Lack of a Definition Renders Accountability Meaningless

Accountability is one of those principles of business that is an important foundation of organizational culture but is easily shrugged off as a buzz-word. Ask someone in your organization to define accountability, and you may hear any number of answers, from "I don't know" to "following the rules." You might even see some eyes roll.

Accountability is rarely explicitly defined, whether for the organization as a whole, or for the departments and teams that work within them. While a well-designed performance management system may hint at the underlying accountability philosophy, rarely does an organization define the daily act of accountability, even for its leadership team for whom it is most important.

What is accountability? A quick search at Dictionary.com reveals the following definition: "ac·count·a·bil·i·ty [uh-koun-tuh-bil-i-tee]: the state of being accountable, liable, or answerable." Certainly, it is an obvious answer to the question, but it does not shed much light on what it means for people in organizations to be accountable.

Intuitively, everyone has a sense of what accountability means to them. A warehouse clerk is accountable for accurate parts inventory every month. A human resources director is accountable for ensuring the company heeds employment laws. A CEO is accountable for business results. For each of these examples, the word "accountable" could be replaced by "responsible." Each person is responsible for achieving a result.

Yet, accountability means more than responsibility. There is a sense that other people are involved. The same CEO is accountable to shareholders. The warehouse clerk is accountable to his manager. The human resources director is accountable to the employees. Accountability requires that someone has a stake in whether or not the desired result is achieved.

In fact, the person who is responsible for the result also must have a stake in achieving the outcome. There must be a consequence - positive or negative - based on whether or not the outcome is achieved.

The basic definition of accountability, then is: Accountability is a promise to yourself and others to deliver specific, defined results, with consequences.

The process for assigning accountability asks four questions. Answer the questions within the following guidelines.

Accountable for what?

Accountability starts with an outcome, a result that needs to be accomplished. It is important to distinguish between responsibility for activities and accountability for results. Micro-managers define the activities that are expected and then hold employees responsible for performing those activities. However, accountability for results requires room for judgment and decision-making. Someone can't be accountable for an end result if someone else tells him what to do and how to do it. Ultimately, it is the end result that forms the expectation upon which accountability is based.

Who is accountable?

Next, assign who holds the responsibility for the result. Ultimately, accountability is not shared. A manager who has taken on responsibility for a result may delegate that responsibility to an employee, however the manager does not give up the accountability for that result, nor does she truly share the accountability with that employee, since they are accountable to different people.

Accountable to whom?

Everyone is accountable first to himself. The result must be achieved within the scope of one's own personal values, ethics and abilities. Identify the party or parties who have a stake in the outcome. If there is more than one stakeholder, determine if the expected outcomes are the same. If the expectations are different, then an agreement should be made between the stakeholders on how those outcomes are related.

What are the consequences?

Accountability is meaningless without consequences, positive or negative. The concept of holding someone accountable comes in here. If someone accomplishes the results they promised to achieve, then he should be recognized for that. If someone misses his target, then he should at best not receive the recognition, and at worst he should be penalized. It is important to define the consequence up front.

Accountability is not conditional. Accepting unconditional responsibility means there are no excuses and no one to blame, even if events are beyond one's control. Also, accountability for results means activities are not enough. It is not enough to execute activities perfectly if the desired outcome is not achieved. If people receive the expected reward for trying hard, then accountability will not work. If the organization wants to reward risk-taking or trying hard, then it should be done outside of the original accountability agreement.

How accountability is assigned and followed up in your organization defines how results-oriented your organization is. Explicitly defining accountability and setting clear guidelines for holding people accountable can go a long way toward achieving results.

About the Author
Heather Stagl is founder of Enclaria, LLC. Her mission is to equip individuals to lead organizational change.
Find additional resources, including templates, assessments, articles and fresh ideas on implementing change at http://www.enclaria.com

READ MORE - Lack of a Definition Renders Accountability Meaningless

Six Key Principles of Corporate Accountability

The foundation of any business transaction is the promise of fair deal. In complex organizational relationships, it is all too easy to lose sight of the existence and terms of this deal. On the surface, that employer/employee relationship, called a job, is a fair deal wherein the employer's money is traded for the employee's time and talent. The deeper reality, however, is that the employer is actually trading resources for a set of desirable results, which the employee is expected to deliver. The promise to faithfully deliver as agreed by both parties is the essence of accountability.

We recommend that organizations give voice to their accountability through a document called an Accountability Agreement. An Accountability Agreement clearly states the results that each member of an organization, from the most senior to the most junior, is expected to bring about [For specific examples of Accountability Agreements, please see our online tool at http://www.AlignOnline.com]. The following six principles form the foundation for negotiating and understanding accountability. Together they form a practical theory of accountability, the transforming effect it can have on an organization, and its essential role in creating significant business results.

