Mark felt his frustration rising.
One of his team members, Sam, had missed a critical deadline – again. The report was late, the client was waiting, and now the whole team had to scramble to compensate.
Mark had two choices.
He could come down hard: call Sam out in front of the team, demand better performance, and make it clear that this couldn’t happen again.
Or, he could address the issue in a way that strengthened trust and accountability, rather than eroding it.
This moment wasn’t just about one missed deadline. It was about how his team handled accountability as a whole – and whether people felt safe enough to take responsibility for their mistakes without fear or avoidance.
What Google Discovered About High-Performing Teams
Mark wasn’t alone in facing this challenge. As I have written about previously, Google spent years trying to understand what makes teams truly effective.
Their research, Project Aristotle, explored whether the best teams had the most talented individuals, the greatest diversity (or homogeneity), or the right mix of experience levels.
In fact, they analysed over 250 different possible attributes across 180 teams looking for the factors that meant some teams performed better than others.
But they found something surprising. The number one factor in high-performing teams wasn’t talent, experience, or even workload management.
It was psychological safety.
Teams with high psychological safety felt comfortable admitting mistakes, asking for help, and giving honest feedback – without fear of embarrassment or punishment.
By contrast, in teams where people feared blame or judgment, they hid mistakes, avoided hard conversations, and took fewer risks – ultimately leading to worse results.
So how does psychological safety relate to accountability?
In a low-safety culture, mistakes trigger blame and fear. People cover up problems, leading to repeated failures.
In a high-safety culture, mistakes trigger learning and responsibility. People feel safe owning up, problem-solving, and improving.
This brings us to a crucial leadership challenge: How do you build a culture of psychological safety while maintaining high standards of accountability?
One answer lies in Nonviolent Communication (NVC).
What Is Nonviolent Communication?
Dr. Marshall Rosenberg, the psychologist who developed NVC, observed that much of our everyday language is actually “violent” – not in a physical sense, but in the way it creates fear, defensiveness, or disengagement.
We don’t mean to be “violent” in our communication, but when people feel judged, pressured, or manipulated, they shut down. Trust erodes. Engagement drops. Accountability suffers.
Examples of violent communication:
❌ Blame: “You’re so unreliable. I can’t count on you.”
❌ Guilt-tripping: “I’m really disappointed in you for letting us down.”
❌ Threats: “If this happens again, there will be consequences.”
❌ Demands: “Just do it. No excuses.”
Even if the frustration is justified, this kind of language provokes defensiveness rather than responsibility.
By contrast, NVC fosters trust and accountability by making space for honest expression without judgment. It follows four key steps:
Observations: Stating the facts without blame or exaggeration.
Feelings: Expressing how the situation affects you personally.
Needs: Clarifying what is important for collaboration and success.
Requests: Inviting a constructive next step.
This approach doesn’t mean avoiding hard conversations. It means having them in a way that invites responsibility instead of resistance.
Now, let’s return to Mark and how he applied this in the moment.
How Mark Used Nonviolent Communication (NVC) to Reset Accountability
Instead of blaming or shaming, Mark used NVC to have a direct but constructive conversation with Sam.
Step 1: Observations (Stick to Facts, Not Judgments)
“Sam, I noticed the report deadline was missed again, and we had to push back the client meeting.”
Step 2: Feelings (Express Impact Without Blame)
“I’m concerned because this creates extra stress for the team and puts our client relationship at risk.”
Step 3: Needs (Clarify Core Needs)
“What I need is reliability in our deadlines so that the team can deliver on commitments without last-minute pressure.”
Step 4: Request (Invite a Solution, Instead of Just Criticising)
“Can we talk about what’s going on and what support you might need to make sure this doesn’t happen again?”
What happened when Mark took this approach?
Instead of feeling attacked, Sam admitted he’d been overwhelmed but didn’t feel comfortable asking for help. That opened the door to a real solution – adjusting workload expectations and setting up a check-in system.
The result? Instead of blame or avoidance, the issue got addressed in a way that built trust and accountability.
How Jen Rebuilt Engagement with a Disengaged Team Member
Not all disengagement is obvious, like missed deadlines. Sometimes, it’s quieter but equally damaging—such as when a team member stops speaking up, stops volunteering for tasks, or mentally checks out.
Jen, Mark’s colleague who also attended the workshop, noticed this happening with Alex, one of her strongest performers. In meetings, Alex had shifted from being active and engaged to silent and withdrawn.
She could have ignored it or pushed him to “step up”, but instead, she used NVC to understand what was happening.
Step 1: Observations
“Alex, I’ve noticed you haven’t been speaking up as much in meetings lately, and you’ve been taking on fewer new projects.”
Step 2: Feelings
“I’m a bit concerned because your input is really valuable, and I don’t want you to feel sidelined.”
Step 3: Needs
“I want to make sure you feel comfortable contributing and that the workload is distributed in a way that works for everyone.”
Step 4: Request
“Would you be open to sharing how things are going for you? Is there anything getting in the way of your engagement?”
This opened up an unexpected conversation. Alex admitted he’d felt overshadowed by a newer, more outspoken team member. He wasn’t sure if his contributions were valued anymore.
Because Jen created psychological safety, Alex felt comfortable sharing – which allowed them to address the issue directly.
But What If People Still Don’t Engage?
“What if I do all this, and the person still doesn’t engage?”
This is a common objection to NVC and the idea of prioritising psychological safety.
The first step should always be using tools like NVC to ensure expectations are clear, support is offered, and accountability is framed in a way that invites ownership.
However, psychological safety isn’t about avoiding accountability. If someone continues to disengage or underperform, performance management may be necessary.
But this should be the last step.
The difference?
Traditional performance management is often the first response – a way to control behaviour through fear.
In a psychologically safe culture, it’s the last step – used only when clear, supportive conversations have failed.
When leaders prioritise trust over fear, they create teams that hold themselves accountable – not because they’re afraid, but because they’re committed.
The Bottom Line
Missed deadlines and disengaged employees aren’t just productivity issues. They’re opportunities – moments where how you respond determines whether trust is built or broken.
By prioritising psychological safety and trust using tools like NVC, leaders can transform accountability from something people fear into something they own.
And that’s the difference between a team that struggles with accountability – and one that thrives because of it.
