Why Does Everyone Own Everything—But Nothing Actually Gets Done?
How shared responsibility becomes no responsibility in growing companies.
There was a quarter where we had three major initiatives on our roadmap. All three were critical. All three had been discussed extensively. All three had teams assigned to them.
At the end of the quarter, none of them were done.
When I dug into what happened, I couldn't find anyone to hold accountable—because technically, everyone was accountable. Each initiative had a working group. Each working group had regular meetings. But when I asked who owned the outcome, I got a lot of "we all do" and "the team is responsible."
That's when I realized we had an accountability problem disguised as collaboration. We'd distributed ownership so broadly that no one felt the weight of it. People showed up to meetings, contributed ideas, did their piece—but no single person was on the hook for whether the thing actually shipped.
I call this the Accountability Illusion—the pattern where commitments get made, but ownership is so diffuse that nothing moves. It's one of the most common problems I see when coaching founder-CEOs of $5M to $50M companies, and it's insidious because it looks like teamwork from the outside.
What the Accountability Illusion Looks Like
The pattern shows up in predictable ways. Initiatives have committees instead of owners. Meetings end with agreement but no clear commitments. Deadlines slip, and no one seems particularly bothered. The same issues show up quarter after quarter because no one is responsible for actually solving them.
The founder often becomes the chaser-in-chief. They're the only one who follows up, the only one who pushes for updates, the only one who seems to care whether things get done. If they stop asking, progress stops.
There's a particular tell that's almost universal: when something doesn't get done, the post-mortem focuses on circumstances rather than ownership. "We got pulled into other priorities." "The timeline was too aggressive." "We were waiting on another team." The language is passive. Things happened to the initiative rather than people making choices about it.
The most damaging version is when this becomes normalized. Commitments get made in meetings, everyone nods, and then... nothing. Deadlines pass without comment. The next meeting happens, and new commitments get made on top of the old ones. Over time, the team learns that commitments are aspirational rather than real.
Why Founders Fall Into This Trap
Founders often create this problem by trying to be good leaders. They want to be collaborative, not dictatorial. They want teams to own outcomes, not just execute orders. They've read about empowerment and autonomy, and they're trying to build that kind of culture.
The mistake is confusing shared involvement with shared accountability. You can have a team working on something while still having one person who owns the outcome. Collaboration and clear ownership aren't opposites—but many founders treat them that way.
There's also conflict avoidance at play. Assigning clear ownership means someone is on the hook. If they fail, there's an uncomfortable conversation to have. By keeping ownership fuzzy, founders avoid those conversations. No one is singled out. No one is to blame. And nothing changes.
Finally, there's the problem of not knowing what good looks like. Many founders have never seen a high-accountability culture up close. They don't realize that the best teams combine ambitious commitments with rigorous follow-through—and that both require clear individual ownership.
What This Pattern Costs Your Business
The obvious cost is execution. Things don't get done, or they get done slowly, or they get done partially. The company moves at a fraction of the speed it could.
But the deeper cost is cultural. When commitments don't mean anything, people stop taking them seriously. They learn that it's fine to say yes in a meeting and then not deliver. They learn that deadlines are suggestions. They learn that the founder will either chase them or let it go—and either way, there's no real consequence.
This creates a vicious cycle. The people who care about doing what they said they'd do get frustrated. They're pulling weight while others coast. Over time, they either lower their own standards or leave. The people who remain are the ones comfortable with a low-accountability environment. The culture drifts toward mediocrity.
The founder feels this as a constant drag. Everything takes longer than it should. They can't trust that things will happen without their involvement. They're stuck in the weeds when they should be leading. And they can't figure out why, because everyone seems busy and engaged.
What a Real Accountability System Looks Like
High-performing companies build systems that create clear ownership, track commitments visibly, and treat follow-through as a cultural value.
Single-throat accountability means every initiative has one owner. Not a team, not a committee—one person whose name is attached to the outcome. That person can involve others, delegate tasks, and collaborate extensively. But when the deadline arrives, there's no ambiguity about who's responsible.
Commitments are captured and visible. Whether it's a shared document, a project management tool, or a simple list reviewed in weekly meetings—what people committed to is written down and tracked. This isn't micromanagement; it's clarity.
The 80% standard sets the right level of ambition. If your team hits 100% of their commitments every quarter, they're not stretching enough. You've left gas in the tank. The goal is roughly 80% completion—ambitious enough to push people, realistic enough to be achievable. This means some things won't get done, and that's okay. What matters is how people respond.
