Accountability, Workplace

Accountability is not a new concept. Deeply ingrained in the prophetic mind of the Old Testament was the understanding that God holds the leaders of Israel accountable for the care and nurture of his people. For example, God says to the shepherds of Israel, “who only take care of themselves! . . . I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock” (Ezekiel 34:2, 10). Where there is expectation, there is also accountability. This is true for family life, for church membership, for volunteer work, in organizations and in business.

How am I doing? Am I going anywhere? Am I growing? Am I learning? These are the questions of accountability. The expectation of progress, change or movement carries with it the element of accountability.

Accountability and Mission

Accountability therefore rests on a corporate purpose. Without a goal, objective, mission or expectation, there would be no need for accountability. It comes into play as soon as someone desires to change from the status quo to a new level of reality, experience or accomplishment, a future against which the present is compared. Accountability accepts responsibility for movement from the present in line with the purpose and measures progress toward the mission. It does this whether the responsibility is a self-expectation or the expectation of others.

Accountability and Responsibility

Accountability is in fact the flip side of responsibility. While we often use the concept of accountability to refer to the measurement of specific action or behavior in pursuit of the mission or objectives, it might be more appropriate to keep accountability closely linked with responsibility. It is only when a person is understood (and understands himself or herself) to be responsible for a particular action or progress that he or she is accountable. So accountability measures the progress or growth for which a person has accepted responsibility. It assumes that we want to grow, that we expect some movement which we want to measure, unless of course we want to stay in a steady state, in which case accountability seeks to measure that we have not lost ground!

While it is possible to be held accountable by another for a responsibility assigned, accountability and responsibility are most powerfully linked when they are owned. Ownership is the intentional internalizing of responsibility so that a person holds himself or herself accountable. When responsibility is owned, when accountability is internalized, it becomes a personal commitment and a powerful motivating force within the person.

Accountability and Commitment

Peter Block, in his excellent book The Empowered Manager, calls attention to the difference between commitment and sacrifice. When responsibility is imposed from outside and not owned by the person responsible, it requires sacrifice. The individual must sacrifice his or her personal vision to pursue a vision owned by someone else. This is neither satisfying nor motivating. Responsibility is assigned by someone else, and accountability is measured by someone else. On the other hand, ownership of responsibility leads to commitment. When the individual owns responsibility for the purpose, accountability flows from personal commitment. This is the highest form of motivation. The individual is accountable to himself or herself to fulfill the accepted responsibility as an expression of his or her own personal vision.

Accountability and Power

This distinction becomes painfully important in organizational settings where responsibility is given (and accepted), where accountability is expected, but the authority or resources necessary to fulfill the responsibility are not provided. This is the classic definition of powerlessness and leads to a significant loss of motivation and performance. It is critically important that the appropriate authority and resources be available to enable the person to fulfill the responsibility. Otherwise accountability is personally frustrating and organizationally meaningless.

In an organizational setting it is important to distinguish between accountability for results and accountability for tactics or strategies. Responsibility is best shared when it focuses on results and allows the individual to invest himself or herself in the determination of the best way to achieve those results in line with the organization’s mission and values. If too much specificity is involved in this, there is little responsibility given and thus little accountability. The assumption here is that responsibility can and should be shared, recognizing that this does not release those drawn into its exercise from responsibility and accountability.

Whether in business or volunteer church work, accountability structures need to be clearly defined. This can be one to one in spiritual friendships, through small groups, by means of performance reviews and through formal accountability groups, such as those outlined in David Watson’s book Covenant Discipleship.

Accountability at its best is the ownership of responsibility for results with self-evaluation and self-correction as one moves toward the accomplishment of a purpose or the living of a vision. It assumes personal integrity and organizational trust and loyalty.

» See also: Organization

» See also: Organizational Culture and Change

» See also: Organizational Values

» See also: Play

References and Resources

P. Block, The Empowered Manager (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987); D. L. Watson, Covenant Discipleship: Christian Formation Through Mutual Accountability (Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 1991).

—Walter Wright Jr.