When one director’s results depend on another director’s deliverables,
where does accountability sit?
A director’s result may depend on people, information or decisions managed by another director.
If that contribution is late, incomplete or unusable, the consequences can appear in the receiving function’s performance.
I start by separating ownership of the deliverable from responsibility for managing the dependency.
Each director has work to do.
Following up does not transfer ownership; relying on someone else does not remove the need to check the critical contributions your own plan depends on.
Depending on work you do not manage
In my own company, I was a director and one of the managing partners. My responsibilities included reviewing proposals, challenging assumptions and assessing whether recommendations supported sound business decisions. Those decisions depended on the quality of the opportunity assessments presented to me.
The recurring weaknesses concerned the market assumptions behind those opportunities and what would be required to secure them. The work continued to need substantial correction despite feedback and requests to improve processes and controls.
The operating agreement defined responsibilities and accountability within the business. I could challenge the work and request improvements, but I did not control the operational resources. Those managing them were responsible for implementing changes and accountable for the results.
Some requested changes did not become established practice. Others were applied without resolving the recurring weaknesses.
Earlier operational decisions had also reduced the financial capacity available for expansion. My focus became sustaining the existing business and working with the structure and resources already in place.
My duty to review and challenge remained, alongside the operational duty to provide reliable assessments and improve the work producing them.
Defining those responsibilities did not, by itself, make the dependency work.
Checking what other teams must deliver
In a company I collaborated with, construction teams could not continue because the materials they needed were not ready. The problem became apparent when the workers needed those materials.
The delay spread to other construction disciplines, and extra shifts were needed to recover the schedule. Delivery contingencies and alternative work for the teams had not been prepared.
We used the division’s leadership meetings to bring these dependencies into the operational discussion.
Supply chain and the warehouse were expected to track deliveries together and alert each other if an action or check was missed. Production managers added a further check for the materials or equipment their teams required.
Each role checked the dependency from a different position.
Supply chain tracked the order and agreed delivery timetable. The warehouse checked expected arrivals against operational needs. Production managers checked readiness for the work their teams were about to undertake.
These overlapping checks preserved each role’s responsibility.
Their purpose was to surface a problem before it stopped the work, without making one team the owner of another team’s tasks.
After this change, the managers followed through without needing to be chased. That was the practical improvement I observed: the checks and alerts became part of how they worked together.
Different commitments within one result
The director supplying a deliverable is accountable for the agreed contribution: what is needed, by when and in a condition that the receiving team can use.
If the commitment is at risk, they must alert affected colleagues and work on recovery.
Delegating the task does not remove their accountability for the function’s delivery.
The receiving director is responsible for making the dependency clear, checking critical assumptions and responding to warning signs.
A director who ignores a foreseeable blockage may have failed in their own responsibility.
That does not cancel the supplying director’s commitment.
Following up on a deliverable does not transfer ownership of it to the person waiting.
The receiving team may need to adjust its plans to protect the wider business. That adjustment does not settle who was accountable for the missed commitment or who must correct it.
Some blockages require changes to priorities, resources or operating arrangements. Those responsible for these decisions must act through the business’s agreed process, including a joint decision where required.
Escalating an unresolved dependency is part of managing it; it does not make the original commitment disappear.
When commitments repeatedly fail
Accountability needs a factual basis.
What was agreed?
Was the commitment feasible?
What changed, and when were the affected colleagues told?
A missed result alone cannot establish which role failed to fulfil its responsibility.
Before judging suitability for a role, I examine previous performance, changed demands, available capacity, management support and contributions owed by other functions.
A manager may agree with feedback yet struggle to organise the necessary steps, secure other people’s contributions or judge whether the correction is working.
Those responsible for managing that work must check whether the agreed correction has become normal practice and whether it improves delivery. Where support and correction have not produced sufficient improvement, they must decide what changes in the process, resources, allocation of responsibility or person in the role.
At director level, following through on commitments to other functions should not require repeated prompting from a superior.
Nor should the receiving director’s follow-up become the only response to a commitment that keeps failing.
My red line is when the organization starts depending on some people’s competence to compensate for commitments others repeatedly fail to meet.
Their expertise and capacity become tied up keeping other parts of the business functioning, at the expense of their own responsibilities and the organisation’s ability to develop.
The cost is borne across the organisation, while accountability for the original commitments is not enforced.
Compassion for one manager must also take account of the people repeatedly compensating for them.
A result recorded against one function can conceal failures in commitments made elsewhere.
To assess accountability fairly, we must trace those commitments and examine how each director acted, rather than judge only the team in which the consequences became visible.
Whose commitment failed—and whose performance is now being judged?