The Costs of Over- and Under-Functioning

When we over-function, we take on and do too much. Too much responsibility, too much work, too much accountability. Sometimes we over-function because we think we need to pick up the slack. Sometimes we do it because we won’t say no. Sometimes we do it because we don’t trust others to follow through. Whatever the reason, the symptoms and costs of over-functioning include things like overwhelm and burnout, feeling like a martyr, thinking that everything is on our shoulders and that the world will fall apart without us, worrying if we’ll get blamed if something goes wrong, and much more. If you find yourself doing too much (or thinking that others aren’t doing enough), you’re probably over-functioning.

As expected, under-functioning means doing the minimum, or even less than the minimum. We leave things to others to handle, avoid taking risks, procrastinate, do just enough to get by, distract ourselves, or check out. Under-functioning can be a symptom of apathy, lack of feeling challenged or engaged, suppressed frustration, sense of overwhelm, or fear of failure. If you find yourself avoiding work, going through the motions, or doing as little as possible to get by, you’re probably under-functioning.

Both polarities create an imbalance that results in ineffective functioning for the individual. Stress rises, results suffer, and people generally become unhappy and dissatisfied with their work. In some cases, people experience mental or physical ailments. Family life may suffer. Although there might be some short-term benefits, in the long-term the behaviors become unsustainable and people end up leaving their jobs, whether by their or their employer’s choice.

The costs to teams are also significant. When you have over- and under-functioning on a team, over-functioners are likely to micromanage, dictate, blame, and become resentful. Under-functioners are likely to withdraw, avoid, resist, and sabotage. A dance of conflict ensues in which the players become unhappy and unfulfilled.

Finding Balance on the Spectrum

Fortunately, it is possible to change the dance. Although it can require getting out of our comfort zone (over- and under-functioning are often deep-rooted and can even go back to early family dynamics), with focused effort and intention we can find balance.

As mentioned in my post on Spectrum Mapping, the first step is identifying where you are on the spectrum. From there, name the behaviors behind your placement. This gives you a clear sense of where you are now.

Then, identify where you’d like to be. Identify the behaviors that would represent this new place. In this place, what would you be doing? Thinking? Feeling?

Once identified, begin to explore actions to bridge the gap. What would you need to change? What behaviors could you adopt? What must you acknowledge? Then, take action accordingly.

A New Dance

As you shift your own behavior and place on the Spectrum of Functioning, the dance will change. It’s less important what others do; it’s more important what you do. Your changes will naturally begin to change the dance for everyone involved. Although it can take time to see the results, they will come if you persist.

Because our roles as under- or over-functioners can be so deeply ingrained, it can be hard to know what to do differently. Following are some suggestions for consideration to shift your place on the spectrum.

Over-functioning:

• Delegate
• Hold others accountable
• Coach and mentor others
• Say no
• Make time for yourself
• Take responsibility for your results, not the collective results

Under-functioning:

• Ask for what you need
• Set goals
• Take risks
• Give feedback
• Notice what others are experiencing
• Be vulnerable

Answer: Who knows? (Read on for the “correct” answer.)

Mushy Decision Making

Approximations of the dynamic in the above scenario when making decisions are quite common. Typically, such scenarios later result in one or more of the following symptoms:

• A team member gets upset and says, “I never agreed to that!”
• A team member follows up with the team and asks if they had in fact made a decision, which then causes confusion and further discussion amongst the team around what the decision was
• Revisiting the same topic at another meeting because it wasn’t clear what had been decided
• Nothing changes and no one brings it up again; the discussion was for nothing
• The team goes back to the drawing board because no one is clear if they had agreed to even change the meeting time in the first place, or if they were just trying to decide on the new proposed time

Clear decisions are crucial for growth and success. Clear action is preceded by a clear decision. Without clear action, real impact, change, or success is limited.

The above scenario is based on a rather simple and low-impact decision. Now, consider the many decisions teams and organizations need to make on a regular basis and imagine the impact such mushiness has on an organization’s productivity, effectiveness, and morale. The results aren’t pretty.

The Signs of Clear Decisions

Pop Quiz #2: Look at your current work team. Do you know when your team has made a decision? If yes, what objective signs tell you that your team has made a decision?

