Accountability

Accountability is the one thing that everyone wants for everyone else.

Accountability

The word accountability, taken literally, means to be liable to be called to account, where to account, in its most basic sense, is about answering for conduct. Like so many other words meanings get twisted up. Sometimes people use the word to mean give an account and sometimes they use it to mean “get in trouble.”

Operational Accountability

Operational accountability can be said to exist when all the actors acting in a system can expect to be called to account for their conduct (actions) regardless of whether that call comes from a superior, a peer, or a subordinate AND where the primary purpose (intent) of being called to account is to develop understanding and learning in the system.

Mere Accountability

Simply meeting the conditions set forth in the previous section establishes that accountability exists. That is mere accountability. In addition to accountability, per se, the system also must have a method to judge whether deviant behavior was justifiable. In other words, it is one thing to tell the story of what happened, it is another for that story to suffice.

Deviance

Any rational actor who understands the operational context of emergency personnel also recognizes the need for initiative e.g., the taking of action without orders (expressed or implied) when an opportunity to do good exists or the opportunity to avoid harm exists. And given the pressing need to all actors to share a common operational picture and have reasonable expectations for the behaviors of their teammates, deviations from prescribed methods, practices, routines, rule sets, etc…are inherently hazardous.

All deviance from expectation is hazardous, not all deviance is wrong. In fact a well planned system that accounts for the inherent variability of the operational context will build in standard mechanisms for deviance, such that even deviant behavior comes with reasonable expectations.

Justification

Deviant behavior can be justified to the extent that it can meet a three-pronged test. The action must have been deliberate AND defendable AND communicated. All three parts are required to meet the threshold. An actor can be said to be justified in their deviance to the extent that they are able to articulate and/or demonstrate all three prongs of the test.

The burden of proof for justification lies with the actor and requires that the actor be able to articulate not only what they did but also the context of the decision, including the objectives on which their actions were based. A simple explanation meets the threshold of accountability, it does suffice for justification.

Deliberate

An action is deliberate to the extent that the actor can articulate the thought process that led to the action. This eliminates from consideration those situations where an actor drifted into an action, or simply “found” themselves in a situation. This is where the “why” or the underlying thought process becomes important.

Outcomes, whether positive or negative are irrelevant. There is too much contextual variability to limit the discussion to outcomes. The imperative is that each action is taken with an articulated and valid objective in mind. This is about the thought process.

A justification that cannot be articulated is no justification at all.

Defendable

An action is defendable to the extent that the actor can articulate how their action was reasonable in the context of the event as they understood it at the time (local rationality) and how their action was tied to enhancing the effectiveness of achieving an articulated and valid objective and how the action was consistent with organizational standards, practices and/or philosophy. In this case the standards, practices and/or philosophy need not be explicit. Local rationality IS NOT an excuse, it is a method for understanding.

Communicated

An action is communicated to the extent that everyone who should have been aware of the action was aware or were made aware at the earliest possible time.

Discipline/Punishment

Where discipline/punishment is defined as the suffering of some adverse impact for the sake of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, or organizational protection, disciple is only required in refractory cases. A refractory case is where an individual actor, after having been held accountable, continues to behave in unjustified deviant ways. Discipline is indicated where, in the judgement of the system, no other methods are likely to result in behavior modification.

Learning

It is insufficient to hold accountable and/or punish. In the absence of learning nothing has been gained. The outcome of any accountability process must involve the capturing and dissemination of learnable lessons.

Boundaries

This substack spends a lot of time talking about boundaries. Systems have boundaries, people have boundaries. The boundaries are the edges, the interfaces between the things that belong in one group or category and those that do not. In this way a system is partially defined by the boundaries, partially defined by what it is not. Accountability is a part of the boundary. It is through accountability that a system firmly establishes what it is not. And paradoxically having that does not stifle innovation-heaven’s no-instead it opens up the door to unimaginable freedom of exploration….inside the lines.