Accountability at the Top

Anyone who hasn’t heard or used the term Accountability within their company probably hasn’t been in the game for long, because this is a term that is being used more and more frequently. It’s an extremely precise term to refer to a person’s ability to take ownership of their actions and assume responsibility for their results.

“Accountability is not about taking the blame or pointing fingers. It's about owning your actions and making a true commitment.”

A Natural Quality

I truly believe that Accountability is a natural quality of all executives who approach their work with professionalism, integrity, responsibility, and ethics. I don’t believe it’s something extraordinary.

Of course, there are exceptions, but why should it be difficult to take ownership of our work and be responsible for the results? It shouldn’t be, right?

So, what's the story here? Why do board members gripe about “lack of accountability” from their CEOs, CEOs complaint about their managers, and managers grumble about their teams? Why does this happen if, naturally, we want responsibilities, we want to do our job well, we want to be valued, we want to be rewarded for our positive results, and we want to receive constructive feedback to improve our work?

I believe we’re dealing with a perspective problem.

A Perspective Problem

When teams underperform, we often point to an easy explanation: "lack of accountability." It’s a convenient explanation that’s hard to dispute. But in reality, for executives to produce outcomes and stand behind their choices, there’s more at play than just individual accountability.

To explain this, I’ll borrow and adapt the “Influence Model” introduced by McKinsey & Company 20 years ago as part of their organizational transformation model based on the psychology of change.

This model establishes that to achieve behavioral changes in a company (observing Accountability and results, in this case), four basic conditions must be met: A shared understanding and alignment on the what and the why; Appropriate formal mechanisms; The necessary organizational and individual skills; and Consistent Role Modeling.

The What and the Why: Expectation is Not a Synonym of Commitment

The first condition we need to meet to see the behaviors and results we expect from our executives is to ensure that we all understand the same thing and agree on what we are expecting or aiming for, and why. And I am stressing the point that expectation is not the same as commitment, because this is where the vast majority of leaders fail.

They fail to clearly and objectively define their expectations regarding their executives' performance: what exactly they want them to achieve and how they want them to achieve it. And they also fail to communicate these expectations clearly and timely.

For example, telling an executive to "increase sales" is not the same as explaining how that growth should align with a strategic shift in target markets or product lines. Without that clarity, their actions may diverge from the company’s strategic goals, leading to efforts that achieve numbers but fail to move the business in the right direction. Likewise, assuming that executives will act in a certain way "because they should" is not the same as explicitly defining the behaviors we expect to see as they work toward achieving those objectives.

This only happens through effective and timely communication.

“We must ensure that we transform our expectations into commitments from our executives.”

Formal Mechanisms: You Can’t Ride a Bike Without a Bike

The second condition we need to meet is having the right formal mechanisms in place. This means that the organizational structure of our company, the corporate governance model, the definition of roles and responsibilities, the decision-making protocols, internal processes and systems, management tools, and the performance evaluation and incentive systems, among other formal management mechanisms, are all coherent and effective in facilitating the achievement of the goals and behaviors we expect from our executives.

For example, if we expect the commercial executives of a financial institution to focus on generating profitable business (e.g., ROE > 7%), we can’t set only a sales target without providing them with timely access to the data needed to calculate the ROE for each deal, nor can we have discussions on profitability levels by transaction and client in meetings where they don’t participate.

“We must ensure that formal mechanisms within our company are consistent with the results and behaviors we want to observe and that they facilitate rather than limit their achievement.”

Necessary Skills: You Can’t Ask an Elm Tree to Bear Pears

The third condition that must be present is that our executives have the necessary skills to perform as we require. This means that we must thoroughly understand the technical skills and professional qualities that each position requires to ensure that the executives we choose for those roles have the ability to fulfill what is expected of them.

Often, we fail to recognize that not all people have the same skill set or professional qualities, and therefore, they may not be equipped to meet certain demands of a particular role. For example, when we promote the team member with the best technical performance to a leadership position without ensuring that, in addition to their technical knowledge, they have the skills or the ability to develop leadership skills. Too often, we end up promoting executives to their level of incompetence.

“We must ensure that our executives have the necessary skills to perform well in their roles or provide the opportunities and support needed for them to develop those skills.”

Role Modeling: Walk the Talk

The fourth and most important condition we need to meet to ensure that our executives perform as we expect is to “lead by example.”

I frequently observe leaders complaining that their executives don’t make decisions autonomously and promptly, without realizing that they themselves created this situation by requiring consultation before any decision is made or by overturning decisions already made by the executives, whether through formal or informal interactions. This causes executives to continue the cycle of not making decisions on their own and asking for everything to be approved, to avoid being overruled or out of fear of making a mistake. And this is just one of many situations where, without realizing it, company leaders hinder their executives’ ability to demonstrate the behaviors they wish to see.

“We must be extremely intentional in modeling, facilitating, demanding, observing, and appreciating the behaviors we seek.”

And if even after meeting all the conditions I’ve just described, we still don’t observe the expected performance in our executives, it is our responsibility to make the required adjustments—after all, weeds have a way of growing in any environment.

Why Did I Title This Article “Accountability at the Top”?

It’s the executive team’s duty to create and maintain these conditions within the company. C-suite executives, this one’s for you. When your teams fall short of expectations, instead of rushing to conclusions, first consider if these four conditions are in place, and then take action to implement the necessary adjustments and changes.

Show Accountability!

Good Luck!

Ximena Jimenez

Founder - Managing Director LITup

Care for a chat? book a call here