Preaching Accountability, Rewarding Safety – Why Your Employees Do What You Really Want From Them

Week after week, the same thing. Everyone sits in the meeting, staring at their laptops or phones, avoiding eye contact. The goal is simple: don't stand out, get through it as quickly as possible. Everyone knows it's bullshit. But no one says anything. Not in the meeting.

In the break room or between individuals, of course, people talk about it. The frustration has to go somewhere. Besides, it feels good to confirm with others that they see it as theater too. At least you're not alone.

Changes nothing.

No one talks to the boss about it. He sees it differently anyway.

And next week, everyone's back in the meeting. The topics vary slightly, but the setup is the same week after week: massive amounts of time and energy wasted. Maximum frustration produced. Resignation normalized.

Eventually, it reaches a breaking point. Professional help is sought. Usually through HR – after all, "that's what they're for."

In the best case, the CEO joins the first meeting. And says things like:

• There's absolute consumer mentality in meetings. No one says anything. And when they do, it's only to complain.

• There's no initiative. No one comes up with ideas on how to move forward.

• Everyone waits for instructions. Until then, nothing happens.

• No one dares to make decisions. Everything gets escalated upward.

• Working to rule, everywhere you look

And of course, the usual suspects: "Gen Z," "remote work," "communication."

The idea comes quickly: "We need a workshop on building a culture of accountability!"

We can do that. Won't change anything. It'll just waste more time, energy, and money. Produce more frustration.

Why?

It's not about lacking glossy posters proclaiming what's expected: "Accountability," "Openness," "Entrepreneurial Thinking," "Learning from Mistakes." Metrics in performance reviews rating these buzzwords don't help either.

THE REALITY: What actually gets rewarded

So what actually gets rewarded, and what behavior does that promote? Let's look at what really happens in organizations compared to what gets preached.

Error Culture vs. Error Reality

The desire for a learning culture is loud and clear. When I ask what environment has been created for it: "Well, no one gets fired for making a mistake." Hmm, that's the legal minimum standard in Germany. "We always emphasize it's okay to make mistakes." Right...

At the next opportunity, without thinking – completely naturally – the most important question gets asked first: "who's responsible for this?" But of course that doesn't mean "who's to blame?" We want a learning culture. Sure.

The employee who failed with a new idea gets a 3 instead of a 2 in their annual review. Pure coincidence, of course. Nothing to do with the mistake. The justification literally states: 'Project XY could not be successfully completed.' Learning culture? Come on.

Understandable if people conclude that "learning culture" means something other than "trying things, taking risks, learning from failure."

So employees learn: Take no risks. And then...

Making Decisions vs. Playing Safe

Common statement I hear in initial consultations: "My people don't make independent decisions. They come to me with every little thing."

Then we discuss accepting my proposal. Budget: 10k EUR. The response is delayed. "Leadership needs to be consulted. And HR has to approve it first." I see.

Three weeks later, the response comes: 'We'll do it.' But: The budget must be stretched over two years because HR can only approve 5k per year. And the initiative we wanted to start in March? Postponed to September because leadership doesn't have time to discuss it until Q2.

And then you wonder why your employees come to you with every little thing?

Playing safe gets rewarded. But that's not the only thing going wrong...

Openness vs. Career Survival

One of the 5 company values: "Openness." Great value. I'm sitting in a leadership meeting and hear a manager point out that the timeline isn't feasible and needs either 6 more months or 100k EUR more. Response in the meeting: "It has to work anyway." Comment to me after the meeting: "He's always so difficult." Right. But good that we can talk openly about it.

The other leaders in the room? They listened. And learned: Anyone honest gets labeled a troublemaker. So they nod at the next unrealistic timeline. And confirm to each other in the break room that openness is career suicide.

Openness gets preached. Silence gets rewarded. And then no one understands why openness isn't lived as a value.

Being honest makes you difficult. Showing initiative, even more so...

Initiative vs. Hierarchy

"Break down silos! Think outside the box! We need more of that." I get it. Totally important in such complex organizations.

A client of mine has an idea for improving a cross-departmental process that would save the organization time and money while increasing customer value. The other department head says: 'That's not your territory.' My client escalates to the board. Their response? 'Work it out bilaterally.' Translation: Drop it.

My client understands she should stay in her lane. And her team understood it too.

Your employees have learned. They don't do what you say. They do what you reward.

Accountability as Lip Service

Accountability can't be ordered. You can't say in a meeting "I expect you to take responsibility!" and assume it'll automatically work.

Accountability needs structures that enable it. And leadership that models it.

What does that mean concretely?

Mistakes must actually be tolerated – not just on the poster, but in the evaluation systems that exist in the organization. Decisions must be allowed without asking three levels for permission. And those who question hierarchy or think beyond their department must be publicly praised for it.

