Standards of Excellence Accountability Loop
Define excellence, secure acknowledgment, correct openly, and act quickly.
- Difficulty
- Advanced
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 98%
The accountability loop begins by converting an implicit quality bar into a written Standards of Excellence document containing observable expectations. Every full-time employee and contractor reads and acknowledges it before work begins, creating a shared reference point for later feedback. When output falls short, the leader identifies the factual gap, explains its effect on the team or customer, and states the required correction. With the person's consent and respectful delivery, feedback can occur in front of the team so everyone benefits from the lesson. The leader then watches for improvement over a short, explicit period. If the same deficiency persists, the working relationship ends. Because teammates may also challenge the leader, the mechanism builds reciprocal accountability rather than top-down criticism alone.
Origin
Eric Siu created a roughly 4,000-word Standards of Excellence document during a difficult post-acquisition cleanup after realizing his company had never clearly defined excellent work.
Core principles
- 01People cannot reliably meet an undefined standard.
- 02Contractors and employees should face the same quality bar.
- 03Respectful public feedback distributes learning across the team.
- 04Repeated misses require timely consequences.
- 05Leaders must be subject to the same accountability culture.
How to run it
- 1
Write the Standard
Document what excellence looks like in areas such as quality, accuracy, timeliness, communication, and improvement. Use observable behaviors and examples rather than inspirational adjectives.
Pro tip Include examples of both acceptable and unacceptable output.
Watch out A long document is useless if expectations remain subjective or contradictory.
- 2
Secure Explicit Acknowledgment
Require employees and contractors to read and initial the standards before beginning work. Invite them to decline the relationship if the expectations are unsuitable.
Pro tip Discuss the most consequential standards during onboarding instead of relying only on signatures.
Watch out Acknowledgment does not prove understanding unless questions and examples are addressed.
- 3
Identify the Specific Gap
Compare deficient work with the written requirement and collect concrete facts. Explain how the gap affects customers, quality, deadlines, or teammates.
Pro tip Separate the work problem from judgments about the person's character.
Watch out Do not invoke “excellence” as a vague justification for personal preference.
- 4
Deliver Respectful Shared Feedback
When broader learning is useful, ask the person whether the example can be discussed publicly. State the facts, your interpretation, the impact, and the required correction without humiliation.
Pro tip Model the same openness when teammates challenge your own decisions.
Watch out Public correction without consent or psychological safety can become performative shaming.
- 5
Observe the Response
Set a short review window and determine whether the work improves. Record repeated instances so the decision is based on a pattern rather than frustration.
Pro tip Offer targeted support when the person has the ability but lacks context or tools.
Watch out Endless coaching signals to strong performers that the standard is optional.
- 6
Act on Persistent Misses
If the same material gap continues after clear feedback and support, end or redesign the working relationship promptly. Protect the rest of the team from repeatedly covering the deficiency.
Pro tip Explain the decision using the same documented expectations introduced at onboarding.
Watch out Do not surprise someone with consequences for a standard that was never communicated.
In the wild
Siu described a contractor producing AI-assisted podcast content with outdated language. In marketing meetings, Siu asked permission to use the work as an example, identified the factual and quality gaps, explained how others would have to cover for the contractor, and repeated the feedback over several weeks. When performance did not improve, the company ended the relationship.
→ The team saw that the standard applied in practice, while the contractor received several clear opportunities to correct the work.
Common mistakes
Holding Contractors to a Lower Bar
Allowing outside contributors to bypass internal standards creates inconsistent output even when employees perform well.
Turning Public Feedback Into Humiliation
Shared learning requires consent, factual specificity, and respect; otherwise public correction damages trust.
Waiting Too Long to Act
Repeated tolerance of the same material miss forces reliable teammates to compensate and weakens the stated standard.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for teams whose work quality varies because employees and contractors interpret excellence differently.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal for leaders unwilling to receive equivalent feedback or to deliver corrections respectfully and consistently.
From the transcript
“man, we haven't defined what excellence looks like.”
“You have to read the whole thing. You have to initial every page and that proves that you've read it.”
“But that's raised the bar, and they know that we're holding them to the same standards that we hold our full time people to.”
From the episode
He Spent $2 on a Million Dollar Business