Middle Way Management and Accountability

In my last post, I discussed Middle Way Management™ and life/work balance. I suggested the only way you can honestly counsel those you lead and manage to balance their own life and work is to model it yourself. It's only when you are balanced that your Middle Way Management practice becomes an effortless daily walk. In this post, I consider how holding organizational members accountable and expecting the same from others is a primary expectation of the Middle Way Manager™.

Hard and Soft Management Approaches
What is the difference between "hard" and "soft" leadership/management approaches? A hard approach is starkly prescriptive. It offers directed actions intended to "fix" management situations. "If you see this, do that." These approaches claim to have all of the answers to any management dilemma you might confront. They are especially amenable to linear thinkers because they offer a yes/no dichotomy that results in a final decision, even if it's the wrong one! They rarely have all the answers.

A "soft" approach seeks to foster character attributes in the leader/manager to act as guiding principles for any management dilemma that might crop up. This is very much akin to virtue ethics in which the character of the person precedes and informs management decisions. Rather than asking questions such as "What action will do the most good for organizational members and result in the least harm?", the Middle Way Manager asks, "What sort of person am I?" when addressing difficult management situations. These approaches not only acknowledge they do not have all the answers, they revel in the fact and invite debate, discussion, and dialogue at every opportunity.

Accountability and Candor
True, Middle Way Management is a descriptive, rather than prescriptive, approach to leading and managing people. Though I do offer a few techniques for centering oneself and interacting with organizational members, the approach is fundamentally ontological - it's a way of being around which you craft your unique way of doing. At its root, Middle Way Management is a soft approach in terms of the conventional thinking I presented above, yet it is in no way easy on organizational members.

The authentic Middle Way Manager holds organizational members accountable for their words and actions and expects the same from others. Whether it's a boss, a colleague, a team member, a strategic partner, a supplier, or a customer, the Middle Way Manager holds all accountable while being held himself to the highest level of accountability. This attention to honesty and the candor that upholding such standards requires are hallmarks of the Middle Way Manager.

As I stated in an earlier post, I've worked for a Buddhist CEO who would feel right at home practicing Middle Way Management. While he was a compassionate, empathetic, gracious, and kind leader/manager, it was my observation that he did not hold organizational members accountable for either their promises or their words and deeds. Though his vision for the organization was sound and inspiring, a lack of accountability resulted in a chaotic environment in which some departments experienced annual employee turnover rates as high as forty per cent. Clearly, he and his organization would have benefited from a practice of holding all organizational members accountable while still maintaining an environment of compassion and mindful awareness.

I hope this post has clarified my thinking around how a "soft" approach to leading and managing people can be as, if not more, rigorous than a traditionally "hard" approach. In the end, it's all about compassion, empathy, honesty, and candor. Practice these and you will be called a Middle Way Manager.

Viva accountability!

Onward! Darin

Copyright © 2009, Darin R. Molnar, PhD. All rights reserved.