Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
You've handed over responsibility. So why is everyone still asking you to make the decisions? And why, if you're honest, are you a little relieved that they are?
I'm Dr. Tara Vossenkemper, a consultant and group practice owner. On Integrity at Scale™, I teach, think out loud, and get into the practical and human sides of leading a business. That means roles, numbers, culture, and the things that keep happening even though you've already had that conversation. Three times.
Some episodes teach something you can use. Others take you into a decision I'm making in my own business, a pattern I'm noticing, or a question I haven't settled yet. You'll also hear conversations with other leaders and responses to listener questions.
I want you to leave with a clearer understanding of what's happening and something useful to try. Sometimes that comes with a great idea. Sometimes it comes with, “Well, shit. I do that.”
This was previously called the Culture Focused Practice podcast. All the earlier episodes are still here in the same feed, so you can keep listening right where you left off.
Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@culturefocusedpractice
Explore the Model and Working Together: https://www.taravossenkemper.com/
What's up, my nerds? We're gonna talk accountability today, and if you did not get that reference, it's Todd Packer reference from The Office, US version. Thank you very much. All right, so just hear me out, 'cause I'm gonna say something that I think sounds controversial, but it's not. Accountability is not primarily a people problem.
This is why it sounds controversial, because I think that makes it sound like I'm letting people off the hook, and that's not what I'm trying to do. So before we go further, my name is Dr. Tara Vossenkemper. You're listening to the Culture Focus Practice podcast. Thank you, of course, for tuning in and listening.
We all know that people can avoid shit. They underperform. They don't have a lot of diligence or work ethic. They procrastinate. They're not organized. They get caught up in chasing wild hairs or shiny objects, and then they don't get done what's right in front of them. That's all true.
But what's also true is that leaders will often ascribe that as the problem before the work is actually ownable, so ultimately, before we're judging somebody's character and then saying, "Well, they're not doing it because they're lazy, or thoughtless, or they don't work hard," we should first ask ourselves, was the outcome clear?
Did authority match responsibility? Was support available? Did they get the right feedback at the right time? Did they have the tools needed in order to successfully complete the task that was on their plate? Ultimately, that's all of what today is about, that accountability is a design problem before it's a people problem.
So let's talk agenda. We've got four items on the agenda today. Number one, clarity before judgment. Number two, ownership needs authority and support. Number three, feedback closes the loop. I love feedback. And number four,
consequences teach the system. Let's dive in. Clarity before judgment, this is agenda item number one.
So let's think about it this way. We have to make sure if we are passing something over to a person who is existing in a seat, and they have a core set of responsibilities, we have to make sure that the outcome is clear. We have to make sure that the standard is clear, the standard of success or the standard in terms of outcome at this level is not enough.
We need it up here. We have to make sure there's a clear owner and authority and ability to have responsibility, and we have to make sure that the timing of what we're wanting is clearly indicated, either written down somewhere or at least, here's the deadline for X, Y, or Z. What I'll say here is that communicating these things to a person is different from ensuring that they understand what you are wanting understood.
So if we think that communication is, you know, there's two overall things that have to happen in communication. One is that the message has to be sent clearly. Obviously, that's something if we're asking somebody to do a job, or we're asking somebody to take over a project, or we're delegating something to somebody, we have to make sure that we are communicating clearly, and that's where, like, the outcome, the standard, the owner, the expectations, the timing, et cetera, all of those things have to be internally clear and then effectively communicated in a crystal clear way.
I- Let's see how many times I can say clear this episode. The second thing is that the recipient of that communication
We wanna ensure that they understand what we're saying in the way that we intend it. And so this might seem like overkill, and I'm not saying that every single time you go to communicate something you should be asking questions like this. But I am saying if we're going to delegate something or we're going to, like, pass over accountability to somebody for something big, I definitely wanna understand how they are hearing what I'm saying.
And so it might be something as simple as we're having a conversation about a project or the thing that's about to be delegated, or the thing I want them to be accountable for. I clearly lay out everything as I see it. I want to then ask them, "Okay, how are you understanding this project? Like, you tell me what it is that you're hearing what are the most important pieces, what's the outcome, what's the timing," et cetera.
