Is Single-Person Accountability Holding Agile Leadership Back?

For decades, corporate leadership has adhered to a straightforward principle: one person is accountable, and if they fail, they are replaced. This model of singular responsibility has influenced everything from executive decision-making to middle management structures.

Agile challenges this assumption. At the team level, shared accountability is celebrated—self-managed teams create value without relying on a single authority figure. However, organizations show hesitation at higher leadership levels. Roles such as Release Train Engineers (RTEs) and Solution Train Engineers (STEs) remain connected to individual ownership.

This raises a crucial question:?

Can leadership accountability be shared without sacrificing clarity and responsibility? Or does Agile hit a limit when redefining leadership?

This article explores how organizations can abandon outdated accountability models, adopt shared leadership without chaos, and ensure high-performance decision-making in an Agile world.

Rethinking Accountability in Agile Leadership: Can Teams Share Traditionally Sole Responsibilities?

For decades, American businesses have operated under a clear and straightforward accountability model: one person at the top holds responsibility, and if they fail, they can be replaced. This approach, rooted in the belief that singular accountability drives performance, has long prevailed within corporate structures, extending from the CEO to middle management.

However, Agile methodologies challenge this mindset by emphasizing team-based accountability and self-managed teams as essential drivers of success. While this model suits teams well, skepticism arises when applied to higher leadership levels.

For instance, in the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe), roles like Release Train Engineer (RTE) and Solution Train Engineer (STE) serve as key orchestrators of large-scale Agile initiatives. Yet, these positions are typically assigned to individuals rather than shared among multiple Agile coaches or facilitators. If Agile promotes self-management, why do these roles still adhere to a single accountable leader model? More importantly, can leadership accountability be effectively shared without diminishing responsibility?

This article explores how organizations can implement team-based accountability at higher levels, ensuring the same rigor as traditional single-person leadership models. It also examines the growing complexity of modern business challenges and the necessity for diverse perspectives in leadership decision-making.

The Traditional Argument: Why Organizations Favor Single Accountability

The preference for having a single person in charge arises from several key assumptions:

1. Clarity of Consequence—With one individual accountable, leadership can hold them directly responsible for failures and replace them if necessary.

2. Decision-Making Speed — A single decision-maker is more efficient than teams that deliberate over every choice.

3. Ease of Escalation – A specific person must consult for answers and corrective actions when issues arise.

4. Cultural Expectation – Corporate America’s "hero leader" narrative prevails, making shared accountability appear counterintuitive at higher levels.

These arguments imply that a team-based leadership model lacks the necessary severity of consequences when things go wrong. But is that truly the case?

Modern Complexity Requires a Broader Pool of Perspectives

Today's business environment is significantly more complex than in past decades. Organizations now face rapid technological disruptions, geopolitical uncertainties, and an increasing demand for cross-functional integration. Many of these challenges exceed the problem-solving capacity of any single leader.

When a significant decision must be made, one individual—regardless of experience—often does not have the comprehensive range of perspectives needed to address all potential risks and opportunities. A shared leadership approach offers:

- Diverse Perspectives: Different leaders provide insights from various disciplines (finance, technology, operations, customer experience), minimizing blind spots.

- Cognitive Load Distribution: Complex problems require deep thinking. A team approach distributes the decision-making burden, preventing burnout and rushed, suboptimal choices.

- Resilience in Leadership: In a single-leader model, the entire function is at risk if one individual fails. A distributed leadership approach ensures continuity even when a team member leaves or transitions.

Given the rising complexity of business challenges, a shared leadership model can provide greater adaptability and a more robust decision-making framework—as long as accountability remains clear.

Approaches to Implementing Team-Based Leadership Accountability

If an organization is genuinely committed to implementing Agile principles beyond the team level, it must reconsider its accountability structure. Below are six key approaches to fostering higher-level accountability without reverting to a "one leader, one throat to choke" model.

1. Shared Leadership with Clear Decision Domains

Establish shared leadership teams that distribute responsibilities instead of placing full accountability on one person.

