The hard work of accountability

Most governance problems are not execution failures but clarity failures around who owns decisions and who is accountable.

I recently led a webinar called “The Hard Work of Accountability,” and I wanted to turn a few of its main takeaways into a short article for those who weren’t able to join us, while also giving attendees a refresher on the core ideas. The focus was governance. More specifically, what accountability actually means in boardrooms where the stakes are extremely high and ambiguity has a way of getting reeeeaaallly expensive.

When I refer to “accountability” in governance, I’m not talking about something punitive. Not assigning blame, not doling out punishment, not somebody getting hauled in because a number got missed. And I’m not talking about a vague expectation that people should do what they said they’d do (though obviously that’s part of it). In a governance setting, accountability is the disciplined link between authority, ownership, follow-through, and consequences. It answers the questions firms too often leave hanging in the air: Who owns this? Who decides this? Who’s expected to carry it across the line? And what happens when they don’t?

If those questions aren’t getting answered cleanly, governance gets messy in a hurry. Decisions bog down, boards and management start stepping into each other’s lanes, and ownership gets murky enough for people to duck behind it. You end up with a lot of conversation, a lot of involvement, and not much actually getting across the line (I know you’ve seen it).

That was the basic premise of the webinar, and it led to three themes that sit right in the middle of the issue: 

1. Clarity. Accountability starts here. And it means more than a general sense of alignment. It means no leaning on that all-too-common phrase, “I thought we were all on the same page.” A surprising number of firms get frustrated with people for failing to execute when, truth be told, the assignment was never fully boxed in to begin with. Boards think they’ve given direction when all they’ve really done is have a broad conversation and leave management to figure out what, exactly, they were supposed to do with it. Leadership teams think they’ve assigned ownership when all they’ve really done is let five people hover around the same issue and call it collaboration. Then the result comes back late, half-baked, or not at all, and the room starts throwing around the word “accountability” as if that explains anything. It doesn’t. The problem started long before the miss. You just weren’t paying attention to it yet.
   That said, this is where leaders and boards have to look in the mirror. If important work keeps slipping, stop blaming the people doing the work and ask whether the expectation was actually clear enough to execute against. What needed to happen, by when, by whom, with what authority, and to what standard? If those answers aren’t concrete, you don’t have an accountability problem. You have a clarity problem. I mean, how do you legitimately expect somebody to carry the thing over the finish line if you never handed them a real map?
2. Ownership. This is where a lot of firms get squishy. In governance, involvement and ownership are not the same thing, and confusing the two creates one hell of a mess. Plenty of people can contribute to a decision or inform a recommendation, and that’s healthy. But ownership means one person, one role, or one governing body can answer for the outcome. Not fuzzily. Not shared so broadly that nobody’s really on the hook. A lot of boardrooms (and frankly a lot of leadership teams too) operate like an overstaffed group project. Everybody’s involved, everybody’s got thoughts, everybody wants a hand on the steering wheel, and then when something goes sideways, nobody can explain who was actually supposed to own it. That sounds more like an ad hoc committee than governance.
   I’ve written before about growing pains in firms, and I’m reminded of something both of my daughters said when they were younger and looking adulthood in the face. They used to describe growing up as “spooky.” Not because they didn’t want it, but because all the features of adult life started showing up at once: driver’s license, bank account, voting, leaving home, making real decisions with real consequences. Governance is a little like that. Firms say they want maturity and sophistication, but then governance starts asking adult questions in return. Who owns this? Who decides this? Who’s accountable if it stalls? Spooky, I know. Still necessary.
3. Follow-through. This is where we really get down to it. Accountability’s only as viable as your follow-through, and this is where a lot of firms lose their nerve. They’ll talk seriously about expectations on the front end, then go soft on the back end (everybody notices that, by the way – just FYI).
   Most accountability problems in governance don’t happen because the expectation was never stated. They happen because nobody sticks with it long enough to make it real. A commitment gets made, a next step gets nodded at, and the whole matter slides into the next reporting cycle where people act mildly surprised that nothing happened. Give that enough time and the organization learns a nasty little lesson: “Around here, commitments sound firmer than they really are.” Once that takes root, people stop respecting expectations and start reading moods. If one miss gets chased down while another gets a pass depending on who made it, people notice. And they adjust. Fast.

Good accountability creates discipline. Period. It makes it easier for issues to surface early, keeps ownership visible, and helps boards tell the difference between a failure of execution and a failure of structure. Those aren’t the same thing, and treating them like they are is exactly how firms stay stuck.

Accountability is what makes authority carry weight and turns intention into trust. Without it, governance is just theater. The board meets, management reports, smart questions get asked, and everybody leaves feeling really good about themselves. Meanwhile, very little actually gets owned. That kind of setup won’t hold.

So if this issue feels loose in your boardroom or leadership team, start with the basics and get honest fast. Tighten the delivery standards. Clarify the owner. Stay in the board lane, but don’t leave the lane markings faded either. Then follow through with enough consistency that people know the firm means what it says. It’s not glamorous work. There’s nothing particularly sexy about it. But it is the work. Sooner or later, every firm finds out the same thing: governance either matures on purpose, or it gets forced to by pain.

If your boardroom needs sharper accountability and clearer governance, the composition of the board itself matters. Zweig Group’s Board Search Advisory services help AEC firms identify and place independent directors who bring the perspective, discipline, and strategic oversight needed for effective governance. Learn more about how we help firms build boards that drive better decisions.

Looking to bring more clarity and consistency to your firm’s governance? The AEC Board Effectiveness Scorecard provides a practical way to assess how your board is operating. Download the scorecard to get started.

Jeremy Clarke is COO and Mg. Director, Board Advisory Services at Zweig Group. Contact him at jclarke@zweiggroup.com.