I would add a few factors to this equation. In many organizations, I also see excessive centralization, limited autonomy, and an overemphasis on financial outcomes as key barriers to accountability.
When leaders do not give enough autonomy, do not recognize or reward ownership, and do not create the right space for people to make decisions, accountability naturally weakens. People cannot be truly accountable for outcomes if they are not empowered to shape them.
So, in addition to clear targets, named owners, regular reviews, and real consequences, I believe accountability also requires trust, autonomy, recognition, and a leadership model that allows people to own decisions rather than simply execute instructions.
I would like to thank you for sharing your experiences and allowing us to learn from them. I have a genuine question for you: Did you identify five potential successors during your time at Nissan? If so, did one of them eventually replace you?
En effet, le réflexe se retrouve à tous les niveaux hiérarchiques des organisations. Sans compter l'effet "parapluie". Si j'avais appris qu'un de mes cadres avait eu un jour l'attitude de dire "OK, j'ai failli dans ma tâche, mes objectifs, j'ai accepté le constat, j'ai proposé quelque chose", et bien, je l'aurais sans doute embauché !
The paradox you identify about CEOs collapsing into operational detail, I've seen it work the other way too. Leaders who delegate too early, too fast and confuse empowerment with disengagement. They say "the teams are accountable" but they've removed the framework within which that accountability can actually function.
The result: no one truly owns anything.
What strikes me about what you built at Nissan is the combination of personal visibility at the start those 6M in engineering and technical meetings and a deliberate step back once the right owners were identified. That's not an intuitive method. Most corporate cultures reward either permanent leadership presence or full absence as a signal of trust. Your model is more nuanced & more demanding.
The question that stays open for me : how do you design that transition in organisations that have no existing culture of public commitment? The risk you took : attaching your resignation to a set of targets, very few boards would validate that today. How do you build the conditions that make this kind of commitment possibleand not career-ending?
I would add that an important factor to success is having the right people in the right seats. Many organizations are full of favorites to say the things that seniors want to hear rather than the facts. The other guilty and most guilty are those senior managers that listen!
Great and simple reflections, as always, Carlos.
I would add a few factors to this equation. In many organizations, I also see excessive centralization, limited autonomy, and an overemphasis on financial outcomes as key barriers to accountability.
When leaders do not give enough autonomy, do not recognize or reward ownership, and do not create the right space for people to make decisions, accountability naturally weakens. People cannot be truly accountable for outcomes if they are not empowered to shape them.
So, in addition to clear targets, named owners, regular reviews, and real consequences, I believe accountability also requires trust, autonomy, recognition, and a leadership model that allows people to own decisions rather than simply execute instructions.
I would like to thank you for sharing your experiences and allowing us to learn from them. I have a genuine question for you: Did you identify five potential successors during your time at Nissan? If so, did one of them eventually replace you?
En effet, le réflexe se retrouve à tous les niveaux hiérarchiques des organisations. Sans compter l'effet "parapluie". Si j'avais appris qu'un de mes cadres avait eu un jour l'attitude de dire "OK, j'ai failli dans ma tâche, mes objectifs, j'ai accepté le constat, j'ai proposé quelque chose", et bien, je l'aurais sans doute embauché !
The paradox you identify about CEOs collapsing into operational detail, I've seen it work the other way too. Leaders who delegate too early, too fast and confuse empowerment with disengagement. They say "the teams are accountable" but they've removed the framework within which that accountability can actually function.
The result: no one truly owns anything.
What strikes me about what you built at Nissan is the combination of personal visibility at the start those 6M in engineering and technical meetings and a deliberate step back once the right owners were identified. That's not an intuitive method. Most corporate cultures reward either permanent leadership presence or full absence as a signal of trust. Your model is more nuanced & more demanding.
The question that stays open for me : how do you design that transition in organisations that have no existing culture of public commitment? The risk you took : attaching your resignation to a set of targets, very few boards would validate that today. How do you build the conditions that make this kind of commitment possibleand not career-ending?
I would add that an important factor to success is having the right people in the right seats. Many organizations are full of favorites to say the things that seniors want to hear rather than the facts. The other guilty and most guilty are those senior managers that listen!
Great leader Carlos thank 😊 you again for this counsel: clarity and alignement