Accountability doesn’t fail because people don’t care

Accountability is one of those words that tends to surface when something has already gone wrong. 

A deadline slips. A decision stalls. A project feels heavier than it should.
And eventually someone says, “It’s an accountability issue.” 

Often, they’re not wrong but they’re rarely pointing at the real problem. 

Because in most of the projects and transformations I’ve worked in, accountability doesn’t fail because people don’t care. In fact, people usually care deeply. They’re committed, conscientious, and doing their best in complex conditions. 

What fails far more often is clarity. 

Where accountability quietly unravels

Accountability rarely breaks in dramatic moments. It unravels quietly, early, and often with good intentions. 

Roles are described broadly rather than precisely.
Decision-making is left flexible to “keep things moving.”
Authority is implied rather than clearly stated.
Expectations sit in people’s heads instead of being spoken out loud. 

At the start of a project, this ambiguity can feel helpful. Everyone pitches in. Goodwill fills the gaps. People step up, cover for one another, and make it work. 

For a while, that goodwill carries the project – until pressure arrives. 

What pressure reveals

Pressure has a way of exposing what hasn’t been made explicit. 

Timelines tighten. Stakeholders lean in. Risk becomes visible and suddenly the assumptions that once felt harmless start to create friction. 

“I thought you were handling that.”
“I assumed that decision sat with you.”
“I didn’t realise that’s what success looked like.” 

Those moments aren’t failures of intent or capability. They’re signals that expectations were never clearly agreed. 

This is usually when accountability becomes personalised, when frustration creeps in and blame quietly replaces curiosity. But by then, the issue isn’t accountability. It’s the absence of shared understanding. 

Accountability lives in clarity, not intent

One of the most expensive moments in any project is when accountability is assumed rather than agreed. 

The cost doesn’t show up immediately. It shows up later in rework, delays, second-guessing, escalation fatigue, and quiet resentment between roles that were never meant to be in conflict. 

I often ask senior leaders very simple questions:
Who actually owns this decision?
What does “good” look like in observable terms?
What authority does this role have when things get uncomfortable? 

If those answers are vague, accountability is already fragile. 

Real accountability isn’t about control, hierarchy, or performance management.  

Real accountability is about creating enough clarity that people can lead and decide without hesitation. 

A practical lens for accountability

When accountability is working well, three things are aligned. 

1. Role clarity — who owns what decision, outcome, or risk. 
2. Clear expectations — what success looks like, by when, and within what boundaries. 
3. Authority — what someone can decide, influence, or escalate, especially under pressure. 

When any one of these is missing, accountability becomes unstable. People hesitate. They double-check or they act and then worry they’ve overstepped. None of that supports confident leadership or clean delivery. 

A familiar project story

I once worked on a large transformation where the sponsor described their role as “oversight,” while the delivery lead assumed the sponsor would make final scope decisions. 

No one ever paused to clarify it. 

For months, decisions drifted. Some were delayed. Others were quietly overridden. Tension grew not because people weren’t capable or committed, but because accountability had been inferred rather than agreed. 

When decision ownership was finally made explicit – who decides, who contributes, who needs to be informed – momentum returned almost immediately. The work didn’t become easier, but it became cleaner. The tension didn’t disappear, but it became productive instead of personal. 

What strong accountability sounds like

True accountability doesn’t announce itself loudly. It doesn’t rely on escalation or heroics. It shows up early, quietly, and consistently. 

It sounds like:
“This is what I own.”
“This is what I need from you.”
“This is what I can decide and what I can’t.”
“And if pressure increases, this is how we’ll work it through.” 

Those conversations don’t slow projects down. They reduce friction, build trust, and protect momentum. 

If accountability feels shaky in your project right now, I’d encourage you not to start by asking who is failing. 

Start by asking a different question:
What expectations are still living in people’s heads instead of being made explicit? 

That question alone often shifts the conversation from judgement to clarity, from frustration to leadership. 

In complex project environments, that shift makes all the difference.