Though spelled differently, these business terms are often haphazardly interchanged.
When we start defining a task that needs to be done, the easiest way to apply it is right from the start. That task, when created, needs authority to be delegated in order for that task to be accomplished. We need to consider what kind of accountability we will require of those to whom we are giving that task. Then, one and only one person - a servant leader, service board or committee should be designated as the single point of decision and accountability for that assignment. In this way we avoid confusion. We avoid two people doing the same job, duplicating efforts or squabbling over authority. Project reports come straight from the single point of decision for the project, offering the best information available.
It is here that assigned responsibility can be fulfilled swiftly and directly, because there is no question of whose responsibility it is. When problems, in a project, arise, we know exactly where to go in order to correct them. This clearly outlines why it is important to clearly specify to whom authority is being given for each responsibility. Each single point of decision we define for each responsibility is also a point of accountability.
Accountability becomes the central feature. When we give one of our team members responsibility for a particular task, we hold them accounatable for the authority we've delegated them. We expect them to remain accessible, consistently providing reports for their progress and consulting with us about their responsibilities. Accountability does not mean that we delegate authority only to take it right back. It simply means that we want to be informed of decisions our team members are considering as they go about the tasks we've assigned them. We want to have the opportunity to impact those decisions, especially if they directly affect us. We want to be kept up-to-date on each responsibility that we have assigned, so that, if something goes wrong, we can take part in making it right.
It might very well be that we will need help to responsibly delegate our authority. It might even look like a simple, straightforward contract. Right from the start, our team member knows what we are asking of them, what decisions they are expected to make themselves, and to what degree we hold them accountable for the service work they do on our behalf. We carefully need to consider the work we want done, to clearly designate who should do that work - to delegate the authority to do it - and to maintain acccountability for those tasks. It takes conscientious effort but the results are worth the effort.
It is here that we empower a team member to create a structure, directly responsible to them. This will offer fundamental ideals to guide all of our efforts. Our common welfare and unity, the ultimate authority of a loving God, leadership as serving, cooperation with affiliation, self-support, the employment of special workers, attraction rather than promotion, public anonymity - without a doubt offer guidance for everything we do. They are guides and not the specifics directions to how to serve. They are there to meet the need.
This kind of serving, with authority, must be delegated with care, possibly even hightlighting the qualities to be considered in selecting responsible leaders and emphasizing the importance of regular, open communication throughout in maintaining accountability. To minimize confusion in assigning, fulfilling and answering for each task, the concepts recommended are that responsibilities clearly defined right from the start.
In addressing the decision-making processes used, the concepts recall our spiritual foundations as well as the practical and ethical wisdom of unclusiveness and open-mindedness. To guard against misuse of delegated authority, one more process is needed - a grievance process. Responsible management is dealing with grievances directly. Our leadership structure should always be one of serving, never of "govenment."
