Accountability - providing foundations for confidence

In my last post – Accountability as Consequence – an alternative model I set out an argument to shift our mental model of accountability from one which focused on a limiting “Line of Consequence” to a liberating “Line of Aspiration”.

I concluded the post with a commitment to provide a template for behaviour which prevented action becoming a free for all – with no account for consequences – which is very different from a focus on negative consequence.

The parameters for guiding action are shaped by a complex inter-relationship between the four other definitions which I’ve identified in previous posts.

It might help here to use an example to demonstrate what I’m suggesting:

If we take a head teacher who sets out to move towards “Accountability as Personal Commitment” s/he must take cognisance of the parameters of: Compliance, Scrutiny and Public Service:

Compliance: the person must be aware of, and operate within, the legal, financial and policy framework which governs their work. This is what I mean by there not being a “free –for-all”. However, I would suggest that these frameworks should be seen as a comfort for a head teacher - as opposed to a limitation – as compliance will ensure that there can be no comeback in terms of negative personal consequence.

Scrutiny: the head teacher won’t hide what they are doing – they seek out opinion about their practice; invite and encourage questioning; and are completely transparent in all their dealings. Such a mode of behaviour ensures that there can be “no surprises”, which is often how negative consequences occur.

Public Service: the head teacher seeks out the opinions of users/stakeholders. Having gathered that information they take professionally judged action to respond to these needs/opinions. In cases where they don’t completely agree with the opinions of users/stakeholders they engage in a dialogue where actions are explained. In addition to actively seeking out opinion they enable easy access for users/stakeholders to provide early warning of issues which might require action.

In my experience where a head teacher ensures that they fulfil the notions of compliance, security and public service they will be free to aim for the “Line of Aspiration” as they will be operating well above any “Line of Consequence.”

For those of you who are reading this and just starting to feel unease about a possible “Teflon culture” emerging from this description of practice I would wish to allay your fears by reflecting upon “Accountability as Competence.” Being a head teacher or any other type of educational manager for that matter is a difficult job, requiring sophisticated judgment, communication skills and in-depth knowledge of systems, processes and regulations. However, if – and some might argue with this – you have taken professionally judged action and satisfied the demands of compliance, scrutiny and public service then you should have no fear of “Accountability as Consequence”.

For me, there is need to disentangle negative outcomes from competence. For example, a head teacher might take what seems to be very well judged action, which complies with guidance, is known to all and has taken account of user opinion – but it doesn’t work. I would rather people took such action and sometimes failed rather than be paralyzed by a fear of “Accountability as Consequence”. However, there will be some occasions – usually as part of a recurring trend where seemingly well-judged actions fail to result in the desired outcome. It’s at that point that there must be questions about the individual’s competence.

I was very taken by Rick Segal’s example of accountability from his area of expertise as a venture capitalist (a different world from mine). Rick is the only person, so far, who has responded to my request for an example of accountability and has not provided a negative example – Rick’s example ( and I paraphrase here) was “I need to provide a return for my investors’ – no mention of blame, punishment or personal liability – just a commitment to provide what his investors expect. The risk – and I don’t see it as being a risk for Rick - is backing his own judgment. Perhaps that’s the secret? – back our own judgement and underpin it with compliance, scrutiny and public service. If it’s still going wrong then perhaps there really is a question about competence?

As Shel Israel said last night "I'd rather have tried and failed - than never tried."