Accountability is not synonymous with punishment

“Accountability is not synonymous with punishment.”

So said a former boss of mine.  He followed this statement by saying that the trick for supervisors and leaders is to hold people accountable in such a way that the relationship was even stronger afterwards.   That is a challenge.  It’s a challenge because many of us—the people we supervise and we ourselves—are conditioned to become defensive when faced with accountability discussions, because we do associate accountability with punishment.  Undergirding this is a false logic that punishment must follow all errors and that all errors are intentional.  The reality is that not all errors are intentional and that punishment and consequences are not the same.  It is also difficult for all of us to acknowledge that we are frail, faulty and sin-filled people—we were conceived and born in sin; we are sinful by nature, sinful by inclination and frequently sinful by choice.  But even when we do not choose to sin, our sinful nature ‘trips us up’ and causes errors, oversights, accidents and unintended consequences.  

As a supervisor, leader, employee and human being, I must distinguish in my own mind intentional sins versus errors.  Both have natural consequences.  In addition to natural consequences, intentional sins should be punished and there must be accountability for errors.  The foundation upon which both punishment and accountability must be built is that of clear expectations.  Clear expectations are predicated upon a clear vision and organizational focus.  

For me as a Christian leader, even if my organization has not articulated a clear vision and focus, I can stand firm on the focus of loving and serving my fellow human beings, people who are people whom God dearly loves and who are worthy of respect and compassion.  Fortunately, I do have a clear organizational vision relating to safe, effective healthcare; this is an easy vision from which to draw clear expectations and to have discussions about unintended consequences, risk and accountability.

I also believe that as a Christian leader, I have an advantage in objectively addressing errors and sins.  I know that each of us is sinful from conception, with a natural inclination toward sin, prone to wander Lord I know it...  This just is. I don’t shy away from this difficult truth—no matter how hard we may try, we fail.  Sometimes we fail on purpose because the right way is too hard and we are selfish, lazy, angry or vindictive.  Sometimes we fail on accident because the right way is too hard and we are exhausted, distracted, at our wits’ end, or confused.  All of this is a result of the corrupting influence of sin, but the response must be different.  

A failure that is intentional earns punishment.  Laziness, selfishness, anger, vindictiveness….these earn punishment because they are intentional sinful choices that people make without regard to the consequences.  In this instance, accountability means calling out the self-centeredness and disregard for others; it means clearly describing the delta between behaviors and expectations and expressing the possible (or actual) consequences to others.  Then there must be personal consequences commensurate to the behavior and/or consequences to others.  Punishment is consequences directed at a person for personal choices.  Punishment is not motivated by anger or revenge; the goal is to discourage future similar behaviors from the individual or others, and, if appropriate, to attempt a kind of atoning “eye for eye.”  

A failure that is unintentional earns accountability of a different form.  There is still a desire for atonement, for balancing scales of justice.  But unintentional errors require an objective examination of processes, circumstances and surrounding factors.  The goal is to make similar errors less likely by anyone within the organization not by creating a culture of hyper-vigilance and fear but by modifying the environment to account for the error-prone nature of human beings.  It may be that accountability is demanded of someone other than the person who made the error:  a supervisor who encouraged “bending of the rules” by subordinates or who created an untenable work schedule may need to be held accountable. A process or system that relied too heavily on frail human diligence may need to be modified; staffing models that are simply insufficient to support the mission may need to be addressed.  Accountability for unintentional errors is also objective; it is focused on a larger system more often than the individual. 

When a person is punished for an unintentional error caused by a broken process or system-wide error, that is scape-goating.  It is easier than sussing out root causes and fixing complex problems.  It doesn’t require patience and problem solving and it serves no useful organizational purpose.  It is counterproductive when the goal is enhancing trust, collaboration and teamwork; it fractures organizations and undermines healthy relationships.  It also fails to actually solve the problem.  This approach may represent either a lazy or immature leadership style; it is something to be avoided. 

On the other hand, when a person is not punished for an intentional error, that also may be a result of lazy or immature leadership.  It is difficult to call out what frankly should be called sin:  “You were irresponsible.  You behaved with poor integrity.  You were lazy and selfish.”  These can be difficult statements to make but they must be made.  If there was an intentional violation of a standard, it must be addressed or the organization will crumble as the foundation of clear expectations dissolves like a sandcastle at high-tide.  

As a leader I must distinguish between errors and intentional violations; I must hold people accountable so that standards are upheld and I must do it in a way that retains, as much as is possible, the buy-in of the individual and of other teammate-observers.  

For me as a follower, as an employee and person seeking to consistently do the right thing, I must understand how prone to failure I am—both my sinful nature drawing me toward intentionally sinful actions, and my sinful nature causing me to fail unintentionally despite my best efforts.  I must be on guard against both, but my approach is different.  My approach involves prayers for wisdom and prayers for strength: I pray for wisdom to know what is right and righteous, to see clearly where my weaknesses may be exploited either by Satan to tempt me or by circumstances to trip me.  I pray for strength to resist the lies and wiles of the devil and for strength to shore me up against exhaustion, distraction and confusion.  

Praise be to God that He promises both strength and wisdom to those who ask for it. 

1) Are all of the right conditions in place to hold people accountable in your organization?  That is, is there a clear vision with which you can align clear expectations?  Have you outlined clear expectations to your subordinates?  Have you consistently reinforced standards?

2)  Consider intentional and unintentional errors made by people who work for or with you.  What was the response; did it match the error (e.g., punishment for intentional errors; accountability and system change for unintentional errors?)

3) What are particular weaknesses in your organization, your subordinates or yourself?  Are there things you can do to shore up those weak areas?  Contemplate those weaknesses and spend time asking God for both wisdom and strength to address them.