I stumbled onto one of my pet peeves today.  Accountability for achievement of a goal was assigned to an individual who does not have the authority needed to execute.

Authority can be granted or earned or a combination of these.  In most cases achieving success requires some exercise of authority.

Consider a grocery store cashier.  These days mostly they are authorized to accept cash,credit or debit in payment for the goods being purchased.

If a check is offered they cannot accept it, although they are accountable for completing the purchase transaction, this would be a case where they do not have enough authority to personally complete the task for which they are accountable.

In this example, the cashier would escalate to a manager for a decision thereby facilitating transaction completion.   The authority level is clearly defined as is the the operational procedure for exceptions.

My Pet Peeve

My issue is around those cases where accountabilty is assigned without any authority.  The expectation is the accountable individual will somehow be able to earn and exercise the authority needed.

This does pose the real danger though of contravening organizational expectations around the level of an individuals empowerment.  This could be a problem for the individual, the organization or both.

Avoiding the issue

Organizational leaders have the capability to resolve this issue by defining empowerment and authority boundaries (clearly documented) as well as ensuring checks and balances are in place to ensure they are not abused.

No one should be given accountability for a task for which the authority parameters (whether earned or granted) are not sufficient to get the task completed.