Accountability (1/3): Beyond command and control

Introduction

When someone says “we need more accountability,” alarm bells should ring. In most organisations, this phrase signals the arrival of blame culture, command-and-control leadership, and the destruction of psychological safety. It’s often code for “we need someone to blame when things go wrong.”

Yet accountability, when done well, is fundamental to achieving organisational outcomes.

Let’s start with some definitions.

Accountability: You are accountable for an outcome when there’s explicit agreement that you will ensure that outcome is achieved. You own the “what” and the result.

Responsibility: You are responsible for an outcome when there’s agreement that you will do the work to deliver it. You own the “how” and the execution.

Authority: You have authority when you’re empowered to make the decisions and take the actions necessary to fulfil your obligations. Without authority, you cannot deliver the outcomes.

The patterns and anti-patterns that follow focus on optimising for the flow of better value, sooner, safer, and happier (BVSSH), not just delivering outputs.

The anti-patterns: How accountability goes wrong

Attempts to create accountability can backfire in a range of ways, manifesting as various anti-patterns. You might spot these unhelpful behaviours popping up in your organisation. The patterns offer pathways for a more effective approach to accountability.

Anti-pattern 1: Confusion over outcomes

What it looks like: Stakeholders, the person accountable, and their responsible collaborators each have different understandings of the goal. Success criteria are vague or missing. Different stakeholders describe the same outcome using different language or metrics. Requirements are vague, success criteria shift like sand, and everyone’s optimising for different outcomes.

This is one of the most expensive anti-patterns in creative work. Teams can execute flawlessly on the wrong thing for months while everyone believes they’re aligned.

Impact: Delayed value delivery, rework, frustration, and the dreaded “that’s not what I asked for” moment that destroys trust and psychological safety.

Use: Pattern 1: Clarify outcomes continuously

Anti-pattern 2: Inflicted accountability

What it looks like: Accountability is imposed top-down without consultation or agreement. People are told they’re accountable for outcomes they don’t understand, don’t believe in, or lack the ability to influence.

This creates what Jonathan Smart et al describe as “agentic state” in Sooner Safer Happier. People become order-takers rather than thinking, creative problem-solvers. They comply but don’t commit.

Impact: Learned helplessness, reduced innovation, and outcomes that succeed or fail based on luck rather than influence. Eroded autonomy, a key intrinsic motivator, according to Daniel Pink in Drive.

Use: Pattern 2: Invite participation

Anti-pattern 3: Accountability without authority

What it looks like: People are held accountable for outcomes but lack the authority to make necessary decisions or take required actions. They must seek approval for routine decisions, navigate complex bureaucracy, or depend on others who have different priorities.

This is setting people up to fail with the threat of blame for the failure.

Impact: Frustration, disengagement, and a culture where people learn to make excuses rather than take ownership.

Use: Pattern 3: Match authority to accountability

Anti-pattern 4a: Micromanagement masquerading as accountability

What it looks like: Leaders delegate tasks but not thinking. They specify not only what needs to be done but exactly how and when to do it. Teams become order-executors rather than problem-solvers.

Those on the receiving end may ask the question posed by L. David Marquet in Turn the Ship Around: “If you’re doing my job, then who’s doing your job?”. That is, who is setting direction if leaders are lost in the detail?

Impact: Reduces the collective problem-solving capability of the organisation. Creates dependency rather than capability, slowing value delivery and reducing innovation.

Use: Pattern 4: Maintain supportive ownership

Anti-pattern 4b: Abdicating ownership

What it looks like: Leaders delegate outcomes and then disappear, only to reappear when things go wrong — often with blame and retroactive criticism rather than staying engaged to help remove impediments.

Impact: Destroys psychological safety, which is essential for the fast and safe flow of value. Teams become risk-averse, reducing experimentation and learning.

Use: Pattern 4: Maintain supportive ownership

Anti-pattern 5: Rigid goal adherence

What it looks like: Goals are treated as immutable contracts rather than hypotheses to be tested. Teams continue pursuing original objectives even when evidence suggests they’re wrong or suboptimal. Course corrections are seen as failure, and pivoting based on learning is discouraged. “We committed to this, so we must deliver it” becomes the mantra, regardless of changing circumstances or new information.

