The Oz Principle: Getting Results Through Individual and Organizational Accountability

“When you pull back the curtains you discover the incontrovertible fact, as did Dorothy and her companions, that success springs not from some new-fangled fad, paradigm, process, or program but from the willingness of an organization’s people to embrace full accountability for the results they seek.”

This is a continuation of the analysis of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as it applies to business success. Here, through their critique of the titular wizard, they imply their analysis of Effective Leadership Through the Application of the Oz Principle. The authors label their claim as “incontrovertible fact” to establish their authority.

“The world’s societies suffer from the current cult of victimization because its subtle dogma holds that circumstances and other people prevent you from achieving your goals.”

The authors’ critique of what they refer to as victim culture often expands beyond business consulting with the implication that it constitutes a global threat. Here they implicitly contrasting Staying “Above The Line” by Embracing Accountability with getting Stuck “Below The Line” in the Victim Cycle.

“Accountability: ‘A personal choice to rise above one’s circumstances and demonstrate the ownership necessary for achieving desired results—to See It, Own It, Solve It, and Do It.’”

The authors develop their own definition of accountability because they argue that people often regard accountability as a negative thing. They directly embed accountability into their process for staying Above The Line. The anaphora (“it”) is a rhetorical device designed to make the process more memorable.

“[M]ost organizations operate on the assumption that fear of failure will cause people to succeed. To the contrary, we feel such an assumption only causes people to prepare their explanations of history before the fact.”

The authors point to the way leaders unintentionally contribute to a negative view of accountability. Their approach contributes to how organizations and individuals get Stuck “Below The Line” in the Victim Cycle. This passage exemplifies the authors’ method of presenting an “assumption” and then subverting it, reinforcing their authoritative position in the text.

“The fact is, whether you are a true victim or a pseudo victim, you will never overcome a hurtful past until you develop a present- and future-oriented view of your own accountability for getting more out of life.”

This is a point that the authors reiterate throughout the book. They juxtapose “true victim” and “pseudo victim” to undermine what they view as a pervasive victim culture.

“However, when people view their accountability for results as something larger than their responsibility for doing their own job, they find themselves feeling accountable for things beyond what a literal interpretation of their job description might suggest.”

This is an argument for how the authors’ definition of accountability benefits the entire organization. This is the other side of the argument they make that individuals often fall Below The Line when they think of problems they see as someone else’s responsibility.

“To be sure, you can be a 100 percent victim, but it probably happens a lot less often than you might think or want to believe.”

This is another qualification of what it means to be Stuck “Below The Line” in the Victim Cycle. They make the distinction between “think” and “want to believe” to reinforce the text’s arguments about the relationship between success and mindset.

“In our experience, victim stories tend to screen out all evidence of accountability. To establish ownership, you must find the heart to see both sides of the story, linking what you have done or failed to do with your current circumstances.”

For the authors, victim stories may be appealing, but they often limit the ability to take ownership for one’s circumstances. They use the metaphor of “the heart” from The Wonderful Wizard of Oz to poeticize the business narrative and increase reader engagement.

“Ownership is the ability to connect current circumstances with what I have done and the ability to tie future circumstances with what I am going to do.”

Ownership, though not discussed as prominently as accountability, is an important twin concept. The authors use first person here to model the leadership behavior that they preach, since it implies that they also acknowledge what they have done to create business problems.

“We all know the old adage, ‘If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Well, ownership implies that ‘If you are not part of the problem, you are not part of the solution.’”

The authors subvert a popular adage. This exemplifies their method of subverting popular beliefs and cultures of thought throughout the text.

“We must issue this warning, however: Solve It means solving real problems, not tackling illusionary ones or just changing for change’s sake.”

This is an important qualification of what the authors mean by Effective Leadership Through the Application of the Oz Principle. It is not one they elaborate on much, though they do provide some examples of illusionary problems.

“The Solve It attitude and behavior stem from continually asking the question: ‘What else can I do?’ By constantly and rigorously asking this question, you avoid slipping back down into the victim cycle.”

“What else can I do?” is a central question for the authors. It is one that they emphasize repeatedly as an important strategy for Staying “Above The Line” By Embracing Accountability. They use vivid adverbs, “constantly and rigorously,” to imply the active work involved in this.

“While Dorothy had worn the magic slippers throughout her journey, she had not tapped their power until she had learned The Oz Principle: People hold inside themselves the power to rise above their circumstances and get the results they want.”

This is a direct statement of the ultimate goal of the authors’ approach through their most potent symbol, Dorothy in Oz. Dorothy gets out of the victim cycle (off the yellow brick road) and takes ownership for her circumstances.

“Above The Line leaders risk their own comfort and security by going beyond symptoms to the core problems that spring from a lack of accountability.”

The authors use the medical metaphor of “symptoms” here, which reflects a key element of the text: They diagnose leadership problems and present cures to their readers.

“If you define everything that happens as an accountability problem, you may fail to see the complete picture. however, if you fail to discern the accountability factor in every problem, you will also make a mistake.”

An important qualification of accountability is also a paradox. While recognizing that focusing on accountability can be taken to an extreme, they also contend that accountability is a factor in all problems. This epitomizes the tone of Part 3, which tempers the broad and positive claims of Parts 1 and 2 with realism about the importance of accountability.

“Successful Above The Line leaders model accountability for everyone with their sphere of influence, remaining accountable for everything they say and do that shapes the model.”

The authors’ assessment of successful leaders invokes their experience as management consultants, underscoring their authority and experience while providing advice.

“[Y]ou must help people feel empowered by the concept of accountability, not trapped by it.”

The authors use didactic language here, “you must,” which contrasts with the relaxed and supportive tone elsewhere in the text. This highlights the importance of the message.

“The feedback need not be elaborate, but it must be clear, concise, and constructive. Think about the subtle (or not so subtle) difference between accusing someone of descending Below The Line and helping them see the value of ascending Above The Line.”

The qualifier of “not so subtle” underscores the entire text. It conveys that there is a large difference between accusing and leading supportively, which reflects the aims of Part 3 to unpack this difference.

“Winston Churchill once said, ‘First we shape our structures, and then our structures shape us.’ That’s exactly how you create and sustain greater accountability!”

Referencing Churchill, a famous historical figure and a leader, grants the concept an air of authority. This is an approach the authors use often throughout the book.

“[Y]ou can’t create accountability without clearly defining the results. You can’t score a goal if you can’t see the goal line.”

The concept of accountability is essential to the authors’ arguments. Here it is directly tied to and measured against clear results. The goal scoring is a simplified analogy to help convey the meaning of their message; the authors often use analogies to simplify business concepts.

“We suggest you pick one issue that currently beleaguers your organization. By selecting one key issue, you can more dramatically demonstrate the impact of greater accountability.”

Throughout the book the authors invite readers to assess their own attitudes and approaches. Here they offer practical advice to develop Effective Leadership Through the Application of the Oz Principle.

“As role models, misaligned managers give license to everyone beneath them to do the same. By allowing confusion to dictate company direction, they breed lack of respect for leadership, not to mention a need for people to be told what to do every step of the way.”

The authors refer to leaders as “role models,” which reflects their techniques throughout the text: They use anecdotes to present certain leaders who follow the Oz Principle as role models.

“The problem, as we see it, is that any number of management philosophies and techniques do produce results, but too many organizations look for the wizard’s magic in the latest one.”

Throughout the book the authors criticize “wizards” as false solutions. Here their target is what they call “programitis,” by which managers become enthralled with fads instead of sticking to a path.