“Accountability for results.” For years that phrase has led frustrated workers, managers and physicians to point fingers at one another. One solution is unit-based teams, which have clear, shared goals, metrics and accountabilities built into their day-to-day work—and are getting measurable results.

But when people make excuses for themselves—or blame others for not doing what’s expected—the problem is rarely due to individual shortcomings alone. It usually stems from an organization’s practices or culture. And leaders at all levels can change those practices and build a culture of accountability. So say Jeff Grimshaw and his colleagues at CRA Inc.,  a communications consulting firm that has advised many large organizations, including Kaiser Permanente.

It’s the system

“Organizations tend to run the way they were designed,” say Grimshaw and his co-authors in “How to Combat a Culture of Excuses and Promote Accountability” (Strategy & Leadership, 2006, No. 5). Thus, they write, “leaders have a responsibility to do more than lament….Senior leaders in organizations that successfully manage accountability take primary responsibility for the process.”

Leaders in organizations that successfully manage accountability take primary responsibility for the process

The first step, the authors suggest, is for leaders and teams to assess the factors that promote or hinder accountability. Only then can they take steps to solve performance problems.

Creating conditions for accountability

Four factors are essential to creating a “culture of accountability,” according to the authors’ research. Teams and their leaders should consider each in assessing their organization’s accountability:

• Expectations are clear to employees. People know what they need to do, they’re well trained, get feedback and resources, understand how their performance is evaluated, and see how their work fits into the bigger picture.
• Employees perceive that those expectations are credible and reasonable. People see that their work is consistent with stated priorities, have the time and resources to do what’s required, and get guidance on managing conflicting goals or overcoming barriers.
• Employees anticipate that positive consequences will follow performance. Managers treat their top performers differently than average performers—for instance, providing additional developmental assignments and offering rewards and recognition.
• Employees anticipate that negative consequences will follow poor performance. Managers are consistent, fair and engaged in addressing problems. They avoid a trap that can demoralize the rest of the team: “In organizations with accountability problems, poorly performing employees have less work to do because they have ‘trained’ their supervisors not to count on them.”

This four-part model can be used not just to correct breakdowns—it also can help prevent them in a newly launched team or initiative.

As a matter of “due diligence,” the authors say, team leaders should ask, “Is it reasonable for us to expect that people are going to do the things we need them to do? And if the answer is ‘no’ or ‘we’re not sure,’ leaders have an opportunity to make changes and prevent accountability problems before they occur.”