Accountability is commonly taken as a four-letter word. As used by at least some managers, it is often code for “Somebody (not me) really screwed up! Who did this (not me)!? Who is accountable for this mess (not me)? We have to hold ourselves (that is, you) accountable for better results than this!”
Indeed, dictionaries tell us that “accountable” means “liable for” (who likes liability?) and “answerable to” (who wants that?). So it’s no great surprise that accountability is often seen in a negative light.
But accountability need not have such menace. Seen from a more positive slant, accountability fundamentally means, “Let’s make sure the right things get done right - let’s keep track and keep count - let’s take responsibility for our actions and the results of those actions - let’s create and use systems that make it easier to operate that way.”
If done properly, the negative, punitive angle of accountability can largely be avoided altogether.
To go further, accountability should be something we naturally expect of ourselves as well as others, and positively reinforce when we see it. It is a core element of a positive work culture in general, and a positive safety culture more specifically. The reality is that all leaders, including of course safety leaders, strive to establish and maintain accountability with their folks. They must.
Let’s talk in specific terms about how to do that with the positive spin that is, I think, more appropriate and certainly more effective than a negative approach.
At the organizational level, companies commonly implement so-called “performance management systems” that include the following what we might term “steps to institutional accountability”: