Recently, I have seen more discussion on management 'accountability' which suggests a resurgence of interest in the topic. It led me to wonder how we might 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 the way control and delegation are managed.

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. If I am not given the responsibility (and the room in which to perform the task) then I can’t be held accountable. For example, if I am micro-managed through the task then 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 the way we delegate as part of accountability?

Does that mean I can only be held accountable for those tasks that I personally perform? 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 the performance of a particular task, or for the supervision of people and systems through which the task is performed.

Question: How often do we talk about the indirect accountability that is 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 own behalf. In our organisations, someone else must delegate responsibility for performing the task and/or provide the resources for it to be completed.

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 own 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 making a choice between control over delegation, or perhaps a little more philosophically, doubt over trust. Consequently, the way 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 that is adjusted to suit the circumstances, the task, and the capacity and capability of the workforce.

Accountability cannot function without trust and confidence.

How might we better frame our conversations about accountability?

Accountability simply strikes a balance between control and delegation but how you do 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 be able trust that the leader will not give a task that cannot be achieved or one that 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 in report lines to ensure accountability and team members must be given the room 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 the responsibility for performing the task falls to the team and the team must accept responsibility for keeping leaders informed about 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.