High standards do not make you a jerk. But high standards without adequate support might.
-Tim Wojcik, MA Ed, NRP
Before going any further, let’s define leadership.
Leadership is not limited to supervisors, managers, coaches, or people with titles. Leadership is influence. That means we lead up, down, and across an organization. Sometimes the person responsible for maintaining a standard is not your supervisor. It is the peer working beside you.
One of the most difficult tasks of a leader is holding others accountable.
I have been thinking lately about one of the most difficult responsibilities of leadership: holding someone accountable when their effort, preparation, or performance is not meeting the standard.
Consider an EMS crew responding to a cardiac arrest. The patient and family do not know whether the crew had a good orientation, received enough practice, or felt confident coming into work. They simply need the people walking through the door to be prepared.
In situations like that, competence matters. “Close enough” may not be close enough.
But leaders and peers can mishandle that reality in two very different directions.
At one extreme, we tolerate mediocrity. We excuse poor preparation, count half effort as full effort, and avoid difficult conversations because we do not want to make anyone uncomfortable.
At the other extreme, we become the jerk. We defend the standard by embarrassing people, questioning their value, or demanding improvement without giving them the support needed to improve.
Neither is leadership.
Healthy accountability refuses to lower the standard, but it also refuses to diminish the person.
Before addressing someone’s performance, whether you are a supervisor, team leader, or peer, ask yourself four questions:
1. Is the standard clear?
Does this person actually know what is expected? Have I personally communicated the standard?
It is difficult to hold someone accountable for a standard that was never clearly communicated, taught, demonstrated, or consistently enforced.
2. Am I addressing what the person did, or attacking who the person is?
There is an enormous difference between: “That performance was not good enough.” and “You are not good enough.”
One addresses behavior or performance. The other attacks identity.
3. Am I willing to help this person improve?
If I only identify what someone did wrong and then walk away, I am criticizing, not leading.
Accountability should include a path forward. That may require additional instruction, practice, coaching, feedback, resources, time, or closer supervision.
Sometimes that support comes from formal leadership. Sometimes it comes from a trusted peer who says, “Let’s work through this together.”
The higher the standard, the greater the support must be.
4. Why am I saying this?
Am I addressing the problem because I am frustrated, embarrassed, or trying to prove that I am right?
Or am I willing to have a difficult conversation because the work matters, other people are depending on us, and I genuinely believe this person is capable of more?
Our motive does not eliminate the need for accountability, but it should shape how we provide it.
This principle also applies at the organizational level.
An organization cannot continue raising expectations without raising support. If standards increase, training, resources, communication, supervision, and feedback must increase with them.
Organizations must also support the people responsible for maintaining those standards, including peers who are willing to speak up when something is not right.
You cannot tell supervisors, instructors, crew chiefs, coaches, team leaders, or experienced peers to hold people accountable and then leave them ignored or isolated when that accountability creates tension or conflict. If people believe they will be abandoned the moment someone complains, they will eventually stop addressing problems.
Then mediocrity simply becomes the safer organizational choice.
High standards require high support in every direction:
The employee needs support to reach the standard.
The peer needs support to reinforce the standard.
The formal leader needs support to maintain the standard.
This principle also applies personally. If I establish a higher standard for myself, I should expect to need more support, not less. That may mean seeking a mentor, asking a peer for feedback, requesting coaching, practicing more, building accountability, or acknowledging that I do not yet know how to do something.
Seeking support is not weakness. In fact, it is often evidence that we are serious about the standard.
Good leaders and good peers do not tolerate mediocrity.
They do not humiliate people who fall short.
They make the standard clear, tell the truth about the gap, provide the support needed for growth, and stay engaged in the process.
You do not need a title to do that.
When standards rise, support must rise with them.
That is how we hold one another accountable without becoming the jerk.
Preparation is an act of leadership.
Time To Go To Work
timetogotowork.org
About the author: Timothy A. Wojcik, MA Ed, NRP, is a Maxwell-certified coach and speaker who believes preparation is an act of leadership. His approach is shaped by more than 30 years of experience in emergency services and disaster management, where leadership, accountability, and preparation have real-world consequences. Through Time To Go To Work, he shares practical lessons on preparing well, serving others, and leading with or without a title.
