# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When something goes wrong in an organization, the first question that is often posed is, "Whose fault is it?" When there's data missing in accounting, it's the bookkeeper's fault. If we lose a key customer, it's the sales group's problem- "They promised more than we could deliver!"

When errors such as these surface, blaming seems to be a natural reflex in many organizations. Even those individuals who wish to learn from mistakes fall into naming culprits. Once we figure out who's at fault, we then try to find out what is wrong with the supposed offenders. Only when we discover what is wrong with them do we feel we have grasped the problem. Clearly they are the problem, and changing or getting rid of them (or simply being angry at them) is the solution.

There's a problem with this common scenario, however: Where there is blame, there is no learning. Where there is blame, open minds close, inquiry tends to cease, and the desire to understand the whole system diminishes. When people work in an atmosphere of blame, they naturally cover up their errors and hide their real concerns. And when energy goes into finger pointing, scapegoating, and denying responsibility, productivity suffers because the organization lacks information about the real state of affairs. It's impossible to make good decisions with poor information.

In fact, blame costs money. When the vice president of marketing and the vice president of R&D are blaming each other for quality problems in product development, they can't focus on working together to bring the best products to market. Their finger pointing results in lost sales potential.

Blame rarely enhances our understanding of our situation and often hampers effective problem solving. So how do we avoid the tendency to blame and create organizational environments where we turn less frequently to blame? Clarifying accountability is one option. This process of assigning responsibilities for a situation in advance can help create a culture of real learning.

Accountability comes from clear contracting, ongoing conversations, and an organizational commitment to support accountability rather than blame. The contracting focuses on tasks to be accomplished, roles to be taken, processes to be used, standards sought, and expected results. Periodic conversations over time review both explicit and tacit contracts in order to verify shared understanding. This communication becomes most useful when people are willing and able to discuss their common difficulties within a larger setting that values accountability.

The Differences Between Accountability and Blame

The dictionary helps clarify the differences between accountability and blame. To be accountable is "to be counted on or reckoned on." To blame is "to find fault with, to censure, revile, reproach." Accountability emphasizes keeping agreements and performing jobs in a respectful atmosphere; blaming is an emotional process that discredits the blamed.

A focus on accountability recognizes that everyone may make mistakes or fall short of commitments. Becoming aware of our own errors or shortfalls and viewing them as opportunities for learning and growth enable us to be more successful in the future. Accountability therefore creates conditions for ongoing, constructive conversations in which our awareness of current reality is sharpened and in which we work to seek root causes, understand the system better, and identify new actions and agreements. The qualities of accountability are respect, trust, inquiry, moderation, curiosity, and mutuality.

Blaming, on the other hand, is more than just a process of allocating fault. It is often a process of shaming others and searching for something wrong with them. Blaming provides an early and artificial solution to a complex problem. It provides a simplistic view of a complex reality: I know what the problem is, and you're it. Blame thus makes inquiry difficult and reduces the chances of getting to the real root of a problem. Blame also generates fear and destroys trust. When we blame, we often believe that other people have bad intentions or lack ability. We tend to excuse our own actions, however, because we know firsthand the challenges we face. The qualities of blame are judgment, anger, fear, punishment, and self-righteousness.

The Organizational Consequences of Blame

Blame Slows Information Flow and Reduces Innovation. People sometimes use blame as a strategy to get others to take ownership of problems. But this approach often backfires because people begin to equate acknowledging mistakes and surfacing bad news with punishment. When this happens, two reinforcing sets of behaviors may emerge: one by managers who are ostensibly seeking information and then punishing those who bring bad news, and the other by groups of employees who hide information and try either to protect each other or to blame each other. People who feel compelled to protect themselves can't admit mistakes-and therefore can't learn from them. Under these conditions, individuals spend time denying problems rather than solving them, and

people instill fear in each other rather than value one another.

As shown in "The Reinforcing Cycles of Blame," blaming leads to fear, which increases cover-ups and reduces the flow of information by stopping productive conversation. The lack of timely and accurate information about an organization's current reality hinders problem solving, leading to more errors and more blame (R1).

Blaming and the fear it generates also discourage innovation and creative solutions. Frightened people don't take risks, which are essential for innovation. Lack of innovation, in turn, leads to an inability to solve problems effectively and an increase in errors (R2).

Blame "Shifts the Burden." In a "Shifting the Burden" situation, a problem has multiple solutions. People often grab onto the most obvious, short-term fix rather than search for the fundamental source of the problem. The lack of a permanent, long-term solution reinforces the need for additional quick fixes. Blame is a fix that actually diverts the blamers' attention away from long-term interpersonal or structural solutions to problems (see B1 in "The Addiction to Blame" on p. 3). Although blame provides some immediate relief and a sense of having solved a problem ("It's their fault"), it also erodes communication (R3) and shifts the focus even further from accountability (B2), the more fundamental solution.

Blaming can also be addictive, because it makes us feel powerful and keeps us from having to examine our own role in a situation. For example, Jim, a brewery manager, got word that things were slowing down on line 10, a new canning line. He left his office and headed to the plant floor. "Grady, you've got to get this line going. Get with it," he told his line foreman. Grady replied, "Jim, you know those guys on the last shift always screw things up."

This is a familiar conversation to both men. Each walks away thinking something is wrong with the other. Jim thinks, "That Grady, I give him responsibility and he just can't get it together." Grady thinks, "Why is he always on my case? Can't he see this is a tough issue? He's so simplistic and short-sighted."

In this scenario, Jim can walk away feeling relieved because he knows what the problem is-Grady is a lousy supervisor and may need to be replaced. Grady, on the other hand, can blame Jim for being a shortsighted, run-the-plant-by-the-numbers manager. Both get some initial relief from blaming each other, but neither solves the ongoing problem.

