The Dollars and “Sense” of Accountability

Why Accountability Matters: The Costs of Ignoring Poor Performance Behaviors

One of the most damaging mistakes organizations can make is failing to hold poor performers accountable. It may seem easier to avoid uncomfortable conversations, but the long-term consequences can be severe for both leaders and followers. When accountability is absent, performance standards erode, top talent becomes disengaged, and organizational culture can turn toxic.

The Erosion of Performance Standards

When accountability is absent, performance standards don’t just slip—they erode systematically over time. Without clear expectations and consequences, employees may conclude that meeting goals is optional or that underperformance carries no real risk. This leads to uneven effort across the team, reduced quality of work, and ultimately a normalization of mediocrity. High standards that once defined success are gradually replaced by a culture of “good enough.” This shift makes it harder to maintain excellence or compete effectively in the market.

The Impact on Public and Non-Profit Organizations

In public and non-profit organizations, the shift from high standards to a culture of “good enough” can have especially damaging consequences. Unlike private companies driven by competitive markets, public and non-profit agencies often serve vulnerable populations, enforce critical policies, or manage limited public resources. When performance standards erode, service quality declines, wait times increase, errors multiply, and public trust suffers. Citizens or clients who rely on these services may experience frustration, harm, or inequity, undermining the very mission of the organization.

Separate the behavior from the person

Moreover, in mission-driven sectors, staff are often motivated by purpose and impact rather than profit. Tolerating poor performance sends the message that commitment and quality don’t really matter, which can deeply disillusion dedicated employees. Over time, morale declines, turnover rises, and it becomes harder to attract or retain skilled, passionate professionals. This creates a vicious cycle in which service delivery suffers further, organizational reputation declines, and accountability to the public or donors is weakened. In short, a “good enough” culture in public and non-profit contexts threatens not only internal performance but the core mission to serve communities effectively and equitably.

The Toll on Top Talent

This erosion of standards has especially serious consequences for top talent. High performers thrive in environments where effort and results are recognized, and where they can trust their colleagues to pull their weight. When they see poor performance being tolerated, they often feel frustrated, undervalued, or demoralized. Over time, they may disengage emotionally—reducing their discretionary effort—or choose to leave entirely for organizations that better support high standards and merit-based recognition. The loss of top talent then compounds the problem, leaving behind a workforce less capable of driving innovation or maintaining service quality. As this cycle continues, organizational culture can turn toxic, characterized by resentment, distrust, low morale, and an overall decline in shared purpose and cohesion.

The Leader's Dilemma

For leaders, failing to address poor performance damages credibility and authority. Team members may perceive them as unwilling or unable to enforce expectations, undermining trust and respect (Kaplan & Kaiser, 2009). Over time, this erodes the leader’s influence, making it harder to drive results or navigate change. Moreover, if high performers see that underperformance goes unaddressed, they may reduce their own effort, adopt cynicism about fairness, or even leave the organization entirely (Goler et al., 2016). This "contagion effect" weakens the overall talent pool and places even greater strain on those who remain.

The Consequences for Followers

For followers, the consequences can be just as damaging. A lack of accountability can breed resentment and demotivation among employees who consistently meet expectations, as they feel their efforts are undervalued (Podsakoff et al., 2007). Teams may lose cohesion when conflicts arise over unequal workloads or perceptions of favoritism. Ultimately, poor performance that is tolerated becomes normalized, setting a new, lower bar for everyone. In this environment, psychological safety and engagement suffer because people stop believing that excellence will be recognized or that problems will be fairly addressed (Edmondson, 1999). To sustain healthy, high-performing teams, organizations must prioritize clear standards, courageous feedback, and consistent accountability.

The Monetary Cost of Poor Performance

What could be the monetary cost of not holding poor performers accountable?

The monetary cost of not holding poor performers accountable can be substantial, often extending far beyond the individual employee's lost productivity. At the individual level, tolerating underperformance lowers personal output while also consuming additional supervisory time through repeated corrections or workarounds. Research suggests that low performers can cost their employers up to 30% of their salary in wasted resources and productivity gaps (Housman & Minor, 2015).

What are the hidden costs of poor performance?