For example, in SAFe, instead of assigning a single Release Train Engineer, the Agile coaching team could allocate RTE responsibilities based on decision domains (e.g., facilitation, impediment removal, risk management).

Key to Success: Clearly define ownership of each decision to eliminate ambiguity.

2. Team-Level Performance Metrics with Consequences

Tie performance to team-oriented OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) rather than solely on individual evaluations. ?

Example: If a Solution Train underperforms, instead of firing an STE, evaluate the entire leadership unit (Agile coaches, RTE, architects) to see if the team structure requires adjustment. ?

Key to Success: Create team-oriented corrective action plans similar to those used in traditional companies for underperforming executives.

3. Rotational Leadership and Peer Accountability

Assign leadership roles rotationally, ensuring that no single individual holds permanent authority.

Example: Instead of a static RTE, within an Agile Release Train, rotate the facilitation of key events among multiple Agile coaches.

Key to Success: Implement structured peer reviews to maintain leadership accountability.

4. Radical Transparency and Performance Reviews for Leadership Teams

Publicly track and display leadership performance metrics, such as team engagement scores, cycle time improvements, and flow efficiency.

Example: Conduct quarterly performance reviews where leadership teams justify their effectiveness in front of senior executives.

Key to Success: Use hard data, rather than just soft skills, to evaluate the effectiveness of leadership teams.

5. Distributed Risk: Consequence Management at the Team Level

Instead of depending on the dismissal of a singular leader for failure, implement a consequence framework that affects the entire leadership group.?

For instance, if a significant Agile transformation fails, rather than attributing blame to one RTE or Agile coach, reassess leadership structures, reassign roles, or reorganize teams.?

Key to Success: Clearly define what constitutes a failure in team-level accountability and make sure that consequences are established.

6. Escalation Paths for When Shared Leadership Fails

Establish escalation triggers to identify when team-based leadership is ineffective and when a decision-maker needs to intervene.

For instance, an executive-level arbitration process will be initiated if a leadership team cannot reach a consensus on an important decision after several facilitated discussions.

Key to Success: Maintain a clear fallback mechanism to prevent decision gridlock.

Why This Matters: The Future of Agile Leadership

The reluctance to implement self-management at leadership levels arises from a deep-seated belief that accountability should rest with a single individual. However, in an Agile enterprise, rigid hierarchies hinder decision-making and restrict adaptability.

Leadership structures must evolve for Agile to scale genuinely. Organizations can maintain clarity, accountability, and performance discipline by adopting shared leadership accountability with the same rigor as traditional models while benefiting from collective intelligence and agility.

The real question isn’t "Can teams be accountable at higher levels?" instead, it is "Why are we still confining leadership to single-person accountability models when Agile has already demonstrated that teams can be more effective?"

What’s your take? Have you observed shared leadership models functioning effectively in practice? Or do you think specific roles—like Release Train Engineers or Solution Train Engineers—should remain single accountability points? Share your thoughts in the comments!

The Future of Agile Leadership: Are You Ready?

The reluctance to accept shared accountability among leadership stems from a deep-seated belief that responsibility should rest with one individual. However, sticking to outdated leadership models can impede adaptability, slow down decision-making, and ultimately weaken transformation efforts as Agile methodologies evolve.

Organizations that rethink accountability—establishing clear decision-making areas, encouraging team-oriented leadership, and maintaining strict performance metrics—position themselves for long-term success in an increasingly complex business environment.

The real question isn’t whether shared leadership can be effective but?whether today’s Agile leaders are prepared to lead in this new model.

Traditional Agile certifications focus on frameworks and processes, but they seldom address the leadership skills necessary to drive meaningful transformation.?That’s where the Agile Leadership Self-Assessment comes into play. This free assessment helps you pinpoint the essential leadership skills that extend beyond certification—ensuring you’re prepared to navigate Agile transformations successfully.

Download the Agile Leadership Self-Assessment now?and discover where you stand. Because in Agile leadership, accountability starts with you.