"Gotcha" Doesn't "Getcha" Accountability! What Does?

"We need more accountability in the public sector. Nothing happens for poor performance!" A speech heard often during any election season. A scary speech - mostly because each of us can cite an instance where the statement rings true.

As reformers, this interest in greater accountability is not undesirable. We want performance to matter. We want accountability. But let's be careful what we wish for. We all know when instances of abuse of public trust have caused people to call for more oversight, additional rules, inspections, Blue Ribbon commissions,

At PSG, we're convinced that "gotcha" is not getting us the accountability we desire. We believe new designs and strategies regarding accountability are needed. Within Multnomah County, Oregon, they are tackling this very notion. We are currently working with the County to develop a priority-based budget. One of the first steps is to determine the top priorities of government as expressed by citizens. To Multnomah's credit, they've established this priority as one of six - "I want my government to be accountable at every level".

Imagine being the lead or member of the team assigned this priority! The first thing the team was asked to do was draw a cause-and-effect map of factors that lead to accountability. In the beginning, every person had a different theory of what contributed most to accountability. And, they rightly wondered whether government insiders and citizens might see it differently. They listened to experts and they listened to citizens. After several iterations, this is the visual map they took to the Board of County Commissioners in late October 2004:

Click on the image above to see a larger version.

What jumps off the page at me is their theory of causality that a climate of accountability can best be built through these factors - clarifying priorities and direction, clear and open interactions with community members, being truthful about measurable performance, and managing finances so that resources are aligned with priorities and deliver results that the community values.

This map is one of the first I've seen showing a pathway to accountability. To me, it is important both for the factors it includes and its silence on factors that have been used more traditionally. So let me attempt to make those factors visible. I'll do so by asking three questions and contrasting past answers with emerging ones that this map suggests to me.

Question	Past Answer	Emerging Answer
To whom are we accountable?	To the boss To a control agency Up the chain of command	To customers To the community

Past definitions of accountability often demand to know "who's in charge?" or "what's the chain of command?" This past definition of accountability causes people of the public sector to "ask our boss" when we wonder what we should do and how we are doing. Yet, almost always 'looking to the boss' has the effect of turning our backs on our customers. Instead, Multnomah's map of accountability has faces of community members right in the center, implying that the county must be accountable to customers - the community collectively and/or customers of individual services.

PSG's opinion is that it is better that people be accountable rather than just be held accountable. Holding people accountable requires adding enforcement or supervision to the relationship. While this may be necessary — especially when employees are new or if there are persistent lapses in performance of a program — it is more effective and efficient to put the vast majority of people in a position to be directly accountable to those they serve. The customer of each function can be identified; serving customers well will instill service accountability throughout.

Past definitions of accountability dictate that as long as rules and regulations are followed - and effort expended according to plan - things are considered on track. There are no rules and regs on Multnomah's map. This map puts the focus squarely on clarity of direction and measurable improvement in results desired by the community. To me, this approach to accountability will require much more constant vigilance - with no resting on our oars. This map exhorts the public sector to both produce results that are valued today AND listen to the community to hear about changing expectations.

Question	Past Answer	Emerging Answer
What means should be used to accomplish accountability?	Inspections and audits of numbers, processes followed, costs Measurement for "finding fault" Public shaming Consequences = punishment (fines, firings and finger-pointing)	"Audits" of strategy and results achieved Measurement for reflection, adjustment, & intervention Public reporting Consequences = a full continuum

What means of accountability work best? Multnomah's map suggests performance measurement and truthful reporting to the public. I strongly agree. Public reporting of good-bad results is imperative for public trust and confidence. But, here is a fear of mine - and a hope. Past definitions of accountability have also talked about measurement and reporting, as well as inspections and audits. But often they were used for shaming - for finding fault, for unfair comparisons, for punishment. They scare people into 'laying low' around them - or worse yet, manipulating the numbers.

My hope is that the emerging accountability models will refocus measurement and reporting on results and on strategy - and spell out a new intention. That intention would be to improve performance - to find what works, to invite in new ideas - and to quickly help turn-around individuals or programs that aren't performing! I'd like to see a whole range of consequences - from celebratory consequences for improved results such as best practice spotlights or shared rewards to intervention consequences for lagging performance that add more support, more clarity, or close a program or project humanely. In other words, punishment is a consequence, but most consequences need not be punishing.

In conclusion, I celebrate Multnomah's work to date - both at the Commissioner level and this team. This map has certainly caused me to question whether accountability has been approached all wrong. If you think about it, most of our current accountability systems and practices treat non-performers as the norm and put all controls in front of all people. The emerging answers flip that assumption on its head. I'd love to see any and all accountability designs out there that treat performers as the norm and non-performers as the exception! I believe they hold the promise to "getcha" much better accountability.