Amongst the teams I’ve consulted with or coached, most aren’t able to say yes. If they do, when I ask for objective signs that they’ve made a decision, they typically stumble around for a minute before realizing that they really don’t know.

The bottom line is this: unless every team member can answer yes and explain their process for making decisions, the team doesn’t have a clear process.

Making the Decision to Make Clear Decisions

It’s not enough to have a clear process for making decisions. Unless everyone knows what the process is, some of the above symptoms will surface. Therefore, two elements are crucial for making clear decisions:

• A clear decision-making process needs to be established
• Everyone involved must know what the process is

Circling back to our initial scenario and Pop Quiz #1, was the decision made? Assuming everyone knew the process, if the process only required two people on the team to verbally say yes, then the decision was made. If the process was by majority vote and silence equals consent, then the decision was made. And so on. However, my guess is that based on your and my experience of similar scenarios, no clear decision was made.

The process itself for making decisions ultimately doesn’t matter, nor do teams need to use the same process every time. Whether it’s by consensus, majority, autocracy, or any other process, what most matters is that the two decision-making elements above are used for any decision. Ultimately, the team leader will decide and is responsible for making sure everyone on the team knows what that process is. That said, some processes are better suited for certain types of decisions or teams, so it’s important to choose thoughtfully. Check out this article for examples of decision-making styles, including the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Questions for reflection:

• If you aren’t the team lead, how can you influence establishing a clear process for making decisions?
• What decision-making processes would generally best suit your team?
• What benefits could incorporating the two decision-making elements have for your team and/or organization?

Accountability Is Not a Dirty Word

Holding people accountable means accepting responsibility for their actions. Unfortunately, we sometimes view this as a form of punishment, being too harsh, or micromanaging. Although in some cases people go to these extremes, this is not accountability. Instead, it literally is punishing, being too harsh, or micromanaging. Unfortunately, people then may react and flip to the other end of the spectrum, which looks like being too lax or simply checking out. Whichever strategy we choose, the results are the same:

• Tasks don’t get completed
• Agreements aren’t honored
• Items fall through the cracks
• Trust gets broken
• Commitments become empty, meaningless words
• Credibility is shaken
• People can’t depend on other people

Accountability means either making sure that we do what we say we’re going to do, or what we should be doing based on agreements that have already been established. If we need to be able to accomplish work, move towards goals, and build trust, accountability isn’t an option – it’s a must-have.

Learning the Language of Accountability

Interestingly, many of us never learned how to hold people accountable. Instead, we observed behaviors such as badgering, belittling, shaming, punishing, or imposing rules for the sake of rules as examples of accountability. Or, we may have seen behaviors such as making excuses, shying away from aspirations, goals, or dreams, avoiding commitments, dropping the ball, or tolerating mediocrity. Regardless of which end of the spectrum you move towards, neither is effective. Typical examples of these behaviors that I observe in my clients include:

• Pestering people over and over again around actions they haven’t completed
• Failing to set standards and expectations, or setting them without any follow-up
• Taking steps towards reaching an agreement, then giving up when met with resistance
• Passing off difficult situations or people and making them other people’s problems
• Making wishy-washy commitments without any plan of action
• Continually saying things like “we’ll get to it later,” and then never getting to it
• Making lofty or pseudo-spiritual statements like “it’s all good”, “just trust the flow”, or “it’ll all work out”
• Moving quickly to disciplinary actions or firing people

The problem with this language is that it doesn’t get results. Instead, we need to learn a new language that supports success, change, and results. Three pillars of this language? Clarity, persistence, and coaching.

Three Pillars of Accountability

Let’s look at three core pillars that you can use to hold people accountable:

Clarity: In order to hold people accountable, both you and they need to understand exactly what the agreement is. This includes elements such as being time-bound, detailed, and behavior-specific. In other words, what exactly should the person do, what does it look like, and when should they have it completed? Both you and they need to be on the same page of understanding and, as a leader, you need to have a way of confirming their understanding of your expectations.

The second part of clarity is getting clear agreement. Someone else may understand what you want, but understanding doesn’t equal agreement. Ultimately, anything less than a clear “yes” or “no” is not agreement. And, if it’s anything less then a “yes,” you’ll need to go deeper into the other two pillars to get clarity.

