Quaker A-Z: A is for Accountability & Authority

Accountability should be used to help not hinder.

Accountability should help clarify who is and who isn’t responsible for this thing, and who shares responsibility for that thing. But it should also clarify who checks that those responsibilities are being carried out correctly and as agreed. This should be part of an supportive network of checks and balances, not used to cast blame or find faults.

Accepting accountability when things go wrong is important too.

Authority is not Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is a political system which aims to bring all power into the centre and keep it there. Authority instead should be seen as giving a ‘slice of power’ that applies to a specific time or part of an organisation.

If you have accepted a nomination for Trustee then you have also accepted both authority to make decisions and accountability to both the organisation as a whole and to any regulatory bodies.

Accountability & Authority

In volunteer run organisations, including faith groups and community groups while there may be some clear lines of authority and accountability there are other places it isn’t clear. Especially if, like Quakers, the organisation tends to be arranged in a non-hierarchical fashion with regular changes of roles.

It can be as simple as ‘you have volunteered to be organising the biscuits and drinks after meeting’ so ‘you have authority to choose what biscuits etc. you buy’.

There probably isn’t a budget given. However, if you spend a bit more to get Fair Trade tea and coffee, ensure there are animal and plant milks available and grab a packet of gluten free biscuits so that everyone can have a treat then probably no one is going to question your choices.

Alternatively, if you buy the cheapest of everything, even if that means things are stale etc. you may find people hold you accountable for the lack of nice things after the meeting.

What is often harder is seeing how this scales up to encompass the entire organisation. Especially if there isn’t clarity about who is responsible for or has authority to make decisions in the most common scenarios.

Chart of Accountability

Coming up with a Chart of Accountability can be a useful exercise for all organisations, especially where there are overlapping groups of people. I usually start with a spidergram showing the various groups and how they interact. Then not focusing on groups or roles you can start a list of tasks, larger projects etc. and see how those might group together. There are many different models (RACI, PACE etc.) in business analysis but for small charities I find those don’t work as well as just walking through a few larger projects, such as getting the TARA completed, ensuring safeguarding (and other committees) is appropriately compliant, having all the different parts complete the Memorandum of Understanding etc.

• Have you created a Chart of Accountability?
• Do you have a Memorandum of Understanding explaining who is responsible for what, and the expectations of accountability between the various parts of your organisation?
• How do you ensure that everyone involved knows who to go to with each type of problem?
• Do your policies and procedures lay out levels of authority and accountability for each committee, role or task?