I'm basically gonna ask them to give it back to me. Tell me in your own words what I just told you, because how it landed for them and how it lives inside of them, that's gonna come out in their own words. And so I'm gonna be able to catch like, "Oh, whoop, hang on a second. I'm hearing a lot of emphasis on this, but it's actually this piece that needs to be emphasized," or, "Oh, I'm glad you said that.
The timing is right. I meant I want draft one done at this point, and I want the launch at this point." It allows for further clarity. If somebody is relaying back to you the message that you sent, you get to then, um, I hate saying like iron sharpens iron, 'cause I don't think that's right. But you get to then further clarify like, "Oh
yes this, but also this," or, "And also this." Let's think about an example
We could do something clinical with this. Let's say we want to improve retention across the practice, you know? And retention is gonna be defined differently by everybody. We are a primarily counseling practice at this point, so we consider retained to be an eight-session engagement with a client.
We wanna improve retention. We need to know what the outcome should be. So one is that we have to set a clear percentage. What percentage of retained clients are we actually seeking? And 100% is not realistic, so there's that. Two is a standard. You know, what's the thing that we're actually expecting out of our people, which might be the percentage retained, but also within what timeframe.
So somebody coming on that's new, I know for anybody joining the team, there's like a transition period where the retention just kind of, it's not super strong the first couple of months that they're with us for a variety of reasons. But, you know, it can be nerves, it can be getting settled into a new space, figuring out how the systems work, what am I allowed to do, what am I not allowed to do, et cetera.
And all of that's fine, so that's like baked into the expectation piece. We need a clear measure. I think that's obvious. The retention would be the percentage calculation, you know, of clients retained. And then we also need to figure out what the threshold is. So if I say to somebody, think about like the owner piece and the standard.
If somebody drops below this percentage retained after they've been with us for six months, that's a problem. Like that needs a movement of some sorts. You have to move on this and seek to rectify the problem. And then beyond that- If somebody continues to have a problem, then that gets escalated here, for example.
So ultimately, we just want to make sure that it's clear that you own this thing, here's what you're responsible for, here's what we expect, here's kind of the timing and rhythm. We're setting the parameters. And again, seeking that information back from the person to understand how they heard it, and then also
I always feel like there's gonna be mistakes before somebody's really off to the races, so also, like, expecting some, figuring things out. How about that?
So let me bring this back full circle then to the agenda item, clarity before judgment. If I had somebody who I thought was accountable for retention, but then they didn't understand the outcome or the standard, they didn't realize they were fully responsible for it
that's a lack of clarity. That's not them not performing, it's them not understanding what's expected of them A separate conversation is if I had had that conversation with them three times and they still didn't get it. That's a whole side conversation. That's not what we're talking about right now.
We're talking about the initial clarity before judgment.
Okay, I'm gonna go on to agenda item number two. Ownership needs authority and support. So we have to give responsibility. So ultimately, when we're delegating something, we want somebody to be accountable for something. We are saying to them, "You're responsible.
Yay, that's exciting." But we also have to make sure they have permission to make moves that maybe you're not aware of. Like, you might not know everything they're doing, and rightfully so. If you're the owner, you shouldn't be making all the decisions for people. We have to make sure they have all the information they need in order to make decisions and be responsible.
We have to make sure that they have the capacity to do what's expected of them with regard to the thing that we want them accountable for. We have to make sure they have the tools needed to do the job, and I would highly recommend providing coaching. And now I'm not talking about forever, like I'm not gonna coach anybody forever.