Persistence: A clear “yes” isn’t enough. Many a “yes” has been spoken, only to be never revisited again. We need to follow-up around the agreement. Ideally, you’ll establish a plan for follow-up up front, but there needs to be some kind of ongoing check-in to see how things are going, offer support, and course-correct as needed. Unfortunately, many people don’t make these agreements and then resort to pestering and micro-managing. Instead, work out a plan for ongoing check-ins that supports both of you.

You’ll also need to use persistence when you hear anything less than a clear “yes.” I often tell clients that they need to make the other person either say “yes” or “no,” but nothing in between. You don’t have to be a jerk about it – you just need to stay engaged in the conversation for as long as it takes. Staying with questions like, “When will you complete this?”, “Will you do x?”, and “What exactly will you agree to?” will help get that clarity from the first pillar. Or, simply restating the agreement and asking directly, “Will you agree to this?”

When you persist, people will squirm, evade, avoid, and talk in circles. You may have to repeat these questions several times until you get an answer. It’s your job to stay engaged until you get the clear “yes” or “no.”

Coaching: Two of people’s biggest obstacles around accountability are either lack of motivation or lack of skill. As leaders, it’s our job to help people move past these obstacles. Sometimes people do say yes and then get stuck. Other times, they need help in order to get to yes because they don’t understand the “why,” lack confidence, or need support.

As a leader, you’ll need to diagnose what the obstacle is and then work with the person to move past it. This could involve focusing on potential benefits to following through, providing tools for learning, or just offering ongoing support.

There are often deeper reasons behind people’s inability or unwillingness to be accountable. When we can uncover those reasons and find a way forward, accountability not only becomes easier, it becomes more meaningful.

Practicing Accountability

Applying these pillars requires you to practice them yourself around the topic of accountability. You’ll need to become clear on how you’d like to hold people accountable, establish a plan and stick to it, and move past your own obstacles. Here are some questions to assist you:

• What are some potential benefits to holding people accountable?
• What are your challenges around holding people accountable?
• What do you need to move past those challenges?
• Which of the three pillars would be most helpful to practice, and how can you practice it?
• What support do you need around practicing accountability?

Again, these ideas don’t just apply to holding others accountable – they also work for holding yourself accountable. Whether you want to lose weight, complete a project, or achieve a dream, the principles still apply. For additional support, share your experiences in the comments below!

This can be a tough pill to swallow. It’s much easier to blame others, point the finger, or avoid consequences. However, taking total accountability can be one of the most liberating and profound actions we can do to create change.

Exactly What is Total Accountability?

Let’s start with defining accountability, which Merriam-Webster describes as an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions. This could mean admitting we made a mistake, acknowledging our shortcomings, or accepting a consequence for our actions.

When taking total accountability, however, we accept responsibility for our team’s actions. In other words, we see our team as a reflection of ourselves. When something goes wrong, leaders ask a simple question:

If this situation is 100% a result of my behavior, what am I doing to create the situation?

This concept applies to many leadership roles, including managers, executives, parents, or any role in which there is a leader in some position of power or authority. For many leaders, this is a very difficult question to ask. It’s easy to find fault in other people and look at their contribution to the problem. It’s much harder to find fault in ourselves.

Asking this question has changed how I facilitate classes. For example, if a group is quiet and disengaged, I start to notice ways that it’s actually me who is tired or distracted. If the group is resistant, I see ways that I’m closed down or disconnected. If a student doesn’t understand something, I become aware of how I’m not being clear enough or perhaps impatient. In almost every situation, when I start to change, the group changes in response.

I’ve noticed similar changes as a parent when I ask this question. In times when our son has seemed more withdrawn, my wife and I have then noticed how we’ve been more withdrawn or disconnected. Instead of focusing on his behavior, we focus on our own. After a short period of consciously changing our behavior, we’ve noticed our son respond accordingly without ever having said a word to him about it. Seeing our son’s behavior as a reflection of both the state of our relationship and how we’re showing up as parents has been a key to making us better parents.

