As collaboration has become more critical for succeeding in a complex, interconnected world, the notion of “shared accountability” has followed. The idea behind creating shared accountability is simple. When multiple people are accountable for the same result, they are likely to think beyond their immediate span of control to achieve the result.
In theory that makes sense. In my last post, I suggested that leaders re-calibrate their goals. Goals should include outcomes that require the contribution of people for whom the leader does not directly control. I still agree that leaders should do this but I’m not sure that shared accountability is the best way to make it happen.
While accountability can be shared, actual work and true results cannot. Several individuals might all work together toward a common goal, but each person should be making a unique contribution to that goal, otherwise it probably shouldn’t be shared. When accountability gets shared it is difficult to diagnose where the problems lie and even more difficult to know if each person is pulling his or her weight. Worse yet, when accountability for an outcome is shared, activity often becomes the basis for assessing individual contribution since all of the people sharing the outcome can claim the result.
Congress provides a great example of how shared accountability can decrease results.
There’s no question that Americans are frustrated and fed up with their elected officials. In theory the problem should be simple to fix. If you don’t like the people who you elected, fire them and elect someone else next time around. Yet that doesn’t happen.
The problem is the lack of alignment between accountability and outcomes. While Congress is comprised of many individuals, its actions are made as a single entity (passing or rejecting a piece of legislation). Yet there is no mechanism in place to hold Congress as an entity accountable for those decisions (or lack of decisions). We can’t vote against Congress, only its individual members. But, its individual members might perform activities that are aligned with our needs (e.g., vote in favor of our causes) even if Congress acts against our interests (doesn’t pass the bill). The result is a shared accountability system that has the opposite effect of what such systems are supposed to accomplish – it actually decreases productivity and increase dysfunction. As we’ve seen in recent years, parties on both sides of the aisle can hold up progress and prevent decisions while claiming that they are acting in our interests. Or, they can create a flurry of positive activity (their voting records, speeches on the floor supporting or rejecting an idea, etc.) without Congress generating a positive result.
The same is true of organizations. Shared accountability masks individual contribution. While it’s important that every leader look beyond his or her functional area, it’s even more important that those leaders deliver something specific from their functional silo (which might mean they have to exert external influence).
If you want to drive results quickly and efficiently, every person in your organization should have a small set of unique outcomes for which they are accountable. Those outcomes can build and be integrates into larger outcomes for which others are accountable, but multiple people should not be accountable for the same thing.
Shared accountability, while effective in theory, might actually distance individuals from the contributions you need them to make.
—————————
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
