Responsible Control: CL2

An organization requires control over activities performed in its name.

From an error of omission perspective:
► if something needs to be done, then it should be done.

From an error of commission perspective:
► if something should not be done, then it must not be done.

This control requires individuals to accept responsibility on behalf of the organization. Within the organization itself, all responsibility must be devolved on to specific individuals (or sometimes teams). This applies even if,Closed in wider society, the organization is held responsible as a legal entity (or "juristic person".

Such thinking indicates that structuralist mode values are in play at CL2.

● A responsible individual is expected to give an account of the handling of any matter lying within, or touching on, his or her area of responsibility.  That is what accountability means.

● Every actual and potential activity in an organization must be covered: i.e. there must be no gaps in responsibility-cum-accountability. Such a goal can only be achieved by specifically designing a structure with this end in view.

Line-management needs to be designed so that adequate authority to handle people, and deal with situations, is present at each level of responsibility throughout the organization.

«Individual v Organization» Tension

Can a person be responsible and accountable for activities independently of the organization having the same accountability?  Obviously not.

Can organizational accountability for something exist independently of specific individual employees being accountable for that thing. Obviously not.

So at the structuralist level, the «individual v organization» duality is synthesized and there is again just one balanced centre as shown.

Work Process

Accountability demands a person's full involvement. It requires that no-one can isolate or divorce themselves from actions that are taken within their assigned sphere of responsibility, whether by themselves or by their direct subordinates.

Involvement goes in both directions: taking action involves accountability in relation to work-flow and plans, and accountability creates an involvement with taking action and in consequences of actions that have been taken.

So «Involvement» is a possible name for the CL1B ↔ CL2 channel of influence.

Pragmatic cultures often define posts in accord with specific tasks to be completed. This ignores responsibility for tasks that may emerge or have to be generated as the situation evolves. The boss at a higher level has a broader scope of duties and cannot always be on top of every situation to set these emerging tasks.

THEE observations and analyses posted in the Work in Organisations Satellite reveal that there are:

6 levels of task-activity, but
7 levels of general responsibility.

It is possible to be comprehensive in relation to responsibilities, but not in relation to activities. While responsibility will generate needed activity, activity rejects responsibility: "I did what I was asked to do, so don't look at me!".
ClosedMore:►

As a result, an action-based structure gives every manager a swiss-cheese responsibility, that is also blurred because it overlaps with managers above and below. Managers shown a THEE-based hierarchy of posts point to the line between one level and the next and say (correctly) "but my job is on that line". In such task-based structures, essential work (i.e. where tasks were not assigned) falls between the cracks, and matters go wrong rather quickly.

Neither specification of accountability nor calling someone to account will always be easy or obvious in practice.

A mishap might affect the whole of an organization (e.g. a disastrous foray into a foreign market). Accountability might then be properly spread over more than one individual.

There can also be valid arguments over where accountability primarily lies for any particular matter.

Because serious failures are often messy, one particular employee is often made a scapegoat and dismissed so as to bring the affair to an end. If it is a big issue in a public company with massive losses, the CEO &/or the Chairman may fall on their sword in order to reassure shareholders.

Systematizing and assigning accountabilities effectively inevitably generates clashes in perspective and self-interest:  i.e. once work responsibility is structured (CL2), a new organizational arena emerges—one where actions (CL1) lead to stand-offs or disputes.

Originally posted: 17-Sep-2011