Clarifying Accountability

Every week, I rack my brain to find a topic suitable for the weekly missive. Usually, I reflect on the week that was and consider what insights or topics may have come to the forefront. There were several this week, but I have decided on one that just came to me as I was describing the nature of accountability to a client.

If you have been following the missives over the years and have read my book, we are very focused on accountability at Forrest & Company and how it is a separate concept than responsibility. People often need clarification on this distinction.

As you may remember, we define responsibility as subjective and internal to each of us. Our sense of responsibility comes from our individual beliefs and upbringing and a whole host of things that we value.

On the other hand, accountability is that objective, tangible clarity that comes from a manager in a managerial hierarchy. My manager holds me to account for delivering on the strategy. In turn, they praise me if I do well and coach me in my performance if I have not done so well.

The issue is these two different definitions tend to come back together in practice, regardless of how much we work to pull them apart. We see this when my leader defines what I am accountable for, gains agreement from me, and then leaves it up to me to apply a sense of responsibility to deliver.

It doesn't end there because my manager then follows up and applies either the good or bad consequences based on my effectiveness in doing my work. It is therefore a cycle that starts with accountability and ends with the application of accountability.

What got me thinking this Thursday evening was that, this week alone, I was introduced to three new organizations whose values included “accountability”. The issue is that their definition of accountability is what many pundits refer to as "personal accountability". In other words, what we would call responsibility.

So why do organizations rely on personal accountability rather than managerial accountability? The cynic in me puts it down to three things:

1. It is easier to put the onus on employees (it isn't)
2. Our managers don't want to have to do the work of management (they should), and,
3. It is wrapped up in misbegotten beliefs that somehow this is engagement (it isn't)

The issue with leaving things up to each of our senses of responsibility is that we are all unique and may have different standards for personal accountability and “the right thing”. If you rely solely on people's sense of responsibility, you will be doomed to failure. The strategy will falter, goals will not be met, people will not grow, develop, and flourish, and trust will be damaged.

So, I asked myself today why we stick to a definition that runs into roadblocks. The difference in our definition comes from our roots in leadership development. It defines the leader's role in enabling personal accountability. We believe there are no bad organizations, only bad managers. Our view is that what enables organizations to be successful is the practice of professional managerial leadership.

It is difficult to encapsulate this succinctly in a short missive. If you would like to challenge or discuss this further, feel free to reach out. Hopefully, this is food for thought.