Dr Axel Kravatzky
Governance of any type of organisation involves the system by which an organisation is directed, overseen, and held accountable for achieving its defined organisational purpose. That means that boards, or, more generally, the governing bodies of organisations, need to demonstrate accountability for the organisation’s performance and behaviour.
Both in public discussion as well as within the confines of organisations, there is no shortage of calls for increased and effective accountability.
And yet, there seems to be an endless stream of examples where this is not happening. The result is that there is wave after wave of calls for more accountability and outcries for something to be done. Unfortunately, it is much easier to determine that something has gone wrong, and not so easy to know exactly how it has gone wrong or how to avoid the skilful traps set by those who seek to gain from the lack of accountability.
Those who have mastered the art and science of accountability avoidance commonly employ four mechanisms to undermine the very possibility of accountability or effective delegation of responsibility. The examples here are largely focused on the relationships between boards and those to whom they delegate, but variations of the same mechanisms work in ministries and the entities to which they delegate responsibilities; or managers within companies who delegate to their subordinates.
Avoid specifics
The first mechanism is to avoid clearly negotiated, specified, or agreed results that are meant to be achieved.
When boards are being led to believe that they are all-powerful and they end up dictating results to be achieved, or where ministers purposefully exploit the common phrase in legislation that compels the organisation to follow the "general instructions" of the relevant minister, or they just lazily or incompetently avoid specifying the quantity, quality, time and resources within which a result is to be achieved – the possibility for effective accountability has already been successfully avoided.
If those delegating did not fall into the trap sufficiently themselves, then those to whom responsibility is delegated can resort to saying, "Don’t worry about all the details and formality, just tell me the results you want." On paper this seems a mistake as easy to avoid as it is common in practice.
Mismatch resources and results
The second mechanism involves creating situations in which there is a mismatch between results expected and resources to be employed. For example, a board of a public entity may agree to larger organizational structure in order to generate goodwill, but it is thereby generating persistent vacancies. An alternative that works equally well in private and public organisations is to create inflated budgets, and then have the budget randomly and unilaterally slashed.
In either case, accountability is avoided because commensurate resources were not negotiated and agreed.
You told me to do it so
The third mechanism is to either fake incompetence or
