The accountability mirage: why everyone thinks someone else owns the hard parts of the operating model

Every operating model defines accountability

On paper, it’s clear. In practice, it’s anything but. That’s because accountability isn’t a role. It’s a behaviour. When the behaviour doesn’t match the model, something predictable happens: everyone believes they’re accountable, but for different things; and the hard parts fall through the cracks.

Executives feel this long before they name it. Decisions stall. Issues bounce. Teams escalate sideways. Leaders step in too late or not at all.

Not because people are avoiding responsibility. But because the accountability system is unclear, inconsistent, or quietly contested.

What the accountability mirage looks like

Different roles, different symptoms, but the same patterns emerge: the operating model breaks when accountability is shared, assumed, or contested.

Example 1: The Chief Data Officer who thinks product owns data quality

The Chief Data Officer believes product teams should manage data quality as part of delivery. Product believes data quality sits with data governance. Technology believes it’s a shared responsibility.

Everyone is “accountable”. No one actually owns it.

This is diffused accountability. Responsibility spread so thin and ambiguously it disappears.

Example 2: The GM in Operations who assumes technology owns incident prevention

The General Manager in Operations sees recurring incidents and expects technology to identify and address root causes. Technology believes operations owns the operational environment. Risk believes both jointly own it.

Everyone is right. Everyone is wrong.

This is overlapping accountability. Multiple owners, no single driver.

Example 3: The Head of Marketing who thinks product owns customer insight

The Head of Marketing believes product should integrate customer insight into prioritisation. Product believes marketing should bring insight to the table. Customer Experience believes they own the voice of the customer.

Insight becomes a political orphan.

This is contested accountability. Responsibility everyone wants influence over but no one wants to fully carry.

Example 4: The CFO who thinks benefits realisation happens “downstream”

The Chief Financial Officer signs off the investment and moves on. Delivery teams build the thing and move on. No one stays with the benefits long enough to ensure they actually land.

Finance believes delivery owns it. Delivery believes finance or someone from the business owns it. The executive team assume it’s covered. It isn’t.

This is accountability drift. Responsibility sliding between functions until it disappears.

Example 5: The Chief People Officer who believes leaders own capability uplift

The Chief People Officer designs the uplift strategy. She expects leaders to embed it. Leaders expect people and culture to drive it. Teams expect both. Capability stalls.

This is delegated accountability. Responsibility handed off without ownership being taken.

Why the accountability mirage is so destructive

It creates a system where:

• Issues get bounced around instead of resolved,

• Decisions escalate unnecessarily,

• Leaders step in too late,

• Teams wait for clarity that never comes,

• Performance becomes inconsistent, and

• The model becomes fragile under pressure.

Operating models don’t fail because accountability isn’t defined. They fail because accountability isn’t enacted.

A quick reflection if this resonates

Take 60 seconds and ask yourself:

“What part of the operating model consistently breaks, and who believes someone else owns it?”

You’ll know instantly.

If you want to go deeper, ask:

“Where do issues bounce?”

That’s where the accountability mirage is hiding.

What the reflection tells you

If you can see the accountability mirage, you’re already ahead of most organisations.

The question isn’t whether accountability is documented. It’s whether the behaviour of accountability exists.

Leaders who get ahead of this don’t rewrite the RACI. They reset the accountability system that drives ownership.

If you’re seeing the accountability gap, now is the moment to act

You don’t need more clarity. You need ownership - visible, consistent, and reinforced.

If you’re ready to steady the system, let’s work on this together. Here are three ways:

• Interim Executive - when the transformation needs a senior leader inside the organisation to stabilise, steer, and deliver,

• Capability Building - when product and transformation leaders are expected to know how to navigate the people, politics, and performance expectations that come with their jobs, yet no one has taught them these skills during their entire career, and

• Executive Coaching - when senior leaders need a confidential, strategic partner to think clearly, make decisions, and lead through change and complexity.