Moving from Blame to Accountability

How, then, do we move from blame to accountability? Even within carefully designed systems, people may fail at their work. And even with a knowledge of system dynamics, we still often look for an individual's failure as a way to explain a problem. One leverage point is to understand the organizational dynamics of blame as described above. There is also leverage in changing how we think about and conduct ourselves at work.

There are three levels of specific behavioral change in moving from blame to accountability-the individual level, the interpersonal level, and the group or organizational level. First, individuals must be willing to change their own thinking and feelings about blame. Second, people need to become skillful at making contracts with one another and holding each other accountable for results. Third, groups need to promote responsible and constructive conversations by developing norms for direct conflict resolution between individuals. These behavioral changes-and the use of systems thinking to focus on the structures involved and not the personalities-can help create a constructive organizational culture.

Individual Level

Below is a list of ways to start breaking the mental models we hold about blame. When you find yourself beginning to blame someone else for a chronic problem, refer to this list and to the sidebar "Distinctions Between Blame and Accountability" (see p. 4).

1. Remember that others are acting rationally from their own perspective. Given what they know, the pressures they are under, and the organizational structures that are influencing them, they are doing the best they can. Give others the benefit of the doubt.

2. Realize that you probably have a role in the situation. Your behavior may be influencing this person's behavior and may be producing some unintended effects. Keep in mind that you will tend to justify your own actions and point of view and discount the other person's perspective.

3. Remind yourself that judgment and criticism make it very difficult to see clearly. Judgments are mental models that limit the ability to take in new data. They tend to increase the likelihood of anger and make it difficult to learn. The following questions may help stretch your thinking and ease angry feelings. Ask yourself:

What information am I missing that would help me understand this person's behavior?

How might this behavior make sense?

What pressures is he or she under?

What systems or structures might be influencing this behavior?

4. Use a systems thinking perspective to explore the pressures on the players involved. Notice that there are some larger forces at work that are probably having an impact on both of you. For example, when organizational goals, strategies, and values aren't clear, groups will sometimes work toward different objectives. A group that values customer service over cost will conflict with a group that is trying to lower expenditures. Identify some key variables and their interrelationships, and ask, Is this situation an example of a vicious cycle, "Shifting the Burden," or "Accidental Adversaries"?

5. Be willing to be held accountable. This means that, when an issue comes up, you are willing to consider whether you have lived up to your end of an agreement or expectation. Ask yourself:

Did I have a role in this situation?

Did I take some actions that seemed right at the time, but that had unintended consequences?

6.Work constructively with your anger. Sustained anger may point to personal issues that have been triggered by the current situation. Broken agreements, mistakes, and blame all have difficult associations for most people. However, in a learning environment, constructive resolution of conflict can also lead to significant personal growth. The guiding questions here are:

What am I learning about myself in this situation?

What does this remind me of?

What new behaviors or thoughts does this situation call for that may be a stretch for me?

Interpersonal Level

Initial Contracting. At the beginning of any working relationship, it's vital to come to some basic agreements defining the nature and scope of the work, specific and yet-to-be-defined tasks, deadlines and related outcomes, processes or methods to be used, interim checkpoints and expectations at those checkpoints, standards, and roles.

It's also helpful to discuss what to do in the event of a misunderstanding, a lapse in communication, or a failure to keep an agreement. Imagine possible breakdowns and design a process for handling them. If breakdowns do occur, be prepared to remind others of the plan you had prepared.

When lapses do take place, they need to be brought to the collective attention as soon as possible. Misunderstandings and broken agreements often promote anger, frustration, and blame. Allowing unaddressed misunderstandings to fester can hamper productive conversations. By contrast, raising issues early can minimize escalation of problems.

Accountability Conversations. Once any project or working relationship is under way, it's useful to check in periodically on the state of the partnership through accountability conversations. You may or may not have clear recollections of the initial contract regarding the task, roles, standards, processes, and expected results. Either way, it's productive to establish or reestablish these agreements and explore what is working or not working as you take action together to create envisioned results.

Accountability conversations aren't always easy. However, the skills they require can be applied and developed over time. Some of the basic tools of learning organizations come into play here-the ladder of inference, for example, can be used to create a conversation of inquiry rather than inquisition. The accountability conversation is also the perfect setting for practicing left-hand column skills to surface assumptions blocking honest and productive discourse. In addition, admitting the tendency to

blame may provide a way through some defensive routines. Chris Argyris gives an excellent and realistic picture of an accountability conversation in Knowledge for Action (Jossey-Bass, 1993).

Here are steps for initiating an accountability conversation:

1. Find out whether the person you are working with is interested in seeing problems as learning opportunities. If so, when a problem occurs, include other people who are also interested in the situation. Other people's perspectives can be helpful because often two people in conflict are actually mirroring the conflict of a larger system within the organization.
2. Create a setting that is conducive to learning.

Allow plenty of time to address the issues.

Reaffirm with each other that the goal is to learn, not blame.

Establish confidentiality.

Be truly open-minded.

Listen hard to the other person's perspective

3. Have a conversation in which the two (or more) of you

Clarify your intention for the meeting.

Identify the data and any assumptions or conclusions you have drawn based on that data.

Identify the pressures each of you is experiencing in the situation.

Identify any stated or unstated expectations. If implicit agreements were not jointly understood, this is a good time to clarify and reestablish shared agreements.

Analyze the problem from a systems perspective. Clarify how your mutual beliefs and actions might be related and are perhaps reinforcing each other.

Identify some new ways to address the problem.

Group Level

How people talk about one another in an organization affects the levels of accountability and trust. Often, because people are reluctant to discuss accountability issues directly, they go to a third party to relieve their discomfort and get support for their point of view. The complaint does not get resolved this way, however, although the person with the complaint gains some relief. Bringing a complaint to a third party to clarify a situation can be a much more productive alternative.

