Leading for Accountability

Over the first half of this year, one word has come up again and again in conversations with leaders across sectors: accountability. Or more precisely, the lack of it.

Leaders describe the same pattern. People not taking ownership. Decisions drifting. Important work waiting for “direction”.

The result is a loss of pace. Decisions start to bottleneck at the top. Issues escalate upwards rather than being resolved where the work happens. Delivery slows just when organisations need to move faster.

As one leader put it to me recently: “There’s a real risk of me becoming far more command and control – precisely the opposite of the leader I want to be.”

This isn’t confined to one organisation or one sector. It reflects something about the nature of the work many leaders are dealing with right now. So why does accountability feel so fragile and what does it actually take to create it?

Why accountability becomes harder in transformation work

Many of the leadership conversations we are having right now sit in the context of large-scale change and transformation. And this type of work behaves differently from everyday operational delivery.

Transformation cuts across teams, functions and hierarchies. It rarely sits neatly within existing structures. Instead it moves between them, involving multiple people who each hold partial influence but rarely full control of the outcome.

In theory this encourages collaboration. In practice it can create a difficult paradox. Everyone is involved but no one feels fully responsible for driving the work forward.

In the absence of clear ownership people wait. They wait for direction, wait for someone more senior to step in or wait for clarity that never quite arrives. While everyone waits momentum fades and the work stalls.

This is why accountability in transformation work often depends less on formal structure and more on leadership behaviour. Someone has to step forward and say, “I’ll take responsibility for moving this forward.” Not because the organisation chart tells them to. Because the work requires it.

We saw this recently with a GP who was frustrated by the increasingly strained relationship between her colleagues and hospital consultants, and the impact it was having on patient care. From her perspective much of the tension came from a lack of understanding about the pressures each group was under.

Rather than waiting for a formal initiative she paired up GPs and consultants and organised short exchanges where each would spend half a day in the other’s workplace. She didn’t ask for permission. She didn’t write a business case. She simply got on and made it happen. The conversations that followed shifted how people saw each other’s challenges and opened the door to a more constructive working relationship.

The cost of waiting

When ownership stalls the consequences are quickly felt. Delivery slows, decisions escalate upwards and senior leaders become bottlenecks rather than enablers.

Research into organisational change reinforces this pattern. A 2021 review of change management studies found that most transformation programmes fail to deliver their intended outcomes, with weak governance, unclear ownership and fragile accountability among the most common causes (Erida, 2021).

The irony is that transformation work is often where organisations most need pace and momentum. Yet it is precisely where accountability becomes most difficult to establish.

Leading for accountability in complex systems

If accountability cannot always be designed in advance, leadership becomes the critical factor.

The starting point is identifying the people who genuinely influence progress across the system. Transformation rarely moves because of hierarchy alone. It builds through individuals who connect teams, translate strategy into action and have the credibility to mobilise others. These informal system leaders often sit within the work rather than above it. Backing them can unlock momentum far more quickly than relying on formal authority alone.

Leaders also need to create the conditions for collaboration across boundaries. Cross-cutting work depends on people stepping beyond their immediate remit. That requires permission. Leaders play an important role in removing barriers between teams, encouraging collaboration across hierarchies and creating spaces where shared challenges can be tackled together. Without those conditions organisations naturally fall back into silos.

People also need the confidence and capability to act in uncertainty. Transformation rarely comes with a clear script. Roles evolve, priorities shift and the path forward is not always obvious. Equipping key influencers to work across boundaries, mobilise colleagues and progress without waiting for perfect clarity becomes essential. Helping people recognise where they can act is often the first step in shifting momentum.

One tool we frequently use with leadership teams is the Spheres of Influence model, originally popularised by Stephen Covey in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.

The model encourages leaders to separate three things: what they control, what they can influence and what sits outside their concern. In transformation work leaders often spend a great deal of energy worrying about issues they cannot directly control – organisational politics, shifting priorities or external pressures. Mapping these spheres helps them recognise they have more influence than they assumed.

Once that becomes visible the conversation changes. Instead of waiting for clarity or permission leaders start asking: “What can we influence right now to move the work forward?” In effect they are learning to lead at the edge of their influence.

This idea sits at the heart of Adaptive Leadership developed by Ronald Heifetz. His work highlights that complex challenges cannot be solved by authority alone. Progress depends on people throughout the system stepping up and taking responsibility for moving work forward.

Visibility matters as well. Shared challenges need to be visible if people are going to take ownership. When priorities, risks and progress are openly discussed it becomes easier for people to see where they can contribute and where leadership is needed.

A different kind of leadership

In complex transformation work accountability cannot always be neatly assigned in advance. Sometimes leadership means stepping forward and claiming responsibility for something that technically sits just outside your formal remit.

Adaptive Leadership makes a similar point. Leadership is not simply a position in the hierarchy. It is an activity – mobilising people to tackle difficult challenges and make progress in uncertain conditions. That often means working at the edge of your influence and encouraging others to do the same.

Where in your organisation are people waiting for direction rather than stepping into responsibility? And what might shift if more leaders felt able to act at the edge of their influence?

If you’d like to find out more about how CoCreate helps organisations create the conditions for accountability, we’d be glad to talk.