Recently, the CTi Board of Directors met for the first of two 1988 meetings. These leaders, about half of them pastors, flew to Chicago to review the publishing operation, evaluate the previous year’s activities, dissect the finances, and consider management’s plan for the new year. It is the time when the board tests the integrity of the organization, and the staff accounts for six months of work.
Like many of you, I play two roles. As a board member/corporate of officer, I am charged with preserving the integrity of the organization’s purpose, processes, and products. As a staff member, I am “on the point” to give a full accounting.
The words integrity and accountability have been heard a great deal lately, given the media’s obsession with the presidential campaign and the TV preacher scandals. Thus, while preparing for the board meeting, I found myself thinking about these issues.
Someone has said that if integrity is the foundation upon which any worthy enterprise rests, then accountability is the cornerstone. Another metaphor depicts accountability as a knife. A good cutting instrument has two characteristics: it must be safe, and it must be sharp. A knife must have a soft edge-a durable, well-formed, easily grasped handle. Likewise it must have a hard edge-a sharp blade. The combination creates a useful tool. For me, accountability has similar characteristics: a soft edge and a hard edge.
The Soft Edge. Accountability compels me to recognize my need for others’ wisdom and support. In his newest book, Integrity, Ted Engstrom quotes Russ Reid as saying, “When Christian leaders hold their power loosely and listen to the counsel of others, they become more open and accountable.” Conversely, “when they choose to ‘go it alone,’ the results are usually devastating.”
Russ is right. The soft, protective edge of accountability requires my active pursuit and acceptance of others’ help. The one thing I can do by myself is fail. Directors, elders, and boards are given to us by God for our good; they are our resource, our support, our safety nets, our links with integrity. They keep us from tendencies toward self-deception and organizational destruction. They are co-laborers, confessors, colleagues, and friends.
In an earlier book, I remember Ted’s telling about a psychologist who said the early church practiced accountability by confessing sins to one another. When the Roman Catholic church emerged, it said that sins should be confessed to a priest. When the Protestants arrived, they said it was only necessary to confess sins to God. And when Freud came along, he said there were no sins to confess! A humorous analysis illustrating a gem of truth: the further we get away from others, the less accountable we become.
The Hard Edge. J. D. Batten captures the sharp edge of accountability in his book Tough-Minded Management. He says accountability is the understanding that a person must do his job or get out of the way so someone else can do it. Accountability means my neck is on the line. Integrity demands that the directors trip the guillotine if my job isn’t getting done.
However, Batten recognizes that such a hard and demanding conclusion is predicated upon something more than fuzzy assumptions and wish lists. Herein lies a common and widespread problem. I have no idea how many times a pastor or elder has complained to me about the performance of “them” or “him.” Usually, a few, short questions confirmed that the problem was a serious lack of mutual understanding about purpose, goals, expectations, and levels of performance. Strict accountability was genuinely desired (and sometimes threatened) by both parties; missing was the common ground of firm assumptions and well-defined expectations.
Batten suggests four questions as a basis for fair, just, and neck-on-the-line accountability:
1. Do both parties have a clear-cut understanding of the expected results? If not, why not?
2. Have both parties been given the opportunity to help determine corporate goals, particularly in their own area of expertise? If not, why not?
3. Have there been private discussions about strengths and weaknesses, with an emphasis on strengths? If not, why not?
4. In short, has the what, where, when, who, how, and, most importantly, the why of the task been understood and accepted? If not, why not?
Answers to these questions not only enable us to hold one another accountable for real accomplishment, but obligate us to do so. In fact, only a person without leadership integrity (or competence) would accept a position of responsibility if he or she could not get reliable answers to these questions.
The soft edge and the hard edge. Accountability means reaching out for help, support, and protection, but it also means doing my homework. Yes, it’s a chore to review, define, explain, and justify everything twice a year. (As a pastor, I did this once a month!) Yes, I fight the feeling that the more I explain, the more probing and prying I’ll face in the future.
But that’s why the hard edge is necessary. Accountability is a combination of both the soft and hard edges that cuts through to effectiveness.
Paul D. Robbins is executive vice-president of Christianity Today, Inc.
Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
