The third term of the leadership contract states that leadership is hard work and leaders need to be tough and have the resilience and resolve to tackle it. If they don’t, it will undermine their efforts to be accountable leaders. The same idea applies to organizations. Many organizations make leadership accountability a business priority. They may also invest time to define and embed a clear set of leadership expectations for leaders. Sustaining all this effort takes dedicated focus. Much of it involves hard work. Unfortunately, just like individual leaders, many organizations avoid this hard work. As we already explored earlier in this book, my global research found that only 20 percent of organizations deal with the leaders seen to be unaccountable and mediocre. This is not acceptable in my opinion. Avoiding this hard work undermines all efforts to build strong leadership accountability and establish a robust leadership culture.

This chapter will focus on the four strategies that must be tackled to sustain strong leadership accountability (see Figure 12.1).

Demonstrate Zero Tolerance for Bad and Abusive Leadership Behavior

The global consulting firm PwC has done quite a bit of research over the years on the reasons why companies fire their CEOs. In 2019, they reported that, for the first time, misconduct was the number one reason, over poor company performance.¹ The bad behaviors demonstrated by these leaders and cited in their report include:

• Having a sexual affair or relations with subordinates
• Using corporate funds in a questionable manner
• Engaging in objectionable personal behavior
• Using abusive language or making public statements that are offensive to customers or social groups

These are all solid reasons to fire a CEO from a company. However, plenty of leaders engage in other behaviors that are not as dramatic as the ones just listed, but still create serious problems for companies. Consider some of the following:

• Leaders abusing their power for personal benefit or gain
• Leaders routinely mistreating, demeaning, or bullying others
• Leaders who are simply not team players
• Leaders who do not consistently model the organization’s values or leadership expectations
• Leaders who use company assets for personal purposes

The critical question is: Why does an organization tolerate these kinds of behaviors from their leaders? By doing so, they severely undermine their efforts to build strong leadership accountability. These behaviors can also contribute to creating toxic work environments.

The good news is that demonstrating zero tolerance for bad behavior can be enormously powerful. Let’s take a look at a story from the U.S. Navy Seals. In September of 2019, the Admiral of this elite special operations force fired three senior leaders after members of their teams were accused of severe discipline breaches.² The alleged misconduct included sexual assault and drinking while deployed in Iraq. Some Navy officials commented that they could not recall an instance when the leadership of a SEAL team was fired for misconduct committed by their team members. However, the Admiral had lost confidence in these senior leaders because of their failure to control their teams. He was also no longer confident in the ability of these teams to accomplish their missions. The Admiral also commented that these incidents made it clear that the special force had drifted from the Navy’s core values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment. The Admiral knew that it was crucial to send a message that this kind of behavior would not be tolerated—and that leaders are ultimately accountable for their teams.

We have seen many examples of bad leadership in recent years, and some organizations have dragged their heels in responding to toxic behavior. Companies pay the price when they don’t react quickly, perhaps because the individual is still seen as adding value or may be a “brilliant jerk.” Or they may be hard-driving managers who obtain business results but do so at a cost seen in terms of abused employees, burnout, or loss of great talent. None of these reasons should be enough to not respond to these circumstances.

When you demonstrate zero tolerance for lousy leadership behavior, something remarkable happens. You find other leaders step up even more. They recognize that the organization is serious about leadership accountability. They see that the organization will not tolerate bad behavior, and they work to be more accountable. You may also find that leaders who are not motivated to step up will leave, which in the end is also a good outcome.

Take a few minutes to think about the leaders in your organization who are not living up to your leadership expectations or are leading in a way that is misaligned to your core values. What has your organization done about this behavior? What are you going to do now?

Address Your Unaccountable and Mediocre Leaders Head-On

As I shared earlier in this chapter, only 20 percent of organizations surveyed in our global research said they do a good job of addressing their unaccountable and mediocre leaders. This is something that organizations must improve upon. I have had many clients ask for my ideas on how to help them get better. The first step is that you have to commit to address the unaccountable leaders head-on. A good starting point is by having a framework to help you better diagnose those leaders you sense may be struggling in their roles.

To help our clients, we developed a leadership accountability nine-box. This borrows from the traditional nine-box frameworks that many companies use during talent planning, which assess leaders based on their performance and potential.

We created this model to help senior teams have robust and honest talent discussions about their leadership talent. Everyone seemed to be able to identify and agree on who their high-potential leaders were. These individuals were hard to dispute. However, they struggled when they began to talk about other leaders who were not stepping up. I discovered a lot of nuance and subtlety surrounding a leader who may be seen as being unaccountable and mediocre in his role. The nine-box addresses this by providing more granularity to assess leaders and then guide a discussion.

