Responsibility vs. Accountability

"Responsibility" and "Accountability" in Common Usage

As you can see, responsibility and accountability are not something assigned or addressed after something goes wrong. They apply before, during, and after investments are made, an organization is formed, or a project is launched.

Let's talk more about common phraseology and how these terms are used or misused in the wild.

You might have noticed we used "accountable to" and "accountable for" in previous sections. It didn't need explanation because the context matched the meaning of the prepositions. To be clear, here are the categorical definitions:

• You are accountable for an asset, and its gains and losses, when they're either yours personally or when you are held accountable legally due to misconduct.
• If you are held accountable for someone else's assets, we can say you are accountable to that owner.

This article has covered the words as functional concepts guiding decisions as a business executive. In common usage, people generally use accountable and responsible only after something has gone wrong, and in these cases they usually happen to use the J.D. Fox Exec definitions, not those useless ones in the business management articles we reviewed above.

HELD ACCOUNTABLE

When people talk about someone being "held accountable", this tends to match our definitions; it means making the person pay either to a victim to make them whole, or just generally being punished, as discussed extensively above.

BE ACCOUNTABLE

On sports teams or in the military, you often hear exhortations to "be accountable" to your teammates, or to "hold each other accountable". This is for peers, or a leader as a mentor, and, while it uses the same word, is not related to accountability for financial assets, nor even to reporting on events. It's a colloquial term that refers instead to direct supervision of character traits and dedication to the cause, calling out selfish or lazy behavior, and inspiring each other to positive acts. The accounting is of what is owed morally to each other. This could be put into practice in small teams in a business, but it must be understood of course that the term "accountable" in this context has a totally different meaning than in the rest of this article.

TAKING RESPONSIBILITY

Notice no one says you "take accountability". That makes sense; accountability is integral to ownership.

We do certainly say we "take responsibility". You become responsible for something when you take a job or accept an assignment. A responsible person may also say, after something has gone wrong, "I take full responsibility for this failure." Sometimes a CEO says this at the press conference and then just walks away; critics might mock him for not resigning or paying for the company's losses. But, he's using the correct term! Saying you take full responsibility doesn't necessarily mean being fired or punished. If you don't understand this, you're not going to be a successful business manager.

"Taking full responsibility" starts with admitting you didn't get the results intended. When managing people, resources, and unpredictable events, you have to take risks and can never predict the future. Acknowledging responsibility after a problem means you will reassess given the new information and situation, and make necessary changes, which could include changing how you assess risks, developing new policies and procedures, or firing and replacing underperforming subordinates. It doesn't necessarily mean quitting, and it doesn't mean paying for the damages. However, if you assess the events and situation, and determine you don't have what it takes to achieve the goals of the role you're in, taking responsibility could mean resigning so someone more capable can take your place.

It can be a little confusing, because someone losing his job and source of income is often called being "held accountable". But that's wrong. That by itself doesn't restore losses the business suffered from his poor performance, or resolve any resulting lawsuits that may be pending against the corporation. Only by suing the now-former employee to cover the damages could he be held accountable. So a better way to describe a responsible officer being fired for failure is "being relieved of responsibility".

Of course, if something goes well, such as a project finishing early and under budget, a board might congratulate or reward the officers responsible for overseeing this. In that case, you might see officers looking to take responsibility for the successes by describing what actions or decisions they made to contribute positively.

HELD RESPONSIBLE

As mentioned, after a problem has occurred, we sometimes say someone should be "held accountable" even if they're only responsible. But before embarking on a controversial or risky course of action, we do tend to warn people they will be "held responsible" if something goes wrong. It's just a quirk in our language. Those accountable for the losses certainly should look for who to hold responsible after a failure, though, so that remedial action can be taken (such as by firing or retraining, and, in cases of gross malfeasance, holding the perpetrators accountable).