The Center for Ethics, Governance, & Accountability

In our study of ethics, governance, and accountability at CEGA, we find that certain principles are more readily comprehendible and applicable than others. For example, ethics and governance seem to be more definable than, say, the issue of accountability. Why is that so? We believe it may have to do with the fact that accountability is a bit more amorphous: is it something that you heap upon yourself, or is it something that is done unto you? We will explore the importance of defining executive accountability in this article because we suggest it can be an instructive leadership tool.

To the extent that a non-profit organization clearly understands that the IRS is its regulatory agency – a very different function than the IRS serves for either individuals or for-profit organizations – then the issue of accountability connotes ‘penalties, recompense, and consequences’ for unacceptable behavior. A ‘punishment’ of sorts. At CEGA, our goal is to move issues such as accountability to the proactive level where it can become an attribute of the non-profit in its competition for funding dollars and program excellence.

Let’s take a look at a couple of pertinent examples. We selected these examples to make you think and they may not immediately appear applicable to a discussion on accountability. But, they truly are.

In a recent Newsweek magazine article, Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, shares his thought that “Being human is learning how to ask critical questions of your own habits and compulsions, and it’s learning how to adjust them against a model of human behavior – an idealized truth about the purpose of our humanity.” He goes on to talk about “balancing acts” and “calculations of self-interest and security” and “resolution of buried tensions” and directs them toward an ultimate end: “as a means to finding our way to a life that manifests something, a life that doesn’t just solve problems of survival and profit.” (Newsweek, February 8, 2010, page 11)

In her book, “How to Get Your Wiggle Back,” author Nan Hoy Shaw tells a story she says has been around for a long time. She calls it the “White Horse” story and it’s about an old man, the son he loves, the white horse he finds, the king that wants to buy his white horse, the white horse that leaves him and then returns with even more white horses, and so on. It’s a story about life and our outlook on life; a story that could go on and on, without end. And, as Shaw says, “The point is that the old man was able to focus and identify what he knew without judging the rightness or wrongness of the situation.” She goes on to say, “Many of us often have pieces of information that we judge as good or bad when we really don’t know very much of the story at all.” (“How to Get Your Wiggle Back” – Nan Hoy Shaw, Mattermatics Publishing, © 2009, page 49)

Executive-level leaders need to solve an equation. An equation just for themselves. We suggest that it could look like this: Proactive Leadership Excellence + Asking Critical Questions + Gathering Buried Information + Avoiding Judgment = Executive Accountability. That's not THE equation, but that's AN equation. Simply a starting point. Some of the components in this ‘equation’ are subjective and some are objective, which adds to the challenge of coming up with your own personal solution. These challenges serve to strengthen an outcome that can best be derived through your own reflections and pursuits. 

How does ‘executive’ accountability differ from what is expected of others? Simple. If you are in a position of authority – in particular, we would suggest, in a non-profit organization where your very existence is a regulatory privilege (your IRS exemption letter) and your primary mission (per your IRS excemption application) is community service – then you (as executive director) should bear an appropriately heavier burden on issues of accountability in keeping with the position of responsibility you hold.

There simply must be no denying this fact. (If you harbor any doubt whatsoever, ask yourself if the governance structure of your non-profit is solid.)

I was recently given a real example by a long-time board member of a local non-profit organization (who was also a former chair of that board, so he had good experience -- both in governance and with the mission of the specific organization). He shared with me that he recently attended an executive committee meeting whereupon the executive director was openly berating a staff member about whatever issue was being questioned by the board members. However you would choose to define ‘executive accountability’ for yourself  -- and within the context of your organization -- we would suggest this true example serves to epitomize a leadership behavior and an accountability style that you should not emulate! Please consider: if you were to ponder this example -- and demonstrate an accountability style that was the antithesis (absolute opposite) of the example shared above, then do you think the board member would have shared a different and more positive story?

When you found this article, were you hoping for a prescription that would lead you to one of those ‘one-size-fits-all’ definitions of executive accountability? If so, then we were not likely successful as you reach the conclusion of this article. However, if you have found a few tid-bits in this article that you feel are thought-provoking and realistic, then hopefully these issues will better inform your own personal search for the solution to your very own and unique ‘equation.’ If so, then this article has accomplished its purpose.

We would invite and encourage you to participate in an instructive dialogue with your peers by replying to this blog post and sharing your actual experiences as well as your thoughts. We believe that actual examples -- and real dialogue -- is of major benefit to everyone as we seek to move closer toward excellence.