Accountability Meeting
Everybody’s shit stinks. All of us humans have some annoying or less-than-charming characteristics, even if they’re arguably not our fault. A regular meeting that holds everyone accountable for their impact on the group could work wonders in cohesion. Picture a meeting in which everyone takes a turn in admitting an unadmirable trait that may be affecting the group. Some, if not all, could take one turn as a complainer. The intent is to encourage improvement without anyone feeling uniquely demoralized or feeling attacked. For clarity, the following description of this type of meeting will refer to the accountability role, the complainer role, and the calling out role.
Accountability Role
Everyone in the meeting should state what they feel like is their own most obnoxious trait or habit. They can say how they’re working on it, or not, depending on time and/or group preference. If others agree and are grateful for the self-accountability, their turn can be over quickly. Even if it’s not the problem you would have chosen for them to work on, if it’s the problem they are ready and willing to work on, try to move on. Their admission might be as much as their ego can handle currently. Their turn is over when everyone gives them a thumbs up to work on their planned improvement.
Calling Out Role
If the group member’s admission seems like a cover-up for a much bigger problem, then one or more members can say something like the following: “Thanks for that willingness, but there’s something else that’s a lot harder to deal with.” The person doing the calling out doesn’t get to enlighten them further. The person in the accountability role, as mentioned previously, simply could guess again at a trait others might appreciate them working on, until their time is up. The caller-out could wait and see if the person in the accountability role might approach them later in private to ask what’s bothering them. The person in the accountability role has an incentive to bring up one of their worst offenses. Otherwise the person in the accountability role might have to list a large number of their objectionable traits during their turn, while everyone waits for them to get to a worse offense.
Complainer Role
This role comes into play if the person in the accountability role has a blind spot so persistent that, meeting after meeting, they can’t name a truly obnoxious trait or habit of theirs. The group shouldn’t have to let them keep working on where they leave their water bottle while refusing to admit a serious problem that is negatively affecting the group. The group can keep saying “but wait, there’s more!” The person in the accountability role can choose a complainer to tell them what that chosen person would like the turn-taker to work on. The person in the accountability role will be likely to choose someone who will make it easier to hear. After someone has been in the complainer (truth-teller) role, they have to let another take that role for the remainder of the turns. In other words, no one should be a complainer for more than one turn in that meeting.
Defender Role
If anyone definitely doesn’t agree with the complainer, they should say so. This should be a very short comment, such as one word “disagree” or “that’s not my experience.”
Timekeeper Role
It’s a good idea to keep the meeting not much longer than an hour. This can make it seem less horrible. Everyone needs to have the same time limit being the subject of complaint, unless they quickly fess up so their turn is over. Someone should take on the job to reset the timer at the start of each turn. A 3 to 5 minute turn would keep the turn from feeling too brutal. The timekeeper needs to be someone who can set firm limits. They or another should be tasked to prevent a touchy issue from starting a pile-on that violates the rules of the meeting. The timekeeper has to take their turn in the accountability role also.
Longsuffering Role
Everyone should take on this role. An unresolved complaint might have to be carried over to the next meeting. A challenging behavior that seems to be the elephant in the room might have to wait. It may or may not be in the awareness of the person in the accountability role, especially if it’s a problematic behavior that no one wants to directly confront at the time it happens. End on a positive note by first having each person state a positive attribute or habit of the person they were the complainer about. Those who weren’t in a complainer role could state a positive of anyone in the group who wasn’t praised yet.
Leadership Role
It would be great if the leader or property owner is willing to participate. The “boss” would then have more chance of becoming aware of how they can be better and prevent themselves from losing valuable group members. Many leaders or property owners think they are fair-minded, but the way power dynamics often go, no one wants to be the one to call them out. Don’t make the “boss” bad, even if everyone seems to think they are. It’s unhelpful to get together to gossip and gripe about others. Try to focus on possible solutions.
There’s a long-term tradition in intentional communities that originally came out of Matthew 18 in the bible. It says to first talk to the person directly about your complaint in private. If they can’t agree to work on it and/or they don’t behave better, bring one or two others to back you up in your complaint. If that fails to resolve the issue, the next step is to take the complaint to the authoritative body. Here’s where the accountability meeting format can be helpful, and the group can act as the authoritative body even to hold a leader accountable. Also, other members can be clued in so they can play the complainer role in behalf of the person who may be most affected and may also feel singled out. A vulnerable member may need help to bring up an issue that might be impacting them only, or impacting them disproportionately.
No-show Role
Try to schedule the meeting at a known, agreed-on, and consistent place and time. That way you have the best chance of everyone attending. It should be a time workable for all, and with advance notice. If anyone is a no-show, then the absent person still takes an accountability role. Everyone can take a turn during the allotted time to complain about the absent person and suggest something to ameliorate the problem, ideally that doesn’t need the cooperation of the absent person. There may be people the group decides cannot yet be brought into the meeting, such as new members that aren’t past the trial period. Give respect to those who are absent. The absent person might be a property owner or other person who is not part of the core team but does impact the others. Absent persons and no-shows should also get a positive mention at the end, just as others do.
Write us if you have some great ideas for accountability that have worked for your group.
Workers Unite: The Smallest Labor Unions
If a work team unites with a real intent for cooperative and egalitarian agreements, they build trust with each other. As they develop their skills in collaborative decision making, they can leverage their camaraderie to convince owners to deal more fairly with them. If a group of residents or resident-workers develops enuf cohesion, they can collectively ask the leadership or ownership structure to consider a group request. They can also come up with a plan B to exit together to set up their own support system if the situation gets intolerable.
The meeting process described above invites accountability, but it does not demand accountability. It could be useful in situations in which there is not another method to realistically hold others accountable, or if trying to do so may seem too risky. One value of this process is that if someone who has power over others is not willing to be accountable for their negative impact on others, it will allow group members to see the truth of the situation, set boundaries, and move on if necessary.
Politely Prevent Defectors
Power dynamics are so tricky. Leaders or co-leaders may use subtle and even unconscious bullying tactics. Someone who feels threatened or has a cluster B personality disorder may try to make sure all or most members have allegiance to themselves. They also may try to ensure that other members don’t form strong alliances with each other. A leader might encourage some to tell them about disloyal or disparaging comments. The best way to prevent this is for each member to commit to speak respectfully yet honestly at all times. Sometimes this seems impossible to do both at the same time, but it’s possible to say “can we have this conversation later?” Speak in a way that if others overheard or reported to another, you could honestly assert that you were trying to get help to understand or deal with a difficult situation, not venting or colluding. If colluding seems necessary, consider confronting the person whose behavior has become egregious. Once the issue is out in the open, it can be discussed. You might agree to record all your meetings. Then there’s automatic accountability, and protection, because you can play back your statements that might be misreported. You can also keep each other honest by having regular accountability meetings to resolve grievances. This can help prevent gossip from becoming the default way to hold accountability conversations.
Further Study
Worklife with Adam Grant podcast: This episode describes the difference between a leader and a boss. Jane Goodall describes chimpanzees in relation to human dominance-seeking behaviors.