The nine-box uses two dimensions: leadership accountability and creating enduring value. The leadership accountability dimension describes the extent to which leaders are committed to being truly accountable in their roles. The creating enduring value dimension describes the extent to which leaders drive strong results, both in what they’re accomplishing and in how they deliver those results.

As we worked with the nine boxes and the labels, the team was able to have a fruitful conversation. I found that it forced senior teams to address the leaders who were struggling in their roles. Once this was done, most teams acknowledged that they had been avoiding doing anything about this because they really didn’t know how to assess their leaders and what to do next.

Figure 12.2 shows the nine-box model I created, with each box described in detail. Take some time to read through it now.

Let’s briefly review each box, starting at the lower-left quadrant:

• Incompetent. This individual is a weak leader, both in terms of the ability to create enduring value and in the ability to demonstrate leadership accountability. If you have leaders who show up in this box, the question is: Why are they still in your organization?
• Ineffective. This individual is weak in creating enduring value and moderate in leadership accountability. The person will most likely struggle to be effective in their role and so you will need to address it head-on.
• Inconsistent. This individual is weak in creating enduring value but strong in leadership accountability. This leader most likely is largely well-intentioned, but that alone isn’t enough. This person cannot consistently generate value, and this undermines their overall effectiveness. Many people will misinterpret an inconsistent leader’s good intentions as effectiveness. However, they would be wrong. In most organizations, these leaders are ignored. Nothing is done to address the situation. As I’ve always said, when it comes to leadership, good intentions are not enough.
• Acceptable. This individual is moderate at creating enduring value and weak at demonstrating leadership accountability. Again, another mediocre leader. One needs to assess whether this individual is in the right role and whether they can improve. If the answer is no, then the next step should be clear.
• Adequate. This individual is moderate in creating enduring value and moderate in demonstrating leadership accountability. I have found that many competent managers get slotted in this box. They add the right level of value to the organization but may not have the desire or capability to move into a more senior leadership role. You’ll need to figure out whether they do have the potential to move up to determine whether investing in them will help elevate them.
• Average. This individual creates moderate enduring value and demonstrates strong leadership accountability. This individual performs at a relatively high level. The opportunity here is to strengthen their ability to create value for the organization.
• Adept. This individual creates substantial enduring value but demonstrates weak leadership accountability. Typically, strong technical experts fit in this box. They bring exceptional value to the organization through their expertise, but they do not have the interest or desire to be in a formal leadership role. The critical approach here is to have a candid conversation with the individual and reinforce the value they bring to the organization. You can reassess whether their career aspirations change over time and if they can make the leadership decision to step up.
• Able. This individual is reliable at creating enduring value and moderate in demonstrating leadership accountability. The key here is to understand what is getting in their way, as there may be barriers impeding their ability to step up.
• Accountable. This individual is strong at creating enduring value and is demonstrating strong leadership accountability. The key is to ensure they remain in this box. These leaders should be considered role models for others in the organization. They might also be good mentors for the Solid Leader and the Above Average leader.

Be Mindful of Whom You Put into Leadership Roles

A few years ago, I worked with a startup technology company. The company had developed a core set of values that were compelling and differentiated from competitors. In the early days, the company was extremely mindful of every new leader they hired into the organization. The search firm they worked with would do in-depth assessments. Candidates would have many interviews with potential co-workers. It wasn’t uncommon for a candidate to have 10 to 15 interviews. I thought that seemed excessive when I first heard about the practice. However, the new leaders I worked with all spoke about how valuable the process was because, when they joined, they felt like they had been with the company forever. They said it helped them hit the ground running in their new roles.

That company realized that every new hire, especially those being hired into leadership roles, really mattered in the early days. They were getting ready to drive accelerated growth, and they couldn’t afford to have any missteps along the way. Their values were fundamental to them, so they had put candidates through multiple interviews to gauge for culture fit. To me, that is an excellent example of getting it right and being mindful of whom you put into a leadership role.

However, after a few years, the company wasn’t as mindful as they had been in their early days. Growth continued to accelerate. Managers were under pressure to fill the many vacant roles; they started to take shortcuts. Speed was the priority now. Hiring for culture fit took a back seat. Over time, lousy behavior emerged. Things began to happen that the company never experienced before: leaders who bullied and demeaned others or who demonstrated a lack of collegiality. This problem kept coming up again and again. At the core, it was about leaders and their misaligned leadership behavior. Morale and employee engagement, which were always strong, began to decline. This story has an important lesson for us as leaders: to be mindful of whom we place into leadership roles. If we don’t get it right, the costs can be significant.

