The word “accountability” is a red flag for me. Even if you use the more benign definition (of providing an account), you still have a control hierarchy that’s assuming that the people doing the work need to be “managed” into doing good work. 1/9
It flies in the face of the notion of self organizing, that teams manage their own work. It also flies in the face of collaboration between “management” and everybody else. 2/9
You must be accountable to someone, which is to say that someone doesn’t trust you to do the work and deal with whatever goes wrong as the work progresses. Control is inherent in the concept. 3/9
Your controller wants you to fess up (so that either they can solve the problem or blame you). 4/9
In a more benign interpretation, you could say that they need to know what went wrong so that they can change the “plan,” but why aren’t they planning collaboratively? We’re back to control. 5/9
IME, agility is impossible without trust and respect. Give the teams a strategic direction and let them realize it. The notion of accountability indicates neither. 6/9
Frankly, if stated as part of a management philosophy, “responsibility” is no better. It still implies that being responsible is not something everybody just does, otherwise why highlight it? 7/9
Good people take pride in their work, and of course the feel responsible, but once that work appears in a management philosophy, there’s an underlying assumption responsibility is not inherent. 8/9
Put another way, demanding responsibility is patronizing. Demanding accountability is controlling. 9/9
