A better approach to accountability
A 2025 multi-year Workplace Accountability Study … revealed that 82% of respondents indicated
that when holding others accountable, they “either try but fail or avoid it altogether.”
By Kimberly Paterson, CEC
Charlie is young, smart and ambitious with excellent people skills. He shows plenty of potential, but he lacks one critical characteristic— accountability. When it comes to meeting deadlines, keeping promises and following through on commitments, Charlie has earned a reputation among colleagues for being undependable. His manager has had multiple conversations about the behavior.
Charlie acknowledges the flaw and vows to get better. For a week or so, his behavior improves but then he falls back into his old patterns. Frustrated, his manager steps up their check-ins and takes a more proactive role monitoring his deliverables. Tighter controls are generating more excuses but fewer results. Gradually, the manager backs off, rationalizing that Charlie’s strengths compensate for the weakness.
The growing challenge of accountability
Charlie’s manager is not alone in surrendering the battle for accountability. A 2026 Gallup study surveyed leaders on how well they are performing across seven core leadership competencies. “Creating accountability” was ranked as the lowest-rated skill by both executives and managers.
A 2025 multi-year Workplace Accountability Study of 40,000 professionals, conducted by Culture Partners, revealed that 82% of respondents indicated that when holding others accountable, they “either try but fail or avoid it altogether.” The study went on to indicate that 91% of participants ranked accountability as one of their company’s top organizational needs.
When did accountability become a dirty word? The shift dates back to Covid-19. Challenging working conditions, record anxiety levels and the 30% voluntary attrition rate that occurred in the year following led managers to pivot from focusing on performance to the current “people first management style.” A 2025 Gartner study illustrates the point:
- 62% of managers feel obligated to protect their team members.
- The average manager spends more than 20% of their time listening to and trying to resolve employees’ personal and emotional tensions.
- 45% of managers report they make decisions that favor their employees at the expense of the business.
Leaders’ reluctance to hold their teams accountable is only part of the story. Hybrid work environments make it harder to see employees in action and gauge the effort invested in the job. An increasing reliance on digital communication tools makes it easier to avoid accountability. A “the team owns the goal” philosophy creates a dynamic where everyone is responsible, and no one is.
Perhaps the most significant headwind that leaders face is changing attitudes about accountability. Younger workers demand extreme accountability from public figures, leaders and corporations but struggle with personal accountability. Employer surveys show that workers under 35 are statistically more likely to miss deadlines and struggle with traditional work commitments. Some studies suggest they see time as more fluid and deadlines as flexible targets rather than absolutes.
How leaders contribute to the problem
People hear the word accountability, and they often flinch or brace for impact. Employees fear it because they associate accountability with blame, punishment and negative consequences. Managers fear confrontation and damaging relationships.
Management beliefs and behaviors that magnify the problem include:
Loss aversion. Managers worry that if they have the tough conversation, the employee will become disengaged or leave. Charlie’s manager knew he had a serious accountability issue, but he didn’t want to risk losing his top business development person. He tolerated Charlie’s inadequacies and quietly fixed his mistakes behind the scenes.
Fear of conflict and not being liked. In the “people first” management paradigm, leaders are motivated to keep the peace. They worry that any pushback may make an employee angry, defensive or upset. They want to be perceived as helpful, kind, and supportive. Holding someone accountable can seem hurtful and inconsistent with their self-image.
Selective accountability. Leaders hold one employee to the standard but give another a pass. Charlie was a classic example. He had great client relationships and was the organization’s best at business development. His manager consistently ignored complaints that he missed deadlines that put undue pressure on his service team. The manager was labeled as unfair and ultimately lost the respect of the team.
A belief that people don’t change. When an employee fails, leaders often assume that it is due to a permanent character flaw rather than a fixable skill. Believing a person cannot change causes the leader to give up after the first attempt or two.
Delaying the feedback. Leaders avoid or postpone hard conversations. Instead of giving real-time coaching, leaders often wait until formal performance reviews. By then, the behavior is habitual and deemed as acceptable. That leaves the employee feeling blindsided in the review.
Unclear expectations. Leaders fail to communicate what success looks like. When a mistake happens, it’s often because the leader did not communicate a clear picture of success when the work was assigned.
