Following on from my recent article on Responsibility vs. Accountability, to which I got some interesting answers, I thought I would add a follow up.
Different Viewpoints
It is interesting in media and Government statements that every major terrorist act committed by 'Fanatical Muslims' are attributed to Al-Qaeda and by association, directly or otherwise, Osama bin Ladin. The fact he may be in hiding in a mountain range impenetrable to satellites and Special Forces and possibly does not have broadband or cellular access, he is acknowledged to be the mastermind, co-ordinator and financial muscle behind the 'hydra-like' structure of the world's most powerful terrorist network - the modern day 'SPECTRE' that Fleming postulated.
He is not just responsible, he is accountable for each death.
However, when we read about attrocities committed at an Iraqi prison, or marines involved in strafing villages, these are deemed to be the actions of isolated people so officers, senior officials and the Commander-in-Chief are held in no way accountable for the actions.
In Business
Very similar situations occur in business. Nick Leeson was blamed for breaking Barings Bank yet when the Bank was sold for £1 to ING, executives insisted bonuses should be paid, denying that the very policy of greed which had created the pressure on Leeson to commit his crimes was the root cause - that flowed right to the very top.
Far more poignant is the every day outcome of such greed within Banks. Inevitably, in the aftermath of massive losses, swathes of lower level staff will be culled in order to cut costs, while Chairmen of Banks talk of changing business models. Hardly an executive job will be lost and if they are, they will be accompanied by a severance payment larger than most earn in a lifetime - for failure.
In everyday business we can all cite less prominent examples of executives shying away from accountability and pointing fingers at 'rogue' activities.
Is This a Realistic Picture?
The question I would ask is whether this is a idealistic or realistic? Should a political leader stand up for the 'mistakes' of individuals resultant from their policy decisions or executives take the blame for their staff's mistakes, large or small? Or should we make distinctions between major issues such terrorism as being special cases?
Wednesday, 2 July 2008
Where Should The Buck Stop?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hi Nigel,
Once again a very good question, when does the accountability cease to exist and responsibility continue to exist?
Though you have stated the reality of today's world, there are sufficiently large number of people/ executives who demonstrate the right method of "Lead by example" philosophy. Such examples are a very small minority though.
Unfortunately, every decision has now become an "accepted by the majority of the members" issue. There needs to be a leader with very strong control over the organisation to stand up and say "This is the right way and we will do it this way". Such people unfortunately are not allowed to reach the helm of the organisation specially in the public sector and govrnment and the private sector is no exception. The accountibility always lies with the head of the organisation and the responsibility rests with the Team Manager. We are all aware of this but then the world has become too materialistic and therefore we always look for a scapegoat when something goes wrong.
Personally, I have always taken the accountibility in addition to the responsibility when the situation demanded and have stood by my men. That was when I donned the uniform. I do intend to inculcate this culture in atleast one organisation where I would be at the helm.
Once again, it was indeed a thought provoking question. Keep up the good work, Nigel.
IMHO the buck stops with the person at the helm.
It is he/she who is held responsible and accountable ... otherwise they wouldn't be in that position in the first place.
Likewise the credit goes the man/woman on the pyramid even though it is a collective effort.... which is where the fat salaries and bonuses come...
Shariff
Your statement of "manipulation to suits" is correct in many instances but, I also am of the mind "the buck stops where the decision was made; the accountability and responsibility continue to all levels of the organization.
No matter the level a decision is made, or whether singular, in the end upper management must support it and be responsible for its success and the shop floor for adhering to the decision, policy, etc.
If something negative occurs, the same holds true; if the decision was singular or an isolated group of individuals, that is where the buck stops but, correcting the issue and prevention remains the responsibility of the entire organization.
William
I suppose your 'convenience' clause to responsibility and accountability is true with some people. However, those are the people that lack enough self worth, strength and integrity to accept the outcome in which they have caused.
~ Cher Wada
www.wadaconsulting.webs.com
Post a Comment