What this means
Accountability is weakened when it becomes either blame or excuse. It works best within strong working relationships, where expectations can be discussed honestly and challenge is understood as support for success. Individuals should be clear about the outcomes and standards they own. Leaders must be equally clear about their responsibility for priorities, structure, capability, tools and decisions. Holding both truths at once creates a fairer and more demanding performance environment.
How I apply it
Expectations are agreed before performance is judged. People receive a clear outcome, the boundaries and authority to act, and access to the support or coaching required to succeed. Reviews distinguish effort, execution quality and system constraints rather than collapsing everything into the final number. Where an individual can act, ownership stays with them. Where the obstacle is organisational—conflicting priorities, unclear proposition, insufficient capacity or a slow decision—leadership owns removing it.
What I look for
Targets repeatedly missed for different stated reasons, difficult conversations delayed, high activity used as a defence and teams blaming another function are warning signs. The reverse is also dangerous: leadership attributing every result to individual performance while leaving obvious structural problems untouched.
Evidence in practice
In environments requiring stronger commercial discipline, clearer standards and operating rhythms allowed performance conversations to become more specific. Managers could identify whether the required response was coaching, a decision, additional support or direct accountability. That reduced ambiguity without lowering expectations.
The outcome
People know where they stand and what happens next. Good performance is repeatable, underperformance is addressed earlier and systemic issues become leadership work rather than permanent explanations. Trust increases because accountability is applied consistently in both directions.