Harry Lenderman, EdD is a Quality Improvement Expert for the Public Health Foundation.

Use of the word “accountability” seems to have evolved from traditional views. Traditionally, we find ways to “hold people accountable.” This article presents an alternative view in the context of quality improvement (QI), and turns the tables on what many managers currently practice to boost and sustain productive workplaces.

Look through the lens of the QI movement to describe accountability. When it comes to putting teams together to solve issues that will enhance organizational performance, accountability takes on a different form than tradition dictates. To understand this reexamined view of accountability, begin with the thought that accountability is better detected than expected! In QI, accountability is not imposed; it is detected.

Traditional accountability: Most people shudder when they are faced with being accountable for their tasks, outcomes, and actions. Traditionally, accountability is leader-driven and imposed by the organization. Many organizations struggle with this concept of leader-driven accountability and devise all sorts of systems to ensure compliance with accountability measures. A great deal of time and effort goes into deciding how to extract accountability from the workforce. We make sure that everyone knows what performance is expected and we drive hard to see results. This time and effort would be better directed toward problem solving with specific measurable results. QI teams take full responsibility for creating and implementing organizational improvements. QI teams actually set more specific and harder to reach goals which they investigate, define and deliver.

QI efforts turn the tables on traditional accountability by creating an atmosphere where groups of problem solvers create their own success and accountability as a part of improving organizational performance. QI teams literally “attack and solve” issues that have held down the performance of their organization for decades. They do this willingly and with a strong sense of ownership and dedication. A comment often heard is, “finally someone asked me to get involved in solving problems rather than having to work in a system that is slow or outdated or even unnecessary!” Only after an issue is thoroughly examined using process improvement tools within a QI team can goals and measures of achievement (accountability) be defined and measured. Traditional accountability and QI measures are as different as day and night! The traditional expectations of empowerment and accountability fall short of what can really be achieved when teams take personal responsibility for improvements and have the support of leadership to take charge of a change process. Perhaps we should eliminate “accountability” and invent a new word that describes the outcomes of QI teams. 

Here are some of the outcomes universally observed during and following QI workshops:

1. Teams take the responsibility to tackle essential, persistent, and lingering issues to improve organizational performance.
2. Individuals contribute more than their normal amount of dedication and energy when they are engaged in solving issues that improve their own work lives.
3. Individuals contribute more to a group of problem solvers than they could when relying only on their own best efforts.
4. Individuals consistently recognize the power and performance of a group of problem solvers over any individual contributor and they appreciate the enhanced power of problem solving groups.
5. Teams learn to work more effectively with others better than they have in the past.
6. Teams discover that when using a QI process, they ultimately work on different issues and solutions than they originally expected; they address root causes rather than symptoms.
7. Often larger issues that are more important to the success of the organization surface and are solved by QI teams.
   

While leaders feel responsible to determine and enforce accountability in their organizations, often the best approach is to help teams identify issues in need of improvement, and leave the accountability to be determined by and achieved by those teams. Time and time again, QI teams have exceeded the expectations of leadership and taken up the accountability for achievement without even being told what the “traditionally accountable” results should be. This is when accountability is “detected” rather than “expected.”

* * *

How do you approach accountability in your organization? Have you tried to refocus your approach? Share your experiences with others by clicking the "Add a Comment" link below.