Cultivating diversity through empowered accountability
By: Garrett Hope
Tags: Management And Leadership, Diversity In Tech, Diversity And Inclusion, Diversity

In my experience, leadership in the tech industry is weighted if favor of “type A” personalities with solid social skills. In a field where speed and first mover advantages are compounded through network effects and data loops, it is easy to unconsciously build teams, roles, and practices that fit people who have the ability to “take charge”, “hit the ground running”, “be assertive” and “deliver”.

In contrast to this, technology companies have realized that to develop broadly appealing, successful products they must build and maintain skilled, diverse, inclusive teams that are capable of thinking from a variety of user perspectives. Achieving that diversity requires that we are able to not only include but also empower those who are introverted or come from backgrounds which may lead them be be less comfortable expressing a traditional, assertive, leadership style. If you are a senior technology leader today, odds are that you were aided to your position because you either possessed or cultivated the traditional assertive style. I would suggest to you that the background and upbringing of current tech leaders provides them with experience and role modeling advantages that helped them, “figure it out,” feel confident taking that assertive position, and keep their careers moving. We as current technology leaders need to be mindful of events which we may have intuited our way through but may require more conscious development for others who lack our upbringing. I’d like to specifically address one of these events in this article: Decision making.

Decision evaluation is a skill which is traditionally coached as leaders advance in their careers. We teach risk evaluation, opportunity sizing, cost/benefit analysis, and tradeoffs. I would submit to you that actually making impactful decisions is a different skill which we seldom coach beyond the scope of general communication practices. For most established tech leaders this is second nature. Research, decide, communicate, act. However, my observation has been that this is frequently not so intuitive for team members of different backgrounds. It is especially challenging when complete consensus is lacking. It is made significantly more difficult if the decision maker is battling imposter syndrome, which has been shown to be more prevalent in high achievers, minorities, and women (Science Vol 367, Issue 6479 14 February 2020).

Assume that you have a senior engineer, product manager, or functional manager on your team. That person is accountable for making an important decision that will affect multiple teams. After all appropriate research and design, multiple conversations with peers across disciples to get input, and identification of a clear plan, there remains a lack of complete agreement between all involved as to how to proceed. Weighing all inputs, this person states their opinion to the group. Some portion of the extended team concurs. Another portion disagrees with the decision. Those who disagree insist on having further discussions on the topic.

The individual on your team has performed all needed research to make this call, has appropriately evaluated the other position, and has the authority to make the decision. What would you do when that person comes to you, their direct manager, for support? How can you empower that individual to make the decision that their role dictates they are empowered to make?

One could take the approach of having them “sort it out”. For those with a “type A” personality this might seem like a preferred path of action. However, chalking up this struggle to a learning curve runs the risk of alienating those who lack an assertive style or may not know how to proceed in the face of loud objection. This can lead to frustration, a feeling of lacking support, and ultimately attrition of those who are more inclined toward collaboration versus conflict resolution. Even if you still espouse the mentality that, “I figured it out, they can too,” this is an inefficient approach because it allows work to block on a decision which has no end in sight. We can do better.

Perhaps the most popular approach among tech leaders, and one that prompted me to write this article, is overtly agreeing with the team member’s decision. This typically comes through in meetings or emails as, “I agree with that decision.” It may also take the form of sidebar conversations with other leaders to drum up their support for the decision with their respective teams. While this approach supports the decision without co-opting it, the decision relies on the manager to tip the scales in a situation which should not have required the manager’s vote. The manager’s actions, however well intentioned, confirmed that the decision owner truly did need someone else’s approval — their manager’s. Having made the mistake myself, I have learned that taking this approach can be seen as validation of the behavior of those who insisted on further evaluation. It can also be particularly damaging for those who are not assertive. While the manager feels that they have stood up for their team member, the team member may be left feeling disempowered and unsure of how to handle the next stakeholder disagreement. Do they need their manager to show up to agree with them? I point this out because this is not intuitive for many more assertive personalities. In my career, I’ve never felt the least bit diminished by a manager who publicly agreed with my decision. However, my reality was that I felt I had made the decision. It took a team member pointing out to me that my agreement cast into doubt who was actually empowered to make the decision for me to realize this. This approach, while achieving its goal with some team members, can leave others feeling stuck.

What can a manager do to empower leaders on their team to make decisions? One approach that I’ve taken to using is to affirm accountability and authority rather than the decision. Given the scenario we started with, the manager could attend the next discussion session. Before the conversation starts, the manager can set up the team member for success with a statement as simple as, “It is great to see the interest that so many people have in this space. I understand we’re trying to reach a decision on our direction. Before we get started, I want to make sure we are all aware that the decision lies with [person] because or their role on this program.” The nuance with this approach is that it empowers the individual rather than weighing in on the decision. It also serves to remind everyone of the team’s operating model without adopting a confrontational stance. This approach empowers accountability and is an appropriate use of managerial responsibility. To empower accountability there are 3 steps that I’ve identified and been using:

Understand the context: It is critical to understand the objections that are being raised and the decision being made. This step confirms that, indeed, all due diligence has been done prior to making the decision. Accountability does not absolve the team member from the responsibility of obtaining sufficient input. It also confirms that the decision is within the scope of the team member’s purview. Clarity with other leaders if there is any doubt. Also, hold this conversation one-on-one so as to avoid creating the perception that you distrust the team member. Game plan: Having determined that the decision is indeed founded and accountability properly placed, it is important to work with the team member to determine the correct venue for you to express your support. It is equally important that they know that you will not be directly affirming the decision and your reasons for taking this approach. Execute: Follow through on the plan. Affirm the team member’s accountability for the decision. Avoid subsequently falling into one of the other methods of supporting the decision. (Note: When you are new to this approach, it is great to practice active listening so as to avoid falling into an old pattern of agreement.)

I have personally found this method to be highly effective and have received feedback from multiple team members that it made them feel both empowered and supported.

Advice for the team member: If you happen to be reading this and identify as the team member in the above narrative, you can take the initiative to execute the game plan as well. Set up the first conversation with your manager. Provide them with the full context. Have them confirm that you are indeed empowered and expected to make the decision. Request that they participate in the appropriate venue and affirm both your responsibility and accountability for the decision. Ask that they not personally weigh in on the decision but support you as you make the decision. Most reasonable manager should find this agreeable, especially if you provide them with the context as to why you are making this request and sufficient background on the particular sticking point.

It took me the better part of twelve years to discover the information in this article. I hope you found this article beneficial. With thoughtful management, coaching, and mentoring we can all create a more inclusive tech community to accelerate our progress toward the future, build amazing products, and solve the most challenging problems of our age.

As always, if you have thoughts on this article or would simply like to discuss engineering and product management theory, feel free to reach out to me on LinkedIn.