Illustration by OpenAI

Inspect what you expect: Lessons in leadership and accountability

COMMENTARY | Effective leadership means setting goals, monitoring progress and ensuring results, writes one former federal manager.

President Ronald Reagan once said, “Trust, but verify.” During my tenure as chief of the Real Estate Division for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, I embraced a related principle: “Inspect what you expect.”

The concept of trust but verify in leadership has two essential elements. Trust means showing confidence in your team’s abilities, decisions and integrity — recognizing their knowledge, skills and abilities. This approach builds morale and encourages ownership of roles and responsibilities.

Verification means putting systems in place — periodic progress checks, reports, reviews and accountability sessions. “Inspect what you expect” is closely aligned with trust but verify. When leaders set goals, they also set expectations for inspection: standards, outputs and outcomes. It’s about accountability.

I view it like tending a garden — you cannot just water it once and hope for the best. You must check for weeds, pests and signs of growth.

Making performance measurable

I led a lean team — never more than 60 employees — responsible for real estate operations across Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Central and South America. Because our division was funded by partners and stakeholders, expectations were high: complete transactions on schedule, within budget and according to plan.

In the Corps, the senior leader serves as the command-and-control point for operations. I chose a firsthand leadership approach that left little to chance.

Public perceptions of bureaucrats often suffer because goals are unclear or unmeasurable. In our case, we defined milestones and outputs for every branch in real estate. Program management wasn’t new to the Corps of Engineers — it was standard practice.

The Program Review Board, or PRB, met monthly so commanders could assess milestones with leadership and project managers. These sessions were rigorous — sometimes lasting an entire day, as I experienced in the New Orleans District. If a milestone risked delaying a project, senior leadership expected immediate, detailed answers and a “get well” plan to ensure the project remained on schedule.

Bringing real estate into the spotlight

Historically, PRBs focused on military and civil construction projects, with little attention to real estate unless it directly affected construction. To change that, I implemented the first real estate PRB in the Corps. This monthly review gave visibility to ongoing programs and provided commanders with a clearer picture of real estate’s role.

One major partner was the Armed Forces Recruiting Program. Each year, we produced a comprehensive plan covering lease agreements, relocations, facility upgrades and site closures. Districts nationwide were responsible for leasing recruiting offices, and realty specialists were charged with executing their territories as planned. The director of real estate in Washington, D.C., held quarterly reviews to assess progress in this and other mission areas.

Metrics that drive accountability

We evaluated program status using a simple color system:

  • Green — meeting expectations

  • Amber — improvements needed

  • Red — not meeting objectives

Any amber or red status required a “get well” plan to bring the program back on track. Program execution and budget management were equally critical, with quarterly goals set for both.

This approach — metrics, deliverables and milestones — meant that when external agencies such as the Department of Government Efficiency requested output reports, we were already operating with that mindset.

Leadership by engagement

Part of my “inspect what you expect” approach was ensuring the commander never had to bypass me to address real estate issues. I held weekly staff meetings, monthly internal reviews of program execution and budget reviews covering both labor and program dollars.

Some called me a micromanager. My response: “If you’re executing your program as planned, our review will be short and sweet.” Without regular inspection, you risk overlooking performance gaps until they become mission failures — and failure was never an option for our partners and stakeholders.

Why it matters

A measurable, output-driven federal program not only strengthens performance but also builds public trust. Citizens deserve visibility into government operations and the assurance that public servants are delivering results.

In the Corps of Engineers, we proved that when leaders trust but verify — when they inspect what they expect — they create a culture of accountability that delivers results, protects mission success and builds lasting confidence in public service.

Willie L. Patterson III, is a part-time professor at the University of South Alabama and Alabama A&M University.