This topic covers several important issues relating to how people help each other achieve their goals, missions and ultimately their purpose.
The Myth of Task Commitment
When doing any of the things described below, it is common for people to run afoul of confusion between physical tasks and higher purpose, and how to reconcile commitments to each of those things. For more, read the topic on priorities.
Conflating Responsibility and Ownership
Accountability involves clearly identifying who is responsible. When addressing a specific individual, it is very important to identify whether the individual has been given ownership in fact, as well as by agreement. If ownership does not exist in fact (as, for example, then the group interferes with the authority ostensibly given to the owner) there is likely to be a mismatch between expectation and commitment.
Holding each other accountable is a catch-phrase used for a certain type of personal support. It occurs between two people. They treat each other as equals in the support relationship. "Holding each other accountable" involves the same type of support in both directions, for example, Adam holds Ben accountatble for Ben's commitments, and Ben holds Adam accountable for his.
- Ben tells Adam he wants to exercise.
- Adam asks Ben if he would like to make a commitment.
- Ben says yes.
- Adam asks Ben to state his specific commitment (set a goal)
- Ben says he commits do riding the stationary bike every day for a half hour
- Adam asks Ben how he would like to do the followup communication (depending on whether Ben is active or responsive).
- Ben chooses.
- (If active) Ben periodically lets Adam know how he is doing on keeping his commitment.
- (If responsive) Adam periodically asks Ben how he is doing on keeping his commitment and Ben answers.
- If the commitment isn't being met, Adam and Ben discuss the situation and choose a course of action: acknowledge the shortfall and keep going, or adjust the goals, or whatever.
Holding Teams Accountable
Request For Comments: I feel this section might leave a bit to be desired — Comments welcome.
Everyone on a team is entrusted with, and responsible for ensuring, the team's success. In order to carry this out, each team member has the right to hold the team accountable.
- The member sees something that the team does not have or should have in greater quality or quantity.
- In group discussion, the member raises the issue and encourages discussion.
- The team arrives at consensus on what they wish to accomplish, or what quality they wish to have
- In some cases they might set specific goals.
- All members then know what to watch for. The situation is monitored to the extent necessary.
- If a shortfall is perceived, it is raised again. In some cases the shortfall might be addressed within individual relationship (see previous section).
Accountability can also be held within larger group structures. It works somewhat like the team method (previous section) with one important modification: When a shortfall is seen, the one noticing the shortfall should bring it up gradually. The reason for this is to respect the implied rank of larger groups of people.
- A member sees something that the organization does not have or should have in greater quality or quantity.
- The member raises the issue in discussions with individual members to get ideas and/or discover the presence or absence of consensus.
- During these discussions the member clarifies his/her perception of the nature of the issue and whether it actually needs to be addressed.
- If an issue is still present (unresolved) it is then brought to a small group or team meeting, perhaps by more than one person.
- Discussion and consensus is reached. At this point the group might consider the issue resolved or unresolved. If unresolved, the group might make a commitment to bring the issue to a still higher level.
- The process continues until the issue ceases to exist or is resolved.
Other Important Issues
The Absence of Blame
"Holding a group accountable" is not the same as "blaming every individual in the group", or even "blaming ceertain individuals in the group". However, if other individuals in the group take things personally, it might be perceived that way. Therefore, when performing the task of "raising the issue", one must be vigilant to speak personally — describe what one sees as having been missing, and describe the perceived negative implications of this, and then encourage responses and/or evidence to the contrary.
The Role of Expectation
Here I don't refer to an "expectation" that someone will do something (as defined here) but rather to the "expectation" that a group will live up to its stated ideals or core values.
An individual member's expectation of a certain quality or attribute often leads to that individual initiating a process of accountability like those described above. This contradicts the common wisdom that if you don't get what you expect, you should change your expectations. Because the group is committed to living up to its ideals, you are empowered to act on your unfulfilled expectations by influencing others. In an egalitarian organization with ownership of the ideal, every member of the organization is empowered, and charged with the responsibility, to perform the functions described above. This is the primary mechanism by which a highly-regarded written document (such as a constitution) manifests its power.
Priority vs. Commitment issues: Landmark Education 19970904; -bb- core team 20060624; several other instances in between.
This page was written in the "embarrassingly readable" markup language RHTF, and was last updated on 2020 Mar 26. s.11