It is good to see such a clear focus on organisational accountability, it is a vitally important issue. The information provided shows clear insight into the issue. The article on Fact Based Management mentions that “accountable organizations strive to eliminate the subjectivity and raw opinion that is sometimes injected into the decision-making process; grounding decisions on a more tangible, objective foundation.” In light of this approach I will offer a little analysis of the broader context and scope of organisations and organisational accountability.

Organisational accountability is a great idea but it seems to me to be too narrowly defined, or at least, its scope of applicability has not been made clear. I see that by the terminology it is aimed specifically at corporate organisations but they exist within a real-world context and also, these things often get applied more broadly than their original context so I will consider it here within a broader context of human organisations in general. I’ll run this idea by you all so that we can maybe look into some of the complexities of the situation. It may also shed some light on the specifically corporate context.

First I’ll give some background and work towards clarifying what I mean. I will consider mainly the ideas contained within the statement from the above article: “Organizational accountability exists when all members of the workforce individually and collectively act to consequentially promote the timely accomplishment of the organization’s mission.” I focus on this because it seems to be quite representative of the core of the ideas.

An organisation can be described as a system composed of an informal structure and a formal structure [1]. The informal structure consists of individual humans, human relations, traditions, norms, the grape-vine, etc. The formal structure consists of teams, departments, inter-departmental relations, organisational mission statements, organisational rules, enforcement, incentives, monitoring, assets and equipment, etc. The formal structure attempts to control the energetic potential of the informal structure, by controlling the memetic flow throughout the system, in order to harness and channel its energy to meet the organisational goals. A human mind is a kind of memetic processor so by controlling the flow of memes the organisation controls the people’s behaviour and weaves their collective behaviour into the organisation itself [2].

The situation of informal and formal structures is played out in all organisations to different degrees from families, to peer or professional groups, to community organisations, NGO’s, corporations, industry groups, nations, economic blocs and human civilisation as a whole.

Organisations don’t exist in isolation. There are organisations within organisations, just as in system theory there are systems within systems. And just as systems inter-penetrate each other, with sub-systems occupying roles within numerous super-systems, so too people and sub-organisations inter-penetrate numerous organisations. Each formal structure tries to control the individual in terms of its own agendas and often these agendas are in competition for the “human resource”. This can create memetic conflict or tension within the individuals and sub-organisations involved.

If one defines an ‘organisation’ in a narrow sense, such as an individual corporation or NGO etc, then this complexity can seemingly be ignored but the complexity still remains to be dealt with in order for the organisation be truly accountable and able to perform effectively in the actual, and not just the idealised, context.

Given this more complex view of the organisational ecosystem I have a few questions. Which organisation’s mission needs to be accomplished in order for there to be organisational accountability? What about the case of nested or inter-penetrating organisations? Each organisation will perceive the situation differently from its own perspective, so is it a purely relative term? The missions of family, company and nation may be at odds with each other in regards to the control of an individual. Although they don’t necessarily need to be, but what if they are? Is it possible to derive a definition for organisational accountability within this wider context? If we cannot or do not, then can the more narrow definition be truly effective in providing real accountability?

Each organisation will tend to define its idea of ‘mission’ and ‘accountability’ from its own perspective and attempt to impose this on the situation. Hence there is an inherent multiplicity of subjective organisational perspectives, between which there are inevitable power struggles. This results in a Le Différand which is a term coined by the postmodern philosopher Lyotard who was seeking “a logical basis for support for epistemological multiplicity, for the positive value of non-totalizing argument.” The term “marks[s] the boundaries between discourses that are unbridgeable by the ambitions of a total theory.”[ref 3][4]. Lyotard explored this phenomenon in depth in regards to the criminal justice system and its position of being the final arbiter of who is guilty and who is innocent. The justice system declares that its perspective is “the perspective” from which all such things are to be judged. However pragmatic this may be, it often leads to injustices because it fails to take proper account of other perspectives. This is particularly pronounced in cases where the laws are flawed in some way and thus there arises non-violent and open civil disobedience to help remedy the situation, in which case many people are penalised for doing what is required to safeguard their society.

The postmodern philosophy of Lyotard suggests that it would be impossible to define the concept of organisational accountability within the broader and more complex situation, simply because of the multiplicity of subjective organisational perspectives. It could still be a useful, but idealised, measure within a narrowly defined context but if considered to be objective and broadly applicable to organisations in general it could become a totalizing argument that denies other equally valid perspectives and thereby unintentionally allows for injustices to be perpetrated under the guise of organisational accountability. The more powerful organisations would impose their perspective and thereby do injustice to other organisational perspectives.

