Accountability has for the longest of times been touted as one of the key pillars of governance, for very good reasons. Can one talk about governance without accountability? Especially when you consider the fact that we are living in a world where complexity is not only the order of the day, but the degree of complexity is also constantly increasing? Amid all the chaos it would be a fallacy to ignore the importance of accountability. Yet, there are often signs that accountability is either not understood at a deep enough level or, where there is a real understanding of the concept, it is not always being practiced as it should – perhaps because we tend to see its applicability for others, but sometimes battle to see how it applies to us, because we know our intentions (or think that we do).

A Board is only as strong as the judgment it can hear
Consider an imagined village gathering. A drum calls everyone together and announces the decisions. Its sound commands attention, and people remember it long after the gathering ends.
But before the drum sounded, a spider had been weaving connections between people, carrying ideas and shaping opinions. The drum was audible; the spider’s influence was less visible. The loudest voice is not always the one that moves the community.
Boardrooms can work in much the same way. Airtime and influence are not the same thing. To understand the quality of a board’s judgment, we must examine both what happens during the discussion and what has already shaped it.
A board can have the right skills around the table and still fail to use them. Its members may collectively understand finance, operations, people, technology, risk and the organisation’s wider environment, resulting in a board that looks well composed on paper. Yet, it may not see what is actually shaping its most material decisions.

