Power of Paradox – Collaborative Accountability

I enjoy sharing what I’ve learned and found helpful with others. This post may contain affiliate links, which means I’ll receive a commission if you purchase through my links, at no additional cost to you. Please read the full disclosure for more information.

Have you ever worked for a manager that made decisions without getting input from his/her team? What did that feel like? Was it de-motivating?

When we work for leaders that do not value our input, employee engagement drops, morale suffers, and projects fail.

If you are familiar with DISC, oftentimes people are promoted into leadership positions because they are a strong “D” type personality. There are a disproportionate number of “D”s in leadership positions especially in the United States where high tempo and decisiveness is valued. Getting things done quickly and being willing to make decisions are important traits in a leader. However, like most strengths that are overused, this can become a weakness.

So how can we reduce this tendency? By developing collaborative accountability. This is a paradoxical leadership skill.

In Harrison Assessments, four of the twelve paradoxes are particularly important to leadership:

·  Opportunity Management     =    Risking + Analyzes Pitfalls

·  Coaching Mindset                  =    Enforcing + Warmth/empathy

·  Collaborative Accountability  =    Authoritative + Collaborative

·  Vigilant Resilience                  =    Optimistic + Analyzes Pitfalls 

I’ve covered Opportunity Management, Coaching Mindset, and Vigilant Resilience in earlier posts. Collaborative Accountability is the last of the four.

What is collaborative accountability?

Dr. Harrison defines collaborative accountability as the tendency to accept decision-making responsibility AND invite input from others. The guidance he gives for this paradox is “never hesitate to take counsel from appropriate people but always take full responsibility for your own decisions.”

Collaborative accountability consists of two behavioral traits:

-           Authoritative, which is defined as the desire for decision-making authority and the willingness to accept decision-making responsibility

-           Collaborative, which is the tendency to collaborate with others when making decisions

One important distinction that needs to be made is that when someone is authoritative without being collaborative, he/she will tend to have an authoritarian leadership style. When the paradoxical trait of being collaborative is also present, this is no longer an issue.

Remember that it is easier to flex down than it is to flex up. What this means is that, if a leader is strong in both traits, they can easily “dial down” one of the traits as the situation requires. For example, when there is a crisis or emergency, it becomes more important to act quickly and there may not be time for collaboration. But keep in mind that most leaders should not be operating in this mode regularly; if they are it indicates that there are larger issues within the organization.

Why is it important to develop collaborative accountability?

Collaborative leaders are able to build high-performing, motivated teams. Collaborative accountability is crucial to this.

I used to lead the smallest team within my department, but we were working on the largest programs in the division which had visibility at the CEO level because I was able to get different groups to collaborate. The feedback I received was that not only were my teams the model for collaboration across R&D and operations but also, my teams were highly motivated. When leaders demonstrate collaborative accountability, these are the outcomes.

For all organizations:

Collaborative accountability increases employee engagement and retention, morale, and productivity. It is what makes 1 + 1 = 3.

For smaller organizations:

When leaders have high collaborative accountability, they are more open to outside ideas, suggestions, and partnerships which can enable them to grow and be more competitive.   

For larger organizations:

Collaborative accountability helps to break down silos and get things done more quickly.

What gets in the way of collaborative accountability?

There are two things that can get in the way of collaborative accountability:

1.       Not getting enough input from others (low collaboration) – this shows up more often in leaders that are high D’s on DISC.

 High D’s like being in charge and want to get things done quickly. They can view having to get input from other people as slowing things down. Sometimes they are not even aware of this tendency and how they can be perceived by their team as having an authoritarian decision making style.

 2.       Not willing to make a decision (low accountability) – this can show up more often in leaders that are a high I, S, or D on DISC. The reasons for each differ.

High I leaders enjoy getting input from others as they are usually extroverted and like interacting with people. However, if the decision that they need to make is going to cause them to be viewed by other people in a negative light, they may hesitate to accept decision-making responsibility.

High S leaders are highly supportive of others and like high I’s are people oriented. Their trigger is conflict. They may be reluctant to make a decision if they think it will cause conflict.

High C leaders value accuracy and are sensitive to criticism. They may be hesitant to accept decision-making responsibility if they think the solution is not good enough which may cause them to be criticized.

DISC Triggers

How can we develop collaborative accountability?

The first steps to developing collaborative accountability are (1) understanding how both traits complement each other and (2) being aware if we have a tendency to overuse or undervalue one trait without the other.  

For leaders that are high in a particular DISC trait, here are some recommended actions to develop collaborative accountability.

Collaborative Accountability and DISC Leadership Styles

To learn more about collaborative leadership, read this blog on collaborative leadership where I compare Chinese checkers to chess and how this analogy translates to collaborative vs. authoritarian leaders.

Contact Claritas Consulting & Coaching to discuss your leadership development needs or follow us on LinkedIn for more useful leadership resources and frameworks, including Paradoxical Leadership. If you found this useful, please share this article with others.