Insights29/11/2024

From Finger-Pointing to Collaboration: Striking the Balance Between Responsibility and Accountability

If everyone’s responsible, who takes the blame when something goes wrong?

pragmatic agile

Article by

Stefano Mainetti

Executive Chairman

Linkedin

With the evolution of organizational models toward Agile, one of the most frequent and complex questions posed by traditional managers is: "If everyone is responsible, who takes the blame when something goes wrong?" This seemingly simple question hides a deeper reflection on the implications of transitioning from a hierarchical model to a collaborative and distributed one. 

In the traditional paradigm, responsibility is often associated with a hierarchical concept, where the leader makes decisions, assigns tasks, and is directly accountable for the results. While this model can be effective in some contexts, it has proven limiting in environments characterized by uncertainty, innovation, and rapid change. Agile, on the other hand, offers a radically different approach, emphasizing autonomy and shared responsibility within teams.

However, this transition is not without its challenges. For leaders accustomed to tight control and supervision systems, shared responsibility can appear as a risk. They question whether this model might lead to a lack of accountability, or worse, an absence of control. This is precisely where the dilemma of responsibility in Agile teams emerges—a topic that requires addressing with solid methodological foundations and a clear conceptual distinction.

Leaders' Fear: The Risk of Abdicating Responsibility and Losing Control

One of the main obstacles to Agile adoption is the concerns of leaders, often rooted in a corporate culture built around centralized control and the need to identify a "culprit" in case of failure. For many managers, the idea of sharing responsibility within a team is unsettling. They fear it could lead to a situation where no one feels truly responsible, creating ambiguity and inefficiencies. 

This fear is not unfounded. In some organizations that superficially adopt Agile, a lack of clarity regarding roles and objectives has indeed resulted in confusion and abdication of responsibility. When collective responsibility is neither understood nor implemented correctly, it risks degenerating into a "gray area" where everyone feels relieved of the decision-making burden. Leaders then find themselves asking: "How can we correct mistakes if we don’t know who is responsible for them?" This question reflects a traditional view of responsibility, focused on finding the culprit rather than understanding the systemic causes that led to the error. 

The search for a scapegoat, however, represents a cultural trap that not only fails to solve problems but also stifles people’s potential. In an environment where mistakes are punished with blame, team members tend to develop a defensive mindset, focusing more on self-preservation than on problem-solving. This leads to the emergence of the so-called**"culture of excuses", where energy is invested in justifying oneself rather than acting to improve. The fear of being blamed stifles creativity, inhibits collaboration, and diminishes the sense ofownership**necessary to perform even the simplest tasks. 

Conversely, Agile, in its essence, proposes a paradigm shift: it is not about identifying who made a mistake, but rather understanding what within the system allowed the error to occur. This shift in focus enables the creation of a continuous learning environment, where failure is not an event to be avoided at all costs but an opportunity to analyze, improve, and progress as a team. Only by moving beyond the search for blame and fostering a culture oriented toward shared responsibility can leaders unlock the true potential of their teams and fully embrace the principles of Agile.

What Does “Shared Responsibility” Really Mean?

Shared responsibility is one of the central principles of Agile, but it is also one of the most misunderstood, especially by those accustomed to hierarchical and linear organizational models. Many tend to interpret shared responsibility as an absence of individual responsibility, fearing that collective involvement may lead to operational confusion. However, the reality is quite different: shared responsibility does not eliminate specific roles and functions but rather places them within a broader collaborative framework where each person’s contribution adds to the others to achieve common goals. 

A simple and intuitive example to illustrate this concept is that of a football team. In a team, every player has a well-defined role: the goalkeeper protects the net, defenders manage the backline, midfielders orchestrate the play, and forwards aim to score. Each of these roles is crucial, but victory or defeat is never solely dependent on one individual. The team wins or loses together. 

This dynamic perfectly illustrates shared responsibility. Each player is responsible for their role, but at the same time, they contribute to the collective outcome. If a forward misses an important goal or a defender makes an error, the team does not stop to assign blame. Instead, they work to compensate for the mistake and improve as a group, recognizing that success is always the result of a joint effort. 

The same principle applies to Agile teams. Every team member is duty-bound to contribute to achieving common goals, assuming responsibility not only for their work but also for the overall success of the project. If a system element fails—be it a missed deadline, a software bug, or a suboptimal strategic decision—the entire team works together to find solutions and learn from the experience. 

This approach to shared responsibility fosters a sense of belonging and cohesion that goes beyond mere task execution. As in a football team, every team member feels the weight (and the pride) of being part of something larger. This mindset not only motivates individuals to give their best but also promotes genuine collaboration, where people support one another to overcome obstacles and achieve results. 

