Accountability is often treated as something heavy.
An issue involving objectionable behaviour arises. A manager steps roped in. Someone is called to account. There may be a reprimand, a formal conversation, an investigation or, eventually, an HR grievance.
But accountability does not have to start there.
Sometimes we use a costly sledgehammer to crack a nut when a simple nutcracker would do.
At its smallest, accountability can be almost costless.
Sue: “Caution! That came across as rude.”
Jim: “Fair point.”
Done.
No blame. No punishment. No meeting. No HR. Just one person identifying objectionable behaviour and the other acknowledging it.
This is the principle behind SpatzAI, a pre-grievance system designed to help workplace teams address and resolve minor behavioural issues early, fairly and proportionately.
The aim is not to eliminate accountability, but to make it simpler, more immediate and less costly.
But here is where I think we often get accountability wrong.
We tend to take one of two approaches.
Either we throw out the fault with the blame, avoiding the issue altogether.
Or we blame the person for the fault, turning a correctable behaviour into a personal confrontation.
Neither approach is particularly helpful.
There is a third way.
Identify the fault, challenge the behaviour and encourage correction without assigning blame.
Missteps call for correction, not blame. Misbehaviour calls for accountability when fairly challenged.
And the cost begins to rise when that simple opportunity for correction is missed.
If someone tolerates objectionable behaviour and tries to ignore it, the behaviour may be repeated. Eventually, their response may become more confrontational, or the matter may require a more formal intervention.
What could have ended with a simple verbal caution may now become a formal objection, a documented dispute, a team review or eventually an HR grievance.
Each step costs more, consuming time, attention, trust and organisational resources.
So perhaps the real cost of accountability is not accountability itself.
It is delaying accountability; on either side.
This is why I think proportionality matters.
The smaller the behaviour, the smaller the accountability required, provided it is addressed early.
Sometimes accountability means simply acknowledging:
“Yes, I interrupted you.”
“Yes, my tone was dismissive.”
“Yes, I can see why that crossed your line.”
Sometimes that is enough.
Removing blame doesn’t require removing fault. And identifying fault doesn’t require assigning blame.
Accountability becomes expensive when organisations wait until behaviours accumulate, relationships deteriorate, positions harden and managers and HR are forced to intervene.
The cheapest accountability may simply be two adults resolving the smallest issue at the earliest possible moment.
Address the small stuff while it is still small and cheap, before it becomes something much more expensive.
Leave a Reply