8: The Standard Definition of Accountability (is Externally Motivated)
Welcome back!
We really hope you wrote down your personal definition of accountability. If you haven’t, it’s not too late and um…it’d show a lot of accountability if you did.
Accountability means a lot of different things to different people, and as such, resists a simple, comprehensive definition. To some, it refers simply to the expectation that one uphold certain expectations or responsibilities. For others, it refers to not just the expectation but in actually doing so. For still others, accountability can be discerned in how one upholds them. Then there’s the accountability of how one atones for having failed to uphold said responsibilities. Not to mention the kind of accountability of how genuinely and sincerely one apologizes. And last but not least, let’s not forget the kind of accountability where one helps another achieve particular goals. Take your pick, there’s more than enough types of accountability to choose from. Which one resembles yours?
The truth is accountability is any one of these things and all of them as well. With such sprawling and diverse applications, could this be part of the reason why it eludes easy definition?
If you’re like many of the people we’ve asked over the years for a sort of impromptu, personal definition for accountability, yours will perhaps incorporate words like responsibility or ownership, as in owning one’s actions and behavior by taking responsibility for them. (You might even note how intertwined these terms can be.) And like many others, you might use these terms interchangeably and define them in similar ways. This makes total sense, of course, as their meanings intersect and overlap in many ways. (Some days they even carpool. It’s nice.) And in common usage, all three are a kind of “catch-all” term denoting one who exhibits traits like reliability and capability, trustworthiness and integrity, and so on. Thus, there’s perhaps an added sense that such a person has an understanding of the magnitude of the responsibilities they carry, how to successfully carry them, and their responsibility to those who place their trust in them. And finally, there’s potentially a third component to your definition that includes the expectation of certain actions and behaviors one is expected to demonstrate should they fail in their responsibility.
In the most general sense, the following three aspects might reasonably be said to apply to all forms of accountability;
1) the understanding of a certain responsibility,
2) the expectation that such a responsibility be upheld,
3) the expectation of certain reparations or amends, should that responsibility not be upheld.
But given this same interpretation, there’s something we might all do well to acknowledge; we’re almost never called upon to define any of these words (accountability, responsibility, ownership) in what manner they are distinct or different from the other two. Which, incidentally, is exactly how real accountability falls through the cracks and where this blog comes in. (Palpable sense of major foreshadowing happening.)
..Because real accountability goes considerably further.
For example, it could arguably be said that where most people are concerned, if one were to meet someone who by all appearances exhibits a high degree of responsibility and personal ownership with regard to their partner and their relationship, they’d assume they’ve found someone with high accountability as well.
Not so.
First, because looks can always be deceiving. And secondly, because responsibility is a mere component of accountability. Put another way, accountable people are all responsible, but not all responsible people are accountable. (And trust us, while the difference might not be vast, you’ll soon see it is enormously significant.)
Having considered your own definition, we ask you now to consider the reason one might take responsibility or accountability.
What prompts or causes a person to step up and “own” their actions and behavior?
Perhaps for one of the following reasons;
1) Because one wants to (freely and willingly admit to their mistake or misdeed).
2) Because one was caught (failing to be accountable, and now has to).
3) Because it’s an agreement, expectation or demand (a workplace or relationship requirement, social norm, rule, contract, or law) and one complies with it.
These are all aspects of both responsibility and accountability.
And also given your personal definition, what actions might one take in order to demonstrate accountability?;
1) Personally acknowledge that they have failed to be accountable or responsible,
2) Admit to others (“own”) that they have failed to be accountable or responsible,
3) Attempt to make amends in some way.
These are all aspects of both responsibility and accountability as well.
And by most people’s estimation, this pretty much covers it. (To be honest, it was our understanding of accountability for far longer than we’d like to admit!)
It’s true, all of the above actions, all six of them, achieve the distinction of both responsibility and accountability because they are in fact actions which illustrate the reasons and ways in which one takes personal ownership of their actions. But while all six might refer to what many regard as full personal responsibility and ownership, they are just moderate or middling levels of genuine accountability.
The difference having to do with context, degree, and exactly when such responsibility or ownership is taken.
Note the conditions or circumstances in which such actions are taken. While they all refer to what is technically an act of virtue, they’re all due to;
1) a failure, mistake or wrong which one later admits to (at their discretion),
2) an external influence (requirement or expectation),
3) an external force.
What you might notice at this time about the above three forms of accountability is that they’re motivated by something or someone external to oneself, not prompted exclusively from within. (Admitting to one’s wrongdoing or mistake, while commendable, if it’s done due to a perceived external expectation or consequence, it’s still externally motivated.)
In truth, none of the above actions refer to a the highest degree of personal virtue, that of both consistent and ongoing accountability; accountable behavior following accountable behavior in a sustained and reliable manner. In other words, precisely the characteristic behavior of any genuinely loving, invested partner in a relationship who is naturally devoted to their partner. (Please read that last sentence again.)
Weird, huh? We accept (and esteem) as accountable behavior, behavior that is markedly inferior to that of any typical caring, loving, invested partner.
..This might be part of the problem. (What problem? Why is there a problem if in the end accountability is taken?)
That very phrase; “in the end ” is part of the problem, actually.
