high," and being warned to "do whatever it takes" to make the project work. "Failure isn't an option," they were told, "so stay on top of your people—don't be afraid to push people on this."

Both management and supervisors claimed that, despite their efforts to control every aspect of daily operations, they didn't really know how bad things were. A few admitted they typically stepped in whenever they saw a problem, and did whatever was required to "make it go away." Others simply pled ignorance—and promised to identify the culprits.

Problems and mistakes were one thing, but Arnold was more disturbed about a pattern of cover up he was seeing. And he was confused about how, with all the command and control efforts his leadership staff claimed to be making, there were still all these performance failures. He decided there must be something more to this—a deeper malaise—and he knew he had to get to the bottom of it. He also knew he couldn't risk any more surprises like this, threatening the survival of the whole ministry.

Getting a Clearer Picture

The lost funding had a devastating impact on the organization, with major layoffs the most visible result. Worse, though, was the impact on the organizational climate. Anxiety was up, enthusiasm was down, and no one felt safe—not the best climate in which to take a fresh look at their problems.

Through a number of interviews with board, management and front line staff, and several painful group dialogues, a clearer picture emerged. For one thing, most front line staff and supervisors felt stifled under the constant scrutiny of their managers. They'd also learned that "mistakes are not welcome here" and many had decided that talking to their superiors about problems was an invitation to even closer micro-management. And so, they just "muddled through" whenever they encountered difficulties.

When pressed to talk about how this made them feel, their responses included words like anxious, resentful and devalued. One supervisor, who'd recently given notice that she was planning to leave, summed it up this way, "Management tells us we're this ministry's most important asset, but treat us as if we can't be trusted to do our best. I guess we sometimes live down to their expectations."

In my work with the management team, we soon realized this ministry's problem wasn't too little control—there was actually too much. The fruit of the "command and control" culture was that most front line staff felt undervalued, under-appreciated—even uncared-for as people. They felt like cogs in a machine, and replaceable ones at that. Surprisingly, at least to management, was the fact that many said the only reason they hadn't left the ministry was that they were so committed to its mission. They just wished they were free to make a bigger contribution in fulfilling it. It was clear that management's focus on compliance was getting in the way of a free expression of people's commitment. It was this insight that became our starting point.

It didn't take long for people at all levels of the organization to agree they wanted to work in an environment where people acted with integrity, where accountability was the norm, where "everyone was committed to doing the right thing," as one supervisor put it. The key question then became, "How do we create such an environment?"

What Scripture Says

Scripture has much to say about this, notably through the examples of Jesus and Paul, but also in its description of life in the early church. Let's consider four levels of caring for our people:

Level 1: Caring for people

At the most basic level, caring for people as people, Jesus demonstrated his love for his followers. His prayer in John 17 eloquently speaks to his concern for the disciples at both a personal and ministry level. This fundamental concern, so essential to building trust, is echoed in many places in Paul's letters to those he discipled into leadership. His concern for them went well beyond their roles in the church.

Both Jesus and Paul stressed that such love and support—as demonstrated by all believers—was the clearest evidence of the reality of their faith.

Level 2: Supporting people

Supporting people in ways that encouraged their full engagement in the task of building the church was another focal point of Paul's teaching. He continually challenged the believers to become fully contributing members of the body of Christ. Moreover, he especially encouraged leaders to be equippers, with a special responsibility "to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up" (Ephesians 4:12).

Paul further elaborates this theme in his instructions to Timothy for developing others for leadership and promoting harmony and collaboration within the church. Mentoring is important when you lift your gaze above the level of day-to-day tasks and see the need to build capacity for the future. Toward the end of his earthly ministry, Jesus turned his attention in this same direction, teaching about the meaning and cost of discipleship, as he would soon be gone from their midst.

Level 3: Believing in people

At this level, we see how much Jesus believed his followers would do great things for the Kingdom. In John 14:12-14 we read, "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."

Jesus had high expectations that his followers would be fruitful, not just faithful, as we see in the parable of the servants in Luke 19. The clear message is one of rewarding accountability.

The nature of the reward is also interesting—the faithful servants are given more responsibility, but also more resources, so they can pursue even greater gains for the Kingdom.

Level 4: Learning in community

At another level, Scripture tells us learning is important, and that it happens best in community. The early church, as described in Acts 2:42-47, is about much more than just joyful fellowship. It describes an intentional, Spirit-led learning community. That's what our churches are to be, and that's also an important dimension of any ministry.

Furthermore, it's clear that leaders are expected to create an environment in which such a community can form. It's only in the safety of such a community that true accountability—the freely offered promise to do the right thing—is possible.

Fundamental Change

A number of opportunities for fundamental change quickly surfaced at Hope for the City. First, it was important that considerable learning take place, both to improve work processes and to build healthier working relationships. One of the most important goals in the latter area was to end the process of blaming that had come to characterize management's response to identified problems. In its place, management agreed to be more open and supportive—to work hard at creating more of a learning organization where problems were seen as opportunities for individual and collective learning. That meant creating a safe community in which learning could happen.

