Tuesday, 17 June 2008

Responsibility vs Accountability

Definition of Responsibility, courtesy of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

1: the quality or state of being responsible: as a: moral, legal, or mental accountability b: reliability, trustworthiness
2: something for which one is responsible : burden - has neglected his


Definition of Accountability, courtesy of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

: the quality or state of being accountable; especially : an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions - public officials lacking accountability

In this day and age of finger pointing or what is often referred to as 'blame culture' or to put it in legalise 'litigious society' there is often a tendency to blame others. At some extremes it is the trigger happy, ambulance-chasing lawyers as parodied in the Simpsons where 'no-win, no-fee' lawyers bring cases against companies or authorities for seemingly innocuous and possibly self-inflicted accidents. It is perhaps indicative of human nature that we always want someone or something else to blame for our misfortune or even our failings (cf: my earlier blog post on the subject of failure).

However, equally we can look at the issue from the other viewpoint that asserts for instance, that if a car manufacturer makes vehicles with faulty brakes that cause a number of accidents, surely it should be brought to book for the consequences. In this instance, the manufacturers will do everything within their power to deny or pass on responsibility for the accidents even if the facts glare them in the face.

So this article looks at when someone or something assumes responsibility, should there be an equal expectation of accountability?

Assuming Responsibility

When I was a young manager, due to being in the right place at the right time and attrition of managers above me, I got landed with, at the tender age of 26, full responsibility for a whole division of 56 people, turning over £13m and all the graphs pointed upwards. It was a massive step up for me and I couldn't begin to tell you how proud I was to be promoted. For a while, everything went according to the script - sales continued to rise and there was little I had to do to keep it going, it seemed a little easier than I thought it would be. Then came the bombshell. Around 70% of our business was based on DEC products at a time when DEC had the MicroVax which was all the rage in the City - orders were put out with the milk-bottles. Then DEC hit some margin issues and decided, pretty much without notice, to revise their strategy and take the major account business themselves through a new organisation called DEC Direct. In order to prevent companies like ours continuing to service those customers, our discount structures were adjusted and it became unviable to sell to these accounts. With over 70% of our DEC business in such accounts, overnight the party ended and I faced graphs hurtling downward.

I had failed to understand the implications and because of it our division hit a wall, People started to leave, we had to make redundancies and we had to re-invent our business and do so fast. It was a baptism of business fire in a short space of time. A year later and we had retrenched but the business was smaller and I had aged.

What it taught me is that responsibility is huge burden.

Assuming Accountability

What I hadn't realised at the young age was that with responsibility comes accountability, in equal proportions. It is all very well to accept the promotion, a flashier car, and the kudos of managing a team of people who look to you for guidance and wisdom, what I hadn't expected was the weight of those eyes and those of my executive team above me burning holes in my back when things started to go wrong. Despite my ifs and buts about what our lead vendor had done, I was responsible for the plan and accountable for the results. As the Americans would say, 'That's why you're paid the big bucks'. And so I learnt very much the hard way.

I can't tell you much it hurt me to have to make people redundant for the first time in my life - literally grown men cried in my presence - and how lonely I felt in accepting the blame for the catastrophe that lay before me.

But if there was one piece of credit with which I emerged from the episode was that I understood and accepted what responsibility and accountability really meant. It is facing up to your mistakes, your failures and dealing with it.

Learning the difference

Having had my epiphany in business, I quickly learnt that accepting responsibility had its downside and so it was best to plan with that in mind. It did not stop me from making mistakes and failing again as in my own business later but I never again flinched from accepting the responsibility for my actions in business. There are always things you cannot account for but that's part and parcel of doing busines, you just have to take it on the chin, absorb the lesson and change your plans to accommodate and mitigate. From it you can definitely plot a better route if you can accept accountability.

I do get annoyed when CEOs of major companies fail to be accountable for their actions. I don't want to harp on about it but the current economic crisis has cost very few senior jobs so far, while in government we see sloping shoulders daily for serious errors for which ministers and their senior aids have responsibility and it seems no accountability.

