Accountability

Accountability only succeeds when it is built on clear expectations and psychological safety. The piece argues that fear-based blame is a trap that erodes trust and kills performance. It breaks accountability into three drivers-self-esteem, impression management, and economic self-interest-and shows how they map onto competence, relatedness, and autonomy. Leaders must design systems that respect these needs instead of weaponizing accountability as a threat.

The author lists five preconditions that must hold for the whole life of a work item: crystal-clear expectations, adequate resources, predefined measurement criteria, a structured feedback cadence, and transparent consequences. Without any of these, accountability becomes a guessing game. Tools like OKRs can provide measurable outcomes, but they only work when ownership is explicit and decision-making authority accompanies it. The text warns against diffused responsibility in committees or micro-management, and stresses that autonomy without accountability or safety without accountability both lead to failure.

Practical steps start with co-creating goals so people are invested, role-modeling supportive behavior, and reinforcing cultural norms that treat failure as a learning opportunity. Regular, curiosity-driven check-ins replace control-oriented questioning, and visibility is framed as coaching rather than surveillance. The accountability ladder illustrates progressive ownership levels, from denial to action, helping leaders tailor interventions. When teams embed these habits, accountability transforms into a supportive structure that boosts performance, communication, and morale.