Conversation for Accountability
Key Concepts

Individual and specific.

Must be agreed on by both parties.

QQTRA.
 Note:
There is more text here than you need. Use as much as
appropriate and as time allows distinguishing accountability.


Suggested Approach:
Distinguish accountability vs. responsibility.
 Now, let’s look at responsibility and accountability – two frequently used
terms. Do you use them differently when you talk with your colleagues, direct
reports, or your boss at work?
 Responsibility refers to the general things that we all need to do as good
employees, good managers, good team members, or good corporate citizens.
Things like coming to work on time, not sleeping too much on the job,
applying our creativity, doing things in a cost-conscious manner, and so forth,
are general things, and we all are expected to do them, i.e., to be responsible.
 Accountability on the other hand is something specific. Accountability means
that someone (or some entity) in the organization is duly authorized (by the
organization) to hold you to task for delivering or doing what you said you
would do at a specific time. Accountability is an individual specific thing.
 Responsibility is general and everyone can be responsible. Accountability on
the other hand is a contract between someone speaking for a particular
commitment and a committed listener.
 We need to both be responsible and accountable. When people are being
responsible for 100% of what is happening in their organization, they produce
exceptional results. When there is room to say “that’s not my responsibility,”
things don’t get done. More and more companies are demonstrating that
people can’t take the point of view that “I may not be accountable for all that
happens and I’m not going to be blamed for everything that goes wrong, but
I’m going to relate responsibly as if I can be a cause of the whole thing.”
 Specific conditions of satisfaction must be defined for accountability.
Otherwise, no accountability.
 Example: Let’s assume that I am the CEO of a company and I’ve hired you
folks to help me run it. Now I call you into my office and tell you that it’s tough
out there and I want you all to be responsible for reducing expenses in your
departments. You can all listen, you know what I mean, and you may even
base some actions on what I say.
 But consider this: Suppose I call PAM (Poor Audience Member) into my office
and I look her in the eye and say, “PAM, I’m holding you accountable for
reducing expenses in your department.” Now PAM probably starts thinking,
“Hmmm, this sounds serious. I’d better ask some questions. “So PAM says,
“Great idea boss, but I have a couple of questions.” How much do you want
the expenses reduced –10%, 20%, or 50%? And when do you want me to
have the cuts in effect – next week, over the next three months, or over a
year? And by the way, do I have the authority to fire your bother-in-law?
He’s been a drag on our overhead for the last two years!"
 As you can see, when we talk accountability, we are talking results, and
results are specific not general. So PAM starts thinking about some really
meaningful questions that we will need to answer before any rational person
will accept accountability for an outcome. This very common sense thing to
do is the first step in establishing accountability.
 Elliot Jacques and Neill Carson say that an output is specified by the formula
QQTRA – Quantity, Quality, Time, Resources, and special Authorities needed
to get the job done.

Quantity. This can be one report, one corporate plan, or 2000
widgets.

Quality. Usually harder to specify in a service role or corporate role
but a vital part of manufacturing roles. Specs, parameters,
tolerances are usually specified but in comparisons, etc.

Time. When do you want the outcome or result to come about?
This is crucial but often overlooked. Putting a definite time frame or
targeted date changes something from a wish to a concrete piece
of work that will either happen or not happen by the targeted date.
We can certainly change the date (as we can change any of the
specifications) as circumstances change. But the crucial thing is to
specify them – not to leave them hanging in space or ambiguous.

Resources. What resources do I get to deliver or produce the
output? Do I need assistants, do I need computers, do I need
training, do I need more money – budget? This one, also, is
obvious, but we often seriously drop the ball here. If we are not
clear about my resources or we have different points of view, how
can I hold PAM accountable for producing something if she/he tells
me she/he can’t do it with existing resources? The truth is, I can’t.