Repeatable behaviour

Linking to my early blog articles, once again it is the thread of denial and failing to accept and embrace failure which leads to lack of accountability. This becomes a repeatable behaviour. Executives and ministers who use these blame-shifting tactics ultimately make big mistakes for which we have to pay. I cannot help thinking that the war with Iraq which has cost the lives of too many brave soldiers from several countries, mainly USA, is a direct result of repeatable denial of accountability. As President Bush glad-hands people on his farewell tour as did Tony Blair, he seems to be oblivious of the legacy of two terms of office which has left the world a much more dangerous place.

The CEOs of most of the major banks and their executive and trading teams will never repay the vast monies in bonuses they have earned on their trades despite the fact they have written off almost all of the gains in the last few months. They will survive by invoking the theory of market forces betting against them whereas most people on a bar stool at your local pub or bar could have accurately predicted the crisis we are in financially. And even when they get fired they walk away with hundreds of millions of dollars as in the case of outgoing CEOs at Citigroup and Merrills.

Why accountability is important

So rather than pick on a negative illustration let me turn to the positive. One of my favourite films was Ron Howard's dramatisation of the ill-fated real life mission to the moon, Apollo 13. By this time the amazing feet of taking men to the moon, landing and safely returning had become old-hat so much so that TV stations did not even air the launch of the mission. A day or so into the mission, an explosion in an oxygen tank ruptured the craft and vented the precious gas and caused a failure in power - the craft with its human contents was in mortal danger.

The catastrophic failure of the mission was fast becoming 'Nasa's worst disaster' according to an official to which Gene Krantz, the Apollo 13 mission controller, replied, 'With respect, sir, I think this will be our finest hour.' That moment, whether precisely true or not, was when Krantz assumed total responsibility and accountability for the outcome of the mission. To take a JK Rowling observation, failure had allowed Krantz 'to strip away the inessential' and concentrate on one goal to the detriment of all others - to get the astronauts home alive.

The rest is history but what that assumption of accountability did was to allow the team to work on a single, collective goal with the freedom of a lack of accountability for the outcome - that was Krantz's job. When the Grumman Rep was asked if the Lunar Excursion Module could be used to be a life-raft for the crew, he waved his hands and said the craft was not designed for that. Krantz immediately takes the accountability from him and the Rep instantly works with the team to help solve the problems.

The illustration here, at the extreme of real life, is that accepting responsibility and accountability in equal measure, gives those within your teams, company, organisation the power to do their job with a single goal in mind. It is powerful way to empower your staff and join into to common goals.

Applying the principle to business

So how can the Apollo 13 'success' be applied to business? Well, let's take a perennial example of management abdication of accountability - the convenience of Call Centre-based customer service centres. We could go on about this as everyone has had enough bad experiences to prove the concept is flawed but bear with me. The biggest problem with call centres is not that they are manned by idiots but that they are manned with intelligent people who are unempowered. How many times have you called a call centre with a problem or issue and you get stone-walled so you ask to speak to someone in authority? The line comes back 'I am not allowed to do that', or 'There are no managers here', or ' I will take your number and have them call you back' (a neat fob off) or the ultimate sin 'They don't take calls'. The last one is the one that drives me insane - why would a company want its managers or directors not to take customer calls? It is a complete and utter abdication of accountability, let alone responsibility. It basically says, these people, if they exist, don't just not care but taking calls actually gets in the way of their work such as it may be.

I will make a basic assertion - any company that tells managers they should not take calls from customers has no right to be in business.

The power of accountability

I will give you an example of the power of accountability at work. When I was MD at Genesys I would occasionally get an explosive call from a client whose meeting had gone wrong and, because they could not get any gratification from our support staff, they got hold of the MD's name and called. It surprised me as our complaint statistics were always encouraging. But whenever I got such a call I went overboard to sort it out, inevitably giving away a large credit to pacify the customer. Meanwhile, our support staff were complaining that they should not have to handle abusive customers, rare though it was. The penny dropped eventually when customer support staff, not me, suggested that it would make a huge difference if they could, at the time of initial call, have the responsibility to hand out credits if need be in order to stave off escalation. We decided to give it a go and authorised credits up to the cost of the call. The effects were dramatic. I certainly got no calls at all from irate customers but amazingly credit notes fell immediately and the support staff were far more motivated in their work.