To see how this works, let's take a situation where Tony is angry with Lee because Lee wasn't fully supportive in a meeting. Tony complains to Robin that Lee is unreliable. Robin sympathizes with Tony and agrees that Lee is unreliable. Tony and Robin now feel closer because they share this point of view. Lee does not yet know that Tony has a complaint. Later, though, Robin, busy with other projects, puts off one of Tony's requests. Now Tony complains about Robin to Lee, and Robin doesn't get the necessary feedback. Over time, all of these relationships will erode.

What is the alternative to this kind of dysfunctional blaming and resentment? The solution is a deep commitment on the part of all these people to work through their reluctance to give and receive difficult feedback. In addition, they need to learn how to hold one another accountable in an ongoing way. Now, when Tony is angry with Lee and goes to Robin, the purpose is to get coaching on how to raise the issue with Lee, not to get Robin's agreement on what is wrong with Lee. In addition, Robin's role is to make sure that Tony follows through on raising the concern directly with Lee.

To resolve conflict directly:

1.Bring your complaints about someone else to a third person to get coaching on how to raise your concerns.
Valuable questions from the coach include:

Tell me about the situation.

What results do you want?

What's another way of explaining the other person's actions?

How might the other person describe the situation?

What was your role in creating the situation?

What requests or complaints do you need to bring to the other person?

How will you state them in order to get the results you want?

What do you think your learning is in this situation?

2. Raise your concerns directly with the other person. Reaffirm your commitment to maintaining a good working relationship and find a way to express your fundamental respect for the person. The ladder of inference can be a helpful tool for focusing on the problem. Start by identifying the data that is the source of your concern. Then spell out the assumptions you made as you observed the data and any feelings you have about the situation. Finally, articulate your requests for change. During the conversation, remind the other person that reviewing the concern is part of learning to work together better

3. Let the coach know what happened.

4. Outside of this framework, refrain from making negative comments about people

5. For listeners who frequently hear complaints about a third party and want to create a learning setting, it can be helpful to say something like: "I'd like to help, but only if you want to create a constructive situation. We can explore these questions; otherwise, I prefer not to listen to your complaints."

Organizational Accountability: The IS Story

Systems thinking provides useful tools for surfacing and breaking reinforcing cycles of blame within an organization. In the story below, a group was able to use causal loop diagrams to help them move beyond blame and craft a constructive, long-term solution.

The Information Systems group of a manufacturing plant was meeting to discuss their lack of progress on a large project to overhaul the department. Initially, the IS group decided that top management's actions caused the group's ineffectiveness. The plant management team (PMT) kept adding projects to the group's already full plate. Members of the PMT responded to "squeaky wheels" by giving otherwise low-priority projects the force of their support. Also, the PMT didn't reinforce plant wide policies the IS group had developed. Most important, the team didn't give group members the support they needed to stick to the IS overhaul they had committed to, and wouldn't give them the budget to hire the additional staff they sorely needed.

But when the group mapped out their current situation in a causal loop diagram, they gained a new perspective on the problem. They found that the situation resembled a "Success to the Successful" story, in which two or more projects or groups compete for limited resources.

The diagram "Success to the Squeaky Wheel" shows how, in this case, the IS group's attention to urgent requests diverted resources away from prioritized items. Because rewards for completing urgent requests were heightened, the urgent tasks continued to receive greater attention (R2). At the same time, the rewards for and focus on prioritized tasks decreased (R1). Finally, as people realized that urgent requests received greater attention than prioritized items, the number of "squeaky wheels"-or people promoting their own agenda items to management-proliferated. This development was followed by an increase in management's efforts to get action on those agenda items, which further promoted urgent items over prioritized ones (R3).

After examining the causal loop diagrams, the group realized that they had played a role in the stalled progress on the overhaul project. Although IS team members encouraged each other to blame the PMT, no one in the group had given the PMT feedback concerning the impact of their requests and lack of support.

Armed with a systems view, the group identified several actions they could take to shift these unproductive dynamics. They decided to tell the PMT that they recognized that the IS overhaul was a top priority for the plant as a whole. They would point out that they couldn't make progress on the overhaul if they continued to respond to "squeaky wheels. "The group would also let the PMT know that when they received additional requests, they would ask:

How much of a priority is this request for you?

Are you aware that there is a tradeoff in priorities?

The group concluded that they would issue a memo to the PMT describing their priorities and soliciting the PMT's support of those priorities. They would also request that the PMT clearly communicate the priorities to the rest of the plant. In the memo, they would indicate the tradeoffs they were making and identify how their choices would help the company as a whole. The group felt that, with the PMT's support, they would have the authority to focus on the prioritized project instead of responding to urgent requests.

Conclusion

Developing accountability skills is challenging; it takes courage and the willingness to learn new ways of thinking and acting. So why is moving from blame to accountability worthwhile? Because blame is like sugar - it produces a brief boost and then a let-down. It doesn't serve the system's long-term needs and can actually prevent it from functioning effectively. On the other hand, developing accountability skills and habits on every level of your organization can be an important element in maintaining your organization's long-term health.
Marilyn Paul, PhD, is an independent organizational consultant affiliated with Innovation Associates, an Arthur D. Little company. She has sixteen years of experience facilitating organizational change. One focus of her work is peer mentoring and capacity development.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Moving from Blame to Accountability - The Systems Thinker

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
hen something goes wrong in an organization, the first question that is often posed is, "Whose fault is it?" When there's data missing in accounting, it's the bookkeeper's fault. If we lose a key customer, it's the sales group's problem- "They promised more than we could deliver!"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These three terms are almost always confused, interchanged and usually poorly understood. In a recent interview about scaling businesses with Verne Harnish we talked through the differences between Accountability, Responsibility and Authority in some detail. Here's that info in more detail.

