Clarity comes before accountability

When I was asked to stabilise a struggling operation, the problems were already visible: material shortages, unfinished work, exhausted employees, and unclear accountability. I had recently stepped into a broader leadership role. I felt the pressure to move quickly and demonstrate that I could improve the situation.

My first instinct was to focus on the backlog and demand better performance. But listening to employees changed my understanding of the problem. People were putting considerable effort into work that lacked clear priorities, consistent routines, and dependable coordination. Some felt blamed for conditions they had neither created nor been empowered to resolve.

That experience continues to shape my view of accountability. A leader has to establish what people are responsible for and give them a workable way to fulfil that responsibility. Without that foundation, a demand for better results can leave the underlying problem untouched.

Examine the conditions behind the result

A missed target tells us that something needs attention. It does not, by itself, explain what went wrong. The cause might involve individual performance, an unrealistic workload, unavailable material, conflicting instructions, or a decision that sat unresolved between teams. Each requires a different response.

Consider a team expected to finish a priority job while its supervisor receives several competing requests. If nobody has the authority to settle the conflict, the team has to make its own trade-off. Reviewing the missed commitment afterward without examining that choice gives leadership an incomplete account of what happened.

I find it useful to ask what was clear at the point the work had to be done. Did the team understand the priority? Were the necessary inputs available? Could someone resolve a conflict in time? Those questions make a performance conversation more precise. They also reveal what leadership needs to correct.

Build clarity into the daily work

In the operation I led, we began establishing clearer roles, daily priorities, operating routines, and more direct communication between teams. I also tried to stay visible, listen to concerns, and acknowledge the pressure people were carrying. Over time, performance improved, the backlog declined, and trust began to return.

I would be cautious about attributing that improvement to any single action. What matters to me is the relationship between the changes: people had a clearer understanding of the work, a more consistent way to coordinate it, and leadership that was engaged with the conditions around them.

Clarity has to survive a difficult day. A priority needs a rule for what happens when another urgent request arrives. A responsibility needs sufficient authority or a reliable escalation route. A measure needs a shared definition. Otherwise, the apparent agreement made in a meeting can disappear as soon as the operation comes under pressure.

Make accountability more specific

Clearer conditions do not remove the need for standards or difficult conversations. They make those conversations fairer and more useful. Once expectations, resources, and decision rights are understood, a leader is better positioned to distinguish a performance issue from a failure in how the work has been organised.

This is also where dignity matters. Listening to people is part of understanding the operation. An employee who can explain why the official process repeatedly breaks down may be giving leadership information that a dashboard cannot provide.

Before the next performance review, I would examine one recurring missed commitment with the people closest to it. Trace the work, identify the unresolved decisions, and agree on what each party will change. Then assess the result against that clearer agreement.

I want people to be accountable for their work. I also want leaders, including me, to be accountable for the conditions that make good work possible.