EMBEDDING A CULTURE OF ACCOUNTABILITY – THE MISSING PIECE
Australia’s Banking Royal Commission shows the significant damage wrought when accountability is treated as a box-ticking exercise. Until we acknowledge the complex social nature of accountability, history is doomed to repeat.
We often think of accountability as a set of outcomes or goals – a set of expectations that are enshrined in formal sources of accountability such as employment contracts, performance contracts, KPIs and reward systems depicting what should be done, by whom and how. While formalising accountability in this way is important, it is insufficient in that it ignores the reality that accountability occurs in a social vacuum. Our research reveals that the social context in which accountability is exercised is pervasive. It determines how accountability is actually practised and the choices individuals make to exercise the accountability they are assigned.[1] In consulting with organisations we also often see gaps between formal expectations and actual behaviour or ways of working. We put this down to the over-reliance on formal sources of accountability and the failure to focus on team routines, norms and behaviours where the practice of accountability is truly revealed.
In any given group, the practice of accountability has a social dimension shaped by informal expectations, and influences what is perceived to be true, right and valuable. This is a consequence of a shared history of interactions, accompanied by unique routines and norms that emerge and persist, operating largely invisibly. This unique dynamic, “how things are done around here”, becomes the informal standard against which each individual assesses how they are doing, reassessing their value to and place in the group and adapting their behaviour accordingly. Accountability seen in this way is a self-regulating process in which members of a team are continually reassessing and adapting their behaviour. The extent to which group norms, routines and behaviour diverges from formally prescribed expectations is driven by what individuals perceive as valued in the group, their own needs for acceptance and approval from the group and the power dynamic they each have to fit into. This is evidenced in numerous organisations who have experienced breaches of accountability despite implementing formal frameworks.
There is also a ‘political’ dimension to consider in that ownership and accountability have to be viewed together. Accountability is rooted in the processes of ownership. This is because individuals within a group are unlikely to show accountable behaviour in solving a given issue if they do not feel or believe they own the issue. If the leader adopts a “not my problem” or “it’s their problem, not ours” position, as is common in silo’d cultures, accountability is unlikely to thrive within the group. Furthermore, a leader is unlikely to own a problem if they believe the consequences of ownership will be detrimental to their personal and professional position or success or the team’s prospects. In a culture that is psychologically safe i.e. where people feel safe to own up to mistakes, missteps and failure, teams are more likely to role model ownership behaviour and thus exercise accountability. Therefore, any effort to embed accountability in a group must first consider the degree to which real ownership is demonstrated.
In summary, despite the complexities associated with how accountability is created and practised, companies have continued to over-rely on more formal and structural prescriptions in an effort to improve accountability. Simply issuing formal policy guidelines, frameworks, KPIs or dictates does not go far enough. A more nuanced understanding of the human dimension of accountability is required as is a more systematic analysis of routines, norms and behaviours in a given group. It is time to rethink what it takes to embed accountability in an organisation.
Identity, power and influence in the boardroom (Thuraisingham, 2019, Routledge UK), attempts to demystify the informal aspects of accountability and suggests strategies for how the gap between formal expectations and actual behaviour can be addressed.
[1] Thuraisingham, 2018