What some other 'experts' say

There are plenty of examples which conflict with each other and that I believe are completely incorrect and in a lot of cases the definitions totally conflict with themselves:

Paul Gillard, PhD & Rachel Radwinsky, PhD here think to be accountable is to be held culpable for your actions, even that "If you are responsible for something, you are also accountable". Below we argue that only one person should be accountable but not why you think

Consultant Sam Harrop here says that being accountable means that you have responsibility for the results. So along the same lines, if I had responsibility but was not accountable then the quality of the work is someone elses problem? Seems hard to argue.

The guys at Blue pea pod here seem to have responsibility right but define accountability as ownership of an outcome. I'd argue that ownership of an outcome is responsibility (see great video below)

Finally I found this article from the tomorrow lab that states that being accountable means that you are 'liable or answerable' for your actions. Again I'd say that this is confusing responsibility and accountability.

I don't mention these examples to particularly call them out, just to say that the words are almost always incorrectly defined.

Accountability

What is it?

First lets split this word in its two parts: Account|ability

Account - "A report or description of an event or experience" - Oxford dictionary

Ability - "Possession of the means or skill to do something" - Oxford dictionary

So combined 'Accountability' is literally the ability to report on events or experiences. This is the responsibility (in the sense defined below) to monitor, i.e. to count. The job of being accountable for something should be assigned to a single individual who's duty it is to monitor a specific task, process, service or KPI.

Why only one person?

Just to be 100% clear, only one person should be accountable per task, process, service or KPI. If you have more than one person who is accountable then each person will assume that the other is keeping count and most cases this will lead to nobody keeping count.

With one person accountable for something it's their job to keep an eagle eye on it.

How is it misunderstood?

One of the most common mistakes is to believe that this means that the person who is accountable is the person who will be blamed if things go wrong (These are called consequences). In common culture it's mistaken as "an unspoken desire for more consequences (i.e., reward for achievement and punishment for failure)".

Where does the confusion arise from?

Well popular media, politicians and journalists. Using the phrase "I take complete accountability" within the context that they are willing to accept the consequences of their poor decisions.

"We talk about it to give it voice. The person accountable is not boss doesn't mean they know it all, do it all. You know almost any decision in the world, it's better if you get a lot of peoples input.

But [tweetable alt=""]their job is to scream, and scream and scream loud. If something's going wrong." @TheGrowthGuy[/tweetable]

Example

A software business has a ticket system to monitor support queries. Jenny is accountable for the support queue length and the average time it takes to resolve a ticket. If the queue goes over a certain length or ticket response time goes down she must let those who have responsibility (probably the support manager or her boss) know.

Lets think about that. Jenny is 'accountable' that means she has to monitor the queue. I've seen this in organisations where either there is no definition of who is accountable or if there are multiple people, it doesn't work. It has to be one person.

Responsibility

What is it?

This is the duty and ability to respond or take action. Giving someone responsibility for a task, task, process, service or KPI means that it is the role of that person(s) to do the task. It can be assigned to multiple people.
This great video from Active Nation covers it off responsibility very nicely

How is it misunderstood?

Actually this one isn't too bad. Most people get it. If you're responsible for doing something and you don't then you've failed.

Example

Following the example of the software company. It is the responsibility of the support agents to respond to the support tickets.

Note you might need authority to respond, see below..

Authority

What is it?

This one is pretty easy, it's "the power or right to give orders or make decisions". Many people can have it and usually there's someone at the top, the CEO/board of directors or shareholder who has/have the highest level of authority.

How is it misunderstood?

This one is usually crystal clear. However, some organisations do not clearly indicate who has/doesn't have authority which can make taking decisions quite difficult.

Example

In the example of the software company support team, an agent might have the authority to change a users price plan but it's possible only the duty manager has the authority to offer a refund.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stop confusing: Accountability vs. Responsibility vs. Authority! - TightShip

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These three terms are almost always confused, interchanged and usually poorly understood. In a recent interview about scaling businesses with Verne Harnish we talked through the differences between Accountability, Responsibility and Authority in some detail. Here's that info in more detail.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When disaster strikes, and you hear that you'll be "held accountable," do you calmly ask yourself, "How can I help us figure out what went wrong?" Or do you think, "How can I become totally invisible in a hurry?"

The word accountability is widely misused. To be accountable means to be responsible for and answerable for an activity. If something goes wrong, those accountable are expected to answer for their part in the goings-on, because we need their knowledge if we want to perfect our flawed systems.

Blame is something more. To be blamed is to be accountable in a way deserving of censure, discipline, or other penalty, either explicit or tacit.

Accountable does not mean "blame-able." Accountability and blame differ in at least four dimensions.

Learning vs. punishment

Understanding how the failure happened helps us prevent similar failures. Because those accountable often have useful information, we value their participation in organizational learning, usually in the form of retrospectives or after-action reviews.

If blame is the goal, instead of real organizational learning, activity usually stops after we've found the culprit or culprits. There isn't much role for them in retrospectives. Once we tag them, their only role is to receive punishment.Fear of accountability
is a strong indicator
of blaming

Incidence of fear

If we really are seeking those accountable, fear isn't a factor. Those accountable have nothing to fear unless actual negligence or corruption is involved, and then the failure isn't the issue - their malfeasance is.

Fear of accountability is a strong indicator of blaming. Generally, if people fear being identified as "accountable" for a specific failure, it's with good reason - perhaps they committed some form of malfeasance, or maybe the "accountability" is actually blame.

Org chart altitude distribution

Those with responsibility are accountable, and those with the most responsibility are high up on the org chart.

When we find those accountable at many levels of the org chart, we're more likely to be assigning accountability; when we find those accountable concentrated at the bottom of the org chart, chances are that we're assigning blame.

Acknowledging interdependence

Nearly everything we do is a group effort; rarely is only one person - or even one team - fully responsible for any action or decision.

If we truly seek to find those accountable, the result is probably a list - sometimes a long list. If we seek to blame, usually one person is enough to feed the beast.

