Willingness to be Scrutinized

We talk a lot about accountability in the nonprofit sector:  we must be accountable to our funders; the board is accountable to the public; the executive director is accountable to the board, the rest of staff accountable to the executive director, and so on.

Embed from Getty Images

Frequently, in our sector, accountability is linked to transparency:  we must be transparent and accountable.  But what does that accountability mean?  We say it, we know what it means; in other words, we have a general concept of what accountability is all about, but do we really know what being accountable means?  Do we really understand the behavior we must exhibit to be truly accountable?  And, even better, do all of us, at least all of us in the same organization, agree on what it means?

This isn’t a philosophical debate or an academic contemplation of the navel type of question.  It is, actually, quite an important question, as our “goodness” as an organization is, increasingly, determined by our degree of accountability.

Are you fiscally accountable? Are you accountable for fulfilling mission promises? Achieving impact? Relying on the best people, both on staff and on the board?  And the list goes on.  For quite some time now, the mantra for nonprofits that wish to be successful has been “transparency and accountability.”  I’ve come to realize that too many have chanted this mantra without any real understanding, let alone consensus, on what the “accountability” in that phrase requires of us, perhaps hoping that if it is repeated frequently enough, we will attain that desired state of being transparent and accountable.

Merriam-Webster defines accountability as “an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions.”  A big no no:  using the word to define the word.  Shame!  BusinessDictionary.com provides this definition:  “the obligation of an individual or organization to account for its activities, accept responsibility for them, and to disclose the results in a transparent manner.”  So, being transparent is part of being accountable, so the mantra of the sector has been redundant all these years!  Shame on us!  Other general and profession-specific dictionaries offer variations on this theme.

Recently, I came across a definition of accountability, author unknown, that I thought was spot on:  “the willingness to be scrutinized.”  There is little room for different understandings and interpretations.  I think scrutiny is widely understood to be a careful, “close inspection,” as Merriam-Webster puts it.  It is easy to argue that “willingness” is equally understandable:  doing something on your own accord, no gun to your head, no other threats being made.

In this understanding of accountability, you and your organization are accountable when you freely give yourself over to being studied, to being asked questions, to being put, if you will, under the microscope.  This version suggests a “come hither” attitude and a readiness to have your performance critically assessed and judgments made.  It suggests a position of “I/we have nothing to hide and everything to gain” by your seeing how I/we operate.

Even if you discover an error, we welcome you so that we can learn, as the mistake is the result of ignorance or human error, not deceit, malevolence or malfeasance.  Accountability is being amenable to having another assess your performance and then listening, receptively, to the feedback—good or bad.

While I am a firm believer in each individual setting her/his own standards of performance, as opposed to being graded by others, our culture of teachers grading students’ performance from the moment they enter kindergarten (if not pre-school) has created adults sadly incapable of judging themselves and the organizations they lead, or of trusting the judgments of anyone other than that third party.  Thus, we have accountability—being scrutinized by others as to how we stack up against others’ standards and expectations.

Make no mistake:  I am not at all opposed to accountability.  It is, sadly, necessary, because too many have lost their own codes of ethics, moral integrity, and respect for the law that now make the need for being held accountable by others so essential.  But I will always maintain that to acquiesce control of our own standards—our holding ourselves accountable—in favor of those of others is, at best, problematic.

Thinking of accountability as a willingness to be scrutinized spins accountability from negative to positive.  Under the more routine understandings of accountability, accountability too often looks and feels aggressive and mistrusting.

A board unexpectedly rises from its slumber to evaluable its executive director, suddenly fearful that the executive director is not doing her/his job (i.e., being accountable); the executive director becomes equally fearful.

A boss revealed to have been unaccountable himself turns on his direct reports to question every move, not willing to acknowledge that lack of accountability does not always follow not having been called to accountability.  Another slumbering board awakens and starts demanding to examine the check registry because the board finally heard that there is only enough money to keep the doors open for two more months.   These are aggressive acts that belittle the idea of a willingness to be scrutinized, to look together and together address whatever—real or imagined—spurred the belligerent action that is rendering relationships asunder.

As the examples above suggest, there is another misconception about accountability:  it is not a start and stop activity, but a consistent way of being.  We are accountable—this minute, next minute, last minute.  This week, next week, last week.  This year, ….  Accountability done right is not a dirty word; the sooner we come to understand that, the better.