Responsibility, Accountability and Autonomy

Management fashions and fads appear and then fade as new ones emerge.  Recently, we’ve seen a worrying number of posts on LinkedIn that seem to have forgotten the purpose and fundamental basics of organisation design.

Some might consider the traditional managerial hierarchy as old-fashioned, but it should not be disregarded out of hand, and certainly not in favour of the latest fad.  When done correctly under the right conditions, especially in programmed, professionalised or bureaucratic settings, it is usually the most appropriate structural option available.  Yes, there might be advantages to alternative structures in different settings, such as matrix structures in project-based organisations, or flat and even managerless structures in social enterprises, but whichever model is best suited, the aim should always be to align structure with strategy.

‘Don’t chase the latest management fads.  The situation dictates which approach best accomplishes the team’s mission.’ (Colin Powell)

Poorly aligned organisation structures create obstacles that hinder the collective power of an otherwise cohesive staff.  Problems include:

• poor leadership

• narrow self-interest

• interpersonal rivalries and politics

• lack of trust between colleagues  

• lack of accountability

• evasion of responsibility

• low morale

• abuse of autonomy.

People are mostly good, but it is the structure that sets behaviour.  A poorly designed or overly complicated organisation structure creates an environment in which there is a confused understanding of who is accountable and responsible for what and with what degree of autonomy.  These ambiguities affect performance.

Leaders must know the nature of these structural characteristics.  If you are a CEO or senior leader, ask yourself three straightforward questions:

• What are my managers accountable for?

• What responsibilities do employees have?

• Do they have the requisite autonomy?

When we work with clients, we are often surprised at the vagueness of who is accountable for what.  People are comfortable with the idea of who they report 'to', but they are often uncomfortable with the idea of what they might be held accountable 'for’.

'Managers and supervisors are not accountable for everything in their organisation.  Responsibility charting ensures accountability is placed with the person who really can be accountable for specific work.' (Michael L Smith and James Erwin)

Here are our definitions that help to bring clarity:

• The person who is accountable is answerable for decisions and the overall performance of a process or a team.  Accountability is generally not shared.

• The person who is responsible shoulders an obligation to complete a task.  Responsibility can be shared.

Adopting these definitions results in accountabilities for actions being moved down to the most appropriate level of the organisation.  Everyone is responsible for performing their work to the best of their abilities and to the company's standards.  However, only one person can usually be held accountable for the outputs of any given process.

Thus, responsibility cascades down and accountability ascends up through the structure.  If well-designed, the organisation structure increases competitive success through a clear understanding of who is accountable for what and who does what.

To complete the picture, leaders must be clear about autonomy – the freedom to act, to make decisions, to veto actions.  Those with accountability must have the requisite autonomy to direct and control the people, resources and processes that are critical to achieving the performance for which they are accountable.  A manager without autonomy is no manager at all!

Where people’s responsibilities are coordinated and controlled through direct supervision or standardisation, significant autonomy is not required (over-and-above decisions on simple, routine, non-contentious issues).  Deviations and exceptions are referred to the next higher authority.  We have often seen teams exercising significant autonomy in processes that are notionally highly standardised – a sure sign that something is not right in the organisation design.

Conversely, work that is highly bespoke, or which requires expert or skilled judgement, demands a high degree of autonomy.  But note, the accountability for such work may still rest elsewhere.

Simpler is better when it comes to organisation structures.  The more complex the structure, the more muddled and opaque the accountabilities and responsibilities become.  To counter this, a critical question to ask is, 'where, when and with whom does the buck stop?’

In 1983, Sir Roy Griffiths led an inquiry into the effective use and management of people and resources in the NHS.  Despite the seemingly hierarchical nature of the NHS, Griffiths famously stated that:

'At no level is the general management role clearly being performed by an identifiable individual.  In short, if Florence Nightingale were carrying her lamp through the corridors of the NHS today, she would almost certainly be searching for the people in charge.'

His recommendations led to the introduction of general management in the NHS and the closer involvement of clinicians in managerial decisions.  By 1985, out had gone the consensus management of the hospital committee and in had come 'unit-level' management accountability.  Clinicians were accountable for clinical practice; managers were accountable for organisational and financial performance.  The extent to which the NHS has since reverted to committees and consensus management is a debate for another day.

The aims of good organisation design are simple.  They are to develop structures, systems and processes that enable organisations to be effective, efficient and economically secure, and in which people know the performance for which they are accountable, the work for which they are responsible and the autonomy that is vested in them to achieve it.  If well-designed and defined, they increase competitive success when everyone clearly understands who is accountable for what, and who does what, which in turn, creates a trust-building environment.

Set the organisational conditions that enable people to work together effectively, with mutual trust. Do this by aligning and simplifying the organisation structure, and clarifying managerial accountability systems – not by trying to change the people by applying spurious in-vogue solutions.  If you think it is about adopting the latest fad or an employee engagement exercise, then good luck.