A recent survey of over 2,000 chief financial officers found that all the costs of a bad hire may not be financial.⁴ Most CFOs were concerned about the degradation of staff morale and a decrease in productivity. A poor hiring decision has costs for any role, but when it’s a leadership role, the costs are exponentially higher. Also, those costs are not just financial, but also cultural in nature.

Sometimes an organization is experiencing hyper-growth, like the organization described above. As a result, it must hire a lot of new talent to keep up. The pace is so frantic that the checks and balances typically put in place when hiring new leaders go by the wayside. Alternatively, maybe you have weak leaders who aren’t committed to leadership accountability hiring brilliant jerks, without paying attention to culture fit or leadership expectations.

Regardless of the reason, it’s critical to be mindful when putting people into leadership roles. Sure, it may be easier to be expedient and to take shortcuts. It’s easier not to take the time to assess for culture fit. It’s easier to hire a brilliant jerk who may be a disaster with the team. It’s easier to promote someone when he or she may not be willing or ready to take on the role. These are all easy choices, but in the end, there is a good chance you, your employees, and your organization will pay the price.

You must be tough with yourself and resist the temptation to take the easy way out. Here are some ideas to consider:

• Use your company’s leadership contract as a guide. Your organization’s leadership contract spells out the expectations for all leaders. Use this to determine fit and whether you are looking to bring a leader on board who is prepared to be an accountable leader.
• Stay away from brilliant jerks. As we explored earlier in the book, many organizations have had a longstanding practice of promoting strong technical performers into leadership roles. An implicit assumption is made that exceptional individual and technical performance will translate to strong leadership performance. Indeed, this happens sometimes; but many times, it does not. Plus, when you have many brilliant jerks around, they can leave a trail of destruction to your culture and erode the engagement of your employees.
• Make it acceptable for someone to say no to a leadership role. At times a candidate, especially an internal one, may feel tremendous pressure to say yes to a leadership role. In many organizations, people feel, when the opportunity emerges, the only acceptable answer is yes. We need to make it okay for people to say “No!” or “I’m not ready.” Employees must be able to say no without fear that they will be written off or taken off a high-potential list, or never asked to take on a leadership role in the future. You may be keen to put someone in the role, but if the person’s not ready, you need to respect that. Remember that saying no to a leadership role that one isn’t ready for is, in fact, a mature leadership decision.

Support Leaders at Critical Turning Points

As we discussed earlier in the book, many leaders get into leadership roles by accident. Not only have organizations thrust individuals into these roles, but many have also done so without providing any support or development. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard leaders lament the first time they went into leadership roles. For many, it felt like being thrown into the deep end of a pool when you don’t know how to swim. Most new leaders are ignored and left on their own with little to no training, coaching, or support. There’s lots of thrashing about and frantic attempts to stay afloat. Some eventually catch on and learn to tread water. Some start to sink. All of this is much more painful than it needs to be. In the end, it’s a colossal waste of time, talent, and energy.

As we explored earlier in the book, my team and I have identified four critical turning points that require special attention:

• The first time one is identified as having leadership potential
• The first time one assumes a front-line leadership role
• The first time one becomes a mid-level manager
• The first time one assumes an executive-level leadership role

At these turning points, what it means to be a leader changes dramatically. The expectations increase significantly. I was working recently with a group of senior leaders at an off-site. They admitted they did a terrible job of supporting their people in new leadership roles. As a result, they saw much churn: leaders failing, others leaving, and numerous examples of eroded engagement and culture. As one leader said, “We need to wrap our arms around these leaders to ensure they will be successful.” That’s exactly right.

You need to embrace your leaders as they assume new leadership roles, especially those at critical turning points. Provide them with the support, coaching, and mentoring they will need to thrive and be successful. Sit down with them to discuss how the leadership expectations will evolve for their new roles. One client of mine also had their leaders re-sign the company-specific leadership contract. This was a great way to force a leader to recommit to being a truly accountable leader in the new role.

Final Thoughts

Sustaining strong leadership accountability in an organization takes hard work. Most companies I work with struggle with this. Typically, they invest most of their energy up-front in defining clear leadership expectations. However, many fail to spend the time necessary to ensure things sustain over the long term. The strategies in this chapter will help you avoid this common pitfall.