There’s an accountability crisis in firms these days. We know how much poor performance costs us, yet we are not managing these folks out fast enough. Ironically, the number one reason I’ve seen that leaders keep toxic talent around is the feeling that it’d be “unfair” to hold them accountable.

Similar problems can creep into software. Components can fail to meet their quality or performance requirements. Perhaps systems and principles here can help us hold people accountable. If we build trust in these processes to produce good outcomes, we’ll trust that they are, in fact, just and fair. After all, bugs don’t complain that the debugger is unfair.

Let’s try it.

The Three Pillars of Quality

To ensure software quality, we use three methods, which complement each other’s weaknesses: static analysis, testing, and peer review.

Static analysis is a tool we run on our code base. They’re computers checking our work for us. Testing is a tool we build ourselves to check our code base. Finally, peer review asks other humans to check our work.

How can we apply these to accountability?

Checklists and Standards

The first tool, static analysis, can be applied to our teams by ensuring we have transparent, concrete, and clearly communicated standards. Think of a good job description—these help hold people accountable by clearly outlining what’s expected of them and giving “casus belli” for critical feedback when they fail.

This also includes approaches such as writing standard operating procedures.

This can go too far as you might try to “document everything.” Instead, take a lean approach and focus your standards efforts around areas with the most confusion or disagreement. Additionally, don’t write down things that don’t need to be written down.

Standards and other documentation should not be treated as written in stone. Instead, treat them like code to be refactored—this moves the argument over “what are your responsibilities here” from conversation and lore to a written artifact we can now both comment on.

Underperformers often kick up dust around what they’re supposed to be held accountable for or how the work should be done. “Well, no one told me that!” is a common refrain. Having some written standards helps counteract these arguments. They also serve as good onboarding, getting your new hires up to speed and more productive. Ultimately, underperformers caught by your standards will still complain that the standards aren’t detailed enough or are confusing. Don’t fall for this; it is a ruse. Instead, note that other team members seem to have little problem understanding the letter and spirit of the law. Standards are good enough if they are good enough for most of your team.

Operational Results

Setting measurable KPIs or key results and following up is equivalent to testing in software.

I want to emphasize the operational nature of these. Let’s get a metaphor from software to clarify.

In software, we divide tests into verification and validation. The former asks, “Did we build the thing right?” while the latter asks, “Did we build the right thing?”

On a team, doing the right thing is best owned by the team in terms of strategic results. Meanwhile, doing the thing right is primarily owned by the individual. The team’s only input on doing things right is already in our other methods of accountability. The rest is on the individual.

Doing the thing right is execution. A team may pursue a feature to increase revenue, and they break up the work across the front and back end. Each individual is responsible for doing their part across the plan, but they can’t be held accountable for the entire plan’s success or failure since they’re not empowered to do that.

Similarly, you don’t want to hold individuals accountable for KPIs or key results that they could not do alone. Instead, you must find measurables they are empowered to control that contribute to the overall objective.

This is similar in software to differentiating between acceptance tests (e.g., did the client like what you built, a common validation test) and unit tests (e.g., are there bugs in what you built, a common verification test).

Underperformers get caught by checks on operational results since there is a yes or no answer to whether they delivered on their commitments. Typically, they may fly under the radar or manage to take credit for other results. When they inevitably miss, be prepared for them to play the blame game.

360 Reviews

The last part of our quality triangle is getting humans in the loop, akin to code review. 360 reviews allow you to detect who trusts each other. Trust is more important than competence.

In many organizations, underperformers hide by focusing most of their efforts on managing their reputations with their bosses. By asking their teammates how much they can rely on and trust them, you can gain incredibly valuable information.

Having a standard values statement and detailed explanations of what you define as trustworthy and what you define as bad behavior can help your team conduct effective 360s.

When caught by 360s, underperformers may attempt to allege some sort of conspiracy against them. This is probably their weakest defense but be prepared if it happens. They may also try to attack the culture that judges them—perhaps saying it isn’t competitive or this isn’t how you should work. That’s ultimately a decision made by senior leadership, and the right time to criticize things like values statements might be when they’re written rather than when you’re caught by them.

Putting It All Together

Like in software, these three approaches complement each other.

Standards and checklists help us determine what operational results should be assigned to which person. Similarly, stating our values helps teams effectively provide 360-degree feedback on who lives those values and who does not.

Tracking operational results alone might allow someone to hit their goals at the team’s expense. Combining them with 360s lets you detect who’s only out for themselves when hitting results.

All three together make it very hard for an underperformed person not to decide either to improve or look for other work where such standards are not enforced.

These tools of accountability will help unlock performance in your organization.