When a city with the size and prominence of London pushes out a company, it is hardly a surprise when that company fights pretty hard to win the city back.
Little wonder, then, that Uber has come out strongly against London’s decision to cancel the transport giant’s licence to operate within the near-future. Already, there has been strongly-argued pronouncements to regulators and the media underlining the drivers and passengers who will miss out if Uber departs the London stage.
An interesting part of this developing story, I think, has been the reaction of the new CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, who has been quick to express his disappointment in the decision, but also as quick to state that the company must engage in some self-reflection in light of the development. He reportedly told staff in an internal email that a poor corporate reputation has contributed to the decision, and suggested that it is important the whole company addresses this issue in the future.
Being so new to the business, he might well have sought to distance himself from much of the blame for this, especially given his predecessor’s singular reputation. And yet instead he has dealt with a prominent issue by suggesting his business takes a measure of accountability for where they now find themselves.
There is arguably no greater leadership equilibrium to be struck than between the exercise of leadership power and the acceptance of accountability for your decisions. Either one without the other is plainly a fast-track route to disastrous leadership — either you become a power-mad office dictator, or a weak and insipid figure that accepts blame and praise that you don’t deserve.
Khosrowshahi’s approach, then, is an excellent example of where an effective balance might be struck.
Being accountable as a leader means recognising the full extent and consequences of the decisions you make, and being ready to take the entire weight of the possible outcomes upon your own professional shoulders. A calculated risk in a turbulent sector, for example, is fine if you have weighed the possible risk of failure against the potential gains of a win, and have accepted that either consequence will be your responsibility.
Rejecting a new product launch or pivot in the market is also a credible decision, so long as you are willing to be accountable for the perceived failure if the wider market moves on without you.
Part of the challenge is that it is very easy to be accountable when things are going well. Everyone likes to be a winner, and taking the glory is certainly a nice pay-off when things run to plan.
However, real leadership involves taking responsibility for decisions when things haven’t gone so well, and doing so in entirety. This means accepting that, as the leader, the result falls on your plate, whether they were the direct result of an action you took, the unforeseeable outcome of external forces, or the underperformance of a person reporting to you.
In doing so, a leader should be specific about the decisions they took and the results that were produced. They shouldn’t try to merge their own responsibility into the wider work of their team, or mitigate poor performance through blaming conditions beyond their immediate control.
Taking this mindset — that leadership equals responsibility, plain and simple — means they are well positioned to fully consider corrective actions. If a market downturn was unforeseen, they can both better adjust to these new conditions and improve their capacity to predict future market movements.
If a team member has truly underperformed, they can consider whether new human resources are needed or if staff development can reduce the likelihood of such a thing reoccurring.
The other part of the challenge is being clear on who you are accountable to. Evidently in most companies, the immediate answer will be the person you report to — whether that’s a more senior member of the leadership team or a corporate board. If your leadership is ultimately about delivering particular results, then these people are most likely to have something to say when hoped for outcomes don’t appear.
At the same time, it is wise for leaders to think of accountability in terms of other stakeholders as well — their reports and employees, their customers, their suppliers, for example. If leaders adopt an approach that always considers their accountability with regard for the perspectives of these groups, their leadership is likely to be more well-rounded and effective.
They will have considered the impact of their decisions from a much wider perspective, and will hopefully be more inclined to take decisions they are happy to be accountable for as a result.
— Ahmad Badr is CEO of the Knowledge Group.
