Last week the CEO of Starbucks gave a brief speech (a "statement") in which he said that Starbucks would learn from the recent, racially-charged arrests at one of their stores in Philadelphia, and would try to make some good come from the incident.
It's a small thing, but it made me cringe when he said he was "accountable for the policies and training of Starbucks staff." Because he is not accountable for anything. He is responsible for those things.
Like my recurring peeve about the distinction between "esteem" and "respect" (critically, the latter requires a list of acheivements), the difference between responsible and accountable is an important one that we miss everyday.
Responsibility is moral, internal motivation to do right by some code or guidance. The dictionary definition says you are "responsible" if you are in a position to act and to be called on to justify your actions. If you act responsibilty, you will never be called on to justify your actions; they will be manifest and apparent.
Accountability is the act of doing that calling. You are accountable when someone above you sees that you have not been responsible and demands that you account for your actions. Accountability is the act of auditing the actions of another to ensure responsibilities have been met. Accountability is what happens when responsibility fails drastically enough that someone above feels that outcomes have become so bad that methods and attention require accounting.
The CEO of Starbucks is not accountable for what happened at the Philadelphia outlet, he is responsible. He presumably reviewed the company's policies when he became CEO, he trusted the people under him when they reported that all was well, and he moved forward with the existing set-up. He is responsible for identifying a problem with the existing policies. And he is responsible for setting right what happened.
He will only become accountable if his actions fail to maintain and improve Starbuck's stock price. After all, that's really the only thing that matters to his investors.
It's a small thing, but it made me cringe when he said he was "accountable for the policies and training of Starbucks staff." Because he is not accountable for anything. He is responsible for those things.
Like my recurring peeve about the distinction between "esteem" and "respect" (critically, the latter requires a list of acheivements), the difference between responsible and accountable is an important one that we miss everyday.
Responsibility is moral, internal motivation to do right by some code or guidance. The dictionary definition says you are "responsible" if you are in a position to act and to be called on to justify your actions. If you act responsibilty, you will never be called on to justify your actions; they will be manifest and apparent.
Accountability is the act of doing that calling. You are accountable when someone above you sees that you have not been responsible and demands that you account for your actions. Accountability is the act of auditing the actions of another to ensure responsibilities have been met. Accountability is what happens when responsibility fails drastically enough that someone above feels that outcomes have become so bad that methods and attention require accounting.
The CEO of Starbucks is not accountable for what happened at the Philadelphia outlet, he is responsible. He presumably reviewed the company's policies when he became CEO, he trusted the people under him when they reported that all was well, and he moved forward with the existing set-up. He is responsible for identifying a problem with the existing policies. And he is responsible for setting right what happened.
He will only become accountable if his actions fail to maintain and improve Starbuck's stock price. After all, that's really the only thing that matters to his investors.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}