Sounds logical, right? It is. Doesn't happen anyway.

Why not?

Because the real conditions in many organizations look like this:

Employees aren't trusted to decide their own conference attendance, let alone freely manage a training budget.

When mistakes are made, the first priority is identifying someone to blame and making sure you're not in the line of fire.

Anyone questioning the boss's decision gets ignored at best, or told in no uncertain terms that such behavior isn't acceptable in a group setting (that it's also unwanted in a 1:1 doesn't need to be said explicitly).

Initiative beyond your own area of responsibility is seen as overstepping and filed under "doesn't follow rules." The ironic thing: I keep hearing that this "bureaucratic mentality" of asking about areas of responsibility isn't wanted.

But that's not the only contradiction here…

Top executives demand accountability but simultaneously don't want to give up control (even if only so they can "stay informed"). They fundamentally see the advantages and necessity of a good learning culture, but that doesn't mean mistakes should actually happen. They demand absolute transparency and openness, as long as it doesn't mean conflicts. And by the way: They themselves carefully consider what they really need to be transparent about and think primarily about all the reasons against publicly stating things.

The uncomfortable truth: You can't have it all!

It doesn't work together. Accountability MEANS:

• Loss of control

• Risk of mistakes

• Conflicts (because people make different decisions)

So first of all, a clear decision is needed:

• Either control

• Or accountability

Both doesn't work.

Most have already decided. They just haven't realized it yet.

Everyone else has. Because the behavior that's observed daily is what counts. Not what's written in colorful letters on the posters.

The problem isn't that your employees don't want to take responsibility. The problem is you've built a system where responsibility gets punished.

The Consequence – Working to Rule as Rational Strategy

There's a reason for every behavior.

When employees work to rule, then – based on everything I've observed in 15 years – it's usually because: They get rewarded for it. Or more precisely: They don't get punished for it.

That's rational. That's understandable. From an employee's perspective, it's the only safe strategy.

The calculation – from an employee's perspective – looks like this:

I have two options:

I take a risk by trying something we haven't done before. Or by making a decision in the company's interest without getting three signatures following the process – because time matters in competition. That leads to being seen as "difficult" and non-conformist, which inevitably results in a poor evaluation and makes promotion impossible.

Or I play it safe. I make sure to stay in my lane, take no risks, and above all be seen as "doesn't cause problems." That way I'm no danger to anyone and can count on a quiet work life.

Which behavior is rational?

My husband once summarized it in a different context: if I risk getting criticized for something I do, I'd rather do nothing. Maybe that won't get applause either, but at least I didn't strain myself. (Yes, that was directed at me – I too learn best from my mistakes)

I see exactly this logic in employees in organizations.

Working to rule isn't laziness. It's self-preservation.

When the system punishes you for engaging, you withdraw. That's the last remaining form of control available to employees.

And here the circle closes:

Leaders see their employees' lack of engagement and believe more control helps. And more requirements with more approval loops. And even more processes.

That leads to less engagement. Less initiative. More working to rule…

A perfect perpetual motion machine. Or a perfect vicious circle.

Your employees aren't the problem. They're the symptom.

So What Now?

The caterpillar must die before the butterfly can emerge.

This isn't a metaphor. It's biological reality. The caterpillar completely dissolves in the chrysalis. There's a moment when it's neither caterpillar nor butterfly. Just chaos.

Real transformation works the same way. There's no gentle transition. No "getting a bit better." Something must die.

Most organizations want the butterfly. But they want to keep the caterpillar. Doesn't work.

What must die:

The illusion that workshops change anything.They don't. They give participants the good feeling of "having done something." "Check!" Two weeks later, everything's the same.

The illusion that Sunday speeches create culture.Culture emerges from what observably happens daily. Not from what's written on posters.

The illusion that you can have control AND accountability.You've read it in this article: You can't have both simultaneously. Choose one.

The illusion that you're not part of the problem.You're part of the system. The system doesn't work. So...

The brutal truth:

Real transformation means: You must change first. Not your employees. You.

Real accountability means: You must let go. Give up control. Tolerate decisions being made that you would have made differently.

Real change means: Your system must die. The system you built. The system you feel safe in. The system you know.

That's painful. That's risky. That's uncomfortable.

But it's the only way.

So the question is: What do you really want?

If you're reading this article and thinking 'That describes my company' – then you have two options: Keep going as before and keep wondering. Or accept that real transformation doesn't begin with a workshop, but with the willingness to destroy what doesn't work. Even if it hurts. Even if it's your own system.

Changellence Consulting works with organizations ready for 12-18 months of systemic transformation. No quick fixes. Brutal metamorphosis. If you want to know whether your company is ready for this, we can talk.