Accountability Principles for Teachers

by Don Harkey

I am a geek. There I said it. I'm a geek and that is OK. I am a big fan of the scientific method. You establish a hypothesis and try to prove it wrong. If you can prove it wrong, you need a new hypothesis. A lot of knowledge can be pulled from this method. If the laws of gravity don't work the same in Las Vegas (because what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas), there is something about gravity that we don't quite understand yet. Studying gravity in Vegas would be very beneficial.

The same is true for behavioral theory. If a principle applies in one place but not in another, it is very beneficial to study the exception to the rule to find out why it is so.

There has been some interest in applying some of the motivational theory we have been discussing to the classroom. Its an interesting exercise! Let's see if it fits.

The basics of the theory is that motivation is driven from the fulfillment of 3 basic needs; Competence, Autonomy, and Relatedness (use the acronym CAR to think of "driving" motivation). The theory also states that there are different levels of motivation. It could be said that a person is either motivated or not motivated based on whether they do something or don't do something. However, we all know that we sometimes do things for which we are barely motivated and sometimes we do things where we are very motivated. This means that we can be demotivated by something and still do it (although begrudgingly).

The "levels" of motivation can be easily understood by thinking about ways to get someone to do something. Here are some of the levels...

- Amotivation - A person does not feel like they can do something, they feel like it is outside of their control, or they feel like they don't relate to the task. Consequently, they don't do it.

- Reward/Punish - If I were to hold a gun to your head and ask for your wallet, you would likely be motivated to give me the wallet. However, would you feel good about it? What happens when I go away? The same is true if I offered you a piece of candy to wash my car. You might do it, but once the candy is gone, would you still do it? This is the lowest form of motivation because it not driven by the task itself, but by some "extrinsic" form that might be taken away. By the way, compensation (salary) falls into this category.

- Pride/Shame - A clever person can "guilt" or "pride" someone into doing something. I might ask for your help on a project because you are the "only one who can do this right" (pride). I might ask you to help me move because "I don't have any other friends who will do it and I don't know where else to go" (guilt).

- Identification - What if I can convince you that what you are doing is important? I might ask you to help volunteer for a church program after showing you all of the great things the program does for the community. You might see the value in the task and be motivated to help out.

- Integration - Sometimes you don't need anyone else to motivate you to do something. If you hear music in your head all day long, it is completely natural for you to want to learn how to play an instrument. If you feel like a task is part of your Core Purpose, you will do naturally do it.

The pattern that you might see in these increasingly effective forms of motivation is that motivation is best when it is driven internally rather than externally. This is really important because there might be multiple reasons to do something and you want people to focus on the reason that is more motivating. What do I mean?

I once lost my wallet and a neighbor found it. The neighbor called me to return the wallet and when we met, he was clearly proud that he was doing the right thing. He has a true look of satisfaction on his face until I went to hand him a $20 bill. He was completely deflated. What had happened?

The man had decided to return the wallet because it fit with a value system which he saw as important. When I tried to give him a reward, his motivation shifted from internal to external. I robbed him of his internal motivation. This happens frequently at work where you are payed to show up. When you start working for bonuses or pay increases, you will find that you won't enjoy your job nearly as much. If you were paid double, would you really do your job differently? (I know, let's try it and find out!)

Apply this to students in a classroom. The "best" students are the ones who truly see value in what they are learning. The next "best" students are the ones who see school as a means to an end. Further down the motivation line are the students who feel embarrassed or feel great pride in their grades. Still further down in the motivation spectrum are students who are threatened if they get bad grades and are rewarded if they get good grades. Finally, there are students who simply don't see the purpose of school at all and don't put any effort down.

Students in kindergarten probably don't have a lot of "vision" for the future. They might enjoy some of the things they are learning, but they often won't understand the value of everything they need to learn. They probably aren't thinking about their "permanent record" or getting into a good college. Kindergarten students are often motivated by pride/shame or by reward/punishment. Is this OK?

I think that this is OK for awhile. If we think about education as a long term process, one of the goals of educators should be to help students see the value in learning. I think any teacher would agree with this. The reason this is important is that kids who see the value in learning become adults who see the value in learning (whether it is learning a craft or learning theory). These are the adults who ask questions, get answers, and push the envelope. These are the professionals in our society who innovate and create great value.