But somebody stepping into a seat or stepping into a project or something that they're accountable for can be kind of daunting, you know, especially if they're new to this or it's maybe one of their first leadership type roles to be responsible for people, to have to follow up with people on metrics,
maybe have to even, discipline somebody. I mean, it's, it can be very scary. It can be very scary to do that. So we have to make sure that they have the coaching that they need to engage in the types of conversations that they will likely be engaging in if they're accountable for especially something like retention, if we're using that example
I think something like an opposite example of what this would look like is, let's just stick with retention. I hate to keep talking about this, but it's like, well, fuck it, it's already in my brain, might as well just stick with it. If you're a visionary or there's an integrator or just the founder, the owner of the practice, and then there's a clinical director or director of clinical operations, whatever language you might use, and they are the one responsible, allegedly accountable for retention.
But then every time they go to have a conversation with somebody about retention, they have been given the directive, let's say, to email you first and get approval to have that conversation. That is not authority, and that's not support. That is gatekeeping, excessive gatekeeping, I would say, but then that's also, placing yourself as a bottleneck.
When we have somebody in a seat and they're responsible for a number or a metric or something like retention, we have to trust that they are going to deal with that number, and that's where the coaching comes in, and the support and the permission and the information. They need everything required in order to do the job.
And so the real question is, if you find yourself wanting to step in consistently or intervene or needing to be kept in the know for every move that a person makes, you might ask yourself, okay Why do I need to step in every time? Do I not trust that they have the information they need? Do I not trust their decision-making process?
Do I not trust they have the full context of the people that they're holding accountable? Do I not trust that they have access to the tools they need? Those things are you problems. Those are not the person who should be accountable problems. Those are problems that you should fix so that way you can get the fuck out of the way.
And I'm saying this to myself also, we wanna remove ourselves from the situation, so in order to do that, we have to make sure the person accountable has authority and support. We are responsible for ensuring that happens, especially if they are our direct report. All right. That's agenda item number two.
Let's move on to number three, feedback closes the loop.
Oh my word, I love feedback. This is why. As much as I might trust what I think or my gut instinct or how I'm feeling, great, that's all great, you know, I love those things. And also, I don't really trust them 100%. And by that, I mean if I was terrified in the middle of a dark street, I'm gonna bolt, you know?
I'm, trust that sort of thing. But what I mean to say is
I don't think that it's fair to your team or your practice or even yourself really to not have feedback to inform your opinion or thoughts about something that's happening
So
As much as possible, I can't say any time because sometimes it's hard to set up, but as much as possible, if somebody is accountable for something
And I've either recently put them in place with that accountability or it's new to them or, they've been engaging with a system, like they've been maintaining accountability but there hasn't been any way of like checking how things are going I am thinking how do we get feedback on how they're doing and how the process is working without it being this, like, heavy manual lift for any one person?
So that's one type of feedback. It's like baking in feedback to systems that exist to ensure that what is needing to be done should get done, and to assess, like, how it's going. So for example, I'm thinking about
anybody that's receiving supervision at my practice, whether they're a field experience student or provisionally licensed, they receive automated surveys at different rhythms based on their status, like their level of supervisee, regarding their supervision experience, and simultaneously their supervisor is receiving automated surveys about their supervisee.
So it's basically this automated system where both parties are giving feedback about the supervision process, but also the supervisee development. There's like two levels on the supervisor side. And then that feeds back into a system that I maintain. And so that's kind of what I mean about feedback, like how are people doing, how are things going?
It's automated as much as possible. That's one whole like component to it. Another component would be something like
correcting something that isn't going well. And so I don't mean correction with
That's not negative to me. Like, it's just shit goes sideways and we have to say, "Oh, no, that's kind of off course. Come this way." It's not a big fucking deal. Plus, I like feedback. I wanna know, like, if I'm doing something wrong or it's, like, not being received well, I'd rather not do that thing. I'd rather do the thing well and have it be received well, you know?
So for example, if my CD or my DCO my clinical director person, is responsible for retention, and I just happen to get on there to poke around, like They're new to it, so They have what they need. Like, they have the permission and the structure and the tools. We're doing coaching.
We're kind of in this transition process. And I get onto our clinical metrics platform, and I see But there are multiple people who have some issues with retention, and I also know, because I've been meeting with my person, that these people haven't been mentioned, they haven't been scheduled with, and they haven't been tended to yet.
