Good v. bad accountability
Teams and organisations thrive when there is good accountability. This sets a person an obligation that is properly defined, is mutually agreed to, and is achievable, meaning the person has the freedom, authority and tools to do everything necessary to get the thing done and give an account of herself.
Good accountability is enabling and inspiring; the person is activated as an agent in bringing about a new, good reality, and is supported in that through feedback.
Accountability is bad when it is meaningless or compromised, which happens in three situations, that I can think of, namely when:
- The obligation is unrealistic or unachievable because the person doesn’t have the freedom, authority or tools to meet it;
- It’s poorly defined and open to competing interpretations;
- It’s changed without the person’s consent.
Can anyone think of others?
Many organisations I see suffer in varying degrees from bad accountability. Clear goals are absent, even at the top of the organisation, and this aimlessness seeps down. Feedback is haphazard and negligent, given mostly through aggressive reprimands or passive aggressive manipulation, or worse, just once a year in the annual performance appraisal, about which I’ll complain shortly.
More here: https://dsabuilding.co.uk/deep-and-deliberate-delegation/