Would you agree that one of the fundamental reasons companies train employees is to improve their performance? No doubt it's in managements best interest to provide employees with the skills needed to optimize performance. As a business owner, I've learned that management not only needs employees to be successful, they want them to be. It's just good business.
Then why is it some employees don't perform as expected? Is it because they don't care? I'm sure that's the case in some instances, but I think the majority of all employees want to be successful. Sometimes they just don't know how to perform well. And sometimes they try to do well, but management fails them in providing the right tools, information or training to do well.
Am I being too soft? Or do you believe management always does all they can to put employees in the position to be successful? How do we know when it's the employees fault or managements fault? Who is accountable when an employee's performance is bad? Is it always the employee? Who is to blame?
If you want answers to these questions, the 3 Laws of Accountability can help.
In 1981, in my very first management training class at a company called Milliken, I was taught the 3 Laws of Accountability. These laws provide fundamental reasoning to determine when someone should be held accountable for their actions, and when they should not.
In the work environment, we use these laws as a basis for determining whether an employee is accountable for their performance. Or if management should look in the mirror and ask themselves if they have done their part in providing an environment where an employee can and should be successful.
I like to explain these laws as tests because you can use them as questions to determine accountability. To explain each, I've provided an example where a job involves driving a car. Assume you have an employee who must drive a car to meet the expectations of the job. You can use these laws of accountability to determine prior to an employee starting the job, or after they have been performing that job, to evaluate whether the job has been properly engineered for an employee to be successful. It's a simple example, but it provides a good overview of how to apply the test.
Law #1: To be held accountable, an individual must have the capacity to do what is being asked.
Test Question: Does the employee have the physical and mental capacity to drive a car?
For someone to be held accountable for their actions, they must have the physical and mental capacity to perform the job in question. As defined in the dictionary, "capacity means the ability to learn or retain knowledge; or the ability to do something...to have the faculty".
Job Example: This test asks whether the job performer has the mental or physical capacity to drive a car. You must ask, does the employee have the vision skills necessary; do they have the mental capacity or intelligence level necessary to make decisions about when to accelerate, when to decelerate, when to turn left or right. Do they have the physical capabilities needed?
If you answer yes to this question, go to question 2. If you answer no to this question, ask yourself if your selection process is correct. Are you selecting and staffing properly? Have you hired the right person for the job? If you have an employee who is not driving the car as expected, first ask if this employee is doing a job they do not have the capacity to perform.
Law #2: To be held accountable, an individual must have the appropriate tools needed for that job.
Test Question: Does the employee have the appropriate tools needed to perform the job at the level required?
For someone to be held accountable, they must have the tools or equipment they need to do the job at the level expected. And the tools must be in proper working condition. Tools may include any kind of hardware or software, hand tools, machinery, etc.
Job Example: This test asks whether the job performer has the tools to drive the car. In this case, the car is the tool, and it must be in proper working condition. If the employee is expected to drive from point A to B, and if the car is not in proper working condition, we can't hold them accountable for getting from A to B, especially in the time expected.
If you answer yes to this question, go to question 3. If you answer no to this question, ask yourself what type of tool is required for this job. Does the tool provide the necessary functionality or scale to do the job at the level expected? Is it in proper working condition?
Law #3: To be held accountable, an individual must have the knowledge or training needed to do the job expected of them.
Test Question: Does the employee have the knowledge or training to do the job based on expectations?
For someone to be held accountable, they must have the knowledge or training to do the job based on those expectations. Knowledge may include information received from previous jobs, or from college or technical training. All knowledge does not have to be delivered or provided by the employer. Some jobs require the entering employee to have prerequisite skills - that's acceptable as long as communicated in advance. An individual cannot be held accountable for something they were not properly informed of, and made clear that they were expected to do. People do not know what they don't know. We cannot expect them to know of expectations without proper communications.
Job Example: This test asks whether the job performer has been properly trained to drive a car. Have they completed driver certification training? Have they been told what was expected of them in driving the car?
If you answer yes to this question, then you have completed the three tests of accountability, and you can say that the employee can and should be held accountable for their actions.
If you answer no to this question, then you should go back and look at what training is being provided. And possibly how that training is being communicated.
From using the 3 Laws of Accountability, you can also assess after the fact whether an employee is properly accountable for their performance, but also if management is doing their part. As training professionals, we can also learn whether we are doing our part. We must assume the responsibility to make sure we are providing the information necessary to help an employee, and also to protect the company.
As always, I welcome your comments. Please post your comments below, or feel free to send me an email at dharward@trainingindustry.com.