This is a kind of an extreme example, so let's just say one person. Let's say, one person with some issues with retention, and they haven't been tended to yet. At the very next meeting with my CD, the very next coaching meeting, I'm gonna say, "Hey talk to me about this. Like, what are you thinking?
What's your thought process? I noticed, Suzy's retention is, a little rough, like a little below our standard. And, Suzy is past the six-month mark, so what have you noticed? What are you thinking? What was your rationale?" Basically, I wanna give feedback on Susie. This needs to be followed up with.
Uh, of course before I give feedback, that's a little bit of the clarity piece, I wanna understand what their thought process was, and by clarity I mean let's call back to agenda item one. I'm first gonna seek to understand, in essence, why haven't you reached out to Susie, or have you and I just didn't know about it?
And then secondly, you need to. So, if there's hypothetically some great reason why, like, "Well, I've tried to schedule with her three times, but she's been out for three weeks 'cause her house caught on fire, and then her mom died, and then her dog got hit by a tru- " okay, this is a crazy example right now that I'm getting into, but that's different than my CD saying to me, "Oh, I thought I would just give it another week or give it another month to see."
The feedback is like, "Nope, you need to move now," because another month is how many more clients that we're talking about. You know, like, that's not what we do. We move at this point. And now we can also get into coaching. Like, feedback closes that loop, and then we can also use that to inform the support that we need to do, the coaching that we need to do with the person who's accountable for retention, in this case.
Okay, that's agenda item number three, feedback closes the loop. I really do love feedback. I think also, honestly, my love of feedback is probably a little bit OCD-esque. I think the need for data, the need for, like, feedback and information, it's like how I make sense of myself in time and space.
You know? Like, my perception of something, it almost feels like a, a consistent form of reality testing. Like, what am I thinking or feeling, and like, wait, what compared to what the feedback tells me, and what are you all thinking? It's like the more types of feedback I get, the clearer the picture can become.
I might have, again, my own sense for, like, I know something is happening here. I know there's a thing here, but the clear outline shape of it is hard to find, and that's where feedback can really refine that. So I am digressing a little bit about my adoration of feedback. I will move on to agenda item number four officially.
Thank you so much. Agenda item number four, consequences teach the system. So- Let's say my clinical director didn't schedule with Susie about that retention, and I did not say anything. I didn't give any feedback, or I gave feedback like, "Oh, I saw you didn't schedule with Susie," which is like not even real feedback.
That's just me making an observation. And my CD's like, "Yeah, no, I didn't." And I say, "Okay, well, just keep me posted." That is a response that then teaches the standard. I am basically, not explicitly but I'm implicitly giving my clinical director the okay to ignore the standards, ignore the outcomes, ignore the protocol
Ignore the accountability responsibilities, and I'm just sort of, "Okay, what do you think's gonna happen next time?" That consequence or lack thereof is then teaching, it's okay. Like, this isn't actually that serious. Nothing's gonna happen if I don't follow up anyway. In essence, whatever consistent response you have or you do, you're showing whether the standards that you have set are real or not.
Are they optional, or are they actual?
I'll be honest with you, I fucking suck at this part. I am not good at holding boundaries, and so I have tried to remove myself from having to hold boundaries at the practice over the course of the past however many years. Hear me out. I really don't think this is a cop-out. Maybe it is, but I don't think it is because I'm not good at it.
I'm, like, genuinely not good. I'm not good in my personal life, I'm not good in my home life, I'm not good in my work life. Well, no, I'm good at boundaries in my personal life, but, like, home, like, if I- setting a rule, I'd, like, forget it three weeks later. It's just whoosh. You know, it's gone. So my point is, I'm really bad at this thing, and I know that I'm bad at this thing, and so therefore I've sought to remove myself from any role that would require me to, oh, man have to do something consistently like that.
Another way this can show up is that you might step in too soon to rescue the person who should be accountable. So let's just stick with Susie and retention. Let's say my clinical director didn't schedule with Susie. I notice this, and instead of coaching Susie at the next meeting, I set up a scheduled meeting with Susie and I say, "Let's talk retention."
