‘How can I be held responsible when I do not have the authority’?

Anyone in a management role has probably heard, and perhaps asked that question after some ‘do-do’ hits the fan.

‘Accountability’, ‘Responsibility’, and ‘Authority’ often become entangled in ways that leave management, improvement, and scaling of any set of activities challenging. The lines become blurred and ambiguous, which enables problems to be shovelled into a quiet corner, unresolved.

As with any process, ensuring shared clarity, transparency and understanding is the only way to improve.

The absence of such shared understanding means a problem will always be someone else’s. ‘Not my job‘ in the vernacular.

Following are my definitions, which may clear up the differences.

Accountability

Accountability means that someone is specifically held accountable for the activity or set of activities. That person is accountable to track the progress of the activity, process, function, whatever it may be, and give it a ‘voice’. If you cannot nominate one person who is specifically accountable, it will fall through the cracks.

Responsibility

Responsibility falls to anyone who has the ability and opportunity to respond proactively support an activity or process. Anyone who ‘touches’ a process has responsibility to do their best to ensure that the activity progresses as expected, and to remove any hinderances they may see. This is decision making at the ‘coal-face’, taking responsibility for outcomes.

Authority

Authority belongs to the person with the final veto power. There is always someone who has that final say. The larger the organisation, the further away from the day-to-day operational decisions that person is likely to be. Conversely, the bigger the decision, the closer they will be.

The processes and boundaries that determine the point at which a decision can be made will be an explicit outcome of the descriptions of each role, and the culture of the enterprise.

The differences between the meaning of these three words offers a huge expanse of quicksand, in which many people and organisations get stuck.

For example, in a previous life as GM of a large organisation, I had final authority over the expenditure of marketing budgets. The marketing manager had accountability for the development of marketing plans and their implementation across the functions in the business, and the authority to make relevant decisions within the marketing function. Product managers had accountability for the specific activities that took place in their brand portfolios. Operations management had responsibility to ensure that the products produced were up to specification, and when that was not the case, the authority to rework or dump as appropriate. Logistics management had the responsibility to ensure orders were filled on time and in full, and the authority to make decisions to ensure that was the case. We all had a shared responsibility to ensure that the customers who bought our products were serviced in a manner that had them coming back for more.

Back to the question asked at the top: ‘How can I be held responsible without the authority’. The answer is: ‘it depends’.

Everyone has the responsibility to manage their own activities on a daily basis, and be held accountable for the outcomes, but as you move up a corporate ladder, it becomes increasingly challenging to maintain the direct link. The more senior you are, the more you will be held accountable for things over which you have less and less direct control. That direct control is held at lower levels in the organisation.

The key to making this all work is to thoughtfully, consistently, and transparently delegate the authority to make the veto decisions, both Yes and No, as far down the organisation chart as possible. Counter intuitive as this may be to many, offering people control over their defined workspace and span of control, leads to quicker and more informed decision making. It also assumes that everyone understands the differences between these three words, and that there is consistent and explicit feedback on both the outcomes of decisions, and the manner in which they were arrived at and implemented. This requires that you pinpoint the job to be done, have a system of interlinking KPI’s, and that there is explicit and transparent performance feedback and management of both the process and those held accountable for the components of the process.

It also relies on having the best people in the right spots, willing and able to make the decisions necessary, at the right time. Of all the challenges faced by those at the top of an organisation, having the best people in the right spots to deal with the challenge of building commercial sustainability, is the most challenging of all.

Header cartoon credit: Scott Adams and Dilbert, again make the point.

Note: I realised after publishing that I had dealt with with this exact question previously in a post back in 2019. Fortunately, while the wording is different, the meanings ascribed to the three key words are identical. After 2000 plus posts, this accidental doubling up does happen occasionally. Perhaps it is a measure of importance?