Poor follow-up. Holding someone who struggles with accountability takes energy. Accountability is a long-term process that requires regular check-ins and clear consequences. Many busy leaders lack the mental energy to manage the pushback, tears, or anger that difficult conversations can trigger. They conclude it’s easier to fix the mistake than invest the hours needed to teach, give feedback, and hold the person accountable.
Changing the paradigm
Begin by considering a different question. Instead of “How do I hold people accountable?” ask “What’s preventing people from choosing it?” People typically resist accountability for one of four reasons: 1) Clarity gap—Expectations are vague and/or roles and responsibilities are unclear. 2) Capability gap—They lack knowledge, skills, resources or authority to succeed. 3) Psychological gap—They fear failing more than they fear not meeting deadlines, or they may worry about being blamed or embarrassed if a mistake occurs. 4) Willpower gap—They know how to do the job, but they lack motivation.
Accept that you can’t force someone to be accountable. People need to choose it for themselves. That means understanding what’s getting in their way and responding in a way that’s going to be helpful. For example, if you hold someone’s feet to the fire who has a knowledge gap or is afraid of making a mistake, you will make matters worse. They need coaching. Someone with a willpower gap needs consequences, not micromanaging.
Change your focus from accountability to ownership. Unlike accountability, which typically happens at the end of a project or when something goes wrong, building ownership begins when the project starts.
When people feel responsible for the work and own the outcome, there’s a psychological shift from an external requirement to an internal personal commitment. Their personal reputation and ego are on the line. When you create a sense of ownership, accountability comes naturally.
Here are five steps that will help you make the shift:
- Delegate outcomes, not tasks. When you delegate a task, you generally tell someone what to do and how to do it. That works for junior people or in crisis situations, but it won’t work if you’re trying to build ownership.
If you want people to own the outcome, give them a crystal-clear picture of what success looks like, then step away and let them figure out how they’re going to make it happen. Give them the leeway and authority to act. Be specific about where they have the authority to make decisions and engage others in the organization and where they don’t. If you expect them to clear everything through you, they will feel micromanaged and miss out on a substantial part of the learning opportunity.
- Identify a single owner for every deliverable. Today most work involves multiple team members. That said, every individual task still needs an owner because when multiple people own a task, no one owns it.
- Test for buy-in. Adults need to understand the “why” behind what they’re being asked to do. Without meaning, people have little motivation. Before you move forward, make sure that the “why” is clear and that it resonates with the person. For example, Charlie resisted what he felt were arbitrary timeline requirements for submitting his proposal requests. He did respond to the fact that his missed deadlines were turning his colleagues against him and that he wasn’t getting their best efforts.
- Agree on a plan. Identify next steps, milestones and any resources that may be needed. Creating the plan is the individual’s responsibility because they need to own the actions to be taken. Your job is to ensure that their plan makes sense and clarify any support you will provide.
- Tailor the support. Agree on check-in frequency. The trick is striking the right balance between micromanaging and underleading. There isn’t a universal formula. Frequency will vary by individual. Procrastinators and people tackling “stretch projects” will need more follow-up. Self-starters with proven track records for delivering will need minimal oversight.
Set the check-in intervals at the onset and adjust where necessary. A consistent check-in process builds accountability and helps minimize frustration by uncovering any gaps, misunderstandings and quality issues early on.
Wins for the organization
When you shift the paradigm from passive compliance to active ownership you empower individuals to own their results, learn from their mistakes and grow professionally. Engagement increases as they take responsibility for their successes and setbacks and become more skilled at problem-solving.
Personal pride in the work leads to fewer mistakes, better quality and higher productivity. You spend less time micro-managing and being the enforcer and more time coaching a high-performing team.
The author
Kimberly Paterson, Certified Executive Coach and Master Energy Leadership Coach, is president of CIM (www.cim-co.com), CIM works with organizations and individuals to maximize performance through positive lasting behavioral change. Her clients are property & casualty insurance companies, agencies, and brokers. She can be reached at kpaterson@cim-co.com. Follow Kimberly on www.linkedin.com/in/kimberly-paterson and twitter.com/CIMChangeMinds.