And then I end up having this conversation with Susie. That is me taking responsibility from somebody else who should be holding it. That's a teachable moment, and I basically just totally steamrolled the process and the person who should be, actually stepping in and doing that thing.
Another way it could happen, meaning the owner, like, rescuing, could be that we do have the meeting, with my CD, and I say, "Hey you gotta meet with Susie because I saw that you haven't." You know, I hear the rationale. I want the clarity, and then I say, "Okay, cool.
Well, these are the standards. Here's what you need to do." And then I basically offer, like, "Well, let me be there with you. Like, I'll step in and I'll be there with you for this one," and then I still take over. I take responsibility. I'm kind of undermining my clinical director. Susie, my clinician, is looking at me for feedback on retention instead of my clinical director.
Part of getting out of the way and, like, not stepping in consistently, one is that you're not teaching a norm that you don't actually want. Two is that you're allowing for the person who should have accountability to actually assert some power in the situation. Can be empowering. It can be scary, but also empowering, where they step in and they say, "Yeah, actually, uh, Susie, we need to talk.
Like, here's a problem,"
dot,
dot, dot. So consequences teach the system. Why this topic? I hear you asking it now. Tara, why this topic? This is such a great one. I'll tell you why. Because accountability becoming more humane and effective
is just objectively better than placing blame when it's maybe unfounded. So if we can figure out all of these pieces, you know, so seeking clarity before any judgment. If we have ensured that we have actually passed over authority and provided support, we've got feedback in place to be able to not only give it, but also kind of see how things are going, and we're not stepping in prematurely we're trying to ensure that there are healthy consequences from the system.
If all of that's in place and accountability still isn't taking place, at that point we can pretty confidently say, "Oh, that's just this person." Like, it's just a person issue. Now, what issue, who knows, you know? that's a people issue and not a system issue. We have to have all this in place, though, before we can make that assertion with any confidence.
So that's why this topic. How do we clear out all of the fucking weeds in order to figure out, okay, what sort of grass is growing underneath? In terms of model connection with, like, the Integrity at Scale model, formerly the Living Practice Framework, it's everything.
I think that accountability especially is relevant for anybody who has people reporting to them. But I would say also anybody who's accountable or responsible for core functions or core metrics of the practice So it could be leadership, of course. I would say it for sure is gonna be leadership people.
It also might be employees. Like, they might have to have the authority to be able to do their job effectively if that's, like, a core function of the practice, you know? So anyway, this to me is tied in with leadership and employees. It's absolutely tied in with feedback systems. I think it can also be tied in with structure,
We use EOS for structure, but with structure in terms of how do we bake in ensuring that accountability meets all of these criteria before we say that it's a person issue, et- etc.
So, I want you to choose something that you are currently frustrated about, even, like, low level.
We all have shit. Don't lie. Don't freaking sit here and say, "No, I'm perfectly happy with everything at my practice" Lies. Choose something that you're frustrated by. That's what I'm trying to say. I think that from there, go through these steps.
So audit, clarity, authority, support, feedback, and consequences, and then change the very first missing condition. So do those in order. Clarity, authority, and support. You could do authority, then support, but both are kind of tied together. Feedback, consequences in order. Seek to change the first condition that you realized is either missing or weak.
That's your takeaway. I wanna hear from you also when you're done, send me an email. You can do that on my website. Just go to my contact form and do it that way. That would be the easiest way, honestly. In case you don't know, we have related episodes in the description below, so make sure you check those out if you want more of this topic.
And I think it goes without saying, but either subscribe to the podcast or share it with somebody that you know needs to hear it.
Thanks for hanging out with me today. If this episode got your wheels turning, I would love for you to stick around. You can, of course, subscribe wherever you're listening. If you are interested in more ramblings about leadership culture, EOS, and all the weird fucking ways humans make organizations harder than they need to be, head over to my website and join the email list.
Until next time, make sure you take care of yourself and the people around you. This shit is hard, and we are better together. See ya. Bye