Since many kids (and many adults) are not in the highest phases of motivation, it is OK to use the lower phases in the short term. I certainly punish my kids when they do something wrong. However, it is important for the long term to teach "why". It is also important, once a child (or adult) starts to operate in the upper levels of motivation, not to distract them with rewards or threats or pride or shame. Recognition for a developing student (or adult) is very important in that it confirms their vision of what is important. If the recognition itself becomes the driver, it becomes less motivational.

I would say that this motivational theory applies very well to students and teachers whether they are adults or children. It is important to remember that children have less feelings of competence (which can be broken up into strengths, confidence, and experience). Small victories go a long way in gaining momentum up the motivational ladder.

I hope this helps my teacher friends out there! I like to think of management and teaching as cousin professions. They both work to develop people and they both have a huge impact on people's lives!

(NEXT WEEK'S TOPIC - FEAR)

Creative Accountability

by Don Harkey

"But you haven't had to work with MY people!"

We have talked about how holding someone else accountable to do something uses a lower form of motivation. Getting people to hold themselves accountable by allowing them to relate to the task utilizes a much higher form of motivation. The problem that arises is how you can get someone to hold themselves accountable.

Anyone with children knows the challenge of trying to "guide" the behavior of another human being. If my 2 year old sticks her finger in a light socket, my reaction is probably not going to be working to create an environment where she feels related, competent, and autonomous. I would probably use my "alpha male" voice to command her to stop.

Any person who has worked in an environment that ran strictly off command and control will likely struggle in an environment full of autonomy. This is especially true in jobs where people are traditionally treated like a commodity. Its a viscous cycle. The person who works in an environment where they aren't trusted to do the right things eventually gets to the point where they truly can't be trusted to do the right things. Saying that you are going "hold the person accountable" is hardly effective.

So what do you do? This is never an easy situation to deal with and there is no cookie cutter way of bringing a person from being motivated by fear and threats to being internally motivated. All you can do as a leader is focus on the 3 needs that drive motivation: competence, autonomy, and relatedness.

Start small. Give the person a little bit of control in a small task that they understand. Allow them to feel small successes and build off that. Show them how their small successes contribute to the whole. Show them a little trust in that area. Don't look over their shoulder constantly. Find a mentor for that person who can show them that doing the right things is really the right thing to do.

The most important factor that will keep your people moving in the right direction is a clear vision. I was told recently of a study in hospitals that looked at medical errors. The study determined that the right procedures are usually in place to prevent these errors, but the procedures aren't being followed. The problem is the person who is following the procedure doesn't understand the important of each step.

If I were to write a procedure for an operator to work on a machine, I would instruct them to first shut off and lock down the power to the machine (making it extremely difficult for someone else to energize the equipment while they were working on it). Some people have no idea how many people get hurt in equipment that was supposed to be "off" while they were working on it, but the equipment suddenly turned on. I could train on the procedure over and over again and still have people who don't follow it. However, if I show the operator some statistics on how many people get hurt not following the procedure, or if I can share real case studies, or if I can even show some gory pictures of someone who had a hand smashed in equipment, the message will stick.

Understanding the importance of our work is a key to motivation. Communicate a common vision. Allow your people to feel success. This is why the "thank you" mug can truly be effective. As a reward, a mug isn't something that drives most people. However, understanding that your work is part of a greater good is very motivating. As Dr. Levesque says, the external "reward" drove internal motivation. Its when the reward becomes the driver that we decrease motivation (ex: replace the mug with a check for $1000). Its nice to receive a great reward, but we lose our focus on why we truly do what we do.

My final advice is to keep at it. Keep working with your people. Most people want to do the right things. Once you have your people working with you and not for you, you will discover a whole new resource... the talents and passions of your people!

Accountability - Choosing Autonomy

by Don Harkey

We've talked about how traditional management sets expectations and holds people accountable to those expectations. Then Dr. Levesque talked about how accountability is often tied to a reward, but how people aren't well motivated by rewards. A friend of mine who is teaches management classes at a University recently told me that his students think there 2 ways to get someone to do something... pay them for it or threaten them. What does all of this mean?

It is true (and fairly noncontroversial) that people are best motivated internally. If you feel that doing something is really a part of who you are, you are very motivated to do it. Is that being selfish? Maybe, but that's OK. Even when we help out others, we get a very good feeling of internal satisfaction, which helps us to be highly motivated to help out even more people.

