undefined | Better HN

0 pointscj1y ago0 comments

I disagree with the authors definition of accountability:

> The fundamental law of accountability: the extent to which you are able to change a decision is precisely the extent to which you can be accountable for it, and vice versa.

No.

You can absolutely be accountable for something that you can’t change a decision about. Simple example: You’re a branding agency and you decide to rename X to Y. (No pun intended). The rebrand to Y fails. You’re accountable for the failure, but likely don’t have the ability to change anything by the time you know the results of your decision.

Edit: ok, fair I agree. Bad example. A simpler example would be the person in the article continuing to point the the boss above them until there’s no one left. The chain would break somewhere along the way, but the broken chain is communication rather than one of accountability.

The information may not reach the person able to make a change. But that doesn’t make them not accountable. If that person is unable to make a change because they’re in vacation for a month without anyone filling in, that person is accountable for both the results AND future results that are caused by not having someone monitor/reroute their acckuntability.

0 comments

5 comments · 5 top-level

bigiain1y ago

It's not clear from the article (which I largely agree with), but that "ability to change the decision" can just as easily refer to change the decision before it is made, instead of any ability to change it afterwards.

Amazon's concept of "two way and one way doors" is useful here. A two way door decision lets you go back if the decision turns out to be bad and can be made with significantly less scrutiny that a one way door decision which you cannot back out of after you've acted on it.

eduction1y ago

In that example, accountability is not with the branding firm at any point. Someone at the client that hired the branding firm is accountable for approving the rebrand and someone at the client is accountable for leaving it in place.

The branding firm certainly does not seem to have performed well, from the scenario you described. But accountability is not the same as performance or even culpability.

Terr_1y ago

It's much like the distinction between responsibility and blame. At least in English, it seems like a lot of different meanings often get blurred together.

At its root, responsibility is about who responds, rather than who causes.

23B11y ago

we can argue semantics all day but when I see 'accountability' to me it means 'this person's ass is on the line'

shared accountability is spreading that risk around to a group (but I don't think it necessarily eliminates that accountability – you can fire an entire department if you need to)

author's point, which I think is interesting, is that there's bermuda triangles where accountability cannot occur and that these can manifest naturally, outside of any traditional RACI

paulddraper1y ago

Replace the word "change" to "make" and it may be more intuitive

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse