Holding Accountable

The ability to set clear expectations and ensure individuals and teams follow through on their commitments. Leaders who hold others accountable do so with fairness, consistency, and clarity, establishing standards, monitoring progress, and addressing gaps in performance without delay.

“On good teams coaches hold players accountable, on great teams, players hold players accountable” – Joe Dumars

Why holding accountable matters

Holding people accountable matters because it anchors performance, reliability, and trust across a team or organisation. Clear expectations and consistent follow-through create the conditions for strong execution and fair treatment. When leaders hold others accountable, they protect standards, maintain momentum, and ensure that commitments translate into real outcomes. In a fast-moving environment, this discipline keeps teams focused on what matters and prevents performance drift that is costly to recover from.

When accountability is weak, issues linger, progress slows, and small problems grow into significant risks. Teams can become tolerant of poor behaviour or unclear commitments, which undermines confidence and reduces collective resilience. Strong accountability helps leaders address challenges early, adapt more quickly, and create a culture where people own their results. It signals credibility, fairness, and steadiness, strengthening followership and reinforcing the impact of a leader’s decisions and direction.

“Accountability breeds response-ability.” – Stephen Covey

What good and bad look like for holding accountable

What bad looks like	What good looks like
Avoids raising performance concerns and hopes issues will resolve themselves. Gives hints instead of clear messages, which leaves people unsure about expectations and unaware of the seriousness of the situation.	Addresses performance concerns early with clear, specific messages. Ensures the other person understands the issue, its impact, and what needs to change. Treats clarity as a form of support rather than confrontation.
Sets expectations vaguely or inconsistently. Assumes people should already know what good looks like, which leads to confusion, mixed priorities, and uneven effort across the team.	Defines expectations in practical, measurable terms. Confirms understanding and checks that workloads and priorities are aligned. Creates shared clarity so people know how their work will be assessed.
Lets deadlines slip without consequence. Reacts only when problems become urgent, which encourages a culture of delay and excuses.	Follows through on commitments and discusses slippage early. Uses deadlines as a way to coordinate effort and maintain progress, not as punitive tools. Reinforces the value of reliability.
Avoids tough conversations because they feel uncomfortable. Allows emotions or personal discomfort to shape decisions about when and how issues are addressed.	Plans and conducts difficult conversations with composure. Keeps the focus on behaviour and outcomes, manages emotions thoughtfully, and ensures the discussion leads to concrete next steps.
Accepts excuses without testing their validity. Takes the first explanation offered and avoids probing for evidence or patterns.	Tests explanations with fair, open questions. Looks for root causes and patterns before agreeing actions. Balances empathy with responsibility to ensure issues are addressed properly.
Shows inconsistency by being strict with some people and lenient with others. Allows personal preferences to influence judgments, which damages trust.	Applies expectations and consequences consistently. Makes decisions based on evidence and standards rather than personality. Builds confidence that accountability is fair and predictable.
Fails to track follow up actions, so problems recur. Loses sight of agreements and allows improvement plans to drift.	Tracks commitments and checks progress at agreed points. Uses follow up to reinforce accountability, support improvement, and prevent issues from resurfacing.
Avoids final decisions when improvement does not occur. Extends timelines repeatedly or withdraws action because of discomfort or fear of conflict.	Makes timely, fair decisions when improvement is insufficient. Communicates the rationale clearly, protects dignity, and ensures the team sees that standards are upheld.

“If you are going to be a leader, you are not going to please everybody. You have to hold people accountable, even if you have that moment of being uncomfortable.” – Kobe Bryant

Barriers to holding accountable

Avoiding conflict: Leaders often hesitate to confront issues directly because they fear damaging relationships or triggering emotional reactions. This avoidance creates ambiguity, signals toleration of poor performance, and allows small concerns to grow into significant behavioural or delivery issues that are far harder to address later.

Inability to influence resistance: Some leaders struggle to shift the mindset or behaviour of resistant employees. They may rely on repeated instruction rather than exploring root causes, adapting their approach, or creating ownership. This limits accountability because resistance goes unchallenged and expectations are not reinforced in a way that drives change.

Not giving enough feedbackL Leaders sometimes assume that silence will prompt improvement or that people already know where they stand. Without timely, specific feedback, team members cannot adjust their behaviour or understand the impact of their actions. This absence of direction weakens accountability and slows performance development.

Poor boundary clarification: When leaders do not set or enforce clear boundaries, team members are left to interpret standards for themselves. This creates inconsistent behaviour, variable quality, and hidden friction. Unclear limits also make it harder for leaders to intervene confidently when performance slips, as expectations were never fully defined.

Paperwork hassles: The administrative effort required to document issues or follow formal processes can discourage leaders from taking early action. This leads to delayed intervention, missed evidence, and last minute escalation. The burden of paperwork becomes an excuse for inaction, weakening the credibility of accountability efforts.

Poor follow up: When leaders fail to revisit commitments or check progress on agreed actions, people assume the issue is no longer important. Without consistent follow up, performance problems reappear, improvement stalls, and the leader loses influence. Follow through is often the difference between short term compliance and lasting change.

Unrealistic expectations: Leaders sometimes set improvement timelines or performance standards that do not match the complexity of the work or the capability of the individual. When expectations are unattainable, effort declines, frustration increases, and accountability becomes punitive rather than developmental, eroding trust and motivation.

Allowing problems to fester: Delaying action on emerging issues gives them space to deepen and spread. What begins as a manageable concern can become ingrained behaviour or a cultural norm if left unaddressed. This inaction signals to others that standards are negotiable and undermines the leader’s authority and fairness.