As Dr. Levesque also stated, a key component to being motivated to do something is autonomy. If a person can choose whether or not to act and how to act, the person will have a greater sense of internal satisfaction, even if the task itself is unpleasant. This means that if we are ordered to do something our motivation decreases. This also means that if we are given a reward (or punishment) for doing something (or not doing something), our potential for being internally motivated is decreased.

This is where the word "accountability" causes so much confusion. In management circles, the word is often used as something applied by management to workers. A manager will hold an employee accountable for their performance. As my friend above says, the manager who thinks this way will either reward or threaten the employee as a method for holding them accountable.

An alternative way to think about "accountability" is to think of it as an internal process. An employee holds himself accountable just as a manager holds herself accountable. This is the core message of author Andy Andrews. A successful person "chooses" to be responsible for their own life. They hold themselves accountable to their own actions. This type of accountability looks at internal rewards and leads to greater motivation.

So that leads to the 20 million dollar question... How do you get people to hold themselves accountable? How do you get someone to choose to do something rather than order them to do it? What role does the "thank you mug", as one reader submitted, play in this process?

Stay tuned!

The Human (other) Side of Accountability

by Dr. Chantal Levesque
Research Strategies, Inc

What does accountability mean to you? In today’s business world, accountability means to meet a certain standard of performance, to produce a product of high quality, or to perform a required task in a certain way. It could also mean to be responsible; that is to arrive at work on time, not waste time on the job, and be efficient. In sum, accountability is to comply with expected behaviors. As generally understood today, for managers in charge of employees, accountability is a process that involves setting standards, monitoring the relevant results, and then providing direction and feedback to employees. Using this framework, problems with task performance and the ability to meet standards come from a failure to define what constitutes adequate performance.

Typically, accountability comes with some form of reward. If you meet a certain standard of performance, you will customarily obtain a reward for that performance. This could be a paycheck, a bonus, a raise, or even a company trip. Furthermore, the common notion of accountability makes it a public affair. People are accountable to others. How does it feel to do something the way it should have been done? Think about it! It probably feels like you did what you were supposed to do. You reached the goal and you accomplished the task. Although this type of accountability is prevalent in the workplace, it is not the optimal way to foster peak performances or employee’s motivation. Doing something because you have to, because you should, or in order to obtain a reward is an extrinsic form of motivation. Of course, if as a manager, I impose a strong enough control on your behavior, you will do what I want you to do for fear of losing your job or in order to obtain the promised reward for good performance. But will that ensure that you like your job? Will that translate into job satisfaction for employees? Absolutely not!

By imposing unnecessarily strict standards and controls, managers are obstructing their employees’ ability to realize the highest level of motivation; intrinsic motivation. By controlling, demanding, imposing, and holding people accountable to an external and often arbitrary standard, managers are not fostering people’s intrinsic motivation which would inherently make them want to do their best work.

Here is the key point for managers; by actually imposing strict controls and standards, they are affecting their company’s bottom line. Employees begin to work only for the rewards, not to help the company grow and prosper. It costs a lot of money to maintain this kind of accountability system! The first chance that a controlled employee has, they will leave the organization to go work for another. At the very least, they will be resentful while they comply with demands and onerous standards.

Why not provide choice and options to employees? In the context of the prevalent accountability model, providing choice to employees means that the employee can choose whether or not to meet the criteria of performance. Essentially, they choose to keep their job or not keep their job.

What about doing something good when nobody else is watching? Doing something right even when there are no external standards? Are people accountable to someone then? Imagine doing your best just because it’s important for you or because producing high quality work defines who you are. Take a moment to think about that! How does that feel? How does it feel to produce your best work because this is what you want to do? You do your best work and you try your best because doing any less than that would not be acceptable… to you.

A different understanding of accountability is one where the human side of accountability is emphasized. This would mean to be accountable to yourself as a person. It would mean to do something because you are built to do it. Because it is your passion. Because it is your calling! If you are not living up to your potential then you are not accountable. It’s a different kind of accountability. It is internal accountability. Imagine someone doing a really good job as a computer technician, earning a good living, doing what is required on the job, rarely if ever missing work, never being late, always putting in the required number of hours, and ultimately being accountable to his employer. This person might still not be accountable to himself if he does not feel like he is meeting his full potential!

