Accountability and trust...

Accountability balances control and delegation, but how do you ensure it is fundamental to performance?

Recently, I have seen more discussion on management ‘accountability’, which suggests a resurgence of interest in the topic. I wondered how we could better frame a conversation about accountability. One that allows us to see it as a relationship rather than a penal code. And one where we can think about accountability as an organisational and leadership choice in managing control and delegation.

How can we define a relationship of accountability?

Accountability has two parts: first, I am responsible for something; and second, someone other than me has a legitimate interest in the performance of the task.

I cannot be accountable unless I also have responsibility for doing something. I can only be held accountable if given the responsibility (and the room to perform the task). For example, if I am micro-managed through the task, my actual responsibility is a sham, and the accountability does not rest with me. So, accountability requires the delegation of responsibility to complete the task to be passed between people. In doing so, we pass control for how the task will be completed and the authority to adapt when circumstances change.

Question: How often do we talk about how we delegate as part of accountability?

Does that mean I can only be held accountable for my tasks? No, it doesn't. Leadership responsibility is premised on the notion of accountability for the acts of others. So, leadership responsibility may be either for performing a particular task or for supervising people and systems through which the task is performed.

Question: How often do we discuss the indirect accountability central to leadership?

This is related to the second part of accountability; if I am accountable, someone else must have a legitimate interest in how I discharge my responsibility. That is, I can’t be acting on my behalf. In our organisations, someone else must delegate responsibility for performing the task and provide the resources to complete it.

Accountability, then, is a relationship of giving and receiving. When I give accountability to another, I have the right to ask for an explanation about performance. In contrast, if I am acting on my behalf, this relationship does not exist. Nor does the relationship need to be direct. In organisations structured on the principles of networks, notions of accountability are often indirect and fluid. In network structures, the formality of handover/takeover is important to trace accountability for tasks, people and resources. The indirect relationships are also critical.

Question: How often do we talk about accountability in terms of our organisational structure and the flow of accountability within that structure?

Mostly, accountability is about trust. It is about choosing between control over delegation or, perhaps more philosophically, doubt over trust. Consequently, how accountability is managed says a lot about the leader, the leadership climate and the organisational culture.

This is not to say that ‘one-size-fits-all’. There are times when autonomy and trust are reduced by the nature of the task (e.g. new or high-risk tasks) or the experience of the people performing it (e.g. new staff). This does not mean that trust and autonomy are fixed, only that they are on a sliding scale adjusted to suit the circumstances, the task, and the capacity and capability of the workforce.

Accountability can only function with trust and confidence.

How might we better frame our conversations about accountability?

Accountability balances control and delegation, but how do you ensure it is fundamental to performance?

1. Accountability requires mutual trust. The leader must be able to trust the team members to remain true to the organisation and the task, and the team members must trust that the leader will not give a task that cannot be achieved or is poorly thought through.

2. Accountability requires mutual understanding. Team members must have a clear understanding of the intent and direction of the leader so that as circumstances change, they can act in accordance with those intentions. Leaders must build report lines to ensure accountability, and team members must be allowed to accept responsibility and act on it.

3. Accountability requires an acceptance of responsibility. Leaders and team members must accept that responsibility flows: and consequently, clearly, giving and taking responsibility is critical to success. Leaders must accept that the responsibility for performing the task falls to the team, and the team must accept responsibility for keeping leaders informed about the performance and changing circumstances.

4. Accountability requires the acceptance of risk. There is always a degree of risk in getting things done. Leaders must accept responsibility for investing in developing the experience and capability of the team over time to mitigate risk. They must also accept that sometimes, despite best efforts, things don’t go right or to plan.

Conversations about accountability have hidden depths. The sophistication (or lack of it) in our discussions of accountability reflects as much about how we think about the relationship between people, work, organisation, and performance as it does about how we get things done.