At the same time, shared responsibility does not imply a lack of structure. Even in a football team, there are more specific responsibilities that cannot be ignored. The goalkeeper has the exclusive task of stopping shots, and if they fail, they cannot simply say, “It’s everyone’s responsibility.” Similarly, in an Agile team, there are roles and responsibilities that must be respected to ensure that work proceeds smoothly. Shared responsibility does not eliminate these specificities but integrates them into a collaborative framework that values both individual and collective contributions. 

However, this approach requires a profound cultural shift. It is not enough to declare that “we are all responsible”; it is necessary to build an environment where shared responsibility is supported by clear practices, defined roles, and effective communication.

Distinguishing “Responsibility” and “Accountability”

One of the fundamental aspects of understanding the dynamics of responsibility within Agile teams is the distinction between the concepts of responsibility and accountability, which are often confused, especially in organizations with a strong hierarchical tradition. This distinction is essential to avoid misunderstandings that could undermine the effectiveness of an Agile team. 

Responsibility in Agile is shared: it represents the commitment that each team member makes to contribute to the achievement of common goals. Everyone works with responsibility in collaboration with others to ensure product quality and adherence to deadlines. 

Accountability in Agile is specific and strategic. It identifies who is formally responsible for achieving specific results or objectives. Accountability is linked to the concept of ownership: the person or role accountable has control over decisions and directly answers the outcomes, while still collaborating with the team.

From the analysis of the two definitions, it becomes clear that responsibility is a collective, distributed, and inclusive commitment. It reflects the moral and professional obligation of all team members to contribute to the achievement of common goals. Being responsible, beyond taking care of one’s individual tasks, means sharing a sense of belonging, a desire for collective success, and a commitment to the quality of the work produced. For example, in a software development team, every member has the responsibility to ensure that the final product meets the quality and value requirements for the client. 

However, this shared responsibility does not imply a lack of specific roles or confusion in decision-making processes. Here is where the concept of accountability comes into play, representing a more defined, specific, and individual commitment. Accountability involves taking ownership of a particular outcome or process, with a degree of autonomy and control that allows the accountable person to make strategic and operational decisions. Being accountable means not only being responsible for one’s work but also directly answering the decisions made and their consequences. 

The need to distinguish between responsibility and accountability becomes evident in critical moments, such as when a project encounters obstacles or deviates from its initial objectives. If responsibility is shared by everyone, how can we identify who is tasked with intervening to resolve the issue? This is where accountability proves indispensable: it clarifies who, within the team, has the mandate to make decisions and act swiftly in challenging situations.

The Relationship Between Responsibility and Accountability

Responsibility and accountability are distinct concepts, but they are neither separate nor in conflict. On the contrary, they reinforce each other: shared responsibility creates the context for collaborative work, while accountability provides structure and direction. Without shared responsibility, a team risks becoming fragmented, with members working in isolation on their tasks without considering the bigger picture. Conversely, without clear accountability, the team might fall into operational confusion, with members hesitating to make decisions out of fear of making mistakes. 

As mentioned earlier, one aspect of accountability is that it cannot be arbitrarily delegated. This means that once assigned, accountability cannot be easily transferred or removed without compromising operational clarity. This clarity is essential to ensure decisions are made promptly and with the necessary support. 

The distinction between responsibility and accountability is particularly useful for explaining how Agile teams operate in practice. Let us return to the example of software development. While all team members are responsible for the quality of the code, one person or a specific role may be assigned accountability for a particular aspect of the process, such as conducting final tests or ensuring the product is ready for release. This does not diminish the team’s collective responsibility but ensures that someone specific monitors a critical aspect of the process. 

This distinction also applies at the strategic level. In an Agile organization, leaders retain accountability for aligning operational decisions with the company’s strategic goals. They do not delegate their strategic accountability but exercise it through ongoing support to teams, providing vision, resources, and guidance without compromising the teams' operational autonomy. 

Finally, it is worth noting the challenge in applying the distinction between responsibility and accountability, which arises from the cultural translation of these concepts. In Italian, terms like "responsibility" and "accountability" tend to overlap semantically, complicating their understanding and application. This requires educational efforts within organizations to clarify how these concepts differ and how they can be applied in a complementary way.

How to Implement Clear Accountability in Agile Teams

Implementing clear accountability in Agile teams is neither an immediate nor a simple process. It requires a combination of organizational culture, practical tools, and an iterative approach that allows solutions to be tailored to the team's specificities and the business context. The risk of not properly implementing accountability is twofold: on the one hand, it can lead to confusion and ambiguity; on the other, it may result in a hierarchical model that nullifies the benefits of Agile. Therefore, success depends on careful planning and informed leadership. 

The first step to implementing clear accountability is to transparently define roles and responsibilities. Every team member must know exactly what is expected of them and which decisions fall within their sphere of autonomy. This does not mean assigning rigid or prescriptive roles but creating a framework that enables the team to operate with clarity and confidence. 

