GrowthForge: Field Notes #7

As businesses grow, accountability often becomes a concern before it becomes a problem.

Things still get done, but not always when expected. Follow-through feels uneven. Issues resurface that were assumed to be resolved. Owners begin to wonder whether people are truly owning their roles, or whether responsibility is quietly diffusing across the organisation.

At that point, accountability becomes a topic of conversation.

Usually, the first instinct is to tighten things up. Clearer reporting. More check-ins. Stronger language around expectations. Sometimes a new framework or scorecard is introduced, with the hope that visibility will translate into ownership.

Occasionally it does. Often it doesn’t.

What tends to follow is a creeping sense of bureaucracy. More structure is added, but energy drops. People comply, but initiative fades. Accountability exists on paper, yet the owner still feels the need to chase, remind, and intervene.

This is where accountability gets misunderstood.

In most growing businesses, weak accountability is not a reflection of poor intent or capability. It’s a sign that the system doesn’t make ownership easy to hold.

Early on, accountability is simple. The business is small, roles are fluid, and consequences are immediate. If something isn’t done, it’s obvious. If a decision works or fails, the feedback is quick. Responsibility doesn’t need to be defined because it’s lived.

As complexity increases, that clarity erodes.

Work spans multiple people. Outcomes depend on coordination. Decisions and consequences are separated by time. Without deliberate design, it becomes harder to see where responsibility truly sits, even for well-meaning and capable people.

In that environment, accountability doesn’t disappear. It becomes blurred.

People still care, but they hedge. They contribute without fully owning. They wait for confirmation rather than acting decisively. Not because they’re avoiding responsibility, but because the boundaries of responsibility are unclear.

This is where bureaucracy often creeps in.

In an attempt to restore control, organisations add layers of process. More documentation. More approvals. More formal check-ins. The intention is to create accountability through structure.

The unintended consequence is that responsibility becomes externalised. Ownership shifts from judgement to compliance. People focus on meeting the process rather than owning the outcome.

Accountability becomes something that is enforced, rather than something that emerges naturally from the way work is designed.

The businesses that manage this transition well take a different approach.

They don’t start by asking for more discipline. They start by clarifying where accountability should logically sit. They make roles explicit enough that people know what they own, but flexible enough that judgement is still required. They connect responsibility to decisions, not just tasks.

Most importantly, they ensure that accountability is paired with authority.

Nothing undermines ownership faster than responsibility without discretion. When people are held accountable for outcomes they can’t influence, escalation becomes the safest option. Conversely, when authority is clear and bounded, accountability feels fair rather than threatening.

Another subtle but important factor is how failure is handled.

In systems where every misstep is treated as a performance issue, accountability quickly turns defensive. People protect themselves by narrowing their scope and escalating decisions. In systems where reasonable judgement is respected, even when outcomes aren’t perfect, people take responsibility more readily.

Over time, accountability becomes quieter.

Less is said about it, because less needs to be chased. Progress is visible. Issues surface earlier. The owner no longer needs to be the enforcer, because the system itself makes ownership obvious.

This doesn’t mean the absence of structure. It means the right structure.

Structure that clarifies expectations without prescribing behaviour. Structure that supports judgement rather than replacing it. Structure that allows capable people to act, learn, and adjust without constant oversight.

When accountability is designed into the system, rather than layered on top of it, something important shifts.

The organisation begins to hold itself together. The owner steps back without things unravelling. Conversations move from “who dropped the ball” to “what needs to change”.

And accountability becomes what it was meant to be all along: a natural consequence of clear roles, sensible authority, and work that makes sense.

If that feels familiar and you’d like to talk it through, you’re welcome to book a short exploratory conversation.