Follow-through gets inspected regularly. Weekly check-ins ask simple questions: What did you commit to? Did you deliver? If not, what happened and what's the new commitment? This rhythm creates accountability through consistency, not through pressure.
Misses get addressed, not ignored. When someone doesn't deliver on a commitment, there's a conversation. Not a punishment—a conversation. What got in the way? What will you do differently? The goal isn't to shame people; it's to understand whether they're taking ownership of the miss and making real adjustments.
The culture values ownership over excuses. The question isn't just "did it get done?" It's "how did you respond when it didn't?" People who take full ownership, reflect honestly, and change their behavior are valued—even when they sometimes miss. People who consistently under-deliver without seeming to care are a problem, regardless of their excuses.
How to Know If You Have This Problem
There's a simple diagnostic. Think about your three most important initiatives right now. For each one, can you name the single person accountable for the outcome? Not the team working on it. Not the committee overseeing it. One person.
If you can't name them instantly, or if the answer is "the leadership team" or "we all own it," you have an Accountability Illusion problem.
Here's a second test: Look at your commitments from last quarter. What percentage got done? If it's close to 100%, you're probably not being ambitious enough. If it's below 60%, you either have an accountability problem or a planning problem—or both. And for the things that didn't get done, did anyone have a real conversation about it? Or did they just roll to the next quarter without comment?
Where to Start
You don't need to overhaul your entire operating system. Start with one change: assign a single owner to every commitment.
In your next planning session, don't let an initiative leave the room without a name attached. Not a team name—a person's name. Make it clear that this person is accountable for the outcome, even if they're not doing all the work themselves.
Then create a rhythm of inspection. Weekly, review what was committed and what was delivered. Keep it simple and consistent. The goal isn't to create bureaucracy; it's to make follow-through visible.
When things don't get done, have the conversation. Ask what happened. Ask what they'll do differently. Pay attention to how people respond. Are they taking ownership, or making excuses? Are they adjusting their approach, or just hoping it'll be different next time?
Over time, this builds a culture where commitments mean something. People learn that what they say they'll do matters. And the company starts moving at the speed it's capable of.
Questions for You and Your Team
Before moving on, take a few minutes to reflect on these questions. The goal isn't to have perfect answers—it's to surface the gaps between how you think your team handles accountability and what's actually happening.
For your three most important current initiatives, can you name the single person accountable for each outcome—not the team, but one individual? If ownership is unclear to you, it's unclear to everyone.
What percentage of commitments made last quarter were actually delivered? And for the ones that weren't, did anyone have a direct conversation about it? Completion rate reveals ambition level; follow-up reveals culture.
When someone on your team misses a commitment, do they take full ownership and adjust their approach—or do they explain why it wasn't their fault? The response to failure tells you more than the failure itself.
What to Do Next
If this pattern sounds familiar, you're not alone. Most growing companies struggle with the gap between commitments made and commitments kept.
If you want to see where your Execution systems stand relative to other growth companies, take the Growth Readiness Assessment. It's a free 15-minute diagnostic that scores your business across six dimensions, including Execution.
Take the Growth Readiness Assessment
If you'd like help building accountability systems or creating a rhythm of execution that actually works, I offer a free 60-minute consultation.
Related Content
[Placeholder: Quarterly Planning Playbook]
[Placeholder: Meeting Rhythms Playbook]
[Placeholder: Blog post - The Loyalty Trap]
Related Inc.com Articles
5 Simple Ways to Improve Accountability
The Best Teams Build Up Accountability With Each Other (But Not in the Way You Think)
4 Traps That Get Managers into Trouble (and How to Avoid Them)
About the Author
Bruce Eckfeldt is a strategic business coach and exit planning advisor who helps founder-CEOs of growth-stage companies scale systematically and exit successfully. A former Inc. 500 CEO who built and sold his own company, he brings real-world operational experience to strategic planning and leadership development. He's a certified ScalingUp and 3HAG/Metronomics coach, Certified Exit Planning Advisor (CEPA), an Inc. Magazine contributor, and host of the "From Angel to Exit" podcast. Bruce works with growth companies in complex industries, guiding leadership teams through growth challenges and exit preparation. Reach him at bruce@eckfeldt.com with any questions or if you want more information or to book a call with him.
