Balanced roles and responsibilities
Accountability *and* contribution
Roles and responsibilities! This has not been a favourite topic of mine in the past. Today's industry has a high focus on individual and career status. The internet seems to have more evangelism of role authority and influence than contributing to team success. Something doesn’t feel right to me about that.
If one’s power or influence is all that determines how roles and responsibilities are defined, that’s going to (and I’ve seen it) lead to some ugly outcomes. For example, the strong negotiator may see it as an opportunity to gain influence, and those with a milder disposition attempt a threatened defence of recognition for their work. So it results in winners and losers instead of a team.
Is the answer to avoid confusion with a highly controlled ownership hierarchy? Or go to the other extreme and declare yourself a holacracy? Must you choose between results and culture like that? If you have felt trapped by this topic, I hope this helps you see a path to freedom!
Model 1: A tale of two styles
Consider two different styles of defining roles and responsibilities.
Accountability style
Individual roles and responsibilities are defined clearly and in detail. Overlap between the duties of individuals is minimised. Individual authority and lines of authority are made clear and enforced. It matters "who" does the work, and individuals often are the gatekeepers of process and quality.
Perceived advantages of this style include strongly focussing the work of team members and a military-like efficiency and order to work. This leads to a focus on the role of the individual and private 1-1 communications over open forms. Risks include blaming for failure, a lack of support between positions and poor information flow across the organisation.
Contribution style
Objectives and outcomes are clearly defined, but it's more flexible who achieves those outcomes. Roles are referred to as "hats people wear," and shared definitions of excellence represent quality.
Perceived advantages of this style include widespread contribution, high collaboration and support between roles. This leads to a team focus, open communication and a positive response to setbacks. Risks include slowness from decision-by-consensus, discontent from unequal contribution across teams and stress for individuals who crave (for whatever reason) a more explicit role.
Which style?
Your organisation or regular colleagues may gravitate towards one style. For you, it may be workable, or you are struggling with the effects mentioned in the intro. But you have names for the behaviour you’re seeing now, which is a start. Do you think you and your team could ambitiously seek a balance between accountability and contribution styles and try to get the best of both worlds? If so, read on!
Model 2: Four responsibility types
The aha moment for me was to recognise four types of responsibilities I'd heard framed in different ways in the past. When I wove them together in the matrix below, it became clear that this was a powerful common language for a team to aim for a balance between accountability and contribution.
Direct accountability - what results is the role directly accountable for? What do they work and develop craft for? Include all the responsibilities exclusive to the role that are not contentious amongst representatives.
Example: Accountable for quality and maintainability of code.
Support required - what support does the role or function need to succeed? Importantly, these areas are NOT the role's responsibility typically, and it's an embracing looking to others for this need.
Example: Availability of <role> to unblock projects with decisions related to <topic> as they arise.
Contributions given - what are the areas that the role actively practices or gives support for? Perhaps they are areas that others are primarily accountable for, need support for or are a broader team or organisational impact. These responsibilities reflect the best of the contribution style.
Example: Contribute to team morale through relating their work to customer impact.
Shared accountability - a special subclass of "contributions", these areas have specific accountability across a cross-functional group. They are too critical to risk not being achieved by contribution alone or assigned to a specific role. If this one is confusing, proceed with the first three types and revisit for areas that are not a fit for direct accountability or contributions given.
Example: Defining the scope of projects together at kickoff and in-flight trade-off decisions.
Practice: Successful facilitation
Now you have two mental models to build on, how would you facilitate a workshop on roles and responsibilities? Consider a scenario where three functions get together to define responsibilities with an accountability-contribution balance. Here are a few tips for maximising your chances for success.
Acknowledge the challenge
Roles and responsibilities is a sensitive topic! Previous experiences may have burned participants. Even if they have a great rapport, establish some ground rules for expression, questions, interactions and potential disagreements as a safeguard.
Align on goals and principles
Aligning on responsibility styles, types, and a goal for balance happens here. Individuals may safely admit a personal preference and agree to keep each other accountable. Additional principles in the spirit of balance may help and support later feedback, for example:
Roles exist to contribute value and outcomes.
Those who do the work should be accountable for it.
Contribution is a gift to others and the team.
Practitioners shape and contribute to craft.
Supporting roles are empowered and accountable.
Share perspectives
Each representative defining the direct accountability, support required, and contributions for their role is a great start. Consider representatives also defining the same for the other roles, or at a minimum, provide constructive feedback to what others have written. Promote objective feedback, for example, referring to responsibility types, agreed principles or respectful reflection on different styles of expression. This will lead to consistency collaboratively.
Focus for balance
Consider having multiple rounds to focus on each style. If the group's tendency is towards contribution, define direct accountability as much as possible first, and then limit the number of shared accountability items specified. If the group's or individual tendency is towards accountability, compare the support needed for each role to the contributions given by others. Do roles see where they need to give support as well as receive it? How is performance evaluated for roles if the prevailing tendency is towards contribution?
Find consistency and adopt together
Reconciling the benefits of accountability and contribution and seeking a balance can lead to quite a revelation. The mental models presented here and a commitment to a collaborative, even if messy, process are practical tools to balance the styles.
The result is not as messy. Clarity emerges with the patient commitment of those involved. The result is clear but also flexible. It embraces accountability and contribution. Individual work is recognised and celebrated, and collective achievement is also. In a world of different ambitions and styles, teams can be effective and inclusive.
Suppose you achieve a sense of positive alignment in the group. Congratulations! But don’t let that fall to the wayside. How will this shared definition be embodied in the team? Will accountabilities be adopted in career pathways? Will contributions be represented in cultural principles? Proceed together as representatives of different roles/functions, and you will reap lasting rewards.
At Qwilr, we are successfully using this model to strike a balance, but I’d love to hear how you apply this framework. I'm sure there's a part 2 to this one somewhere down the line!
Credits: To the many wonderful Program Managers and general facilitators I worked with at Atlassian who at one time or another contributed inspiration on this topic. To Qwilr R&D leadership for bravely seeking the balance.
Very insightful article Ben. Glad I've discovered your substack.
I feel like shared accountability is a bit of an oxymoron. The example of "Defining the scope of projects together at kickoff and in-flight trade-off decisions" could easily be broken down into individual accountabilities for each role.
Although it's a different context, a good example is how AWS defines the shared accountability of security on the cloud (https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/shared-responsibility-model/). Yes, as a whole, the responsibility is shared between the customer and AWS, but there are clear expectations of what each party is responsible for.