A modern take on accountability

It seems that the word accountability is being used more and more and in many different arenas. Over the past month I have had at least three discussions with fabrication shop owners and senior managers about accountability. The topics ranged from a failure of some kind to nagging doubts about whether anyone at their company, except for them, was really acting as if he or she were actually accountable for much of anything.

The common denominators were (a) how to hold people accountable for their actions, or lack thereof; and (b) the difficulty they had in defining what they really meant by accountability, which is difficult to describe exactly in the context you want, but you know when it’s missing.

Sometimes trying to assign accountability is like chasing smoke. But we have to deal with it somehow, no matter how messy and inexact the process is. So what are the challenges and practical limits to accountability in organizations, including small ones?

Responsibility With Consequences

It’s best to start with what people mean when they use the words accountable or accountability. The latter usually seems almost synonymous with “responsibility,” and most definitions that I found reinforce this, such as this one: “Accountability is taking or being assigned responsibility for something that you have done or something you are supposed to do.” Although this definition refers to the singular “you,” it also can refer to a group of individuals who have some joint or collective responsibility.

But this definition isn’t completely satisfactory in modern contexts. Why not just use “responsible” or “responsibility”? Perhaps because in current usage the word accountability seems to be stronger and more impactful. The sentence “Bill is accountable for sales” appears to be more forceful than “Bill is responsible for sales,” even though nominally they mean the same thing. I think the reason for this new use of the term accountable is that the word responsible has somehow become diluted. So “accountable” contextually means “Bill is responsible for sales and we really mean it!”

The tone here puts teeth into being responsible for something. This implies that the teeth have been removed or were never there—and frankly, I somewhat agree with that. Accountability no longer means simply responsibility but instead responsibility with consequences.

Straightforward Accountability

Some accountability situations are pretty simple, and many of them relate to individual behaviors and outcomes.

Specifically:

• Individual behavioral accountability, internal or external to an organization, where the individual is accountable for behavior that conforms to codes, laws, or standards. Included here is conformance to required procedures.
• Individual outcome accountability, where the individual is accountable for outcomes for which he or she has direct and complete control.

These accountability notions are fairly straightforward. For example, if Shannon is always late to work or often fails to follow procedures, she is clearly responsible for that behavior and is now accountable (using the current meaning of the word) for them. There presumably would be a consequence, and she knows and has accepted it, as well as her behavioral responsibilities, as a condition of being a member of the organization. She is accountable.

Similarly, if Jim had direct and complete control of a design that failed, with the stipulation that he accepted responsibility for the knowledge and skill to do the design, he would be clearly accountable for that outcome. A personal consequence would and should be coming.

Clearly, any lack of accountability in these two cases would be due simply to management’s inaction or choice. Note the common denominators: Both cases involve individuals in direct and complete control of the outcome, and they both accept responsibility for that outcome.

Next we have organizational accountability, where the organization as a whole is accountable for honoring legal or other formal commitments to customers, government, and stakeholders. These commitments can be in the form of behavior accountability, outcome accountability, or both. If companies fail to meet their responsibilities, consequences come from customers, government agencies, or other external entities. It’s hard to avoid their notion of accountability.

Real-world Complexity

But these are not the cases managers have in mind when they talk about accountability, even though they have difficulty expressing what they really mean. What causes the real problem is when it is difficult to assign accountability to an individual or group. An outcome may have multiple causes, at least some of which are not under the direct (or maybe even indirect) control of any person or group. Thus, when these events occur, everyone points the accountability finger at different things. This can drive senior managers crazy.

How can you determine and manage accountability when your organization’s functions are interconnected within a network of other organizations and individuals? Is it possible to do this fairly, objectively, and consistently? Yes, theoretically, but you may need to perform a root cause analysis for every outcome. This clearly isn’t practical.

Ironically, many modern team-based organizational structures exacerbate the issue. Consider a project manager responsible for completing a project on time and economically. Typically, however, the project manager has very little direct control over the resources required to make the outcome favorable. Unless this is rectified upfront, it is difficult to hold the project manager broadly accountable beyond the portion that he or she controls directly. Similarly, a production manager may be responsible for on-time deliveries. But on-time delivery is only partially under his or her control. Should that manager be held fully accountable for failures to deliver on time?

Those at the bottom and top of the organization chart tend to have the least ambiguous accountability. Those at the bottom are accountable for narrow tasks, while those at the top are presumably accountable for all things in an organization that can be controlled. For virtually everyone else, outcomes are often determined by performance under their individual control and performance by others not under their control.

Who’s Accountable?

So who is accountable for outcomes? In other words, who can we say is, day in and day out, always and unambiguously accountable for the outcome performance of a function or department? Organization charts and job descriptions are in practice of little help, and they can actually mislead. For this reason, managers tend to set aside the consequences part or seriously weaken it. And, frankly, it is understandable that they do so when there is a lot of ambiguity.

Regardless, without consequences there is no real individual accountability for outcomes. Some managers ignore the ambiguity and simply apply the consequences to the person who is nominally responsible. At times they will be right, but at times they will be grossly wrong. Should the sales manager pay the consequences of weak sales if a significant cause is poor delivery performance or bad quality?

The accountability conundrum has plagued organization experts forever. It’s easy to see why. I believe that accountability of outcomes must extend as low as possible on the org chart. Ideally, entry-level and other low-level employees should have accountability over the outcomes of their work, but that accountability must be based on objectivity and fairness. Otherwise, an accountability scheme can actually weaken an organization instead of strengthening it.

In future columns, I will address what some companies have done to tighten accountability and offer tips that you may find useful.