Chapter 38: Accountability

Note: This chapter is from my upcoming book: Trust-Based Leadership?: Marine Corps Leadership Concepts for Today’s Business Leaders

We’ve previously discussed the importance of accountability and its place as one of the 5 Pillars of Marine Corps Leadership:

Accountability is the cornerstone of Marine Corps leadership. It is the reckoning wherein a leader answers for his actions and those of his unit and accepts the consequences, good or bad. As a Marine leader, accountability is the most important element of formally critiquing your performance. The poor performance of a unit will result in either administrative or disciplinary action.

If any factor—coercion, politics, favoritism, or something else—is allowed to intervene in holding Marines, regardless of rank, accountable, the structure on which the Marine Corps was created is weakened.

A trust-based organization must have leaders whom hold themselves and those they lead accountable for their responsibilities. Accountability is an exceptionally important trait in the Trust-Based Leadership? model and without it, leaders who possess all other desired traits such as character, integrity, a bias for action, etc., will eventually fall short. In this model, a leader’s long-term success relies on an individual’s willingness to take complete ownership of everything, good and bad, that happens within the organization that he or she is privileged to lead.

Marines are taught two different variants of the term accountability; one deals with the physical responsibility for various types of assets (facilities, equipment, money, etc.) and the other, as emphasized in the formal definition, is specific to one’s actions and behaviors. And again, in addition to being responsible for their own actions, Marine leaders are held accountable for the actions of all Marines within their chain of command; they are responsible for everything. The Trust-Based Leadership? model applies the same two variants of accountability to business leaders.

Authority vs. Responsibility and Accountability

A fundamental Law of Leadership that is taught to all Marines is that as a leader “you can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility.” 

In other words, Marines learn that they have the authority to make decisions and issue directives appropriate to their role; and while they are encouraged to delegate authority to Marines in their chain of command so that they can accomplish assigned tasks, leaders are always responsible and accountable for the success or failure of their unit. This uncompromising standard of accountability is heavily enforced at all levels of leadership within the Marine Corps.

Accountability drives productivity and quality. Leaders must first hold themselves accountable for getting their own work done well and on time. Otherwise, they risk becoming so comfortable with procrastination that they will fail to meet stated deadlines. A day becomes a week; a week, a month. Worse, non-accountable leaders often become complacent to the point that their deliverables are mediocre or even sub-standard.

And poor leadership accountability at the top levels will inevitably lead to inefficient and inferior work by subordinates. Delays caused by leaders will have a viral effect throughout their organization, resulting in widespread delays “downstream” and often, the failure of the entire unit to achieve goals and objectives. When leaders fail to hold themselves accountable, the adverse results trickle down and grow exponentially.

Marine Leaders Do Not Have a Monopoly on Accountability

The leaders within many highly successful organizations and companies place an equally forceful emphasis on holding themselves and their teammates accountable. Like their Marine Corps contemporaries, the best business leaders have learned that an organization with a strong culture of accountability is one that can meet almost any challenge that may arise.

Trust-Based Leaders seek and embrace accountability, as do trust-based organizations in which a culture of accountability exists. In companies that do not enforce accountability, leaders tend to shy away from it—these individuals are often figureheads and not what most of us consider real leaders.

Instead of being decisive and willing to be held accountable for their actions and those of their teams, they prefer to seek detailed guidance on practically every issue or situation that arises. Sadly, these individuals are not only allowed to do this in many organizations, they are actually encouraged to do it by senior leaders who prefer to micromanage rather than investing in their team members’ development.

The Trust-Based Leadership model assumes that a leader is not only comfortable with authority, responsibility, and the uncompromising accountability that goes along with both, but that he or she actively seeks these things out and thrives on them.

Some individuals (wisely) turn down a leadership role because they think, That’s a tough job with too much opportunity to fail. I want no part of it!

Let’s face it, the demands associated with being an effective leader are not for everyone. I actually admire those who know themselves well enough to realize that, despite the lure of elevated compensation and title, they are simply not the right person for a leadership role. These individuals are not to be ridiculed or otherwise looked down upon, because they can still play essential roles within an organization and are often some of the most valuable and productive members of a team.

What Does Accountability Look Like?

Accountability varies at different levels within an organization, of course, and directly mirrors a leader’s sphere of responsibility. A Marine battalion commander is responsible and accountable for the basic welfare of all of the Marines under his command, as well as the overall accomplishment of any mission he is assigned.

