3 ms·

> The person who was assigned to an action will report on progress and everyone is held accountable. We take minutes so that everyone is held accountable for th

> The person who was assigned to an action will report on progress and everyone is held accountable. We take minutes so that everyone is held accountable for the next monthly Leadership meeting. Uh-oh, sounds like a big company already. The phrase "is held accountable" is in the passive voice. When you have to implement process in order that people "are held accountable", you are acknowledging that you have a problem: There are people in the company who would shirk some or all of a task. OK, at 50 people perhaps it's unavoidable. However, if you need to counteract shirking by being held accountable, then you really want to switch to the active voice. Where is the active subject of that sentence? It really wants the active voice. Also: What happens when someone fails on a task?

Udo 14y ago
I think you might be reading too much context in to something where none exists. Possibly - I never heard about Treehouse before. Assigning a person who is responsible for the execution of an item is a good idea. Recognizing the need of having point persons for issues is not the same as acknowledging that employees are slacking off.
- kylec 14y ago
  I think there's a subtle, but distinct, semantic difference between someone being "responsible" for something vs "accountable" for something. The former means that someone is expected to do something or have that thing done, while the latter implies the person will face consequences if something is not done or not done well. Or, put another way, accountability means negative consequences if someone doesn't do what they're responsible for.
  - Udo 14y ago
    I get that. But all things being equal I wouldn't read too much into his phrasing here, especially since we're talking about a small startup company. Sure, most of us have traumatic experiences with big company culture, and sometimes certain phrases remind us of that trauma... ;-)
    - lifeisstillgood 14y ago
      Post Traumatic Corporation Disorder ?
  - dworin 14y ago
    In most project management approaches, the difference between responsibility or accountability doesn't have to do with consequences, it has to do with separating out the person responsible for actually completing the work from the person who is accountable for making sure it happens, even if they aren't the one doing it themselves. Once a company gets big enough that people have teams, its not unreasonable for a senior level manager to delegate a task to someone to get done. The CEO doesn't need to be involved in the details of who they delegate it to, or how that person does it, they just need to be sure that the work is going to get done. If they micromanaged to that level it would get annoying fast.
ryancarson 14y ago
The necessity of holding people accountable is the first thing I learned when managing folks. As well-intentioned as everyone is, people consistently deliver on things that they're held accountable for. They ignore things that you never ask about or measure.
- MattRogish 14y ago
  I find it's better to have a culture where everyone holds each other accountable on a continuous basis, rather than a privileged few lording over the rest periodically. See: Valve, Github, WL Gore and Associates Not that you can't run a company that way, but you start to introduce too much overhead for too little gain, and you start to look like the traditional, highly hierarchical, command-and-control companies. Once you start down that path, it's really, really difficult to come back.
- jpdoctor 14y ago
  So it's you holding them accountable, as opposed to the nebulous passive voice? As the post reads now, it was not clear whether the accountability was to you or to the leadership group. Clarity of task is important when making the transition to mid-size company, but clarity of hierarchy is also very important. It will save you trouble later on.

Udo 14y ago

I think you might be reading too much context in to something where none exists. Possibly - I never heard about Treehouse before. Assigning a person who is responsible for the execution of an item is a good idea. Recognizing the need of having point persons for issues is not the same as acknowledging that employees are slacking off.

kylec 14y ago
I think there's a subtle, but distinct, semantic difference between someone being "responsible" for something vs "accountable" for something. The former means that someone is expected to do something or have that thing done, while the latter implies the person will face consequences if something is not done or not done well. Or, put another way, accountability means negative consequences if someone doesn't do what they're responsible for.
- Udo 14y ago
  I get that. But all things being equal I wouldn't read too much into his phrasing here, especially since we're talking about a small startup company. Sure, most of us have traumatic experiences with big company culture, and sometimes certain phrases remind us of that trauma... ;-)
  - lifeisstillgood 14y ago
    Post Traumatic Corporation Disorder ?
- dworin 14y ago
  In most project management approaches, the difference between responsibility or accountability doesn't have to do with consequences, it has to do with separating out the person responsible for actually completing the work from the person who is accountable for making sure it happens, even if they aren't the one doing it themselves. Once a company gets big enough that people have teams, its not unreasonable for a senior level manager to delegate a task to someone to get done. The CEO doesn't need to be involved in the details of who they delegate it to, or how that person does it, they just need to be sure that the work is going to get done. If they micromanaged to that level it would get annoying fast.

ryancarson 14y ago

The necessity of holding people accountable is the first thing I learned when managing folks. As well-intentioned as everyone is, people consistently deliver on things that they're held accountable for. They ignore things that you never ask about or measure.

MattRogish 14y ago
I find it's better to have a culture where everyone holds each other accountable on a continuous basis, rather than a privileged few lording over the rest periodically. See: Valve, Github, WL Gore and Associates Not that you can't run a company that way, but you start to introduce too much overhead for too little gain, and you start to look like the traditional, highly hierarchical, command-and-control companies. Once you start down that path, it's really, really difficult to come back.
jpdoctor 14y ago
So it's you holding them accountable, as opposed to the nebulous passive voice? As the post reads now, it was not clear whether the accountability was to you or to the leadership group. Clarity of task is important when making the transition to mid-size company, but clarity of hierarchy is also very important. It will save you trouble later on.