Total Accountability and the Blame Game

Taking this idea a step further, leaders who take total accountability switch their focus to their own shortcomings instead of other’s shortcomings. As I mentioned above, we have very little control over how others behave. On the other hand, we have 100% control over how we behave. Therefore, if we want to create change, we have the most leverage around what is under our control (Stephen Covey’s Circle of Influence model describes this concept in more detail).

This means that we start by cleaning up our own side of the street instead of blaming, pointing the finger, or passing judgment. We stop playing the blame game and start taking a “fearless moral inventory” around our behaviors. We stop pointing the finger and instead notice the four more pointing back at us.

So, if you put energy towards judging someone else as dishonest, it means looking at ways that you are dishonest.

If you focus on how someone else is selfish, it means looking at ways that you’re selfish.

If you point the finger at someone who is lazy, obnoxious, or greedy, it means looking at how you’re lazy, obnoxious or greedy.

We can all act these ways at times. Unless you’re a saint, you’re not immune to behaving in ways that hurt others or let them down. You might express it differently, but it doesn’t mean that you’re not also guilty of the underlying traits. (Note that sometimes we overcompensate and go to the other extreme, such as working too hard to avoid being seen as lazy or giving too much to others to avoid being seen as selfish. This reactive behavior causes harm in other ways, beginning with harming ourselves.) At the same time, when we recognize these behaviors and own them, we have the power to change them. In the words of Gandhi, we become the change we wish to see instead of waiting for others to change.

The Power of Taking Total Accountability

The moment we take total accountability, everything changes. No longer focused on what other people are doing, we can direct our full attention to making ourselves better. Doing this requires courage, vulnerability, and honesty. We need to shift the focus inward and let go of worrying about what others are doing.

This doesn’t mean not holding others accountable or letting them off the hook. It means holding ourselves accountable first so that we can then be humble enough to hold others accountable with genuine empathy and concern instead of judgment and blame. When we hold ourselves accountable first, we see people as people, not objects. It also makes it hard to maintain a position of moral superiority and thinking that we’re better than someone else. Think about it: if someone was upset with you, which approach would make you more likely to change? Them judging or blaming you, or them showing humility, empathy, and concern?

To practice taking total accountability, consider the following:

• List the qualities or behaviors that you don’t like in someone you despise or who irritates you. In what ways do you exhibit those same qualities or behaviors?
• Notice something that frustrates you about your team, group, or family. What are you doing to contribute to that dynamic?
• What would you have to face in yourself if you stopped blaming, judging, or pointing the finger at other people?
• If you only focused on your behavior and no one else’s for one full day, what would happen?
• What changes do you notice when you take 100% responsibility for your part in a given situation, both in yourself and in the other person/people?

The Consequences of Not Committing

When we break a commitment, won’t commit in the first place, or are fuzzy with our commitments, we impact other people. Unless you’re self-employed and never have to deal with other people (like, ever), people need to be able to rely on you (and vice-versa). Let’s look at some examples:

• You commit to a deadline for a quarterly report but don’t meet it. Now, your boss is under pressure because they needed the information to present to their boss. They are faced with throwing you under the bus or covering for you and taking the hit.
• You commit to helping out with a job, but are quite late or don’t show up at all. Other people initially wait for you, which wastes time.
• A colleague asks for help on an important project, but there aren’t many people she can ask. You say you’ll get back to her, but never do. She’s faced with the awkwardness of either asking you again or scrambling because she needs now to find someone else. Meanwhile, in the black hole of waiting for you to respond, she’s now in more of a time crunch.me. When you don’t show up soon, they have to pick up the slack because they planned on you being there.

Of course, accountability is never completely one-sided. However, if your goal is to be a better leader, it’s crucial to clean up your side of the street and take ownership of your behavior. In this case, that means making commitments and following through with them. When we don’t, other people end up bearing the burden. If we don’t commit to something we commit to nothing, and committing to nothing means everyone pays the price of mediocrity.

