The Real Mutual Accountability

Early in my career, not long after I became the Platoon Leader of an armored cavalry platoon with 41 Soldiers and 10 armored vehicles, my Platoon Sergeant (second in command) asked to inspect my fingernails. I was stunned but complied.

His name was Sergeant Mac, and he was the kind of Soldier who had forgotten more about leading people than most officers would ever learn. He did not ask to see my hands because he was interested in my hygiene. He asked because we had just finished a motor pool session, and he wanted to know whether I had been working alongside my Soldiers or watching them from a distance.

My fingernails were clean.

Sergeant Mac did not say much about it. He did not have to. The point was made clearly enough, and I did not forget it. The message: A leader who expects standards from the people he leads but does not hold himself to those same standards has not created accountability. He has created a performance directive. And eventually, people stop performing.

What “Mutual” Actually Means

Mutual accountability is one of the most misunderstood concepts in organizational leadership. The word “mutual” tends to get glossed over, but it means a lot. Most organizations have accountability structures that run in one direction: down. Leaders hold team members accountable. Managers review direct reports. Performance systems document where individuals are falling short. All of that has its place to a point.

But in the Level Five Culture of Commitment, accountability flows in every direction. Team members hold one another accountable. Leaders hold themselves accountable to the same standards they expect from others. There is enough trust and enough belonging in the culture that people feel safe raising a concern upward, not just downward or sideways.

This is probably a different kind of organization than most people work in. It is also a more resilient one. When accountability is mutual, the culture can absorb underperformance, disagreement, and change without fracturing, because the system for addressing problems does not depend on any single person or any single direction of authority. There is a healthy resilience in being All-In.

Why Leaders Have to Want It First

What makes mutual accountability hard to achieve is that it requires leaders to genuinely want it rather than simply say they want it.

A leader who responds poorly when a team member holds him accountable, who becomes defensive, or dismissive, or retaliatory, will not experience mutual accountability for very long. The team will observe what happens and adjust accordingly. Accountability will go back to flowing in one direction only. The team will have learned something important about what is safe and what is not, and it will behave accordingly from that point forward.

This is why mutual accountability does not happen by policy. I have never seen a mutual accountability policy that created mutual accountability. It happens by values translating into behaviors, and the culture is shaped by what leaders model, what they reward, and what they tolerate. The leader sets those conditions, intentionally or not.

Sergeant Mac was not enforcing a policy when he checked my fingernails. He was modeling what a standard looks like when it applies to everyone, including the officer in command. That was a culture-defining moment for me. It cost him nothing except the willingness to hold the standard up and point.

The Behaviors That Signal Mutual Accountability Is Real

When mutual accountability is working, you can see it in specific behaviors.

To read the rest of this article, visit this link.

Enjoy the journey!