Making Accountability Possible

Dan Davies’ idea of the “accountability sink” gives a name to something I recognise from my work: a problem is visible, but every conversation leads back to a policy, a process or a decision nobody seems able to reconsider.

This does not necessarily begin with anyone avoiding responsibility. We introduce policies to create consistency, divide work so teams can develop expertise, and delegate authority so decisions do not all wait for an executive. Those choices are often reasonable. Over time, they become the organization, including the silos we later ask people to work across.

The difficulty becomes visible when teams adapt around a policy they cannot change, while managers address what falls within their authority even though the problem crosses several boundaries. As that experience moves upward, the details that might challenge the original decision can disappear from the summary. Everyone may be doing what was asked of them while the organization produces something nobody intended.

We often describe this as an execution problem. Sometimes it is. But before asking why an outcome was not achieved, I think we need to ask whether we ever clearly defined it, what choices we expected to produce it, and whether the assumptions behind those choices still hold. Otherwise, we risk asking teams to work harder at something leadership needs to reconsider.

That concerns me as we introduce AI. It can help leaders find contradictions and examine more evidence. But a convincing explanation can also become the accepted account before anyone has questioned its assumptions. Critical thinking becomes easier to bypass when an answer already appears complete. Someone still needs to examine the evidence, interpret what it means and stand behind the judgment that follows.

A RACI can clarify responsibilities and a SWOT can help examine circumstances. Neither, on its own, ensures that evidence reaches someone with the authority to reconsider a decision. Naming accountability is not the same as making it possible.

Before asking someone to take greater ownership, I think we need to ask whether they can see what is happening, question the reasoning and get the underlying decision reconsidered. If they cannot, we may be asking them to compensate for the way we designed the organization.