Even if your culture is blame-free, when you seek those accountable for a failure, you might encounter reactions based on past experiences of blame and punishment, rather than the accountability of here-and-now. To maintain an accountability-based culture free of blame, accept these reactions for what they are, and work to bring everyone into the present. Top Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Reader Comments

Erin Kelley-McNeely, EKM Consulting Services & Writing Solutions

Boy...this is one of your best ones! I hope it gets full attention from your audience with all the holiday stuffage. It's also very timely to year-end objectives being met (or not) with performance reviews for 2005 the first order of business in 2006!

I wanted to add something - in case you reprise this article. Accountability versus Blame also fosters creativity rather than stifles it. Accountability also allows for true pride in a job well done. Accountability is not just for those things that go wrong. I have seen people live in fear of blame and either spend too much of their time in CYA or lose their creative edge altogether.

Great work Rick. You never disappoint!

Your comments are welcome

Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.com Send me your comments by email , or by Web form.

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Workplace Politics:

When Leaders Fight

Organizations often pretend that feuds between leaders do not exist. But when the two most powerful people in your organization go head-to-head, everyone in the organization suffers. How can you survive a feud between people above you in the org chart?

Kinds of Organizational Authority: the Informal

Understanding Power, Authority, and Influence depends on familiarity with the kinds of authority found in organizations. Here's Part II of a little catalog of authority, emphasizing informal authority.

Coercion by Presupposition

Coercion, physical or psychological, has no place in the workplace. Yet we see it and experience it frequently. We can end the use of presupposition as a tool of coercion, but only if we take personal responsibility for ending it.

Not Really Part of the Team: I

Some team members hang back. They show little initiative and have little social contact with other team members. How does this come about?

Reframing Revision Resentment: I

From time to time, we're required to revise something previously produced - some copy, remarks, an announcement, code, the Mona Lisa, whatever... When we do, some of us experience frustration, and view the assignment as an onerous chore. Here are some alternative perspectives that might ease the burden.

See also Workplace Politics and Conflict Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming July 24: The Stupidity Attribution Error

In workplace debates, we sometimes conclude erroneously that only stupidity can explain why our debate partners fail to grasp the elegance or importance of our arguments. There are many other possibilities. Available here and by RSS on July 24.

And on July 31: More Things I've Learned Along the Way: IV

When I have an important insight, or when I'm taught a lesson, I write it down. Here's Part IV from my personal collection. Available here and by RSS on July 31.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info

Public seminars

The Race to the South Pole: Lessons in Leadership

On 14 December 1911, four men led by Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole. Thirty-five days later, Robert F. Scott and four others followed. Amundsen had won the race to the pole. Amundsen's party returned to base on 26 January 1912. Scott's party perished. As historical drama, why this happened is interesting enough. But to organizational leaders, business analysts, project sponsors, and project managers, the story is fascinating. We'll use the history of this event to explore lessons in leadership and its application to organizational efforts. A fascinating and refreshing look at leadership from the vantage point of history.Read more about this program. Here's a date for this program:

The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power

Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people - call them power pretenders - adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders.Read more about this program.

The message of Point Lookout is unique. Help get the message out. Please donate to help keep Point Lookout available for free to everyone.
Check Out My Blog!

My blog, Technical Debt for Policymakers, offers resources, insights, and conversations of interest to policymakers who are concerned with managing technical debt within their organizations. Get the millstone of technical debt off the neck of your organization!

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics!

Learn how to make your virtual global team sing.

A Tip a Day arrives by email, or by RSS Feed, each business day. It's 20 to 30 words at most, and gives you a new perspective on the hassles and rewards of work life. Most tips also contain links to related articles. Free!

Learn how to make meetings more productive - and more rare.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When disaster strikes, and you hear that you'll be "held accountable," do you calmly ask yourself, "How can I help us figure out what went wrong?" Or do you think, "How can I become totally invisible in a hurry?" The word accountability is widely misused.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Article highlights

Why accountability is important.

Where workplace accountability matters most.

Every organization must have systems of accountability in place to operate.

Simply put, accountability in the workplace means holding employees and executives responsible for accomplishing goals, completing assignments, and making decisions.

Creating a culture of accountability helps ensure that employees show up for shifts, understand what's expected of them, and meet deadlines.

Accountability structures hold everyone in the organization responsible for their fulfilling their duties. Workplace accountability should include repercussions for wrongdoing and poor performance. But accountability isn't just about punishment and negative consequences.

A healthy culture of accountability will help employees be more productive, creative, and able to contribute to furthering organizational goals. It will allow employees to take ownership of their work and build trust between team members at all levels of the organization.

Workplace accountability doesn't happen by default. In fact, in a Workplace Accountability Study by Partners in Leadership, 82 percent of respondents said they had no ability to hold others accountable.

Respondents weren't satisfied with this - 91 percent said they would rank accountability as one of their organization's top development needs.

Why Accountability Is Important

Without a system of accountability in place, operations can quickly devolve into chaos. The organization can flounder in daily activities, never able to make tangible progress toward larger goals.

Employees can't meet expectations if the expectations are unclear or nonexistent.

Without accountability in the workplace, bad employees can get away with cutting corners. Good employees go unrecognized and quickly get discouraged and lose motivation to work hard.

On the other hand, with a healthy culture of accountability, organizations can grow and accomplish goals. Leaders and employees can learn from mistakes and know they will be recognized for good work and held responsible for wrongdoings.

Accountability in the workplace can improve an organization's reputation, but it's not just about avoiding bad press. Creating a culture of accountability can result in many positive outcomes:

Accountability improves employee morale

Organizations that create a culture of accountability recognize and reward hard work.

This helps every employee feel valued. And, according to the American Psychological Association's 2016 Work and Well-Being Survey, workers are more motivated to work hard when they feel valued.

