In my work with leaders across nonprofits, social movements, and BCorps, I keep hearing a familiar refrain: “I just need to hold them accountable.”
But when we scratch beneath that phrase, something more complex is going on. What if accountability isn’t something we hold over others—but something we tend with them?
What if true accountability isn’t about control—but care?
What I’m exploring here is what I’m calling a relational ecosystem approach to accountability. It’s not about lowering expectations or being “soft.” It’s about recognizing that real accountability doesn’t happen through force or fear. It happens through clarity, trust, mutual commitment, and the courage to name and repair when things break down.
Most of us have inherited mental models of accountability shaped by traditional management concepts: command-and-control structures, individualism, and punishment. Even in organizations working for equity or systems change, we see these models play out in subtle ways—in performance management systems, in avoidance of conflict, or in a desire for someone else to “make it right.”
But there’s another way. And it starts by reframing accountability as a shared, living practice.
Accountability as a Relational Practice
Accountability, in this lens, is the ongoing practice of being in right relationship—with our values, with our commitments, and with each other. It’s about doing what we say we’ll do. And it’s about being willing to own, acknowledge, and repair when we don’t.
This requires more than evaluations, check-ins, or KPIs. It requires culture. Clarity. Trust. Curiosity. Courage. It asks leaders to move beyond enforcing compliance and toward creating the conditions where people can reflect, learn, take responsibility, and grow.
It also means being accountable up, down, and across hierarchies. This includes:
- When a manager fails to follow through on a commitment to a direct report.
- When a peer misses a deadline that affects others.
- When a direct report is struggling with their responsibilities.
Instead of defaulting to blame or avoidance, we can pause and ask:
- What agreements (implicit or explicit) are we honoring or violating?
- What might be getting in the way?
- How can we respond in ways that restore trust and coherence?
When Accountability “Breaks”: A Relational Ecosystem View
Now, what happens when someone—whether an employee, a peer, or a manager—doesn’t hold themselves accountable?
Our default might be to ask: “How do I get them to do what they’re supposed to do?”
A more relational approach might sound like this:
- What’s at play in our relationship- at the individual, team and organizational levels?
- Is there clarity? Is there safety? Is there trust? Is there overwhelm? Is there grief?
- Are we avoiding the complexity of the situation?
You might pause and ask:
“Is this a capacity issue, a clarity issue, a care issue—or something else entirely?”
From this lens, accountability lapses aren’t always a “failure of character.” They can signal breakdowns in collective care, burnout, or misaligned agreements.
Principled, Not Punitive
Earlier this year, I got to go deeper in my thinking about accountability with thought leaders, Ananda Valenzuela and Liane Davey, in workshops they generously offered to anyone interested. In Ananda’s words, Principled Accountability is:
“Not about punishment or compliance, but about aligning our behaviors with our values and agreements in ways that deepen trust, integrity, and resilience.”
This approach shifts accountability from being a managerial weapon to a relational practice. It asks:
- How do we stay in right relationship with our values, our commitments, and each other?
- How do we hold space for imperfection while staying tethered to purpose?
This is radically different from trying to “make” someone do something—which, is a fantasy rooted in outdated obsessions with control, predictability, and productivity.
Liane Davey echoes this by naming the paradox: empathy and accountability are not opposites. In fact, empathy is a prerequisite for true accountability. She writes:
“If you’re going to hold someone accountable, you must understand what’s going on for them. Empathy gives you that insight—but don’t stop there. Stay grounded in the expectations.”
The invitation here is to extend grace without collapsing expectations.
A Leadership Shift
This approach asks something different of us as leaders. It invites us to shift from:
It asks us to treat workplace dynamics not as technical problems to fix, but as invitations to notice how we perform, avoid, or stretch relational muscles under pressure. It asks us to hold our teams, our colleagues, and ourselves with the kind of care that makes accountability possible, not punitive. This isn’t a leadership style—it’s a relational ethic.
And yes, it takes practice. It takes discomfort. It takes time. But the good news? Accountability, like any living thing, can grow with attention.
So, let me leave you with a question to reflect on:
What would change in your leadership if you treated accountability as something relational—not enforced, but co-stewarded?