The Three Levels of Commitment

For many people, commitment is an all-or-nothing, black-or-white proposition. This is part of what can be scary about making commitments. However, commitment doesn’t have to be this way. Let’s look at three different levels of commitment that we can choose from:

1. Commit to Not Committing
   Even though we’re not making any grand promises, committing to not committing is a huge step up from committing to nothing. Actually, there is a lot of integrity and clarity behind intentionally not committing, because it gives other people more choices right up front. For example, if someone makes a request and you let them know that you can’t commit at this time, they are then free to make other plans.
2. Commit to Something
   Instead of going all in, consider something you can commit to and start there. Start to notice the shades of gray. Perhaps you know you only have time to take on a section of the report for your boss, that you only have one hour instead of five to help out on a job, or are only available to consult with your colleague for 30 minutes. Being clear about what you can commit to again communicates clarity and integrity.
3. Fully Commit
   Of course, you can always choose to fully commit. The caveat for choosing to fully commit is being confident that you’ll be able to follow through and make good on your promise. Which leads us to the next point …

Think Before Committing

Before making any commitment, assess what you can realistically commit to. If you’ve got a full plate, don’t take on a huge job. If you know there’s a chance that you’ll be late for something, think about what time you could realistically be there and commit to that time.

More than anything, it’s the communication around your commitment that matters. No matter how large or small the commitment, let people know exactly what you’re committing to, and by when. Trust is easy to break, but hard to fix. Broken commitments result in broken trust, which will impact your reputation, credibility, and opportunities. Consider your reputation, values, and goals as a leader, and ask yourself both how you want to be seen and how you want to impact the people in your life.

It’s OK to Say No

Lastly, it’s OK to say no. It’s perfectly acceptable (and healthy) to take care of yourself and set boundaries. Commitments aren’t always about other people. Sometimes it’s about making a commitment to yourself and your own needs, wants, and abilities. Again, clear communication is key. If you commit to yourself, let others know that when appropriate.

One last thing. Life happens. We can’t control everything. There are times when we can’t follow through on our commitments for various reasons. In these instances, communication is once again key. Let people know when things change as soon as possible. So long as it doesn’t turn into a pattern, renegotiating a commitment based on new conditions or circumstances preserves integrity and clarity in your relationships. Few commitments are forever, so as long as you’re not making those in your daily life (especially at work), re-commit when needed. What you can commit to matters – a little something is better than a lot of nothing.

Then, sometime later, people don’t follow through with the idea. Tasks don’t get completed. Attendance at follow-up meetings is lower. People don’t seem motivated. What happened?

In short, there was no agreement with the decision to move forward.

I see this time and time again. Leaders hear or see what they consider to be agreement from a few people in the group and assume because no one verbally opposes the solution that everyone is on board. What really happens are things like this:

• Some people who nodded did, in fact, think the solution “sounded good” but still needed time to think about it before agreeing to it. Something “sounding good” is different than agreeing or wanting to do it.
• Some people who said “yes” approved of the solution but didn’t realize that they were supposed to be part of implementing it. They thought they were agreeing to other people running with the solution, not them.
• Some people who were silent were afraid to ask for more clarity or share an opposing view. Some needed time to process what was discussed but didn’t say so. Some flat out disagreed but didn’t want to oppose the leader for fear of the consequences. Some didn’t speak up because they flat out disagreed (also, in some cultures silence explicitly means lack of agreement).

As you can see, none of the above responses actually indicate agreement. So, what went wrong?

When asking for agreement, two things are crucial:

1. Being specific about what you want the group to agree to

Before asking if people agree, reiterate exactly what you want them to agree to, including roles and responsibilities. Make sure everyone understands the solution and has space to ask questions to confirm understanding and/or voice concerns. If people don’t seem ready to agree, don’t force the issue (I’ll cover how to “read the room” in a future post). Find out what people need before moving forward.

Key questions to ask the group:

• “Who doesn’t agree with the solution?”
• “What do you need to agree to this solution?”

2. Getting clear and obvious agreement from the group

As I mentioned earlier, silence, non-verbal cues, and even some yesses don’t mean agreement. If you have done the previous step accurately, then it’s important to make a direct and specific request to ensure agreement.

Key request:

• “If you agree with this solution, please raise your hand.”

Notice how this is quite different than asking if the solution sounds good or if everyone’s good with moving forward. Showing agreement based on a clear request is different than asking about agreement. If all hands are raised, you’re in a good place to move forward. If not, go back to step one and repeat. Although this doesn’t necessarily mean that things will move forward as planned, the odds are much greater that they will.

Another key ingredient is having a clear and known decision-making process. I’ll talk about this in future posts.