Ninety-five percent of respondents who said they feel valued by their employer said they felt motivated to do their best. Only 32 percent of those who didn't feel valued said the same.

Accountability also boosts employee morale by enhancing trust between team members.

Successful organizations recognize the importance of every staff member. If an employee at any level of the organization isn't pulling their weight, the whole team suffers.

Without accountability measures in place, things can quickly devolve into finger-pointing excuses: "I missed the deadline because Tom was late sending me the numbers for that project." "My supervisor told me to do it that way."

A culture of accountability makes collaborations possible by emphasizing follow-through and responsibility.

Employees know they can count on co-workers to do their part. And everyone recognizes the importance of open communication and personal ownership. Every staff member knows that their work matters.

Accountability increases effectiveness

Partners in Leadership found that nine out of ten companies either didn't have clearly defined goals or hadn't communicated them broadly to employees. As a result, 75 percent of employees didn't understand expectations and what their organization was trying to achieve.

Without accountability structures, productivity quickly slips. Projects take longer than they should because individual contributors don't understand their roles or meet their deadlines.

As Roger Connors points out in an article on Chief Learning Officer,

"Without clarity, confusion can lead to poor execution and counterproductive behaviors. It licenses people to maintain the status quo and dismiss their accountability for results. It also kills momentum because no one is confident about which direction to move."

On the other hand, a culture of accountability includes clearly communicated expectations and well-defined goals.

When employees know the expectations, they can work with confidence. They know the boundaries, but they also feel free to be creative and innovative.

When leaders outline defined goals, every team member can gauge their performance. And team members can work together to meet goals and make the organization successful.

Accountability protects against liability risks

Accountability and liability avoidance go hand in hand. Organizations that have a strong culture of accountability have clear policy and procedures, thorough training, and active supervision.

These are three of the fundamental layers of liability avoidance.

Fostering a culture of accountability is a proactive way to protect your organization against liability risks.

Accountability structures ensure that your organization is doing everything possible to make sure employees and leaders don't abuse their position. If things do go wrong, having accountability measures in place can protect your organization and staff.

Where Workplace Accountability Matters Most

Accountability is essential for organizations in every industry. However, it's especially important for governmental and public safety organizations.

In public safety, the stakes are incredibly high.

Employees make life-or-death decisions on a daily basis. It's incredibly important for every employee to be accountable for their actions. But they also need to be confident that they won't be blamed for mistakes that weren't their fault.

This requires a culture of accountability throughout all levels of the organization.

Over the next few weeks, we'll be talking about creating a culture of accountability in particular industries that need it the most:

Local government

Local governments are primarily accountable to the citizens in their community. In every level of government, elected and appointed officials are meant to represent the interests of their constituents.

Their decisions impact everyone in their community. Corruption or misconduct within local government - whether by elected officials or any government employee - is the ultimate betrayal of public trust.

Governments must have both internal and external accountability measures.

It's paramount that government agencies have internal checks and balances and ethical guidelines in place to hold employees accountable.

However, a culture of accountability in government extends beyond those internal structures. Citizens need to know that they can trust their local government.

Therefore, governments need to stress transparency in all that they do. Transparency with financial information, legislation, and other public information allows taxpayers to hold governments accountable.

As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis once wrote, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman."

Law enforcement

In the last few years, law enforcement officers have been under more scrutiny than ever.

With many people calling for increased police accountability, it's more important than ever for law enforcement agencies to create and maintain a culture of accountability.

Civilians need to know that they can trust police officers to serve and protect them. Police accountability and transparency create a foundation for that trust.

Police accountability may include regular audits, clear disciplinary processes, and involving the community in policy-making processes. All of these things help prevent misconduct and improve police-community relations.

Fire

Like other public safety organizations, fire departments are accountable to the citizens they serve. That includes open communication and transparency with citizens.

Much of accountability in fire involves making sure firefighters follow the proper procedures. This is important to ensure the safety of both the firefighters themselves and the wider community.

On the scene of a fire or other critical incident, firefighters must work together. They need to know the location of every team member at all times and make sure every firefighter makes it out safely.

If firefighters neglect accountability, someone may get hurt or even killed. In fact, The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health named a lack of accountability as one of the top five causes of death for firefighters.

Healthcare

Without accountability measures in place, healthcare organizations cannot operate efficiently. And more than that, if healthcare employees fail to follow proper policies and procedures, they can put patients at risk.

According to a study by the Journal of Patient Safety, each year, more than 210,000 hospital patients die from hospital-related infections or medical mistakes.

A culture of accountability can help prevent such mistakes.

Accountability measures contribute to ensuring that healthcare organizations allow adequate access to services, responsibly handle patient information and finances, and abide by legal and ethical standards.

Overall, accountability in healthcare allows organizations to operate efficiently, provide quality care, and avoid costly liability risks.

Accountability in the workplace is incredibly important for organizations in every industry. A culture of accountability helps organizations operate effectively, protect against liability risks, and achieve goals.

Every organization must have systems of accountability in place to operate.

Simply put, accountability in the workplace means holding employees and executives responsible for accomplishing goals, completing assignments, and making decisions.

Creating a culture of accountability helps ensure that employees show up for shifts, understand what's expected of them, and meet deadlines.

Accountability structures hold everyone in the organization responsible for their fulfilling their duties. Workplace accountability should include repercussions for wrongdoing and poor performance. But accountability isn't just about punishment and negative consequences.

A healthy culture of accountability will help employees be more productive, creative, and able to contribute to furthering organizational goals. It will allow employees to take ownership of their work and build trust between team members at all levels of the organization.

Workplace accountability doesn't happen by default. In fact, in a Workplace Accountability Study by Partners in Leadership, 82 percent of respondents said they had no ability to hold others accountable.

Respondents weren't satisfied with this - 91 percent said they would rank accountability as one of their organization's top development needs.