As human beings, we are built to self-actualize. We are engineered to achieve our highest potential! This is what, as humans, we strive to accomplish and what Maslow’s hierarchy of needs illustrates. Now consider this: If we were all doing what we were built to do, if each of us were functioning from our true sense of self and accessing our passions on a daily level, why would we need a reward for doing it? Rewards would be unnecessary. Therefore, the bigger the reward you give to someone for doing a task at a certain level of performance, the more you are sending the message to others that this task is not worth doing yourself! If it a task worth doing, people would want to do it voluntarily. Is this not the concept of the Olympics? How much are Olympians paid to participate in the games? Nothing! Yet, most people would dream of being an Olympic athlete! When do teams choke under pressure? They often fail when they begin to focus more exclusively on winning the game instead of playing it well. The reasons for performing well begin to shift from an internal focus of accountability to an external focus of accountability.

Rewards are demotivating!

On fundamental level, externally imposed standards, controls, monitoring, supervision, and rewards are demotivating. These external incentives are most of the time perceived as a way to control behavior. People are inherently resistant to control. Put in place by managers, these external incentives clearly send the message to employees that they are not motivated enough to do a good job on their own. They need to be motivated! Most managers believe that employees would not perform well if the external standards were not present. But what if the majority of employees wanted to perform well just because they like to do their best? Just because it’s part of who they are to produce quality work? If this is the case, strict external standards, control, and rewards, will contribute to reduced motivation.

So, if one can’t be extrinsically motivated to perform their best, how do we motivate people in general to strive for their own level of perfection? We simply create an environment that will activate individuals’ internal accountability. The recipe for internal accountability is as follow:

COMPETENCE = Mastery of Skills
AUTONOMY = Choice, Volition
RELATEDNESS = Connectedness

How do you activate the highest level of motivation in employees? How do you create internal accountability? Simply create an environment where all employees have access to the necessary training to perform their respective jobs effectively. Just show them the ropes! Imagine yourself as a manager. If you did your homework and hired the best employee who applied for the job, should you have to teach them any more than this? No! Providing the specific training related to your organization so they can do their job competently is not only appropriate but sufficient!

Next, create an environment in which employees are provided with choice and options. Again, if you hired the best employee who applied for the job, you probably thought this person was smart enough to make good decisions on their own. If an employee prefers to come in at 6 am, leave at 2 pm, and the work still gets done, why not let her? Ask employees for their opinions on how best to approach a problem. You will be surprised with the solutions they come up with. Create an environment where employees understand why they are doing the things they are doing. Let employees take ownership of their behaviors and own performance. Let them have autonomy.

Finally, create an environment in which employees can have meaningful relationships with their co-workers and a respectful and trusting relationship with their employer. If employers create environments where employees can feel competent and autonomous, they will also feel more loyal to the organization they work for and their employer.

Concept of the Week - Accountability

by Don Harkey

Accountability. A common description of effective management is to "set clear and measurable objectives for your people, them hold them accountable to those objectives". For many workers, the word "accountability" has dark implications. For many managers, it allows them shift the responsibility of action to their people. Our parents told us to "be accountable for your actions!". The word is used around leadership and management circles constantly. What does it really mean?

A small-business owner I worked with once told me how he managed his people. He told me that he couldn't trust his people to do anything. He needed to do everything for them. He needed to follow every step they took and guide them down every path. During our short conversation, he took 3 calls from his people. He looked absolutely worn out.

I might have told him that he needs to hold his people accountable for making good decisions, but I didn't. What would have been the result? Imagine parents who shelters and coddle their children through life, making every decision for them. Then they suddenly release them to the world under the veil of "you are now accountable for your life!". The results are predictable. The kids are going to struggle. This would happen with employees as well.

Personal responsibility is certainly not a bad thing. The best workers are the ones who take real pride in their work and know that the "buck stops here". Even when faced with situations not within their control, they keep their wits and respond with everything they have. Is this accountability?

This week, the concept for discussion is "accountability". What DOES it really mean? When you hear the word, what thoughts come to mind? How does a manager hold an employee accountable? How does a person hold his or herself accountable? Is accountability a form of responsibility or a form of liability (or both)?

We'll hear soon from an expert in the field of Motivation. I encourage you to submit your thoughts on the topic... I'm holding you accountable!