Five Conversations Leaders Avoid About Accountability

Clarity Before Accountability

Leaders sometimes describe an employee as having an accountability problem when the real problem started much earlier. The outcome was never clearly defined. Priorities changed, but no one explicitly reset expectations. Or the employee was told to own the result without being given the authority to make the decisions necessary to achieve it.

None of this eliminates personal responsibility. People still need to honor their commitments, communicate honestly, and follow through. But before we conclude that someone is unwilling to take ownership, we should make certain we have made ownership possible.

Accountability is not created by telling people to “step up” or “own it.” Those phrases may sound decisive, but they are not especially useful if people do not understand what they own, what success looks like, what decisions they can make, or when they should ask for help.

Before deciding that someone has an accountability problem, leaders should make certain these five conversations have actually happened.

CONVERSATION 1: What outcome are we actually expecting?

A task is not the same as an outcome.

“Prepare the presentation,” “improve communication,” or “work more closely with the operations team” may describe activity, but each leaves considerable room for interpretation. Two capable people can hear the same instruction and walk away with entirely different ideas about what success looks like.

Two capable people can hear the same instruction and walk away with entirely different ideas about what success looks like.

Clear outcomes describe what should be different when the work is complete.

• What decision should the presentation enable?

• What behavior would demonstrate improved communication?

• What should a stronger partnership produce?

The more important the assignment, the less we should rely on vague agreement and hopeful nodding.

This does not require a complicated form, a three-page project charter, or another meeting that should have been an email. Often, a focused five-minute conversation is enough. Explain the desired result, the timing, the important constraints, and how success will be evaluated. Then ask the employee to describe what they understand.

Clarity becomes even more important when priorities change. Leaders may think the new direction is obvious because they have been discussing it for weeks. The employee may have heard about it for the first time during the final seven minutes of an already crowded meeting. If the outcome changes, the accountability agreement must change with it.

Coach’s Tip: Replace “Do you understand?” with “What will success look like from your perspective?” The first question usually produces a quick yes. The second reveals whether you are actually talking about the same outcome.

CONVERSATION 2: Who is the single owner, even when many people contribute?

Most meaningful work requires multiple people. Projects cross functions, depend on specialized expertise, and require decisions from stakeholders who may have different priorities. Shared work is normal. Shared accountability without a clearly identified owner is where things begin to unravel.

When everyone owns an outcome, no one is quite sure who should initiate the next step, resolve a disagreement, or raise a concern. Meetings end with comments such as, “We’ll keep moving this forward,” which sounds reassuring until everyone leaves and waits for someone else to move it forward.

When everyone owns an outcome, no one is quite sure who should initiate the next step, resolve a disagreement, or raise a concern.

Naming one owner does not mean that person must perform every task. It does not mean they have authority over every contributor. It means someone is responsible for maintaining momentum, coordinating the work, and making certain important issues do not disappear into the organizational fog.

Leaders also need to define what ownership means. Is the person responsible for gathering information, recommending a course of action, making the final decision, coordinating implementation, or delivering the finished result? Those responsibilities are not interchangeable.

Coach’s Tip: End important discussions by asking, “Who owns the next move, and what exactly will they do?” If several people answer or everyone suddenly becomes fascinated by their notes the conversation is not finished.

CONVERSATION 3: What decisions can be made without additional approval?

One of the fastest ways to undermine accountability is to assign responsibility while retaining all meaningful authority.

The employee is told, “You own this,” but must return to the leader for every decision involving priorities, resources, stakeholders, or changes in direction. Then the leader becomes frustrated because the employee keeps asking for approval. This is not ownership.

Employees may also hesitate because experience has taught them that independent decisions will be second-guessed, reversed, or criticized. Waiting becomes the safer choice because the organization has unintentionally made initiative expensive.

Decision authority does not need to be unlimited. Leaders can establish appropriate boundaries based on cost, risk, visibility, or organizational impact. An employee might be authorized to make operational decisions within an agreed budget, for example, while decisions affecting customers, employees, or regulatory obligations require consultation.

The important conversation is straightforward: “Here is what you may decide independently. Here is where I want your recommendation before we decide. Here is what requires my approval.”

Once those boundaries are clear, leaders need to honor them. If an employee makes a reasonable decision within their authority, resist taking the authority back simply because you would have chosen differently. Empowerment does not mean allowing people to decide only when they arrive at your preferred answer.