A fundamental principle for ensuring effective accountability is assigning end-to-end responsibility—that is, responsibility throughout the entire value chain. In an Agile context, the goal is not just to complete tasks or meet deadlines but to create real value for the end user. This means that each accountability must be linked to a concrete and measurable outcome that reflects the value created for the customer. 

Accountability cannot exist without adequate support. For a team or an individual to truly be accountable, it is necessary to provide the resources required to perform their role effectively. This includes not only tools and budgets but also time, skills, and access to relevant information. 

Accountability is not a static concept; it must evolve over time in response to changes in context and lessons learned. Retrospectives are an essential tool for evaluating the effectiveness of accountability and implementing improvements. During a retrospective, the team can openly discuss how accountabilities have been assigned and managed. These discussions, conducted in an environment of trust and collaboration, allow for the identification of weaknesses and improvement opportunities, fostering continuous learning. 

Finally, leadership plays a crucial role in the success of accountability in Agile teams. Leaders must act as facilitators, creating an environment where the team can take responsibility and calculate risks. This requires an approach based on trust rather than control and a willingness to support the team in times of difficulty. 

An effective Agile leader does not impose accountability but builds it together with the team, ensuring that everyone understands their role and has the tools to perform it to the best of their abilities.

Overcoming the “Blame” Paradigm

Ultimately, the question “If everyone is responsible, who takes the blame when something goes wrong?” reflects a mindset that equates responsibility with blame. While familiar and comforting to some, this approach can prove counterproductive in complex and dynamic environments like those of digital transformation initiatives. 

Adopting Agile does not mean relinquishing responsibility but transforming its nature. Agile proposes a paradigm shift: responsibility becomes shared, a collective commitment in which each team member recognizes their role in the project’s success (or failure). However, this distributed responsibility is not synonymous with confusion or abdication of responsibility. The presence of clear accountability, assigned to specific and strategic roles, ensures that decisions are made thoughtfully and that the team maintains a well-defined direction. 

Overcoming the culture of blame is essential to unlocking the potential of people and teams. In an Agile organization, failure is never an event to be feared but an opportunity to learn and improve. When the focus shifts from blaming individuals to addressing systemic errors collaboratively, an environment of mutual trust becomes the glue that binds the team together.

Leaders play a pivotal role in this transformation. They must champion a culture where continuous improvement and learning take precedence over immediate perfection. Creating a psychologically safe environment where people can take calculated risks without fear of judgment is the foundation for the success of Agile teams. This approach requires courage, vision, and the ability to embrace uncertainty as an integral part of the process. 

The adoption of Agile goes beyond a change in methodologies; it demands a cultural evolution. This means shifting the focus from individuals to processes, from blame to cause, and from fear to trust. Only in this way can we build organizations capable of innovating, adapting, and thriving in a constantly evolving world. 

Ultimately, the true answer to the initial question is that responsibility belongs to the system. It is the system—composed of people, roles, values, and practices—that is responsible for success or failure. And when the system works, every mistake becomes a step toward a greater goal. This is the heartbeat of Agile: a balance betweenshared responsibilityandclear accountability, combined with a culture of trust that unleashes human potential to achieve extraordinary results.

SCOPRI GLI ALTRI ARTICOLI DELLA SERIE

SCOPRI GLI ALTRI ARTICOLI DELLA SERIE: VAI ALLA PAGINA

References:

Appelo, J. (2011). Management 3.0: Leading Agile Developers, Developing Agile Leaders. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley. 

Denning, S. (2018). The Age of Agile: How Smart Companies Are Transforming the Way Work Gets Done. New York, NY: AMACOM. 

Dikert, K., Paasivaara, M., & Lassenius, C. (2016). Challenges and Success Factors for Large-Scale Agile Transformations: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Systems and Software*, 119*, 87-108. Available at the link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.06.013 

Hayward, S. (2018). The Agile Leader: How to Create an Agile Business in the Digital Age. London: Kogan Page. 

Koning, P. (2020). Agile Leadership Toolkit: Learning to Thrive with Self-Managing Teams. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. 

Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness. Brussels, Belgium: Nelson Parker. 

Mainetti, S. (2024). From Command to Connection: The Role of Vulnerability in Leadership, Available at the link: https://tinyurl.com/59tp648. 

Moe, N. B., Dingsøyr, T., & Dybå, T. (2010). A Teamwork Model for Understanding an Agile Team: A Case Study of a Scrum Project. Information and Software Technology*, 52*(5), 480-491. Available at the link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.004 

Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., & Takeuchi, H. (2016). Embracing Agile. Harvard Business Review*, 94*(5), 40-50. 

Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide: The Definitive Guide to Scrum: The Rules of the Game. Available at the link: https://scrumguides.org 

Solga, M. (2021). The 'Align - Empower' Model of Agile Leadership. cidpartners GmbH. 

Takeuchi, H., & Nonaka, I. (1986).The New New Product Development Game.Harvard Business Review*, 64*(1), 137-146.