If protocols stifle judgement and accountability within organisations

The same phenomenon is evident in many organisations today. Driven by legitimate needs for control, compliance, efficiency, risk management and measurability, companies tend to regulate ever-wider aspects of organisational life. Procedures for decision-making, innovation, evaluation, communication, people management and dealing with change. Everything is broken down into stages, checklists, workflows, authorisations and indicators. The illusion is that complexity can be managed by multiplying the rules.

Take performance management, for example. Designed to improve dialogue between managers and staff, clarify priorities and support development, in some organisations it has turned into a complex procedural framework: codified objectives, weightings, rating scales, calibrations, digital platforms, deadlines and documentary evidence. Managers and employees often devote more energy to filling in the system correctly than to actually discussing contribution, learning, potential and value generated.

The risk is that the process becomes a mere formality. The manager meets deadlines, provides feedback and assigns a rating, but does not necessarily have a profound impact on the individual’s development, on the conditions that enable their performance, or on the dynamics that influence their results.

The same applies to certain risk management and compliance systems. Designed to prevent opportunistic behaviour, reduce risks and protect the organisation, they can turn into procedural mazes. The result is that procedures intended to protect the organisation can end up making it less capable of acting and therefore less resilient in the face of market challenges.

Here, a significant cultural misunderstanding emerges, linked to the concept of responsibility. In English, there are two words that we often translate into Italian in the same way: accountability and responsibility. The former is widely used in managerial language today. It refers to the duty to give an account: who is responsible for a target, who must explain a deviation, who is accountable for a process. It is a useful concept when it serves to avoid opacity and buck-passing. But, in its most narrow sense, it reflects a bureaucratic mindset: identifying who must answer if something goes wrong.

Responsibility, on the other hand, refers to a different concept of accountability: taking charge, responding to a situation, and looking after something even when not everything is planned, codified or assigned. Accountability often looks backwards: who was supposed to be checking? Responsibility also looks forwards: what does this situation require? What can I do to make the system work better? What do I need to take care of even if it isn’t explicitly written in my job description?

The distinction is not merely linguistic, but cultural. Organisations obsessed with accountability multiply metrics, targets, formal responsibilities and control procedures. Organisations that cultivate responsibility, on the other hand, seek to develop sound judgement, an awareness of the context, the ability to take the initiative, and a sense of the consequences.

Protocols and procedures are essential for any organisation and for the practice of a profession. They are based on experience, data and research that enable us to optimise knowledge or operational processes. The point, however, is to recognise their limitations, especially when applied to highly complex situations. A good protocol should provide guidance and reduce errors, not become a cage from which it is risky to step outside. It is there to serve the organisation, the manager and the professional, not the other way round.

All this calls for a cultural paradigm shift. It requires policymakers and business leaders who value responsibility in the true sense of the word: taking ownership, seizing the initiative, and accepting the risk of making mistakes in good faith. It requires regulatory systems that distinguish between error and the conscious choice to adapt the rule to the context. Above all, it requires trust in people’s skills and their capacity for judgement.

Let’s stop responding to growing complexity with more rules. The answer lies in more thought. More context. More responsibility in the full sense of the word: people who take care of things, who read situations, who take on the burden of decision-making. And institutions that support them in doing so, rather than punishing them for trying.

*Partner: Newton S.p.A.