It’s a problem if when we refer to people taking full accountability or full responsibility for something, such people are actually permitted to do so only partially, intermittently, or ultimately; because they eventually decide to do so, because they realize they “should,” because they’re required to, or because they’ve been caught. It’s a considerable problem because what we then all end up with, albeit unknowingly, is a rather low ethical standard for relationships replacing (or distracting us from) a markedly higher one which is completely reasonable to ask of someone, particularly in a relationship. A high, though entirely reasonable, standard of conduct that not only is not achieved, it’s not acknowledged as vital to be upheld and maintained.
..And in the case of significant relationships, vital to be upheld and maintained in order for the relationship to survive. (This is not an exaggeration.)
We want a partner who’s internally accountable, but we only require that they be externally accountable.
While this can be a difficult thing to articulate, it’s perhaps analogous to a situation where, for instance, we long for partner who would desire to not steal from us, yet commend them for admitting they have stolen from us, even if they only admitted it because someone or something external to themselves made them do so.
And while we may even believe they should be punished for what they did, their act of “honesty” made us not only forgive some of the dishonesty they demonstrated by stealing, it made us de-emphasize our entirely reasonable expectation that they not steal from us in the first place.
That their honesty not have lapses, but actually be consistent and ongoing.
This is not about withholding forgiveness, mind you, nor is it about requiring perfection.
Not at all. (And we hope you’ll recognize when your partner has just screwed up or made a foolish mistake.)
It’s about articulating the immense harm one partner’s lack of reasonable accountability can do to a relationship over time. (And like we just said moments ago, this very same, entirely reasonable expectation of consistent and ongoing accountability is easily and effortlessly achieved, honored and upheld, ongoingly and unceasingly, by caring, invested partners, every single day, day-in and day-out, with no discernible difficulty or lapses. (Again, totally weird, huh?)
Because what ultimately erodes is not just trust, but the former belief that one’s partner values them and the relationship as much as they do the other. And when this is gone, when this leaves, the relationship (though both partners might continue to go through the motions), for all intents and purposes, is dead. It dies because the cold, hard truth is that in many relationships, failures of accountability aren’t due to silly imperfection, mistakes or screwups, they’re due to one partner having a low level of actual investment or care, and the other partner finally realizing this. And once someone realizes this, they can never really go back to before.
Despite the familiar adage that says otherwise, relationships don’t require “work” so much as they require accountability.
Consider the following examples;
Let’s take Marty over there for instance. Marty’s a terrific husband. The real deal. He voluntarily admits to his wife Sheila that he’s gambled away his paycheck yet again the very second she catches him sneaking in through the bedroom window at five am. She doesn’t even have to ask. (Now that’s taking full responsibility.)
And how ‘bout Chad over there? Chad has never once cheated on his wife. Not once. Why hasn’t he? According to Chad it’s apparently because his wife watches him like a friggin’ hawk. (Way to be accountable, Chad. We salute you!)
And ya’ see Ronda over there? Whenever she’s caught stealing money from her husband’s bank account, she confesses everything. Doesn’t even hesitate. Why are all the good ones taken? (Say what you will about Ronda, she definitely “owns” her behavior.)
Let’s hear it for these three gems, am I right?
…What? They all took accountability, didn’t they?
Fortunately for Marty, Chad, and Ronda, their partners forgive them each time. Why, you ask? Because of all the accountability they demonstrate right after! It shows how truly sorry and committed to genuine change they all are.
Viewed from Marty, Chad, and Ronda’s perspective, accountability doesn’t refer to a reliably high standard of conduct, or even the way in which one shows genuine remorse and truly makes amends for the trust they’ve destroyed. Accountability (as such people understand it) is a loophole, an ethical loophole, they can exploit whenever it’s convenient. Such people needn’t be genuinely accountable at all, but if they take accountability at the right moment and to the right measure, then “poof!”, suddenly they’re a model partner, a pillar of virtue. And their partners tolerate it, even embrace it, because such “accountability-speak” (paired with more promises and an Oscar-worthy show of remorse) looks and sounds like genuine repentance and a truly renewed commitment to the relationship.
…You think this never once crossed their minds?
All of this is to say that full responsibility does not constitute full accountability.
How are people able to exploit accountability in this way? Easy; they exploit the imprecise and inaccurate way most of us understand accountability.
The “unofficial” and “personal” definition most people have for accountability is that it’s a word that practically contains its own antonym; accountability seen as something one does to “fix” or erase non-accountability, or to remedy situations where acting with accountability clearly wasn’t something they naturally and authentically chose to do. And most definitely not (and please for the love of all that’s pure and holy in this world hear us now when we say) because they’ve chosen to live and conduct themselves in accordance with a moral and ethical code in which consistent, ongoing, observable accountability is its defining aspect.
Apparently, the most we think we can expect from people is the very least we can expect from them.
..And here’s the real kicker; unaccountable people all know this! It’s unaccountable people who capitalize on, exploit, and reap benefits from accountable people’s lack of awareness of what the real definition for accountability is! It’s the loophole of all loopholes!
Could it be that maybe, just maybe, we’re not getting quite the accountability we desire and deserve because, at least in part, we (personally, collectively, culturally) haven’t made accountability a clear enough expectation and requirement of those who seek to be our partners?
Honestly, if we as individuals- and as a culture- aren’t working with a clear definition of accountability, a definition that requires exemplary conduct from our potential or current partner, how on earth do we expect to keep toxic people from accessing and exploiting us?
What is there to do?
Given our conventional definition of accountability? Not a thing.
Because the definition we’ve been discussing thus far, the one most of us have lived with our entire lives, is not the actual definition of accountability at all.
Not even close.
Stay tuned, because in our next post, we’re finally gonna show you the real definition of accountability!