Without a system of accountability in place, operations can quickly devolve into chaos. The organization can flounder in daily activities, never able to make tangible progress toward larger goals.

Employees can't meet expectations if the expectations are unclear or nonexistent.

Without accountability in the workplace, bad employees can get away with cutting corners. Good employees go unrecognized and quickly get discouraged and lose motivation to work hard.

On the other hand, with a healthy culture of accountability, organizations can grow and accomplish goals. Leaders and employees can learn from mistakes and know they will be recognized for good work and held responsible for wrongdoings.

Accountability in the workplace can improve an organization's reputation, but it's not just about avoiding bad press. Creating a culture of accountability can result in many positive outcomes:

Accountability improves employee morale

Organizations that create a culture of accountability recognize and reward hard work.

This helps every employee feel valued. And, according to the American Psychological Association's 2016 Work and Well-Being Survey, workers are more motivated to work hard when they feel valued.

Ninety-five percent of respondents who said they feel valued by their employer said they felt motivated to do their best. Only 32 percent of those who didn't feel valued said the same.

Accountability also boosts employee morale by enhancing trust between team members.

Successful organizations recognize the importance of every staff member. If an employee at any level of the organization isn't pulling their weight, the whole team suffers.

Without accountability measures in place, things can quickly devolve into finger-pointing excuses: "I missed the deadline because Tom was late sending me the numbers for that project." "My supervisor told me to do it that way."

A culture of accountability makes collaborations possible by emphasizing follow-through and responsibility.

Employees know they can count on co-workers to do their part. And everyone recognizes the importance of open communication and personal ownership. Every staff member knows that their work matters.

Accountability increases effectiveness

Partners in Leadership found that nine out of ten companies either didn't have clearly defined goals or hadn't communicated them broadly to employees. As a result, 75 percent of employees didn't understand expectations and what their organization was trying to achieve.

Without accountability structures, productivity quickly slips. Projects take longer than they should because individual contributors don't understand their roles or meet their deadlines.

As Roger Connors points out in an article on Chief Learning Officer,

"Without clarity, confusion can lead to poor execution and counterproductive behaviors. It licenses people to maintain the status quo and dismiss their accountability for results. It also kills momentum because no one is confident about which direction to move."

On the other hand, a culture of accountability includes clearly communicated expectations and well-defined goals.

When employees know the expectations, they can work with confidence. They know the boundaries, but they also feel free to be creative and innovative.

When leaders outline defined goals, every team member can gauge their performance. And team members can work together to meet goals and make the organization successful.

Accountability protects against liability risks

Accountability and liability avoidance go hand in hand. Organizations that have a strong culture of accountability have clear policy and procedures, thorough training, and active supervision.

These are three of the fundamental layers of liability avoidance.

Fostering a culture of accountability is a proactive way to protect your organization against liability risks.

Accountability structures ensure that your organization is doing everything possible to make sure employees and leaders don't abuse their position. If things do go wrong, having accountability measures in place can protect your organization and staff.

Accountability is essential for organizations in every industry. However, it's especially important for governmental and public safety organizations.

In public safety, the stakes are incredibly high.

Employees make life-or-death decisions on a daily basis. It's incredibly important for every employee to be accountable for their actions. But they also need to be confident that they won't be blamed for mistakes that weren't their fault.

This requires a culture of accountability throughout all levels of the organization.

Over the next few weeks, we'll be talking about creating a culture of accountability in particular industries that need it the most:

Local government

Local governments are primarily accountable to the citizens in their community. In every level of government, elected and appointed officials are meant to represent the interests of their constituents.

Their decisions impact everyone in their community. Corruption or misconduct within local government - whether by elected officials or any government employee - is the ultimate betrayal of public trust.

Governments must have both internal and external accountability measures.

It's paramount that government agencies have internal checks and balances and ethical guidelines in place to hold employees accountable.

However, a culture of accountability in government extends beyond those internal structures. Citizens need to know that they can trust their local government.

Therefore, governments need to stress transparency in all that they do. Transparency with financial information, legislation, and other public information allows taxpayers to hold governments accountable.

As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis once wrote, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman."

Law enforcement

In the last few years, law enforcement officers have been under more scrutiny than ever.

With many people calling for increased police accountability, it's more important than ever for law enforcement agencies to create and maintain a culture of accountability.

Civilians need to know that they can trust police officers to serve and protect them. Police accountability and transparency create a foundation for that trust.

Police accountability may include regular audits, clear disciplinary processes, and involving the community in policy-making processes. All of these things help prevent misconduct and improve police-community relations.

Fire

Like other public safety organizations, fire departments are accountable to the citizens they serve. That includes open communication and transparency with citizens.

Much of accountability in fire involves making sure firefighters follow the proper procedures. This is important to ensure the safety of both the firefighters themselves and the wider community.

On the scene of a fire or other critical incident, firefighters must work together. They need to know the location of every team member at all times and make sure every firefighter makes it out safely.

If firefighters neglect accountability, someone may get hurt or even killed. In fact, The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health named a lack of accountability as one of the top five causes of death for firefighters.

Healthcare

Without accountability measures in place, healthcare organizations cannot operate efficiently. And more than that, if healthcare employees fail to follow proper policies and procedures, they can put patients at risk.

According to a study by the Journal of Patient Safety, each year, more than 210,000 hospital patients die from hospital-related infections or medical mistakes.

A culture of accountability can help prevent such mistakes.

Accountability measures contribute to ensuring that healthcare organizations allow adequate access to services, responsibly handle patient information and finances, and abide by legal and ethical standards.

Overall, accountability in healthcare allows organizations to operate efficiently, provide quality care, and avoid costly liability risks.

