A leader made an observation recently that I have heard many times before.
“We keep talking about accountability, but people don’t seem to be
taking ownership.”
As the discussion continued, it became clear the team was capable. Expectations were generally understood. Performance was not the primary issue.
People were waiting.
Waiting for approval.
Waiting for direction.
Waiting for someone more senior to make the decision.
Over time, many organisations unintentionally create environments where decision-making gradually moves upwards. Leaders become increasingly involved in
work that others could reasonably own.
The intention is usually positive. Leaders want to support their people. They want consistency. They want to reduce risk.
Yet there can be unintended consequences.
Ownership decreases.
Initiative declines.
Managers become bottlenecks.
What appears to be an accountability issue may actually be an autonomy issue.
This is one reason Self-Determination Theory continues to be influential in leadership and organisational psychology.
Developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, the theory suggests that people are more motivated when three psychological needs are supported: autonomy, competence and relatedness.
Of these, autonomy is often the most misunderstood.
Autonomy does not mean the absence of accountability.
Nor does it mean people can simply do whatever they choose.
Rather, autonomy reflects a person’s sense of ownership and influence over how their work is approached.
People are more likely to support what they help to create.
They are more likely to take responsibility for decisions they have helped shape.
They are more likely to engage when their judgement is trusted.
The challenge for leaders is finding the right balance.
Too little guidance creates uncertainty.
Too much control can reduce ownership.
The leaders who navigate this balance effectively often discover that accountability grows naturally when people feel trusted to contribute.
Perhaps the question is not whether people are willing to take responsibility.
Perhaps it is whether they have enough opportunity to do so.