Coach’s Tip: Ask, “What decision are you waiting for me to make that you believe you should be able to make yourself?” You may discover that the biggest barrier to greater ownership is sitting on your side of the table.

CONVERSATION 3: Where does the work depend on another person or function?

Many apparent accountability failures are actually failures of interdependence.

The employee owns the outcome but cannot complete the work until Finance provides data, Legal reviews an agreement, IT changes a system, or another leader makes a decision. The person may be accountable for the final result while controlling only part of what is required to deliver it. These dependencies are often treated as minor implementation details, but they can determine whether the work succeeds.

Employees are frequently expected to negotiate competing priorities across functions without enough authority, visibility, or sponsorship to resolve them. When the deadline slips, the leader sees a missed commitment. The employee sees three weeks of unanswered requests, delayed approvals, and polite follow-up emails that have begun to feel like a cry for help.

Before important work begins, identify the critical dependencies.

• What must another person or function provide? By when?

• What happens if the request conflicts with their priorities?

• Who will help resolve the issue if the project owner cannot?

The purpose is not to create an excuse for every setback. It is to identify predictable obstacles while there is still time to address them.

Strong accountability examines both the individual’s responsibility and the system in which that responsibility must be carried out.

Strong accountability examines both the individual’s responsibility and the system in which that responsibility must be carried out. If the same dependency repeatedly delays work, you probably do not have an endless series of unrelated employee failures. You have a process, capacity, or governance problem wearing a clever disguise.

Coach’s Tip: Ask the owner to name the two or three people or functions most critical to success. Then discuss whether those partners understand what is needed from them and whether the owner has enough influence to secure it.

CONVERSATION 4: When and how should risks be escalated?

Leaders frequently tell employees, “Let me know if you run into a problem.” It sounds reasonable, but it leaves two important questions unanswered: What qualifies as a problem, and when do you want to know?

Employees make different judgments about escalation. One person raises every uncertainty and overwhelms the leader with details. Another tries to solve everything independently and waits until the deadline is in serious jeopardy. Both may believe they are doing exactly what the leader expects.

Effective accountability includes clear escalation thresholds. You might ask to be notified when a milestone is likely to slip, a decision could significantly affect another function, a risk exceeds an agreed level, or the employee has been unable to resolve an obstacle within a specific period.

Leaders must also pay attention to how they respond when someone raises a concern. If the immediate reaction is irritation, blame, or “Why haven’t you fixed this already?” employees learn a valuable lesson: bring the next problem forward later, preferably wrapped in a reassuring progress update.

Early escalation should not mean handing the problem back to the leader. A productive escalation includes what has happened, what the employee has already tried, what options remain, and what support or decision is needed. The employee keeps ownership while gaining the help necessary to move forward.

Coach’s Tip: Establish a simple rule: “No surprises, but no empty-handed escalations.” Ask employees to raise material risks early and come prepared with their assessment, the steps they have taken, and at least one possible path forward.

Clarity Does Not Replace Accountability

Clarifying outcomes, ownership, authority, dependencies, and escalation does not remove consequences. Employees remain responsible for honoring commitments, exercising good judgment, communicating candidly, and raising concerns before an issue becomes a crisis.

Clarity simply makes accountability fairer, stronger, and more useful. It allows leaders to distinguish among a motivation problem, a capability gap, an unclear assignment, and an organizational barrier. Those situations require very different responses. Treating all four as a failure of accountability may feel decisive, but it rarely improves performance.

Before asking why someone failed to take ownership, ask whether the organization made ownership possible. Did the person understand the outcome? Did they know they were the owner? Could they make the necessary decisions? Were important dependencies addressed? Did they know when to escalate a risk?

Accountability should not begin after something goes wrong. It should be built into the conversations that happen before the work begins.

Opportunity to Learn From Prominent Leaders

On September 30, Executive Voices will bring together Dave LaPorte of Denver International Airport, Miko Brown of the City and County of Denver, and Crystal Heter of Tallgrass for a candid conversation about Building a Culture of Accountability.

Hosted at Crocs Global Headquarters, the event will explore how experienced leaders create clearer ownership, stronger follow-through, and greater candor in complex organizations—without turning accountability into blame, bureaucracy, or a new collection of inspirational posters.

Learn more and reserve your place.