By my taking accountability for the results, the support staff had the freedom to exercise their judgement on each call in order to achieve the goal. The only calls I got afterwards were ones to praise individuals who had helped out.

The lesson to learn here is brilliantly illustrated in Geoff Burch's book 'The Writing is on The Wall'. By management assuming accountability and devolving responsibility you can get dramatic results in terms of customer service and loyalty while motivating the staff through empowerment.

As a final illustration, I recently had an issue with my gas bill from E.On to the tune of £900 extra charges for 6 months of use - something amiss in a reasonably average household. The customer service rep who I shall call James could only tell me to read my meter and send in the result. Knowing the meter reading was not the issue, I asked to speak to a manager as clearly the conversation was going nowhere and out came the usual lines of the managers don't take calls and I don't know who the directors are, which are all red rag to a bull for me. Having ended the call in a slight rage I called the parent company in Germany who directed me immediately to the Director's office where a nice lady listened, argued a little but subsequently came back not only with the correct bill but with a goodwill gesture too. If only the young representative in customer service could have been empowered to do this, instead the poor guy will probably get disciplined for not fobbing me off properly.

Accountability leads to empowerment

Accountability by senior managers allows the organisation to have the freedom to exercise its imagination and creativity to get results unencumbered by the restraint of firing if it gets it wrong. What is more, by taking on the burden of accountability it will foster accountability in your team members who will more readily buy in and play their part in achieving the common goals - feeling the hurt if they are not achieved but sharing the glory when they are. Few business people really understand the difference between responsibility and accountability - but I always think it is on the one hand accepting a flashier car to do a job and on the the other earning it.

17 comments:

Social Observer said...

You must have both. One without the other is called management

D said...

Leadership is the courage to be accountable for what you're responsible for. This is why most leaders are not leaders at all: they do the exact opposite, spending most of their time ensuring they are not accountable for anything, but responsible for as much as they can get their hands on. In my opinion, this happens because we live in a world where image trumps actions and leadership is based on personality, not courage.

PC said...

Very well written article. I have worked both in the private sector (technology industry) and the public sector (military) in the US and seen many good and bad examples in both sectors. In my opinion, the military is a very simple example of responsibility, accountability, and empowerment.

In the Marine Corps, I am responsible for about 120 Marines. I'm responsible for the good and bad actions both on and off duty. I delegate that responsibility to my subordinate leaders, all the way down to the lowest level leader. In my organization, the smallest group is a fire team made up of four people, usually led by a Lance Corporal or Corporal who is 20-22 years old and has 2-4 years experience in the Marine Corps. That individual is directly responsible for the lives of the three Marines that work for him. Both in combat and in garrison, on and off duty. If one of those Marines breaks the law, I go to that leader and hold him accountable for his Marine's action. In turn, my boss holds me accountable as well.

That's focusing on the negative side, however. On the positive side, I empower that fire team leader by allowing him to make decisions as he sees fit. Meaning, I don't tell him specifically what to do. I give him a mission, my intent, and my end state. He is supposed to extrapolate from that, specified tasks for each of his Marines. That way, he knows that at the end of the day, I want a certain hill taken control of. Or I want a house built. I don't care how he does it (as long as he does it without breaking the law), I just want it done.

Empowerment, responsibility, and accountability are all tied together. To be successful, the organization needs to push these ideas from the top down.

------
Here's my original post from LinkedIn:

If you are responsible for a task, you are also accountable to someone for that task. If my boss assigns me a task and I accept responsibility for it, then I am also accountable to my boss. If I delegate that task to a subordinate of mine, then that individual is now responsible for that task. We are now both accountable. My responsibility shifts from completing that task to supervising the completion of that task. If it is not completed, then I hold that individual accountable. If I do not properly supervise the completion of that task, my boss holds me accountable.

That's all in a perfect world, however. As previously stated, many organizations fail to hold people accountable for their actions. Thus tasks don't get completed and incompetent people rise through the ranks.
-----

JF said...

Being a good manager and leader requires both responsibility and accountability. You can't be a truly good manager without having both. I am responsible for my actions and my direction/leadership and I am accountable to my Board of Directors and shareholders, and most of all, my customer.

