The accountability process after institutional failure should produce learning and deterrence. It usually produces neither.
What Accountability Is Supposed to Do
The accountability process that follows institutional failure is supposed to produce two things: learning, by identifying what went wrong and creating the institutional conditions that prevent it from going wrong the same way again; and deterrence, by creating consequences for the decisions and behaviours that contributed to the failure, making future decision-makers less likely to make similar choices. These are the legitimate institutional purposes of the post-failure accountability process, and they justify the significant resources and attention that the process consumes.
Most post-failure accountability processes produce neither learning nor deterrence to the degree their resource consumption warrants. They produce documentation — the official record of the failure and its attributed causes — and they produce visible consequences — the personnel changes, the process revisions, and sometimes the legal proceedings that signal institutional seriousness. But the documentation systematically understates the structural causes of the failure, and the consequences fall on the most visible actors rather than on the actors most causally responsible, which means neither the learning nor the deterrence effects are directed at the conditions and decisions that most need to be addressed.
Designing Accountability for Its Stated Purpose
Designing accountability processes that actually produce learning and deterrence requires separating the political function of accountability from its analytical one. The political function — satisfying the demand for visible response — can be satisfied by processes that are fast and visible but analytically shallow. The analytical function — identifying systemic causes and directing consequences appropriately — requires processes that are slow, careful, and willing to reach uncomfortable conclusions. These two functions can coexist, but they require different processes and different institutional commitments to manage the tension between them.
Accountability that produces documentation but not learning, and consequences for the visible but not the causally responsible, has performed the political function of accountability while failing its institutional one. The next failure will encounter the same conditions, because the accountability process left them intact.
Discussion