Towards Constructive Accountability

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Michael R. Ford
July 25, 2025

For years I have advocated for making accountability an actionable governance concept. My advocacy was rooted in a study a colleague and I conducted a decade ago where we asked a national sample of school board members to define accountability. We found that school board members, while supporting the idea of accountability, had vastly different approaches to what it meant. My argument has long been that failure to make accountability actionable, i.e., more than a buzzword, makes it a politicized concept that actually inhibits good governance.

I am coming to the realization that making accountability actionable is insufficient. Action in and of itself is not always desirable when it comes to accountability. For example, purely punitive—or what I deem pound of flesh accountability (hat-tip to Shakespeare)—rarely moves a governing board or organization forward. Pound of flesh accountability consists of actions that are designed to punish, draw attention and ultimately feed a political base rather than facilitate progress or improvement.

I recently saw this in action at a local governing board meeting. In this case, a school district had set a measurable student achievement goal several years prior that it failed to meet on the promised timeline. Naturally, there were calls to hold the district accountable for failing to meet the goal. Such calls for accountability are, in my opinion, a healthy part of the governance process. When a democratically elected board sets a measurable goal, it is entering into a contract with voters. When the board fails to live up to the terms of the contract, it needs to provide answers.

But what should accountability look like? Pound of flesh accountability could mean firing district leadership and making public statements about their failure and their incompetency. Pound of flesh accountability could also be the resignation of board members. Such performative accountability makes it look like action is being taken and would likely be well received by those most skeptical of the school district. But would the actions actually make a difference in helping the school district achieve its goals? Or would they make it more difficult to attract quality new leadership? In practice, would long-term efforts to improve student outcomes be disrupted?

Of course, there are cases where leadership is so obviously at fault that someone continuing in their role is impossible. In those cases, accountability in the form of a personnel change is by definition not punitive. But a cursory review of social media reveals that much of the public discourse around accountability in our current political moment is focused on the punitive and reactionary. Accountability means people being embarrassed, punished and fired. Those ushering out the accountability may look strong and decisive on the surface, but the rush to pound of flesh accountability is often a sign of weakness.

Constructive accountability recognizes that organizational improvement comes through systems change. That requires a deeper understanding of how an organization works, an ability to identify the complex reasons for a failure to meet goals, and the foresight to create, execute and sustain a strategic plan. In plain speak, it is hard work. It is more than optics, more than one meeting, more than one news cycle, more than one press release, more than one social media post, etc. Firing someone is easy, turning around a complex public organization is not.

Pound of flesh accountability also has a toxic effect on organizational culture. If accountability is punitive, leadership and staff will be risk averse. Decisions will be made with the goal of minimizing discomfort and preserving one’s position. The result is an organization populated by individuals acting in their own self-interest rather than in the interest of the organization and its mission. Ideally, self-interests and organizational priorities overlap, but the extent to which they do will suffer when staff are in constant fear of punitive action.

In summary, accountability works best when it is both actionable and constructive. The best accountability is that which results in long-term improvement for a public organization. For a school district, that means better student outcomes. For a municipality, that means increased service quality and efficiency. Accountability does not work when it is not defined, when it is unclear who is being held accountable and for what, and, as discussed here, when it is used as a political tactic. Organizations and people often learn best when things go wrong. Within a culture of innovation, things will inevitably go wrong. Explaining and learning from mistakes can ensure long-term successes are born of short-term failures.

---

Author: Michael R. Ford is the Director of the Wisconsin Institute for Citizenship and Civil Dialogue at the Universities of Wisconsin. He frequently publishes on the topics of public and nonprofit board governance, accountability and education policy. He is an elected member of the Oshkosh Area School District Board. 

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...