I disagree with Gary's defintion of management.

Karl M. Soehnlein, Ph.D. said...

I agree that you should have both responsibility and accountability; however, that is not always the case. Responsibility is something what I accept or reject. I am responsible because I agree to do something. No one can make or hold me responsible. However, they can hold me accountable for the things that I am responsible for. Unfortunately, all too often, people take responsibility for something but don't complete the task and are not held accountable, which sends a very loud message to the rest of the organization. Karl

Unknown said...

I originally posted this on linkedin...

You can have responsibility without accountability, but not the opposite. If I delegate a task, I make that report responsible for its accomplishment. However, I can never delegate accountability for it. If they fail to do their job, or perform it in only a haphazard manner, then I should be held accountable for it. Essentially, if the buck stops with you, you're accountable. Followers can be responsible, or they can choose to shirk it; it is a trait of leadership to be accountable.

To elaborate on that rather redundant post, but perhaps to illustrate the difference, I can give an example. When I was a pilot in the Air Force, I was in charge of an aircraft, crew, and mission, and was accountable for the safe accomplishment of that mission, even when there were many factors beyond my control. If a loading accident occured, even though I might be a mile or more away from the site, I was still held accountable for it, even though my crewmembers were actually responsible. Ultimately, success or failure rested solely on my shoulders, not theirs; we always taught that the only person who had a 100% stake in mission accomplishment was the person in charge, and if you could get 75% from your crew you were doing really well. If you're merely responsible, you can have an agenda. If you're accountable, and have an agenda, you will set yourself up for failure.

Sam said...

You cannot be responsible if you are not accountable. Responsibility assumes that you care and if you did not have any accountability towards something or someone then how would you assume responsibility ?

It is responsible to be accountable and when you are accountable you are being responsible.

Ami T life-stories said...

The Responsibility vs Accountability issue is nothing new but still quite interesting. In politics there exists a convention of Ministerial
Responsibility for MP's which outlines the fact that you can be responsible for something but not necessarily accountable for it. Mainly though, it states that Ministers are only really accountable to Parliament and not the lowly constituent. I suspect that even though there is no such doctrine for the business executive, they probably operate along the same lines.

Having said that though, Ministers are bound by the Ministerial code that is written by a Prime Minster on his/her appointment which is quite worrying when you take into account some of the questionable stances taken by recent occupiers of that position.

It's quite clear that everyone thinks there should be both responsibility and accountability, but my question is, who should the company executives be accountable to? Their superiors and colleagues like in parliament or the customer and their employees?

Dan Walter - Couldn't Be Better said...

Although it would seem that this issue should be common, actionable knowledge at all companies, I have found it to be a mystery in most places. Most people seem to confuse the two concepts.

These concepts are the cornerstone of my consulting philosophy, please take a look at my web page http://www.performensation.com/about.html

I do diverge from your posting in one area. I do not believe that Responsibility and Accountability should always be in equal shares. The more senior the position, the more accountability it should require. While you may be personally responsible for fewer actions, you must be held accountable to a much higher degree.

Best of luck.

Dan Walter

Anonymous said...

As per request- I am posting my answer to a question posed to me yesterday about responsibility vs accountability...

"Responsibility is being expected to get something done.
Accountability is doing it."

Visit my website to learn more about me: www.wadaconsulting.webs.com

Unknown said...

Nigel,
I've zipped through your blog and acknowledge the great experience you've had early on. There's one thing that strikes me though; the fact that responsiblitiy and accountability come After hardship. It is true we don't often see our responsibilities until meeting them full face, whether it be at a job, or for example as a parent. We know what it may look like, what our expectations of it may be, but the true experience of responsibility seems always to come full circle when accountability is asked of us. With accountability comes fault and blame, both negative connotations of its other face: reward!

