Most owners treat accountability as something that flows down the chart. Real accountability starts with the conditions the leader created.
The first time a deadline slipped hard on my watch as a founder, I scanned the room for a name. Who dropped it? Who missed the handoff? Who should have flagged it sooner? The quiet that followed was the real signal. People were deciding how much of the truth was still safe to bring to me.
Here’s my situation, so you know where I’m coming from. I run an SBA lender and certified community development financial institution, and I teach entrepreneurial leadership at Arizona State University’s W.P. Carey School of Business. Across those chairs I keep watching the same move: When something breaks, attention rushes to the person closest to the break. The conditions that made the break likely stay unnamed.
Most owners treat accountability as something that flows down the org chart. That direction is backward. Accountability is credible only when responsibility gets heavier as authority rises. A shop that disciplines frontline mistakes while insulating senior judgment is transferring risk, not demanding excellence. Gallup finds that managers account for at least 70% of the variance in team engagement, and only 20% of employees worldwide were engaged in 2025. The layer that shapes what people will say out loud is the layer that owns the conditions.
I used to treat the hunt for a name as leadership. Wrong move. Finding a person can be necessary. Starting there trains everyone else to edit the story before it reaches you.
Source link







