Accountability Must Be Chosen, Not Mandated

By Kendra Okposo, April 29, 2026

Summary.   

When things go wrong, efforts to hold people “accountable” in an organization rarely produce what leaders actually want. Instead, they see compliance without commitment and weakened performance over time. The core issue is: Accountability cannot be mandated; it must be chosen. Leaders frequently undermine this choice by rewarding certainty over learning, punishing mistakes, and equating clarity with control. True accountability emerges when three elements align at the individual, team, and organizational level: mindsets that prioritize ownership over self-protection, meaning that connects work to purpose, and mechanisms that make it safe and expected to step up. A case study shows that co-creating norms, practicing accountability behaviors, and reinforcing them through systems can significantly improve transparency, prioritization, and results. It reveals three ways to make accountability easier—not harder—to choose in your organization:

1) Emphasize the power of authorship,

2) practice choosing accountability, and 3) translate accountability into results.

Leaders today face intense pressure to deliver results amid restructuring, cultural volatility, and rapid AI adoption. When performance slips or execution wavers, the instinct is often to tighten controls, increase monitoring, set firmer targets, and “hold people accountable.”

But these efforts rarely produce the results leaders actually want. Instead of inspiring deeper ownership or better follow-through, organizations often see people avoid risk, downplay problems, or focus more on looking accountable than being accountable. This dynamic stalls performance, as the organization becomes slower, more bureaucratic, and less resilient when adaptability matters most.

The core issue is that accountability can’t be imposed. True accountability is a personal and collective decision made every day to own outcomes, follow through on commitments, and address mistakes with integrity, even when circumstances shift and success isn’t guaranteed—and people have to choose it for themselves. Unfortunately, many leaders unintentionally create conditions that make that choice harder rather than easier by rewarding the performance of certainty over growth and learning, punishing mistakes, or confusing compliance with ownership. To make accountability stick, leaders must encourage the mindsets and mechanisms that make accountability an authentic, self-driven choice.

Consider how accountability shows up in simple, everyday acts:

• An individual admits a mistake rather than hiding it. At the individual level, accountability is a personal decision to follow through with integrity: owning mistakes, adapting when things change, and continuing to act even when outcomes aren’t guaranteed.
• A team debates hard ideas without damaging trust. At the team level, accountability becomes a shared commitment to collective results, where trust, debate, and honest feedback are expected rather than avoided.
• An organization rewards progress even when the path changes. At the organizational level, accountability is shaped by the systems and norms that make it easier to step forward rather than retreat when pressure rises.

These are acts of will. If behavior is driven by oversight, it often diminishes when scrutiny fades. But when accountability is a personal choice, it persists even under discomfort or uncertainty.

One problem here is that leaders often optimize for their own comfort. They conflate setting clear expectations with accountability, and clarity with control. You can set clear expectations all day, but it is no guarantee of accountability. Clarity might ease your anxiety in a constantly changing and uncertain environment, but it is no guarantee that your people will show up every day with the intention and commitment to execute great work.

Leaders should stop asking “How do I hold people accountable?” and start asking “What’s preventing them from choosing it?” This is a guide to create the conditions that make accountability easier—not harder—to choose, grounded in my work at BTS partnering with global organizations on large-scale change and transformation.

Mindsets, Meaning, and Mechanisms

At the individual, team, and organizational levels, I’ve consistently seen that three elements determine whether people choose accountability:

• Mindset: The beliefs that shape our actions. Do I ask, “Will I get blamed for this?” or “Am I someone others can rely on, even in uncertainty?” An accountable mindset shifts us from self-protection to seeing ourselves as essential to the outcome.
• Meaning: The “why” that makes the choice worth it. When the meaning is clear, accountability stops being about compliance and starts being about care and commitment. At the individual level, meaning might come from values like integrity or reliability. At the team level, it’s often a shared goal that transcends any one person’s contribution.
• Mechanisms: The structures, processes, and support systems that make accountability easier to choose. At the organizational level, this could mean cultural rituals that reward growth and responsiveness (not just results); feedback or redress systems that address harm, misalignment, or inequity; and meeting and review practices that create psychological safety by normalizing candor, learning, and shared problem-solving.

When strong mindsets, deep meaning, and helpful mechanisms converge, accountability stops being forced and becomes the obvious choice. Leaders should ask themselves:

• What am I doing to make accountability easier to choose?
• Do I model what it looks like to own a mistake and move forward with integrity?
• Do I ask for feedback on how I’m showing up, and act on what I hear?
• As a team, do we celebrate the behaviors that lead to growth, not just the outcomes?
• What happens in our organization when someone fails while trying to do the right thing?
• When was the last time one of our leaders publicly owned a mistake and used it to lead better?
• Do we value polish more than progress? Or certainty more than curiosity?
• What messages are our rituals, reviews, and recognition systems sending about accountability?
• Who gets promoted? The ones who look ready, or the ones who get better?

