Accountability sinks are the breeding grounds for 'Karens.'

One of the most significant cultural trends of the last twenty-five years is the rise of the "Karen." We encounter them at airports, making the life of a ticket clerk miserable. Sometimes, we run into them at retail stores complaining about a return policy or explaining that they do not like the attitude they are receiving from a clerk. These people are so ordinary that they have become a staple of comedy shows and satire throughout the culture. This trope is funny because we have been reduced to this behavior and demanded to "speak to the manager" at some point. As agile coaches or scrum masters, we can chuckle along with the joke or recognize that it is a sign of dysfunction within an organization, providing us an opportunity to improve the world.

Often, I run into problems with my bank as an automated bill payment creates an overdraft even when I deposit money to provide adequate funds. At least once a month, I march down to the bank and talk to a banker to waive the overdraft fees. It happens because the bank's automated bill payments system from my checking account handles debits to my account first and then processes deposits. I will get an automatic overdraft if I do not have the funds in the bank. My deposits then clear, and I have a penalty to my accounts for each transaction, pushing me over the limit. It can be hundreds of dollars.

Fortunately, my bank branch has the power to waive these fees because they see that I have the funds, and I take the time to complain about the hassle. Systems that were supposed to make my life easier, like automated bill payments and electronic checking, combine into a system that forces me to go to the bank once a month to become a Karen.

According to Dan Davies, the author of "The Unaccountability Machine," the bank created an "accountability sink" in the checking system. The software finds it easier to process debits first and then deposits in that order, so a group of managers no one knows and will never meet decided that this was how online payments and charges would operate. This also generates additional revenue for the bank from customers' overdraft fees.

If someone wanted to avoid this hassle, they would consider the order of debits and deposits in 24 hours. Of course, it is more difficult to program and does not generate extra revenue for the bank, so it stays the same. As a customer, I have no one to complain to at the bank about this way of doing business. I can only appeal to my banker to waive the fees because another group of anonymous managers gave him the right to do that up to a particular dollar amount. It is cheaper for them to use this inefficient process than fix the problem. The bank implemented a policy and procedure, but no one can hold anyone accountable because although "everyone" agreed to it, "no one" claims authorship of the system. The bank CEO refuses to change the established procedure, even though no one can explain its origins. Enforcers implement the process, but no one understands its purpose, and no one can change it without that understanding.

It prompted Dan Davies to invent a management law called the law of accountability.

"The extent to which you are able to change a decision is precisely the extent to which you can be accountable for it, and vice versa."

I gave a simple example of how accountability sinks work at my bank, but we find it everywhere. Marketing departments make our airline tickets less valuable because "platinum plus" members get preferred seats when planes are overbooked. The ticketing person must enforce the policy, but no one can confront its creators with its repercussions. It also explains why so few people went to jail for fraud surrounding the financial crisis that triggered the Great Recession of 2008. There was no way to hold anyone accountable, thanks to accountability sinks.

Situations like this generate feelings of injustice and powerlessness, creating rage. That is why we want to see the manager. We want someone to fix the mess we are in. We become the Karens we pity and ridicule so much in our culture.

As coaches or scrum masters, we must find these accountability sinks and remove them. At a manufacturing plant, this might mean products cannot be shipped unless they meet a quality standard, and if the standard is missing, the line manager must take immediate action. It means asking why we do something and then asking how it came to be.  

It also assumes that people are willing to revisit things and subject them to scrutiny to ensure that it serves customers and the company. Responding, "It is how we have always done it," is unacceptable. Smart people created accountability sinks to deflect blame and standardize processes. Now is the time for intelligent people to come together and develop ways to foster accountability and psychological safety to improve our organizations.

Otherwise, we will continue to create more Karens.

Until next time.