It seems in many systems, both political and economic, especially those built on the concept of ‘accountability’, simple competence in the tasks performed by the individual are seen as good enough and all that is required to do the job. Over stimulation towards the need for oppressive accountability sets itself against the other concept of our age ‘efficiency’ and the expert is downgraded in importance and relevance making improvement through progress and innovation highly unlikely. What is at first seemingly about improvement and its control, the ‘cult’ of accountability will eventually ruin the often laudable goals of many organisations both private and public.

Expertise or the development of the individual toward expertise is seen as a threat to those in positions of power who presumably are experts, play the role of expert but often are not. True experts see the problems and issues of those in power who are not experts and may point them out.  Making your boss, or superior, feel inferior is a recipe for conflict.

The seeming cult of ‘accountability’ rather than motivating individuals towards development of skills to expert, enforce ongoing mediocrity of mere competence. There exists a very real fear of informal retribution from those in positions of power who feel threatened by the development of expertise among their ‘underlings’ or ‘inferiors’. If and when someone does develop expertise they are often, but not always, seen as a threat, made to feel uncomfortable, seen as unhappy and in need of a change ultimately leading to transfer and or promotion out to a ‘happier place’.

In a system based on accountability, like the quota system of the old USSR, efficiency and risky innovative progress were sacrificed as attention became heavily placed on the common denominator, usually the lowest. Risk taking by experts is seen as untenable, wasteful and pointless in achieving the ‘goal’. These risks are assessed (risk assessment, yup they even have a phrase for it), cost benefit analysis is applied by those in positions of power and responsibility and who are then accountable to yet another layer of management. Nobody wants to take a risk and look bad, everyone settles for mediocrity.

Risk for improvement is seen as a liability, staying the course of what is known, measurable and knowable is preferred. Efficiency is eroded and improvement in overall operations is heavily curtailed, perhaps even made to decline as more attention to the minutia of accountability through a growing burden of procedures and a burgeoning preponderance of instruments of measurement (usually simple checklists) takes precedence over real progress. The mundane and mediocre are preferred over the level of expertise and excellence despite the desires of the greater organization.

If accountability becomes a primary in goal attainment, the goal will never be met neither by coercion or genuine desire. Drastic measures to seek improvements will be demanded with efficiency, expertise and progress compromised and downgraded with no hope of achieving them. Fudging and downright lying by management about improvement, progress or meeting, and perhaps exceeding, output targets will become commonplace as the house of cards get bigger and bigger. Blame for lack of attention to accountability, decline in overall performance and stagnation in methods and procedures is put upon the workers as the managers scramble to see what is wrong with their program.

Overemphasis on accountability stagnates any system in its outlook towards growth, opportunity and improvement. Letting experts do what they are expert at, accepting risk as a part of progress and trusting your people to do what it is they are hired, or selected, to do without undue surveillance are hallmarks of good and even great organisations.