AAOM Handbook

5. MANAGEMENT OF PERFORMANCE 5.1 ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEW

5.1.1 Context

Numerous research activities have indicated that in order for any group of people to maintain disciplined adherence to a defined set of expectations, there is a need for individuals to be accountable for their contribution to meeting expectations. The definition used in this document of 'To be Accountable' is that there is a requirement for a person to give an account of both their results and the actions taken in achieving them. The research finds that regardless of whether it is adherence to behavioural norms, the rules of a game, laws, or the completion of tasks, when there is no regular check that expectations are being met the delivery will deteriorate. This characteristic of our human nature creates the need for us to implement a process that helps maintain a focus on accountability. Holding a person accountable is not intended to be an onerous or unpleasant process. When done effectively it should; • keep a person on track to delivering tasks and outcomes, • provide assistance and guidance where needed, • acknowledge, challenge, and inspire the person to do their best. Each of the organisational levels from Level 2 and up is accountable for two types of expectations 1 ; • one or more specific process outcomes (e.g. product output and costs, or return on capital and free cash flow), and • the completion of distinct tasks that are necessary to maintain or improve results (e.g. deal with a special cause of variation, reduce variation in a part of the process, or shift process capability to a new level). Everyone in these levels should be called to account for both the outcomes and the tasks that are assigned to them, via a review of both the progress on tasks and the outcomes achieved. People can, and should, be called to account at any appropriate time. However, it is important to ensure that this occurs at a frequency, and with a consistency, that limits the degree of variation between expectations and results. The appropriate frequency of review is linked to the rate at which outcomes can change, and the duration of the assigned tasks. In general outcomes change quickly at Level 1 and 2 of an organisation and much slower at Levels 5 and 6. Similarly, the duration of the tasks is shorter at Levels 1 and 2, and longer at Levels 5 and 6. Therefore, an appropriate review interval may be weekly at Levels 1and 2, monthly at Levels 3 and 4, and quarterly at Levels 5 and 6. It is critical to note that the existence of a review meeting does not replace the requirement that an individual must inform their manager as soon as they believe that they may not be able to deliver an expectation on time or to specification.

1 Level 1 of the organisation is accountable for the delivery of work outcomes only.