My point is that accountability is the measurement we give ourselves of the responsibility we take on for one specific experience in life. We account for our deeds as we give measurements to the consequences of what we take on. These measurements are almost always made with outside comparisons - compared to others, compared to outside rules, values, morals, recognition, higher sales, etc. and bring full circle the responsibility of upholding these values, morals, sales back to a measurable entity against which to perform.
When one takes on the responsibility to perform against said standards, in acknowledgment of predictable accountability, there is no said feat for the change in responsibilities and even more of changing standards of accountability he/she me be faced with in the future. There is only unclaimed trust that he/she is capable of handling this change and becoming accountable as expected. And only in that space, where change has set responsibility, and not written its respective accountability, is there perhaps the chance for one to claim the rewards or for the other to bring forth a new rule of law! (although I'm much more optimistic than what I just wrote and do believe that it's ultimately how you approach responsibility and accountability that makes all the difference in your experience of both!)

Astrid Stromberg, Ph.D., CCHT
www.brilliantessence.com

dzjiebie said...

Besides partly being a matter of semantics --in Dutch for instance (my native tongue) there is not as clear a distinctive word for both meanings-- the above answers give a general good idea on what people (rightly so) think.

In the question the issue is raised of how an organisation can be empowered (in the sense of becoming more powerful I suppose) if responsibility and accountability go together. I think that a reflection on the empowerment (in the sense of what trust he's given) of an employee can provide a valuable insight:

Suppose you are responsible for the temperature in the room you're working in, but are not empowered to touch the thermostat ... could you then be held accountable if the temperature was not in the requested range ? I think this open question makes my point.

dzjiebie said...

Besides partly being a matter of semantics --in Dutch (my native tongue) for instance there is not as clear a distinctive word for both meanings-- the above answers give a general good idea on what people (rightly so) think.

In the question the issue is raised of how an organisation can be empowered (in the sense of becoming more powerful I suppose) if responsibility and accountability go together. I think that a reflection on the empowerment (in the sense of what trust he's given) of an employee can provide a valuable insight:

Suppose you are responsible for the temperature in the room you're working in, but are not empowered to touch the thermostat ... could you then be held accountable if the temperature was not in the requested range ? I think this open question makes my point.

Anonymous said...

Hi Nigel

I do a lot of work on this with clients especially mapping roles & responsibilities.

Responsible & Accountable have different contexts, and yes they can be combined. For me responsible people are the people doing activities, and accountable people are 'where the buck' stops etc should issues arise.

You can have lots of people & roles 'responsible' for activies, but only one person is 'accountable'.

There is tried & tested logic to all of this..for more research have a look at RACI modelling which breaks down & defines ownership of business activities.

All the best

Ian

warrior princess said...

A practical example from my work:

As a consultant I do client facing work (obviously). If my work entails, say analyzing an organizational issue my responsibility may be producing a comprehensive analysis report.
The moment I put recommendations into the report, which in fact are my conclusive decisions based on the factual data I become accountable for it.

From the client’s perspective, they are responsible that I have access to everything I need to be able to my analysis. They are also accountable if they do not implement the recommendations and the issues continue to rise or they do implement the recommendations and fail.

Accountability starts when a decision is made and people who make decisions are accountable.

Here is a nice link I would like to share

Ability -> Credibility -> Responsibility -> Accountability -> Integrity

Meltem Kogelbauer

Armando said...

I suggest the question is answered most effectively using RACI charts, a well accepted standard for differentiating Responsible vs Accountable in a very unambiguous manner. RACI is absolutely necessary for effective process management.

To quote from COBIT 4.1 (which uses a process framework),

Understanding the roles and responsibilities for each process is key to effective governance. COBIT provides a RACI chart for each
process. Accountable means ‘the buck stops here’—this is the person who provides direction and authorises an activity.
Responsibility is attributed to the person who gets the task done. The other two roles (consulted and informed) ensure that everyone
who needs to be is involved and supports the process.

Hope this is useful.

Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RACI_diagram
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBIT

Dermont Smith said...

Accountability and responsibility are often used synonymously. However, Daniel Prust makes an excellent observation from a leadership perspective. Accountability is the acknowledgement and assumption of responsibility for actions and decisions. Accepting accountability means naturally taking ownership for the failure or success a project you're involved in.

Often great accountable leaders ultimately attribute or share successes with the team and publicly accept responsibility for failures. If the failure is do to his/her action or choice, the opportunity for personal growth presents itself. If the failure is a result of a team member's action or decision, an opportunity for coaching exists.