In my humble opinion, the only way around this dilemma and to make the idea more broadly applicable, would be to remove the subjective aspect from the definition. That is, it should not be defined in terms of the “accomplishment of the organization’s mission” but in other terms that can be applied to the whole, complex situation. Exactly what they may be I could only guess right now, perhaps “contribution to the overall harmony and sustainability of the entire civilisation and ecosystem”. Given our current knowledge, such an indicator is only theoretical but may still be a useful guide.

The article on fact based management may provide some clue: “For instance, it is often said that organizations value their employee’s experience. Individual experience is an extremely difficult quality to quantify and therefore measure. Should experience be measured based on time? Or education? Or positions held? Or some combination of all of these things? Ultimately, organizations value experience because of the benefits it brings, namely, a combination of higher-quality results and improved productivity. Both of these qualities are far more quantifiable than the more subjective quality of experience.” So perhaps there is some measurable quantifier that can be found that spans the true complexity of the situation. Systems theory might be a good place to look as well.

But if organisational accountability is defined in terms of particular organisations and their particular perspectives then there will be inevitable Le Différands. If true organisational accountability is what is sought then the approach needs to explicitly take account of this complexity and multiplicity of perspectives, at least to provide an understanding of the limits of the scope of its applicability, otherwise it is likely to be applied beyond its safe limits. If this is neglected then organisational conflict may arise that would be damaging to the whole situation and the individual humans involved may be torn between competing memetic forces, creating serious confusion and conflict.The sub-organisations and individual humans involved may be torn between competing memetic forces, creating serious confusion and conflict. It can potentially result in loss of productivity, nervous breakdown, depression, sociopathic behaviour, terrorism and suicide for the individuals [5] and analogous problems for the sub-organisations.

These ideas are suggestive of some underlying issues in our current organisational context. They might be worth considering. What do you think?

Links or References provided as a starting point for further research:
1)http://www.google.com.au/search?q=informal+formal+structure+organisation
2)http://www.google.com.au/search?q=meme+control+organisation
3)http://books.google.com.au/books?id=TF0uQ_5TA_0C&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=Le+Differand&source=web&ots=Uc_hp4KxKV&sig=d_ps9mq9WCaFMqbk_AGDpw_cb_A&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result
4)http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Le+Differand
5)http://www.google.com.au/search?q=memetic+conflict+depression

I too believe in the benefits of employing a manager-once-removed program, though I often refer to it as a skip-level relationship. Whatever the name, the broader perspective offered and credibility given to the organization’s strategic direction is a powerful and often necessary communication.

I agree with you that the questioner’s directs could be seeking the broader perspective and reinforcement of strategic direction the manager-once-removed can offer. However, I feel that the unusually high frequency of such requests, as indicated by the questioner, suggests more than a desire for information or confirmation. In this instance, or others like it, I believe the freqency of subordinate requests to speak with senior managers suggests a management challenge which is discussed in the StrategyDriven Response above.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

All the Best,
Nathan

I couldn’t agree more. I find that all too often, organization’s hold on to prevailing, conventional wisdom because it validates their desired course of action. Organizations achieving real gains are those that establish one or more strategic objectives and then rigorously evaluate internal organizational performance and external environmental factors; using this information to evaluate and select the initiatives to be pursued independent of whether or not these represent the initial desired course of action.

Posts throughout the StrategyDriven website are aimed at helping leaders successfully develop and execute an unbiased strategy that maximizes their organization’s value. Outward Insights also offers thought content leaders can use to help their organizations become more strategy driven. I’d encourage all StrategyDriven readers to checkout the high quality content on Outward Insights.

Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts with us, Kenneth!

All the Best,
Nathan

The role of m-o-r very important and when done skillfully will not erode the working relationship you have with your direct reports.

The Effective Executive is one of my favorite books. Peter Drucker packed the book with amazing insights. This is one of those books I read slowly and keep referring back to because I found I could apply almost every part to making myself and my organization more effective.

Thanks again for the feedback!

Nathan

Thanks for the recommendation. I’ve enjoyed several of your favorite books listed on Manager Tools and am looking forward to reading Blue Ocean Strategy.

Thanks again the feedback!

Nathan

The book I REALLY like lately about strategy (though this one IS good) is Blue Ocean Strategy. I like thinking about creating new territory by thinking differently about the market.

Mark Horstman
Manager Tools