The measures of this accountability can be broad, or highly specific: Did the battalion successfully secure a critical airfield and do it on time? In a peacetime setting, are all of the Marines in the battalion current on individual and team training requirements? Accountability in the Marine Corps can be fairly swift and somewhat harsh at higher levels, and may involve a leader being relieved of command for what many would consider a relatively minor issue or event—even if it isn’t something within the leader’s immediate observation and control.

Marine leaders at lower levels of the chain of command operate with a narrower accountability that includes making sure their Marines are appropriately cared for, adequately trained, that their weapons are maintained, and that their specifically assigned goals within the overall mission and commander’s intent are achieved.

Accountability is both a “stick” and a “carrot.” It motivates individuals to avoid failure while giving them the opportunity to shine when they succeed. Let’s go back to our previous example where a Marine captain is assigned to take his unit and set up a blocking position at a key bridge. The commander's intent is “do not let enemy forces cross that bridge.”

Remember, he arrives at the bridge and the terrain is completely different than reconnaissance photos (if they exist) or other assumptions about the area. There are no great positions from which to defend the bridge. He may or may not have communication with his superiors, and even if he does, he must now use his judgment to adapt while fulfilling the commander’s intent. This may involve moving farther forward than the area he was assigned to, in order to set up on high ground overlooking the avenues of approach to the bridge.

The opportunities to take initiative like this are exponentially greater in a trust-based organization, and so is the accountability. In a combat situation, there is also a natural and powerful accountability—often, the ultimate accountability: don’t make a decision that gets everyone killed.

But Marines are trained to make decisions and accomplish the mission despite this fear. And even in a training exercise, the captain knows: I have the opportunity to take initiative. I also have the opportunity for praise and respect if I make the right decision and it accomplishes the mission. And if I fail, I will suffer repercussions.

Think of accountability in other situations. If the individual Marines in a platoon do something stupid or unethical, such as abuse prisoners or gratuitously shoot a civilian because of poor fire discipline, their leaders, officer and enlisted, will be held accountable. Character and judgment are ideals that any organization wants to develop in its people to mitigate the possibility of these actions. But human nature being what it is, accountability is the main enforcement mechanism for doing the right thing.

Application to Business

The culture and dynamics associated with the sales force of a company provide a good example of accountability, though all aspects of a business should have it. Sales organizations typically have tangible sales goals and revenue objectives, and there are almost always specific measures of accountability that are enforced through various reports, metrics, and frequent meetings with appropriate leaders.

Within that framework, however, there is still significant room for subjectivity. Let’s say a salesperson is negotiating with a prospective client and the latter makes a counteroffer that is outside of the normal scope of a deal that she’s authorized to agree to, and then says, “I’m ready to sign this deal but it’s got to be today.”

Oh, and it’s also the last day of the quarter, and the last day to realize commission in the salesperson’s next bonus check. She has to decide what to do, balancing personal goals with what’s right for the company and her leader’s intent. If she makes the right decision and the deal is profitable, she’ll be rewarded in the form of extra pay and praise for making a good deal.

If not, and the boss says, “I wish you wouldn't have agreed to those terms,” her pay may or may not suffer in the short-term—but her standing in the eyes of her leader may be lastingly diminished, as her boss realizes that he needs to provide more restrictive policies and guidelines for future deals, now that she has demonstrated questionable or even very poor judgement.

The lesson here is that if you are that person’s leader, you must judiciously hold her accountable—balancing giving the salesperson the freedom to show initiative (knowing that she may make some mistakes) while also not creating an environment without accountability.

Because you will also be held accountable for her actions!

All Organizations, Teams, and Functions Benefit from Accountability

The key is setting clear standards. A broad and fundamental standard should be “do not lie, cheat, or engage in unethical activity or tolerate those who do it.” A narrower standard might be “sell as many new accounts that generate as much gross revenue as possible, but ensure all actions are lawful, ethical, and remain within our established policies and procedures.”

If Wells Fargo had prioritized these broad and narrow standards and actually held people accountable for them, they wouldn’t have wound up in a scandal for selling and creating fake or unnecessary accounts. Leaders at various levels of the company would have nipped illegal and unethical behavior in the bud by holding employees and their colleagues accountable, rather than the media and the government having to step in to do it.

As a leader, expect and embrace accountability—and increasing levels of it as you move up the chain of command within your organization. Enforce it among your subordinates. Accountability is essential for the success of the Trust-Based Leadership model. When it’s implemented correctly, a culture of accountability pays vast dividends as it disincentivizes bad decisions and behavior and rewards initiative and good judgment.