|
As noted by Elliot Jaques, the
manager who leads a work-group should be held accountable for
a minimum of four things:
1. The outputs of those who report
to them.
2. Creating and sustaining a
work-group that is capable of producing the desired results.
3. Providing leadership for direct
reports so they collaborate with the manager and each other to
achieve the work-group’s goals.
4. Adding value to the work of
their direct reports.
However, what is accountability?
In addition, how is it different
from what usually defines it... Responsibility (which I'm going
to reserve for another TPOV)
Definition of Accountability from
www.m-w.com (Merriam)
: The quality or state of being
accountable; especially: an obligation
or willingness to accept responsibility or to
account for one's actions <public officials lacking
accountability>
Definition of Accountable:
1: subject to giving an
account :
answerable <held her accountable for
the damage>
2: capable of being
accounted for:
explainable
In these definitions, we are given
a flavor or how subtle the differences are in accountability
and responsibility. It's clear to me that the
differences can't be so subtle that you find yourself defining
one with the other, as they are NOT, as many people believe,
interchangeable.
With that being said, I want to put
several stakes in the ground that will enable them in the
discussion of FLOW, and I would hope others would help with
the distinctions in any way they can.
Being held to account, means that
one needs to be able to provide an explanation of what one is
being held accountable for, or has accountability for.
This means that in the context of someone holding or being
held accountable, one must define specifically the metrics and
measures of that accountability. It must be finite
enough that clarity emerges in a way that there is no doubt
about the contrast of what one believes they are accountable
for and what they are held accountable for.
The largest contributor to
accountability in my view is clarity of what is accountable.
This might require things like
measurements, objectivity in explanation, and direct
attributes of the outcome, as in producing an artifact
of accountability--a tangible object of what being held
accountable means.
Example:
A person is held accountable for
the work output of others.
In the accountability process, the
person held accountable must be able to explain the facets of
the output judged as their accountability. They must be
able to define the work output in terms of the roles required,
the specific and measured aspects of the accountability and it
must be seen as an objective process in many cases to outline
specifically what the output of the work is to be, do, have
and become, which normally can be duplicated because of it's
standards.
|
