Hillary's Accountability

Well, Hillary did two weeks ago the same thing that Ken Lay did several years ago on Larry King Live. Mr. Lay was CEO and Chairman of the Board of Enron and was being interviewed by Larry King while he was under investigation and shortly before his indictment for his role in Enron’s fraud. Mr. Lay told King that he was “responsible for Enron,” and then a few minutes later stated that he was not responsible for Fastow and Skilling and what they had been doing regarding Enron’s trading and financial shenanigans. Larry King did what any of us would have done and reminded Lay that he had just said he was “responsible” for Enron, which should encompass the fiscal fraud. Lay had to extricate himself from that confusion.

 If Lay had said he was accountable for Enron but not responsible for Skilling, et al he would have been more accurate (perhaps; he was, after all, indicted).

But we all confuse the two concepts. Hillary did exactly the same thing as Lay last week when she took the blame for the Libyan Benghazi US Consulate attack by saying she was “responsible” for security or the lack of it.

Responsibility has a personal aspect to it; it is tied to what we personally do or not do.

Accountability is a collective idea associated with authority. We are accountable for what we have authority over. We cascade delegated responsibilities (duties) to individuals down through an organization. We give responsibilities to others but cannot “off-load” our accountability. Hillary’s responsibility would have been to articulate her expectations concerning the security of consulates and assure that her instructions were carried out. Others, perhaps well down in the organization, would have had the responsibilities for putting the expectations into effect.

Penn State, Sandusky, and Board Governance

There has been much discussion about the question of board culpability for the sins of Jerry Sandusky at Penn State and at his foundation, Second Mile.

In all the hand wringing about Penn State/Second Mile/Sandusky there is an underlying perplexity regarding, “what about the boards?” What is the business of accountability and responsibility and assuring both? People have no problem fixing blame and responsibility to individuals. We muddle around when it comes to the boards. We usually ask, “Did the boards react appropriately?” This belies our underlying mental model of governance by question-asking and reaction. We rarely ask, “What responsibility did the board(s) have to pro-actively minimize the likelihood of a Sandusky?” We have a hard time figuring that out. This comes from our view of board governance and the lack of clarity, even befuddlement, over execution of board responsibility to delegate and assure accountability, first, by assuring that board values (including the unwanted) are expressed and then reasonably, yet sufficiently, implemented.

What Does It Take To Get Us To Move? Even Improve?

I’ve been thinking about the relationship between decision-making, especially in the light of board governance, and actual change in a board’s or anyone’s) behavior. Here are some thoughts:

To change people must:
1. Be searching for applicable truth - be curious and have a sense of our need, even urgency in seeking truth–and be willing to seek truth in areas where you do not want it!
2. Hear truth - be open and looking. We naturally resist or deny truth that is, or may be, contrary to our present course of action or our beliefs. We rationalize why it doesn’t apply or may not be true. This, of course, also means testing the information we’ve received concerning its reliability and truthfulness–its alignment with reality.
3. Receive/accept/believe it. Without being convinced that what we have learned is true we will not go to the next step which is…
4. Internalize/absorb/grasp it - Not only be convinced that what we have learned is true but that it true for us and has meaning and impact for us. It is part of our reality and it creates emotional energy in us. We must apply it to ourselves and our situation. If not, we will not act, (unless compelled against our will.)
5. Begin to act on it. - practice doing it. Without practice there is no learning and growth in proficiency.
6. Continue doing it. Inertia works against us when starting something but in our favor when we have begun something and are developing the practice, (such as sticking to an exercise regimen or a diet). Author Jim Collins talks about the flywheel effect - that by giving small impulses repeatedly and persistently in the right direction we can get even a large, heavy flywheel spinning faster and faster. Excellence absolutely depends on persistence–getting better and better.

These principles apply to governing boards. I see boards all the time that get interested, profess the desire to improve and only begin before they falter and fail. Board members must believe in what they are being coached to do to improve their governance. It is almost always uphill against their current practices and often involves greater rigor for them. So the strong tendency is to begin with good intentions but then increasingly resist the need to change and then slide backwards. Generally someone on the board must take the role of the one who gives the flywheel a shove.
We experience this in our everyday life. Our spouse encourages us to keep doing something that for a variety reason we might fall back from, e.g., a diet or going to the gym. He or she gives our flywheel a shove. We need that.