Leadership treats any deviation from the original plan as a sign of poor planning or lack of commitment. Teams become afraid to surface information that might challenge the original assumptions to avoid difficult conversations.

Impact: Delivers the wrong outcomes efficiently. Teams waste time and resources building solutions that don’t address real problems. Reduces organisational learning and adaptability. Creates a culture where people avoid sharing inconvenient truths, leading to groupthink and missed opportunities.

Use: Pattern 5: Optimise for learning and adaptation

The patterns: How to optimise for effective accountability

Pattern 1: Clarify outcomes continuously

The pattern: Treat clarity as an ongoing capability, not a one-time activity. Continuously bring focus back to purpose, communicate it in multiple ways that appeal to intrinsic motivators. Treat confusion as a signal to refine understanding rather than evidence of failure. Probe and test understanding often.

Done well, this creates both direction for alignment and guardrails that enable safe-to-fail experimentation, optimising for flow of value.

Why it works: Creates alignment and direction whilst providing guardrails for safe autonomy. Enables teams to make decisions that optimise for value delivery.

Principles: Outcomes over outputs. Start with why. Communicate, communicate, communicate.

Pattern 2: Invite participation

The pattern: Apply “invite over inflict” when establishing accountability. Have open conversations about what people need to take on accountability. Ensure they have the skills, time, and alignment needed. Build intrinsic motivation by enabling autonomy, making space to develop mastery, and identifying clear purpose.

Why it works: Creates ownership and engagement. People who choose to take accountability are more likely to deliver results.

Principles: Invite over inflict. Appeal to intrinsic motivation. People over process.

Pattern 3: Match authority to accountability

The pattern: Along with delegating outcomes, delegate the decision-making authority needed to achieve them. Use intent-based leadership to move authority to where the information is richest — as close to the work and customer value as possible. Create minimal viable guardrails that enable safe autonomy.

Why it works: Enables fast flow by removing bottlenecks in decision-making. Increases speed of response to changing circumstances whilst maintaining appropriate control.

Principles: Empowerment with guardrails. Intent-based leadership. Minimal viable compliance.

Pattern 4: Maintain supportive ownership

The pattern: Don’t disappear after delegating. Create the conditions for success and stay visible without hovering. Offer support, not control. Help teams navigate obstacles, spot signals early, and learn fast. Ownership isn’t abandonment — it’s shared accountability, continuous enablement, and systemic learning.

Be “eyes on, hands off,” as described in Team of Teams. Focus on the system, not the symptom. When outcomes wobble, lean in with curiosity, not blame.

Why it works: Maintains psychological safety and unlocks collective intelligence. Speeds up adaptation and learning. Builds real capability, not dependency.

Principles: Support over control. Learning over blame. Visibility over inspection.

Pattern 5: Optimise for learning and adaptation

The pattern: Stay curious about whether your goals are complete and correct. Keep an open mind that goals may need to evolve based on learning. Acknowledge that in emergent work domains, the path from A to B is a hypothesis to be tested. Encourage open dialogue to continuously test assumptions, and make it safe to discover that course corrections are needed.

By focusing on outcomes rather than outputs, you create space for experimentation and learning within minimum viable guardrails.

Why it works: Enables pivoting based on learning, reducing waste and increasing value delivery. Creates a learning organisation that continuously improves.

Principles: Embrace emergence. Fast feedback and learning. Hypothesis-driven development.

Themes

• Focus on Outcomes: Better Value Sooner Safer Happier over Agile for Agile’s sake.
• Invite Over Inflict: Build intrinsic motivation through choice and empowerment.
• Servant Leadership: Create conditions for success rather than controlling actions.
• Psychological Safety: Enable experimentation and learning through trust.
• Continuous Learning: Adapt based on feedback in emergent work domains.

Further reading

• Sooner Safer Happier, Jonathan Smart et al.
• Turn the Ship Around!, L. David Marquet.
• Team of Teams, Stanley McChrystal.
• The Fearless Organization, Amy Edmondson.