Understanding Accountability 

According to the Encarta Dictionary, accountability is defined as being “responsible to someone or for something” or “capable of being explained.”

In a business context, accountability involves keeping promises and being genuine in relation to your own expectations.

Accountability is fundamentally a personal value. It cannot be imposed; rather, it must be embraced willingly. While individual accountability rests with employees, it is your responsibility to provide them with the necessary tools to reach their full potential.

Why Emphasize Accountability? 

In recent years, there has been an increasing demand for individuals to take responsibility for their actions. This trend reflects a broader societal shift, as many institutions that influence society appear to be less accountable, a phenomenon observed globally.

A 2012 poll by Gallup (an organization that specializes in research about human beliefs and behavior) found that confidence in the United States government was extremely low. Only 37% of respondents said that they had quite a lot or a great deal of trust in the American presidency. (This is compared to 72% in 1991, and 52% in 1975, the year after Watergate.)

The Era of Distrust

How did we arrive at this point? Did society simply lose faith around the year 2000, or was there a sudden collapse of accountability in our institutions? The roots of this situation extend back several decades, with trends observed primarily in the United States but mirrored in many places worldwide.

1960s

In the post-war period, advocates for social change emerged, leading to rights movements and medical advancements that enhanced the quality of life for many, particularly marginalized groups. During this time, media—especially the rising influence of television—promoted the idea that every American deserved happiness, largely through material means. Fulfillment shifted from hard work to something that could be bought or received by chance.

Roger Conner, former director of the American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities (now the Center for Community Interest), noted, “If you try to think where we went wrong, it was in disconnecting rights from responsibilities. People are fixated on their rights but have a diminished sense of responsibility, so when they don’t get what they want, they assume it’s someone else’s fault.”

1970s

As the counterculture of the 1960s faded, the rights movement transformed in unexpected ways. Changes in the legal system—such as broader definitions of negligence and the rise of opportunistic legal practices—led to numerous frivolous lawsuits. Suddenly, individuals could blame others for their misfortunes, whether it was a faulty appliance or a myriad of newly recognized ailments.

Simultaneously, talk shows like Phil Donohue evolved into more sensational formats hosted by figures like Geraldo Rivera and Oprah Winfrey in the 1980s. These programs encouraged guests to share personal struggles, often rewarding the most dramatic revelations with applause and increased viewership.

1980s and 1990s

The concept of accountability and personal responsibility continued to decline over the following two decades. Dependency on social systems grew, and many shifted blame for their issues onto others. Diagnoses of seemingly fabricated conditions became more common.

In Diseasing of America, Stanton Peele argues, “By altering views on personal responsibility, our understanding of disease undermines moral and legal standards at a time when we are experiencing a significant loss of social morality. Disease concepts…validate and excuse certain behaviors, leading people to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that their actions are not their own.”

Outrageous lawsuits and bizarre criminal defenses became commonplace. A notorious case involved Dan White, who assassinated San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978. His defense, known as the “Twinkie Defense,” claimed temporary insanity due to depression exacerbated by junk food consumption. White received a seven-year sentence but served only five years.

Early 2000s

In 1991, James Taylor wrote in New York Magazine that “[society’s] well of guilt is running dry.” By 2000, public frustration grew over high-profile CEOs who appeared immune to accountability.

Some notable scandals from this period include:

• 2001-2002:The collapse of Enron and WorldCom after revelations of financial misconduct.
• 2003-2005:Boeing CEO Harry Stonecipher was ousted due to extramarital affairs with employees.

• 2004:Martha Stewart served prison time for fraudulent stock trading.
• 2006:David Edmondson, former RadioShack CEO, resigned after fabricating educational credentials.
• 2007:BP CEO John Browne resigned after lying in court about personal matters.
• 2007:Barry Bonds faced indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice related to performance-enhancing drug use.
• 2009-2010:Tiger Woods’ public persona crumbled following a car crash that revealed personal scandals.

Lessons Learned

We’ve just taken a quick look at some of the events in history (particularly American history) that have gotten us where we are today – to a point where we are demanding accountability. In order for people to be really accountable, they must be responsible on both a personal and a corporate level.