The Leadership Teams Series.

Whose Version of Accountability Are We Using?

Ask a leadership team whether accountability matters and you're unlikely to find much disagreement.

Most leaders would agree that people should take responsibility for their commitments, follow through on decisions, exercise good judgement and be willing to address difficulties when they arise.

The interesting differences often emerge when we explore what those expectations mean in practice.

For one leader, taking ownership means making decisions independently and getting on with the job. For another, it means keeping colleagues informed, seeking input and ensuring that everyone affected has been considered.

One might see asking for help as a sensible demonstration of responsibility, while another might expect someone to explore every possible solution before escalating a problem.

All may believe they are encouraging accountability, yet each is working from a slightly different understanding of what accountable behaviour looks like.

How often do leadership teams explore those differences before judging whether someone is taking enough responsibility?

The expectations we bring to leadership

Our expectations of others are influenced by our experiences, beliefs and Natural Talents.

The ways of thinking and behaving that come most naturally to us often shape what we notice, what we value and what we assume other people should find straightforward.

A leader who naturally takes charge may associate accountability with decisiveness and action. Someone who instinctively considers the impact on others may place greater value on consultation and shared understanding. A leader who is particularly attentive to detail may see thorough preparation and careful follow-through as essential demonstrations of ownership.

Each perspective brings something valuable to leadership. The difficulty arises when we begin treating our preferred approach as the expected approach, without recognising that others may exercise responsibility differently.

We may interpret someone's desire to consult as an unwillingness to decide, or see an independent decision as a failure to involve the right people. A request for support might appear to demonstrate good judgement to one leader and insufficient initiative to another.

The behaviour is the same, but the meaning we attach to it can be quite different.

And because our own approach feels natural to us, we may not always recognise how strongly it influences our expectations.

When different expectations meet around the leadership table

These differences become particularly significant when leaders are expected to work collectively.

Consider a leadership team reviewing the progress of an important organisational initiative. One member is frustrated that decisions haven't been made quickly enough. Another is concerned that key stakeholders haven't been sufficiently involved, while a third believes the real issue is that agreed actions haven't been followed through consistently.

Each may be identifying something important, but they are also viewing accountability through a different lens.

Without exploring those perspectives, the conversation can become a debate about who has or hasn't taken responsibility, rather than a useful examination of what the leadership team collectively expects.

Over time, unspoken differences can influence how leaders experience one another. Someone may be regarded as overly controlling, insufficiently decisive, too dependent on consensus or unwilling to collaborate, when the underlying issue is partly a difference in how responsibility is understood and exercised.

Those interpretations can gradually affect trust, challenge and the willingness to share ownership across the leadership team.

The opportunity lies in becoming curious about what sits behind the behaviour before deciding what it means.

Shared accountability needs shared understanding

Leadership teams don't need identical approaches to responsibility. Their differences can be a considerable strength, bringing complementary perspectives to decisions and helping the team recognise risks and opportunities that might otherwise be missed.

But those differences need to sit alongside sufficient shared understanding of what the team expects from itself.

What does taking ownership of a collective decision involve? When should a leader act independently, and when is consultation important? What does appropriate support look like, and how will the team respond when someone encounters difficulty or a commitment cannot be met?

These questions may sound straightforward, particularly to an experienced leadership team. Yet it's surprisingly easy for people to assume they share the same expectations simply because they use the same language.

Words such as ownership, initiative, collaboration and accountability can carry quite different meanings depending on the person using them.

This is where the work of leadership teams becomes more deliberate. Understanding one another's Natural Talents and preferences provides a useful starting point, but the collective responsibility is to develop expectations that serve the organisation rather than simply reflect the habits of individual leaders.

That requires curiosity, conversation and a willingness to examine assumptions that may never previously have been made explicit.

What does the organisation experience?

The implications of these differences extend beyond the leadership table.

When leaders operate from different assumptions about accountability, people may receive inconsistent messages about what is expected of them.

One department may encourage independent decision-making while another expects regular consultation. A particular behaviour may be praised as initiative by one leader and questioned as overstepping by another.

Some variation will always be appropriate because roles, responsibilities and circumstances differ. The concern is where those differences arise from unexamined leadership preferences rather than deliberate choices about what the organisation needs.

People can then spend considerable energy interpreting individual expectations, adjusting their approach depending on who is involved and trying to establish what taking responsibility actually requires.

For the leadership team, these experiences provide useful information about the environment it is collectively creating.

They invite us to consider whether the expectations we believe we have established are the expectations people actually experience.

Becoming curious about our own version

Accountability is an important part of organisational performance, and individuals remain responsible for the commitments they make and the choices they take.

Leadership teams also have a responsibility to understand how their collective expectations influence the way accountability operates.

That begins with recognising that our own understanding of responsible behaviour is shaped by the lens through which we see the world.

We can become more intentional by asking ourselves what we naturally expect from others, which behaviours we tend to interpret positively or negatively, and where our assumptions might differ from those of our fellow leaders.

From there, the conversation can move towards what the leadership team wants to establish collectively.

Are we working from a genuinely shared understanding of accountability, or are we each expecting others to work from our own?

It's a question worth exploring, particularly when a leadership team is frustrated by inconsistent ownership or follow-through.

The Leadership Accountability Audit, part of the Strength In People Leadership Teams Playbook, invites you to reflect on the expectations, assumptions and leadership practices that shape accountability within your organisation.

Awareness of our individual differences creates opportunities for more intentional collective leadership, and the environment we create together influences what becomes possible for others.