When everyone is in charge of everything, nobody is responsible

Being in charge means: I am allowed to deal with it. Being accountable means: if it does not happen, it is down to me. The difference sounds like hair-splitting, but it decides whether a thing gets done.

In many organisations there is a crowd of people in charge of every task and nobody accountable. Maintenance is in charge of the machine, production of the output, quality of the release, planning of the sequence. When the machine stands still because of a quality problem that arose from a wrong sequence, all four are in charge. Accountable for it running again in two hours is nobody.

The image I use for this: accountability is like a relay baton. At any moment it can only be in one hand. As soon as two hands hold it, nobody runs. That does not rule out collaboration. It only means that it is always clear who is running right now and who is supporting.

Nobody consciously opts for ambiguity. It grows. Some routes I see again and again:

• The conflict avoider: two areas argue over a task, and management decides that both carry it "jointly". The argument is over, the task is orphaned.
• The organisation chart without a process: there are departments with names, but no workflow that says who holds the baton for which case.
• The matrix: project management and line management are both responsible, and in case of doubt the employees decide for themselves whom to follow.
• The meeting as the accountable party: "The production circle decides that." A circle cannot be accountable. It meets once a week and forgets in between.
• The fear of silos: out of concern that clear accountability leads to isolation, everything is declared a joint task.

The last point deserves attention, because it is well meant. But silos do not arise from clear accountability, they arise from missing interfaces. An area that knows what it stands for can collaborate very well. An area that is a little bit in charge of everything does not really collaborate with anyone, because it never finishes.

The costs of shared responsibility are rarely visible in a KPI. They hide in waiting times, queries and meetings that exist only to clarify who is taking care of something.

An example from administration: in the order processing department of a plant, clarifying customers' technical queries was the business of "sales and design". Both had the customer's email. Sales waited for the technical assessment, design waited for the commercial specification. The email sat in both inboxes, and both were within their rights to do nothing. The customer got an answer after days, because he had written a second time, this time to the managing director.

The cost of this case was not the processing time, but the idle time, the escalation, the managing director's conversation with both areas and the customer's trust. And the real damage: both areas learned that waiting has no consequences. Next time the email will sit there again.

Clarity does not come from a new organisation chart, but along the cases. I proceed in this order.

First: collect the cases where things get stuck. Not all of them, but those where something was left undone or escalated in recent weeks. Blocked parts, customer queries, change requests, faults at interfaces. Usually there are fewer than a dozen types.

Second: for each type, name exactly one person who holds the baton. Not a department, not a circle, one person with a name and a deputy. This person does not have to do everything themselves. They have to ensure that it gets done, and they are the address when it does not happen.

Third: give them the authority. Accountability without the right to decide is an imposition. Whoever is accountable for the decision on blocked parts must be allowed to decide within a framework themselves, without asking plant management about every part.

Fourth: name the interfaces. Who delivers what to the accountable person, and by when? That is the part that prevents silos. It is clear not only who holds the baton, but also who hands it over and what comes with it.

Fifth: make it visible. The assignment hangs where the cases arise, on the board in the hall, in the workflow in the office. What only exists in a file in the HR department does not exist in everyday life.

When I narrow accountability down to one person, the objection almost always comes: "Then we have a culprit when it goes wrong." The objection reveals something about the culture, not about the approach.

Accountability is not blame. Accountability means that someone keeps an eye on the matter and reports when it is not working. If an accountable person fails because they lacked the means or an interface did not deliver, that is not blame, it is information. You only get this information if there is someone who can deliver it. With shared responsibility you never get it, because everyone points the finger at everyone else.

The leadership task here is to handle the first failure correctly. If the person accountable for blocked parts is paraded at the first wrong decision, nobody will take on the next accountability. If instead they are asked what they lacked, and what was lacking is provided, the willingness to take the baton grows.

Take the one case that annoyed you most this week. Ask the people involved a single question: "Who holds the baton for this case, from start to finish?" If the answer is longer than one sentence, you have found the cause.

Then clarify it for this one case: one person, one deputy, a decision framework, the interfaces to it. Write it where the case arises. And check in two weeks whether the pallet is still standing there.

You will find that the people involved experience this not as a burden, but as a relief. Nothing is more exhausting than being a little bit in charge of everything and never knowing whether it is your turn.