When working with senior leaders I often hear things like: “We need our leaders to hold people more accountable.” Or “Our leaders are afraid to hold their teams accountable. They are too soft.”

I hear some version of this regularly in my work with organizations. And sometimes, that's exactly what's needed. People need to own their commitments, their performance and their behaviour.

When expectations aren't being met, leaders need to address it.

But before we conclude that someone isn't taking enough ownership or that a leader simply needs to be tougher, there's another question worth asking ourselves: Have we created the conditions for accountability?

Because here's the uncomfortable truth that I see. Accountability problems aren't always employee problems. Sometimes they are leadership problems.

That doesn't mean leaders should take responsibility for someone else's performance. It means they need to take responsibility for their part in creating an environment where accountability is clear, fair and consistent, and that starts long before the “difficult” conversation needs to be had.

Accountability Goes Both Ways

Employees are accountable for delivering on expectations, following through on commitments, speaking up when something is getting in the way, and taking ownership when things don't go as planned.

Leaders are accountable for making expectations clear and to close the loop by ensuring people understand them. They are accountable for providing feedback, addressing issues early rather than allowing frustration to build and for coaching people when they need support. Leaders are also accountable for following through consistently when expectations aren't being met.

Strong accountability doesn't lower the bar for employees. It raises the bar for leaders, too, and that's an important distinction. Because when accountability isn't working, our instinct is often to look at the person who isn't delivering when sometimes we need to look at how they are being led.

Clarity Comes Before Accountability

One of the biggest barriers to accountability I see isn't unwillingness, it's ambiguity. A leader believes they have been clear and the employee leaves the conversation with a completely different understanding of what was expected.

Or perhaps the what was clear, but the when and why priorities or measures of success were unclear. Then what often happens is the leader becomes frustrated because something wasn't delivered as expected. It's difficult to hold someone accountable for an expectation they didn't fully understand in the first place.

Before we ask, “Why didn't they deliver?”, there are some questions worth asking ourselves:

• Was I clear about what good or success looks like?
• Did we agree on ownership and timing?
• Did I check for understanding or simply assume it?
• Was it clear that I am here for support and the expectation is to come back to me if something changes or gets in the way?

Clarity isn't micromanagement, it is a leadership responsibility and part of being an effective communicator. When we are clear it creates more autonomy because people understand the destination and can take greater ownership for how they get there. That’s part of the recipe for building high-performing teams which is essential to creating accountable teams, too. 

Don't Wait Until You Are Frustrated

Another accountability trap is avoidance, and here is how it plays out in reality. A leader notices that something isn't quite right but decides to let it go. Then it happens again and again. Eventually, the leader becomes frustrated enough to address it.

The problem is that the employee may have no idea there's been an issue. What feels like an ongoing pattern to the leader can feel like a sudden escalation to the employee. Healthy accountability requires early conversations, and not every issue needs to become a formal performance conversation. 

Sometimes it's simply saying, “Here's what I'm noticing. Let's talk about what's happening.”

Or it might mean checking in on progress and asking a few coaching questions rather than waiting until someone is clearly off course. 

That gives the person an opportunity to provide context, take ownership, and course-correct before a small issue becomes a much bigger one.

Coach Before You Rescue

There's another pattern I see, particularly with highly capable leaders. Something isn't moving quickly enough, so they step in. A team member is struggling, so they provide the answer. A deadline is approaching, so they take over. 

In the short term, it can feel efficient but over time, we can inadvertently teach people that when things get difficult, the leader will take ownership back. Then we wonder why people aren't demonstrating enough ownership. Sometimes the better leadership move is to stay in the coaching role a little longer.

Ask questions like:

• What's getting in the way?
• What have you tried?
• What do you think needs to happen next?
• Would it help to talk it through?
• What support do you need from me?

The goal isn't to leave people struggling. It's to provide enough support for them to succeed without removing their responsibility for the outcome.

Empathy and Accountability Can Coexist

I also think we have created a false choice in leadership between being empathetic and holding people accountable. They aren't opposites. You can seek to understand what someone is experiencing and be clear that an expectation hasn't been met.

You can support someone through a difficult situation and have an honest conversation about performance. You can also care about the person and hold firm standards. In fact, avoiding an important conversation because we don't want someone to feel uncomfortable isn't necessarily kind as people deserve to know where they stand.

Human-centred leadership isn't about lowering expectations. It's about being thoughtful about how we help people meet them.

The Accountability Loop

Here is a simple framework we encourage leaders to think about as we explore the topic of accountability:

Clarity → Confirm → Coach → Follow Through

Clarity — Have I been clear with my expectations and clearly communicated ownership, timing and what success looks like?

Confirm — Have I checked for understanding rather than assuming my message landed the way I intended?

Coach — If something gets off track, have I helped the person think through what happened and what they need to do next without immediately taking over?

Follow Through — Have I come back to what we agreed to, recognized progress and addressed gaps consistently?

None of these removes accountability from the employee, they simply ensure the leader has done their part.

Before You Ask What's Wrong With Their Performance

The next time you are frustrated that someone isn't taking accountability, resist the temptation to immediately conclude that they don't care, aren't capable, or simply need to try harder.  Start by turning the mirror around.

• Was I clear in establishing expectations?
• Did I check for understanding?
• Did I address the issue early?
• Did I coach rather than rescue?
• Have I followed through consistently?

If the answer is yes, then the accountability conversation belongs exactly where it should, with the employee. If the answer is no, there may be accountability on both sides of the conversation.

Strong accountability isn't about being tougher. It's about being clearer, more consistent, and willing to have the conversations that matter.  Sometimes the first person we need to hold accountable is ourselves.

I would love to hear your thoughts and experiences with accountability.

Please reach out to me directly at joanne.trotta@leadersedgeinc.ca or 416-560-1806.