At the team level, poor accountability creates resentment among high-performing colleagues who feel compelled to compensate for the underperformer's workload. This leads to reduced morale, disengagement, and even turnover (Podsakoff et al., 2007). Replacing an employee—especially a skilled or engaged one—can cost 50% to 200% of their annual salary, when accounting for recruiting, onboarding, and lost knowledge (Society for Human Resource Management [SHRM], 2022).

For the organization as a whole, the aggregate cost includes higher turnover expenses, reduced customer satisfaction due to inconsistent quality, increased absenteeism, and lower overall productivity. For example, in service industries, a single disengaged or underperforming employee can negatively affect client loyalty, harming revenue and reputation (Harter et al., 2009). Left unchecked, such costs compound over time as mediocrity becomes normalized and the organization's capacity for innovation and excellence erodes. This demonstrates that failing to hold poor performers accountable is not just a human resources issue—it is a direct threat to financial sustainability and strategic success.

Why Are Supervisors and Managers Afraid to Address Poor Performance?

Supervisors and managers are often reluctant to address poor performance for several reasons rooted in both interpersonal and organizational dynamics. A primary barrier is fear of conflict, as many leaders feel uncomfortable delivering difficult feedback and worry it will provoke defensiveness, anger, or lasting damage to workplace relationships (Goleman, 2013). There is also concern about hurting team morale, particularly in small or close-knit groups where personal bonds are strong (Grenny et al., 2013).

Poor performers often use complaints and veiled threats to deter others from holding them accountable.

Additionally, managers may fear formal complaints or escalation, worrying that corrective conversations could lead to accusations of unfair treatment or discrimination, especially in highly regulated or unionized environments (CIPD, 2021). Beyond these interpersonal fears, many supervisors lack confidence or skill in handling sensitive discussions, doubting their ability to communicate effectively without worsening the problem (Stone et al., 2010). Organizational culture also matters: when accountability is inconsistently enforced or leadership sends mixed signals about standards, managers may feel unsupported or fear retaliation for “rocking the boat.”

Finally, some leaders avoid discomfort entirely, hoping the problem will resolve itself over time—often at the cost of larger issues later. Overcoming these barriers requires clear institutional expectations, training in evidence-based feedback methods, and a culture that views accountability not as punishment, but as a shared commitment to growth, fairness, and team success.

Addressing Poor Behavior While Maintaining Relationships

How can we address poor behavior while maintaining the relationship?

S.C.O.R.E. Performance Counseling Method Steps

The S.C.O.R.E. Performance Counseling: Save the Relationship, Change the Behavior book and training were designed specifically to help supervisors overcome the most frequent and damaging errors made during performance-centered counseling. Instead of relying on vague, punitive, or confrontational approaches, S.C.O.R.E. teaches leaders how to separate the behavior from the person, ensuring that employees feel respected even as expectations are clarified and changed.

The method provides a step-by-step approach to addressing performance issues, helping managers reduce communication apprehension, involve employees in participative decision-making, and create written plans for follow-up and accountability. By showing how to reveal the gap between current performance and expectations in a non-confrontational, supportive way, S.C.O.R.E. equips leaders to include employee perceptions and interpretations, fostering understanding and commitment to change. Ultimately, this approach preserves trust and relationship quality while driving meaningful behavior change—turning what is often an uncomfortable or avoided task into an opportunity for growth and collaboration.

References

• CIPD. (2021). Managing conflict in the modern workplace. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Retrieved from https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/fundamentals/emp-law/conflict/factsheet

• Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

• Goleman, D. (2013). Focus: The hidden driver of excellence. Harper.

• Grenny, J., Patterson, K., Maxfield, D., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2013). Crucial conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

• Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Killham, E. A., & Asplund, J. W. (2009). Q12 Meta-Analysis: The Relationship between Engagement at Work and Organizational Outcomes. Gallup. Retrieved from https://www.gallup.com

• Housman, M., & Minor, D. (2015). Toxic workers. Harvard Business School NOM Unit Working Paper No. 16-057. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2683185

• Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor–hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 438–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438

• Society for Human Resource Management. (2022). Cost of Employee Turnover. SHRM. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org

• Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (2010). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most (2nd ed.). Penguin.