Accountability in the workplace is incredibly important for organizations in every industry. A culture of accountability helps organizations operate effectively, protect against liability risks, and achieve goals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Article highlights Why accountability is important. Where workplace accountability matters most. Every organization must have systems of accountability in place to operate. Simply put, accountability in the workplace means holding employees and executives responsible for accomplishing goals, completing assignments, and making decisions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The hard part

The toughest part about accountability is applying consequences when performance is not as desired. There comes a point when there has to be a negative consequence. If done correctly, such a point only comes when shared expectations were not met and the responsible party had sufficient time, skills and resources. When it arrives, a consequence must be applied in a fair and consistent manner. There should be no surprise.

The common mistake

Often a punishment is confused with a consequence. When a negative consequence is merited, there has been a shortcoming that likely has created a bad situation. Such situations create extra work, customer dissatisfaction, monetary loss or other effects that can create stress or emotional reactions. A punishment may be given that includes berating a person, speaking rudely or complaining. Often, a person that has not performed is blamed. Making someone feel bad, while understandable, is not likely to correct the situation. In fact, such punishment may reinforce the behavior.

Consider the example by John Shindler, when discussing student behavior in Transformative Classroom Management . If a student has an 8:00 bus pickup and arrives at 8:05, the on-time bus may have waited. A punishment would be an angry bus driver and other passengers lecturing the student on his tardiness and lack of consideration for others. A consequence occurs if the bus leaves on-time and the student must find an alternative way to school.

Doing It Right

Consequences are best applied when accountability has been well established. Before a consequence is necessary, there must be a clear set of expectations. Having established both positive and negative consequences in advance help to avoid the reactive nature that can so easily occur when deadlines are missed or work is not done correctly. The purpose of a consequence is to teach a lesson so as to avoid the behavior in the future. When applied correctly, they can even be a welcome act. Of course, it may take a little time along with some positive results before the consequential action is fully appreciated.

Consequences are not

Angry or reactive

Surprises

Unreasonable or out of proportion

Consequences are

Determined in advance (or established after a failure and used for any re-occurrence)

Mutually understood

Timely

Consistent

When using accountability to drive performance to achieve your goals, there are times that consequences are necessary. Work to build a system of accountability and apply it consistently. While there will be times that consequences are necessary, it will occur less and be easier to implement when done well.

Related topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Accountability - Consequence versus Punishment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The toughest part about accountability is applying consequences when performance is not as desired. There comes a point when there has to be a negative consequence. If done correctly, such a point only comes when shared expectations were not met and the responsible party had sufficient time, skills and resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Do you know the difference between punishment and accountability consequences?

I didn't. At least not until recently.

I was taught that if you did something "wrong," you were punished. It's a lesson I think most of us learn as kids. Misbehave and you'll be punished. When we become adults, that ingrained lesson lingers. We think of our boss "punishing" us when we are late or sometimes even our spouse "punishing" us when we fail to do something. The consequence of our less than ideal behavior is a punishment. In fact, we even "punish" ourselves. How many times have you blown a diet, only to punish yourself by saying you will never eat sugar again?

Consequence equals punishment.

The old lesson dies hard. Very hard.

But thanks to Dov Baron, my mentor and friend, I began to reframe my thoughts.

I've come to realize that a punishment is something imposed on us from the outside. It may--or may not--have anything to do directly with whatever it is we have failed to do. This stems from our earliest training. If you ran into the street, your mother might have yanked you back and given you a swat on the bottom. You were punished for running in the street, but being swatted and running in the street really don't have anything to do with each other per se. It's just that's how your mother decided to impart a certain lesson.

Or think about a child who won't eat dinner and is sent to the corner. Sitting in a corner and refusing to eat peas aren't absolutely linked. Again, it's just how your parents decided to teach a lesson about food and eating.

As we get older, the mantra becomes "Let the punishment fit the crime," so missing a curfew means getting grounded, for example. But still and all, punishments rarely address the subject of accountability. They simply are negative consequences imposed on us by an authority. If punishment were truly effective, there would be no repeat offenders. And our jails give lie to that.

Which brings me to accountability and consequences. Accountability means that I take full responsiblity for my actions--all of my actions, good or bad, right or wrong, foolish or wise. I and I alone am responsible for them.

Now I can hear the objections already: What about things outside my control? What if, as happened to me today, I said I would send a file to someone and my email server went down. How can I be accountable for that?

Well, I'm not accountable for the failure of the email server. But I am accountable for the fact that the file didn't get where it was supposed to be at the time it was supposed to be there.

And here's where the idea of consequences comes to play. I am still accountable for the file transfer, regardless of the email situation. I am must hold myself accountable with consequences for my failure to do so on time even though it was "impossible" because of circumstances outside my control.

I realize this is a challenging concept...and not a particularly fun one because it eliminates every possible excuse and requires a consequence for every failure.

I can hear you again--this is crazy. If I can't do something, I can't do something so why should I punish myself for something I couldn't do?

And that's where the difference between punishment and accountability consequences comes in. If I were simply going to punish myself for not having sent the file on time because the server was down, I might make myself drink my coffee black for a week, or work out for an extra hour or any number of unpleasant things designed to be a punishment. But none of those would show accountability--merely masochism.

Instead, and this is what I did do, when the file finally was able to transfer, I told the recipient that because the email server was down and because I wasn't able to deliver on time, I would be at his disposal for the next 24 hours to immediately make any changes that he would like--at no extra charge.

The reason I did this was because I was accountable for my action and inaction. I wasn't "punishing" myself. I was simply telling him--and me--that I have the moral integrity to be responsible at all times for all the things I do.

There's a bit more to it than that, but I've reached the word limit that the gurus tell me is optimal for a blog, so I'll leave the rest for the next post.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do you know the difference between punishment and accountability consequences? I didn't. At least not until recently. I was taught that if you did something "wrong," you were punished. It's a lesson I think most of us learn as kids. Misbehave and you'll be punished. When we become adults, that ingrained lesson lingers.