Forming individuals into a collaborative body is a challenge fraught with the potential for rejection. Overcoming this challenge requires the application of a new ideology — a set of factors upon which participants can get to know and trust one another by working together on the same tasks at the same time for the same reasons. Once relationships begin to form, all that’s needed to sustain the team is a way to pull isolated individuals together around a common task.

Holding others accountable for their portion of the workload can be difficult to manage on your own. Fortunately, there is a helpful tool called Responsibility Charting as depicted in the model below that defines accountability by clarifying responsibilities, roles, and relationships.

Start by picking a situation or circumstance where your role isn’t clear, and the risk of rejection is high. Next, create a matrix with the names of those involved written across the top and the list of tasks to be accomplished listed down the left side. Visualize a column below each name into which a letter will be placed representing one of the roles described below.

[R] Identifies the individual responsible for completing the task. This person needs to understand and accept the stated expectations such as the budget, timelines, performance expectations, production standards, and other factors critical to the successful completion of this task.

[A] Identifies the person whose approval must be obtained before any action is undertaken. This person will determine in advance how far the [R] can go in completing the task, what progress reports are required, and how often those assigned to the task need to meet.

[C] Identifies those who need to be consulted as the task unfolds. These subject matter experts need to know how much time and talent they are expected to provide for each task. Assigning someone a [C]s makes it clear to the [R] who he or she will be working with.

[I] Identifies those who need to be kept informed and provided status updates as the task progresses. The [I]s are just receiving reports from the [R] and are not expected to provide any substantive input or share any responsibility for the outcome.

The matrix format described in the model above is designed for larger, more complex organizations where the team members may be disbursed and unable to meet regularly.

There is a less formal version where instead of letter designations, “hats” are used to verbally indicate who is performing in what role on any given task. This simpler method can be effective, but it can also lead to confusion if the roles are not clearly understood.

For example, in a task meeting someone might ask, “What would you do?” To some, your reply may sound like a directive, so they think you’re wearing the [A] authority hat. Some think you’re wearing the [R] responsibility hat because you’re known for getting things done.

Others might believe you’re wearing the [C] consultant hat or the [I] information hat and think you’re giving advice or sharing your opinion. To avoid confusion and minimize rejection it is important to state what hat you’re wearing when you speak and invite others to do the same.