Authorities. Theses are usually special, or cross-functional
authorities that need to be clarified before accountability can be
assigned. Do you have the authority to get people from other units
to be on the team, or do you have to go begging, taking whatever
leftovers she can find? If you need data or access to information,
can you get it or must she suffer endless run-arounds? These are
crucial questions and need to be decided by the person who is
accepting the accountability and the manager who is assigning it.
 Now, let me ask you this: From your experience, when do most organizations
get very concerned about accountability?
 Note: Listen for someone to say when there’s a screw-up or something goes
wrong.
 Most of the time we don’t get into the real specifics about accountability until
it’s too late. And what kinds of discussion do you hear then? “I told you I
couldn’t meet that deadline without two more assistants or new computers.
You said to do the best I could with no overtime. That’s the best I could do.”
“You said as soon as possible, but you then assigned me two additional
projects. I asked you for priorities and you said they were all number one!”
 What we are saying, put another way, is to have the type of discussion you
might have if there were a screw-up or failure, but have it before the fact, not
after.
 And that’s another important thing about accountability: it should be decided
and worked out. Use the QQTRA formula BEFORE work starts, not when it is
finished. Done this way, accountability becomes a motivating force and
entrepreneurial driver, not blame or punishment avoidance.
 Accountability goes at the beginning where it can do some good. Otherwise,
it becomes blame.
 Relatively straight forward and simple, isn’t it? However, clarifying the
conditions around accountability is some of the most difficult interpersonal
managerial work that we do. And we all find ways to avoid thrashing out the
hard issues.
 Example: In discussing resources, the person who is accountable might
say that there is no way she can meet the Q and Q specs without 6 new
computers. The boss might say, “There’s no way I can get those extra
computers and, incidentally, that’s why I hire bright, capable people like
you in the first place. It’s your job. It’s what we pay you for.”
 Now that’s a subtle threat recognized by both but not discussed. So we
proceed but we now have one intense emotional need in common: we want
to get the hell out of that room. It’s very uncomfortable there.
 So the boss usually says, “Okay, I’ll look around for you, but you do the best
you can. I know you’ll come through for us. I have faith in you.” The door is
now open, and we both avail ourselves of the opportunity to flee. Is the
person accountable? Who knows?
 Now, if the person is lucky or heroic she might just get the job done. Or, she
might compromise some other project or goal that might have been of greater
strategic importance. She’s really not in a position to know. But if she, in
spite of her best efforts, meets with failure, we have a discussion like, “What
happened? I was counting on you. What was the problem?”
 One more thing about accountability in organizations – there can be no
accountability until all parties (usually boss and direct report) agree that a
piece of work can be done. Until that point is reached, there can be no
accountability. There can be illusions of accountability, but that is what
makes crazy organizations, burn people out, and produces an over
dependency on heroics, fire fighting, and rescue operations.
 When you have accepted accountability for something, there is no certainty
that you will meet that accountability. But you have negotiated a set of
minimal conditions that will allow you to commit yourself and all resources at
your command (your team, money, etc.) to meet that accountability. You
probably don’t know exactly how most of the time, but therein lies the
excitement and the challenge. That’s the work!
Accountability and Authority Relationships
 When we talk about accountability, we also have to deal with the issue of
authority.
 Authority is defined as the right to do work. Organizational authority (the form
we will concern ourselves with here) is awarded by one’s boss in accordance
with that boss’ judgment of your ability to do the work in question.
 The key point then becomes that accountability and authority have to go hand
in hand. They must be paired in an equal partnership and, if they are not,
some predictable, unpleasant things happen.
 Let me show you what I mean.
 The point here is not that authority or accountability should be always high or
low, but that they should be paired in “equal” amounts.
 In the upper left quadrant, you have someone (or some group) who has very
high authority but are never held to account for how it is used. It’s a formula
for tyranny or dictatorship. They can do whatever they choose, and no one
can hold them to task.
 Moving down (southwest quad), we have a group that has no authority but
are really not expected to do anything or even blamed for much either. They
are apathetic, alienated, turned off, and don’t much care. Just send them a
check and leave them alone.
 Now in this quadrant (southeast), we have that group that we all know too
well. These are the people who know that they will be blamed or held
“accountable” for an outcome but don’t have or can’t get the authority to make
something happen. They are the scapegoats, the bureaucrats and are good
at covering their asses and minimizing their exposure. And they certainly are
not proactive or risk takers. Have you ever been there? Is it fun or exciting?
 Finally, we have the situation where authority to act and accountability are
present and in balance. What happens here is involvement, entrepreneurial
excitement and lots of participation. Individuals accept accountability, and
create teams or delegations for parts of their work, and everybody gets
involved with real work. The interesting thing about this conceptualization is
that these are things that we often see as “in” people; they show initiative,
they will or won’t accept responsibility, etc. We can actually create these
situations by how we design our organizations, in particular, how we relate
accountability and authority.
 Accountability from an organizational or business perspective. Why do we
want to have accountability in our organization? The answer is simple:
accountability allows us to drive our business using a strategy and a set of
tactics rather than relying on chance, luck, or constant heroics to meet our
goals. These accountabilities move from a specified strategy to a set of goals
and processes designed to accomplish or meet those goals. And the simple
fact is that they are interlocked and interdependent.
 Exercise: if appropriate, ask participants to specify accountability for their
project results. Also, you can ask them to specify the quantity, quality,
resources and special authorities for each of the results that they are
accountable.
 Debrief exercise:

What did you notice about your accountability?

Have you negotiated these accountabilities with your boss?

Are the other key stakeholders in your project clear about their
accountabilities? Have they committed to them? Are you aligned on the
QQTRA?

How will you help others accountable for results on the project meet their
accountabilities?

Discuss the next steps you need to take from here to complete the
accountability results map.