I. Accountability is a Statement of Personal Promise

Accountability is both a promise and an obligation to deliver specific, defined results. Accountability, as we define it, does not apply in an abstract way to departments, work groups, or entire organizations. Accountability applies to individuals and their personal promise that these functions will deliver the agreed results. Accountability is first and foremost a personal commitment to the organization and to those the organization serves. It is more than just trying, doing your best, or behaving in certain ways. Accountability empowers individuals to push their circle of influence outwards in pursuit of results.

II. Accountability for Results Means Activities Aren't Enough

Everyone in an organization, from the CEO to the janitor, has some piece of the business and a corresponding set of results which are theirs to achieve. Distinguishing results from activities requires a shift in traditional thinking built on an awareness of why we do what we do. For example, a typical supervisor's job description includes activities such as "training," "performance evaluations," and "timely communication". In contrast, a supervisor's accountabilities should include a result such as "the success of all direct reports." This concept addresses the common observation that everyone is busy but only some people are productive.

III. Accountability for Results Requires Room for Judgment and Decision Making

If you're not allowed to use any judgment or discretion on the job, if you're told to follow the rules no matter what, if no decision is up to you, then your boss can only hold you accountable for activities. You can be held accountable for doing what you're told, but you can't be held accountable for the outcome. Judgment and innovation can never be fully described in a job description. When employees are expected to be resourceful in the achievement of results, they are held accountable for capturing opportunities or ignoring them.

IV. Accountability is Neither Shared nor Conditional

Accountability Agreements are individual, unique, and personal strategies. No two people at the same level in an organization should have the exact same accountabilities. Separating each person's accountabilities can be challenging, but valuable clarity results from the struggle to eliminate overlaps.

V. Accountability for the Organization as a Whole Belongs to Everyone

Every employee's first accountability is for thinking about and acting on what is best for the organization, even if doing so means putting aside one's individual, functional, or departmental priority. The most successful organizations expect and allow every person to be of practical assistance in realizing the organization's goals.

VI. Accountability is Meaningless Without Consequences

In Accountability Agreements, consequences need to be negotiated. Negotiated consequences that are personally significant to the employee in question are an essential element of Accountability Agreements and are fundamental to forging a fair deal. This is a key step in forging an interdependent and mutually beneficial relationship with one's employer.

Organizational accountability entirely subverts the tendency to make excuses and shift blame. When employees make clear and specific commitments for their own work, entire organizations become aligned and achieve specific measurable results.

Shaun Murphy, Ph.D. and Bruce Klatt, M.A. are senior partners in Murphy Klatt Consulting. This article has been adapted from a chapter of their book, Accountability: Getting a Grip on Results (2nd Ed.1997). Their other publications include Aligned Like a Laser (2004), The Encyclopedia of Leadership (2001), and The Ultimate Training Handbook (1999). They are internationally recognized experts in the field of Accountability Alignment, Organizational Effectiveness, and Project Development whose books have sold over 100,000 copies internationally.

For more information please go to http://www.murphyklatt.com or try their online Accountability Alignment tool at http://www.AlignOnline.com

READ MORE - Six Key Principles of Corporate Accountability

Accountability Through Accounting

As an individual or business there is need for a level of accountability to ensure your life or business is governed above board. Accounting is fraction of the business systems every business must have to assist manage the resources and processes. You can only direct the health of the company if you have the just Accounting system in location. One of the reason late the failure of some businesses is the fact that there is minimal or no accountability of the leaders to the board or the board to the employees and so on. If no one can be held responsible for the business' performance then that business suffers from stunted growth.



- Accounting enhances accountability - Accounting produces the grand needed financial performance reporting which the Directors can employ to bring employees to record. We can easily lisp the level of performance of a leader by simply analyzing the profit they managed to form in a month through the strict accounting policies.



- Accounting tells the health of a business - Before any investor gets interested in a business, they check the health location of the business they are about to invest in. This happens when the accounting system produces the reports. sometimes the financials are published in the press and signed off by the company secretary who then assumes burly or total responsibility or accountability for the correctness of the information.



- Accuracy in Accounting is principal - One would rather not have accounting information that gain papers which are not good. With execrable data, defective decisions are made. No one can be brought to tale. It is costly to effect decisions based on incomplete or infamous information.



- Accountability is for the entire workforce - Sometimes people take that the finance people by virtue of dealing with accounts need to be accountable. Everyone has to narrative for what they do, how they do it and why.



- Accountability is pivotal for superb corporate governance - There can never be top-notch governance of a business without definite accountability structures.



I have watched over the years that situations where I have refused to be accountable, I have slowed down in making the desired progress in life. I remember when I would retain to myself with no one that could deliver into my life, at that point I did the most roguish things in life. Why not? I had no one who could notice at me sternly in the face and shriek me as it is. My wife taught me how accountability can be achieved through accounting with the device she handled family accounting issues to the last cent. She is one very accountable person I know. Sadly, I calm spin slack in this spot. I use first and sometimes forget to support those concerned informed about my financial actions.

READ MORE - Accountability Through Accounting