A second important area of change directly addressed the matter of accountability, defined as "willingly taking ownership for one's actions, making and keeping one's promises, and working collaboratively to solve problems." This was a difficult area in which to bring about change, given the resentment many staff felt over being told constantly how to do their work. Setting ambitious goals was fine, but management needed to demonstrate that they believed intheir people enough to delegate the work to them, and then provide them with the authority, support, and non-judgmental feedback they needed to achieve the required results.

Implicit in this was the realization that an organization cannot hold its people accountable for their performance—people must choose to be accountable. The former is really not so much about holding people responsible for their work, as trying to ensure predictable behavior through "command and control" management approaches. For people to choose to be accountable, however, requires a different management approach—a servant-leadership approach.

Only in such an environment will people be ready, willing and able to take full ownership of their work—to do the right thing even when no one would know if they did otherwise. For this reason, only those capable of leading in this way should ever be promoted to positions of supervisory responsibility. This realization led to some significant restructuring of the ministry, and led to improvements in the selection and training of supervisors and managers all the way to the top of the organization.

A third key area requiring change was the organization's means of engaging people in its planning and problem-solving processes. The most obvious barrier here was the lack of open, honest communication, which led to a widespread perception that managers acted "in secret" and handed down their decisions for implementation. Moreover, front line staff complained that there were few opportunities to get their ideas heard and so they didn't feel their input was valued. Over time, many had stopped offering their insights altogether.

What they really wanted was a chance to participate fully in truly collaborative processes—planning, problem-solving, and long-term visioning to create a future in which everyone could feel a sense of prideful ownership. Tackling this required an intense effort to improve the quality of communication at all levels. But it also stimulated a creative redesign of the ministry's cumbersome, top-down planning and decision-making structures. It became much easier for ideas to 'bubble up' from anywhere in the organization.

Developing Trust

There remained one even more fundamental level of change to be addressed, one that people were only willing to reveal as they became more convinced that the ministry's leaders were serious about changing the culture. That was at the level of basic trust in the organization's leadership, including board and management, who were seen as acting, at times, in ways that directly undermined staff morale and a sense of security. At worst, it seemed to some—including certain managers and supervisors—that their leaders simply didn't care about them as people.

As evidence, they talked about everything from a lack of open, two-way communication to a lack of tolerance and support when faced with the inevitable challenge in balancing work with life. To this, others added their sense of frustration that "time spent" seemed more important than real output. Still others spoke of the long-standing freeze on professional development and the lack of mentoring opportunities. As one supervisor summed it up, "It's hard to trust people who don't seem to care about you as a person. You have to wonder what's important to them, and whether you really matter beyond your willingness to do what you're told."

This was, for some supervisors and managers, the biggest challenge. For one thing, it took time—it was hard to care about their staff when they hardly knew them on a personal level. More than time, though, it took a new commitment to flexibility and work/life balance, and recognition that people had a life outside the walls of the organization. Not only did it require a wholesale revision of policies, but also the learning of new behavior. But, in the end, the results were very affirming in terms of improved productivity, reduced stress and an improved working climate where everyone could feel it was fun to come to work again.

No Easy Road

The process of building a new culture didn't happen overnight, and it didn't happen soon enough for some people who through the experience of opening up the issues felt they needed to move on. But for others, the growing sense of safety—being able to talk openly with people at all levels of the organization about difficult problems, as well as their dreams for a better workplace—convinced them to make the commitment to contribute to the change.

Hope for the City is a much happier and more productive ministry today. There's clear evidence of increased collaboration, and that learning is once again valued as an important part of everyone's job. Passion and commitment are quickly returning to the ministry, as people feel valued and expected to "do great things" as they commit to being accountable to each other and to their shared responsibilities. People are increasingly engaged in creating the future of the organization together. And, most importantly, people feel like they belong to a caring, Spirit-led learning community—one in which people genuinely care for each other as people uniquely gifted and called to this work.

The key lesson for management in all of this came to be summarized in three parts: You either care about your people, or you don't, determining their level of trust. You either value their contribution, or you don't, determining their level of engagement. You either believe in their capacity—and commitment—to do great things, or you don't, determining their level of willing accountability. On all three levels, whatever message your actions communicate, be assured people will know where you stand and they'll act accordingly, determining how much deep learning really happens.

The choice is yours. Are you prepared to do what it takes to support the emergence of a Spirit-led learning community of committed servants at all levels, or will you continue, through "command and control" leadership, to seek the false security of compliant, but unengaged, followers?

Quick Review

Key Indicators of a Healthy Organization:

• Providing a Supportive Workplace
  Do people feel like they matter as people?
• Creating a Climate for Change
  Do people willingly participate in change initiatives?
• Building a Culture of Shared Accountability
  Do people feel and act like "co-owners?"
• Enhancing the Capacity for Learning
  Do people engage in ongoing learning?
• Nurturing Learning Communities
  Do people actively participate in a learning community?

Peter O'Donnell, president of the Healthy Futures Group, Toronto, Canada, is a consultant specializing in organizational change and leadership development. You may contact him at peter.odonnell@healthyfutures.ca.

[1] Hope for the City is a pseudonym for a real organization and Arnold is a fictitious name for the ministry director who called me in to help them get to the bottom of the problem.
[2] Dave Ferguson, director of ministry development, is also a fictitious name.