TLDR: When we teach accountability as a virtue, it can turn toxic: people absorb broken systems in silence, and when things fail, the blame game begins. Instead, treat accountability as a feedback loop. At every kickoff, ask "Who is accountable for achieving the result?" and sort the answer into three hands: what's in my hands, what's in our hands, and what's in the system's hands.
In the book QBQ! The Question Behind the Question, the author tells a story about a kind cashier at Home Depot who starts her shift with $40 in the till. The first customer wants to buy a $2 item and only has a $100 bill. She looks at the line forming behind him, reaches into her own purse, pays the $2, and keeps the line moving. The author holds this up as a shining example of what personal accountability looks like at work.
Reading this story, I was struck by how much times have changed in the 20-plus years since the book was published. From where I'm standing, I see a person absorbing the gaps of an imperfect system. If she chose kindness freely, more power to her. But holding it up as a model for what an employee should do is a problem, because when employees absorb inefficiencies, the store never learns to improve the system and pays for the same problem again tomorrow. And the boundary between her job and the store's job gets blurred.
When accountability is framed as a virtue, it can quietly become toxic accountability: the unspoken expectation that good people make things work no matter what, and pay the cost. Maybe this is why so many people are burning out in today's workforce.
We all want results, and we want our work to matter. As a coach who helps leaders communicate, I've seen how the way we talk about ownership and accountability shapes how business gets done. I think we're ready for a more nuanced story, and the language that goes along with it.
What still holds, and what needs updating
In The Oz Principle, a classic business bestseller on accountability from 30 years ago, a lot still holds true, especially the idea of "the line." In my workshops and coaching, I teach the line as a question of emotional regulation. Below the line, we're dysregulated, so we ignore, deny, make excuses, point fingers, or wait to be told what to do. Above the line, we're regulated, so we get curious and care more about the truth than being right.
What I add is this: we're all responsible for our emotions, but the starting line is different for everybody. Our environment and the echoes of our past can make staying above the line a real struggle, so part of the work is self-compassion for what we didn't choose. Only from there can we take the four steps the authors designed: See It, Own It, Solve It, Do It. What needs updating is who owns it, so people can set healthy boundaries and get results without burning out.
The Oz Principle borrows from Baum's fable: Dorothy and her friends travel to see the Wizard, only to learn they had what they needed all along. In 2026, that story misses something. We don't all start from the same line, and not every journey ends with a click of the heels.
Accountability as a learning mechanism
Let me be clear: I'm not questioning accountability. I'm questioning how we define it.
Old definition: The Oz Principle defines accountability as "a personal choice to rise above one's circumstances and demonstrate the ownership necessary for achieving desired results—to See It, Own It, Solve It, and Do It."
New definition: Accountability is a feedback loop that allows you to keep on learning from your actions.
If accountability is a choice to rise above your circumstances, then the cashier who says "our till is too small" sounds like she's making excuses. The one who quietly pays out of her own purse sounds accountable. When accountability is taught as a learning mechanism, circumstances aren't something to rise above. They're information to learn from, and accountability asks us to answer for our habits, our processes, and our culture.
This is why I'm building on Oz with a distinction between three kinds of ownership:
What's in my hands: what I can personally control and guarantee.
What's in our hands: what we're jointly responsible for, and which role is accountable at which step in a process.
What's in the system's hands: structures bigger than any one person, baked into culture and history.
What an accountability conversation sounds like
My hands | Our hands | System’s hands | |
|---|---|---|---|
See it | "Here's what I'm seeing, and here's my part in it." | "Here's my perspective. What's yours? How did you come to that conclusion?" | "Is this a one-off, or does this keep happening no matter who's doing the job?" |
Own it | "Here's what I own." | "What are we trying to accomplish together, and who's got which piece?" | "Is the way we're set up actually helping us hit this?" |
Solve it | "Here's what I will do, and here's what I need from you." | "What are our options? How will we know this is working?" | "Who can actually fix this, and have they heard about it?" |
Do it | "I'll have it to you by Friday. If I'm stuck, you'll hear from me Wednesday." | "Let's check back in next week. What would tell us we're off track?" | "Do we patch this ourselves, or flag it to someone who can fix it?" |
Going back to the cashier: instead of pulling money out of her own purse, she has a clear conversation with the customer that makes him feel seen and appreciated, without absorbing the cost of a system she didn't design.
She could say, "There's a long line. Are you in a rush? You could pay with a card, or if you're okay waiting a minute, I'll get the hundred broken."
Then she lets her manager know that starting the day with a $40 till might frustrate customers who pay in cash and don't carry anything smaller than a hundred.
Notice that she just used all three hands:
My hands: she spoke clearly and calmly for herself.
Our hands: she co-created the options with the customer.
System's hands: she told her manager where the setup is imperfect.
This updated story is still a simple story, and it scales: real agency for the employee, real learning for the company, and no one absorbing what isn't theirs.
Your next step
At your next project kickoff, ask: "Who is accountable for achieving the result?" Then sort it out loud: what's in my hands, what's in our hands, and what's in the system's hands?
After the project, ask the question that closes the loop: "What did we learn, and who needs to hear it?"
When accountability is framed not as a moral test but as a system for learning and improving, it takes the shame and blame out of the equation. When you don't get the results you wanted, it's a design problem to solve, not a character flaw to fix, whether the design is in your habits, your processes, or your culture.
If you want help starting accountability conversations inside your organization, reach out. I do 1:1 executive coaching and workshops. Contact me at [email protected] and visit leadinstride.com to learn more.