Procrastination or favouritism: Leaders may delay necessary actions or treat individuals differently based on personal comfort or preference. This inconsistency damages credibility, fuels perceptions of unfairness, and encourages some team members to test the limits. Accountability cannot thrive when people believe consequences are unevenly applied.

Avoidance of negative actions: Some leaders hesitate to make tough decisions such as issuing formal warnings or ending assignments. Concern for relational fallout, workload impact, or team morale can take priority over what is required. This reluctance prolongs poor performance, burdens others, and weakens the leader’s ability to uphold standards.

“When a man points a finger at someone else, he should remember that four of his fingers are pointing at himself.” – Louis Nizer

Enablers of holding accountable

Give feedback: Communicate clearly where employees stand. Most problem performers are unaware of their issues due to a lack of feedback. It’s essential to provide fair and direct feedback to help them understand and address performance gaps.

Create clarity: Ensure that all employees know what’s expected of them. Outline key performance areas and indicators of success, and involve employees in setting these standards to foster self-assessment and ownership of their performance.

Set realistic time frames: Avoid unrealistic short-term improvement plans. Understand that meaningful change takes time, often up to a few years. Address issues early for the highest return on investment, and resist demands for quick turnarounds.

Plan tough conversations: Schedule and prepare for difficult meetings at appropriate times, ideally early in the week and in the morning. Be concise and direct about performance issues, focusing on specific events and their impacts.

Focus on solutions: Don’t just criticise; provide a clear improvement plan. Outline the desired outcomes and steps both parties can take to achieve them. Encourage a constructive and optimistic approach to problem-solving.

Prep for pushback: Be prepared for defensive reactions and manage the conversation effectively. Acknowledge the employee’s perspective, but stay focused on the performance issue and the need for improvement.

Handle emotions: Anticipate and prepare for emotional responses. Stay composed, avoid using absolutes like “always” or “never,” and allow the employee to express their emotions without escalating the situation.

Follow up: Revisit the conversation the next day to show support and reinforce your points. Offer assistance and maintain a positive relationship to avoid feelings of abandonment and to keep the improvement process on track.

Issuing a final warning: When necessary, give a clear last chance for improvement. Communicate the seriousness of the situation and the need for a concrete improvement plan, and be prepared to act if the plan is insufficient.

Part ways gracefully: If it comes to termination, handle the process with dignity and respect. Focus on the mismatch of the job rather than the individual’s competence, and offer assistance for future opportunities where appropriate.

“If you are building a culture where honest expectations are communicated and peer accountability is the norm, then the group will address poor performance and attitudes” – Henry Cloud

Self-reflections on holding accountable

How comfortable are you with addressing conflicts head-on: Could you explore what you might be avoiding in difficult conversations? How might your discomfort with conflict be impacting team performance?

Are you effectively influencing resistant team members to encourage accountability: What strategies have you tried to turn around resistant behaviours: How could you better engage team members who are slow to respond to feedback?

Do you consistently provide timely, direct, and constructive feedback: When was the last time you gave feedback to a team member who is struggling? How might team members’ awareness of your expectations change with more frequent feedback?

Have you set and communicated clear boundaries with your team members: In what ways do you ensure that boundaries are known and respected? Could any lack of clarity around roles or responsibilities be creating accountability gaps?

How do you manage the administrative side of accountability: Are there processes you could streamline or delegate to reduce paperwork burdens? How could administrative tasks be restructured to ensure accountability without delay?

Are you following up on commitments and issues consistently: How do you track the follow-up actions you’ve set for your team members? What might be the consequences of not following up on unresolved issues?

Are your expectations realistic and clearly communicated to your team: Have you checked with your team to ensure they understand what is expected? How often do you assess and adjust expectations to match the team’s capacity?

How do you address recurring issues before they escalate: Could there be underlying issues that you’ve overlooked by not acting sooner? How might you better monitor early warning signs of team issues?

Do you address performance issues without bias or favouritism: How consistent are you in enforcing accountability across different team members? Could you identify any patterns that might suggest an unconscious preference?

Are you prepared to make tough decisions when necessary, and how do you manage emotional responses: How do you approach the emotional side of accountability conversations? Could you improve your process for offering support and clarity after difficult discussions?

“Trust is the glue that holds everything together. It creates the environment in which all of the other elements win-win stewardship agreements, self-directing individuals and teams, aligned structures and systems, and accountability can flourish.” – Stephen Covey

Micro practices for holding accountable

1. Clarify expectations in the moment: State the specific behaviour or outcome you expect at the point work is assigned. Ask the person to summarise what they will deliver and how they will approach it. This creates shared clarity quickly and prevents drift, especially when work moves fast or priorities shift.

2. Anchor conversations in observable facts: Prepare for performance discussions by gathering concrete examples rather than general impressions. Describe what you saw, the effect it had, and what needs to change. This keeps the conversation fair, reduces defensiveness, and ensures accountability is based on evidence rather than interpretation.

3. Use short alignment checkpoints: Hold brief, focused check ins that confirm progress, surface obstacles, and reinforce commitments. Treat these as alignment moments rather than status updates. This helps issues surface early, supports timely course correction, and keeps accountability active without adding unnecessary bureaucracy.

4. Test explanations for underlying causes: When a commitment is missed, explore the situation with open, factual questions that uncover root causes. Distinguish between skill gaps, workload issues, and behavioural choices. This leads to clearer agreements about what must change and prevents repeat problems in complex environments.

5. Close every performance conversation with a clear contract: End each accountability discussion by confirming the next action, how progress will be tracked, and when you will revisit it. Ensure both parties state the agreement in their own words. This strengthens follow through and reduces ambiguity that often undermines improvement efforts.

“Accountability is the glue that ties commitment to the result.” – Bob Proctor

This is a leadership capability of one hundred developed.
Visit the leadership Library to explore the rest