Case Study: Creating the Conditions for Chosen Accountability

In my role at BTS, I worked with a leading global transportation provider that had grown quickly, expanding across multiple regions. As a result, the complexity of the demands on its leadership team had increased. In this high-stakes environment, precision, safety, and efficiency were nonnegotiable, and success depended on leaders at every level solving problems quickly and across silos.

As the company scaled, inconsistent accountability among leaders began to slow decisions, weaken follow-through, and erode trust across teams. The culture’s focus on individual excellence, which had propelled the company’s growth, also created an undercurrent of blame, avoidance, and finger-pointing. Business performance meetings became defensive exchanges instead of collaborative problem-solving sessions.

The leadership team saw that the very culture that had propelled success was now holding them back. To meet the demands of a more complex, fast-moving business, they needed a shift toward shared ownership where accountability wasn’t enforced from the outside but actively chosen in the moment. Here are the steps we took together that you can adopt in your own organization.

1. Emphasize the power of authorship.

The first step to creating space to choose accountability was co-creation. The phrase “authorship is ownership” has long circulated in leadership circles, but rarely has it been applied to accountability. In our facilitated sessions, the company’s top 250 leaders reflected on their current mindsets (often rooted in shame or blame), the impact those mindsets had on the business and culture, and the moments when a different mindset was necessary to achieve better outcomes.

Together, they co-authored a playbook that broke accountability down into real, recognizable moments in their work, both great and not great. These included clearly articulating core problems, not just the symptoms; individual roles in driving a solution; and proactively raising questions and concerns connected to the enterprise, not just each leader’s function. This act of authorship gave leaders a sense of ownership over their own mindset shifts, making it clear how choosing a different path could improve results.

2. Practice choosing accountability.

Next, we created a mechanism to practice choosing accountability. For three 10-week periods, all leaders practiced the same accountability behaviors during their day-to-day work and in business performance meetings. Leaders practiced asking for feedback about their performance over five weeks, then practiced pausing to define what they owned in another five. They refined a total of six new accountability habits together, with consistent peer reflection time to share the moments in which they chose accountability and realized its impact.

Every organization will have their own particular behaviors that could turn into accountability habits. But consider some possible examples:

• Ask for feedback on leadership impact.
• Name ownership clearly at the start of projects.
• Acknowledge mistakes without defensiveness.
• Pause to define personal responsibility before reacting.
• Share lessons learned from accountability wins and misses.
• Commit to a clear next step after every review or meeting.

Your organization may need different behaviors to create space for accountability. They might involve different moments or language than the examples listed above, like setting a team norm to surface blockers early in a project or building in a weekly pause to reflect on what ownership looked like that week. The core idea remains the same: Accountability is built through consistent, intentional practice that makes it easy for people to choose it.

3. Translate accountability into results.

At the end of the project, leaders felt the difference. The level of engagement for leaders and their broader teams was higher than it had ever been. They reported improvements in problem-solving skills, ensuring they addressed the root cause of problems instead of implementing surface-level and speedy solutions. They felt more equipped to deliver results and more confident choosing accountability even in constantly changing conditions.

Leaders that attended the business performance meetings saw a 50% increase in their preparedness, coming with a clear agenda and sticking to it; a 50% increase in their transparency, sharing their past actions and mistakes candidly and raising helpful questions and concerns; and a 95% increase in prioritization, focusing on what was most important to drive the enterprise results instead of becoming overly focused on personal agenda.

Accountability is sustained through relationships, not rules or expectations alone. Relational capacity and skills like active listening and productive conflict are not soft skills, but survival skills. When people trust one another and feel safe enough to surface problems, admit mistakes, and learn in real time, they don’t need perfect clarity to act. They create the outcome together. It’s not tighter role definitions that drive performance over time, but the depth of trust that allows people to step forward, fail fast, and stay committed even when conditions change.

In a world that pivots faster than any plan can predict, the most valuable leaders won’t be the ones who appear flawless. They’ll be the ones willing to own their failures, adapt, learn, and lead anyway. They’ll be the ones who choose to be accountable, no matter what.

Story from Havard Business Review

Kendra Okposo is a director in the Change and Transformation Center of Expertise at BTS and co-leads BTS’s DEI practice group. She specializes in partnering with clients to co-create scalable and accessible drivers of strategic change initiatives. As a former employment lawyer, Kendra uses her unique background to identify, measure, and shift pivotal mindsets, behaviors, and processes to support specific business outcomes for sustainable enterprise success.